Vincent Torley’s Disappearing Book Review

I guess many folks here are familiar with Dr (of philosophy) Vincent Torley as a contributor of many posts at Uncommon Descent now operated by one Barry Arrington.

Vincent strikes me as a genuinely nice guy whose views are very different from mine on many issues. Possibly one of his most remarked-upon idiosyncracies is his tendency to publish exceedingly long posts at Uncommon Descent but (leaving Joseph of Cupertino in the air for a moment) lately Vincent has become a little more reflective on the merits of “Intelligent Design” as some sort of alternative or rival to mainstream biology. His latest post at Uncommon Descent came to my attention after it mysteriously (in the sense of so far without explanation) disappeared from the blog. Hat-tips to Seversky and REC at AtBC for spotting it before it disappeared. I then happened to see Vincent’s response to a question, providing a link to his Angelfire site and his article, before that comment too disappeared.

Vincent’s post, entitled Undeniable packs a powerful punch, but doesn’t land a knockout is a review of Douglas Axe’s book Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed published earlier this year. I have to say, I missed the event and have only just read the excerpt provided by Amazon’s Kindle bookstore. The snippet did not enthuse me to buy the book, so I can’t say if Vincent’s review is a fair one. It is certainly comprehensive (OK it’s long!).

He starts with fulsome praise:

When I first read Undeniable, I was greatly impressed by its limpid prose, the clarity of its exposition, and the passion with which the author makes his case. Seldom have I seen such an elegantly written book, which people from all walks of life can appreciate. I have no doubt that it will sell well for many years to come, and I have to say that it makes the best case for Intelligent Design at the popular level of any book I’ve ever seen.

But then has some forthright criticism to make:

Nevertheless – and I have to say this – the book contains numerous mathematical, scientific and philosophical blunders, which a sharp-eyed critic could easily spot.

then proceeds to specific points in some detail.

I find it refreshing and a little surprising that Vincent was so forthright in his public criticism and I find it not at all surprising that Barry Arrington has deleted the article at UD and all references to the original that appeared subsequently. There are two related issues here; Axe’s book, Undeniable – its merits and Vincent’s review – and the suppression of Vincent’s article by Barry Arrington but perhaps this thread will suffice to accommodate discussion on both. I’ll email Vincent to let him know about this thread as he may like to join in.

[This post was a bit rushed as I was short of time. Please point out errors and ommissions as needed]

323 thoughts on “Vincent Torley’s Disappearing Book Review

  1. I am trying to slog my way through VJT’s review. My only comment so far is that a review should not be longer than the book that it is reviewing.

  2. I think the review is fine. We don’t have to agree with everything Torley says to acknowledge it is a good thing. I haven’t finished it, but I am not finding it too long.

  3. I’ve just made it to the part where it says:

    The book has an entire set of color plates showing how fish of various species cover the genres of fantasy, drama, romance, comedy, horror and tragedy. God, avers Dr. Axe, meant us to be moved in this way: He designed these creatures to strike a deep emotional chord within us. God is not just a great Inventor, but a great Creator, and as we are the only creatures on this planet capable of knowing their Creator, it is reasonable to conclude that God wants to be our friend. Persons can only have come from a personal God.

    My eyes rolled back all the way, so not sure I can keep reading, LOL

  4. I’d like to respond to one tiny thing in VJ’s article.

    unlike natural selection, random walks have no tendency to go uphill, even locally.

    Gould wrote on this theme. Full House.

  5. dazz: My eyes rolled back all the way, so not sure I can keep reading, LOL

    Skip over this stuff. There’s some good stuff.

  6. I really need to stop here:

    In my humble opinion, Dr. Axe’s Universal Design Intuition would be much more persuasive if it were formulated as follows: “If we find a level of functional coherence in living organisms which surpasses anything which our top scientists can create, then we should conclude that the systems displaying this level of functional coherence were designed, and that the accidental invention of these systems is fantastically improbable and therefore physically impossible.”

    WTF? so after presenting all those analogies based on human design, now the hallmark of Design should be what even the smartest guys can’t design?

  7. The biggest “flaw” I see in VJ’s essay is inn treating abiogenesis as a problem for evolution.

    No one knows how life originated, and no one claims to know. It’s a bit like Wack-A-Mole. You solve one problem and others pop up. It’s interesting, though, that Professor C:

    “…When pressed again, Tour accepted that there was indeed a scientific answer to the problem of life’s origin .

    It seems to me rather anticlimactic that there are puzzles we haven’t solved. I didn’t see the phrase god of the gaps in the essay, but that’s all that’s left of ID.

  8. dazz: WTF? so after presenting all those analogies based on human design, now the hallmark of Design should be what even the smartest guys can’t design?

    I have always thought the weakest link in ID is the fact that the only way to design biology is using evolution. That’s especially true of pharmaceuticals.

  9. petrushka: The biggest “flaw” I see in VJ’s essay is in treating abiogenesis as a problem for evolution.

    Isn’t that Axe’s problem? But it is annoying, no matter how many times it is pointed out that evolution can only work once you have the basic elements of life (growth, replication and competition for resources) in place, someone will raise the origin of life as an evolutionary problem.

  10. petrushka,

    I haven’t finished it, but I am not finding it too long.

    I started it, but after a few pages thought I’d just see how much more there was. It felt like I was scrolling for about a minute! 21,698 words. That’s a lot.

    I’m currently at the editing stage of a ‘brief’ thesis on an interest of mine, and am concerned that it is way too long to interest the reader. I just checked, it’s 21,548 words: 46 pages of Times New Roman 12pt. And that’s an entire thesis.

  11. Alan Fox: But it is annoying, no matter how many times it is pointed out that evolution can only work once you have the basic elements of life (growth, replication and competition for resources) in place, someone will raise the origin of life as an evolutionary problem.

    Annoying¸ but hardly surprising.

    For all of their love of gaps (and their denial that they are making a “god of the gaps” argument), abiogenesis is the only real gap that they have.

  12. Neil Rickert,

    For all of their love of gaps (and their denial that they are making a “god of the gaps” argument), abiogenesis is the only real gap that they have.

    I can give you a few more.
    origin of the eukaryotic cell
    origin of multicellular life
    origin of vertebrates
    origin of mammals
    origin of man

  13. colewd:
    Neil Rickert,

    I can give you a few more.
    origin of the eukaryotic cell
    origin of multicellular life
    origin of vertebrates
    origin of mammals
    origin of man

    Whilst I’m an inveterate derailer myself, I think your list is a little off-topic. I’d also suggest the hard nut to crack is the eukaryotic cell (which Nick Lane produces a persuasive argument for). Multicellularity doesn’t appear to be an issue, when you look at all the living “intermediate” forms. Even less so for vertebrates, mammals and humans.

  14. Most philosophy journals limit submissions to 10 or 12 thousand words, including foonotes and references.

  15. colewd,

    What makes you think any of these is an ‘origin’ in the conventional sense? What we have are just modern organisms and a few fossils; inevitably many lineages are unpreserved. There is no need for a fundamental origin to produce the pattern we have for any given phylogenetic grouping – simple lineage extinction alongside an evolutionary progression of survivors would give it too.

  16. Alan Fox,

    . Multicellularity doesn’t appear to be an issue, when you look at all the living “intermediate” forms. Even less so for vertebrates, mammals and humans.

    Do you think any one of these transitions is close to reconciling the origin of the first DNA sequences that that were required for these origins? No thanks to DNA the gaps have widened since Darwin and continue to widen as we learn more about the cell.

  17. colewd:
    Alan Fox,

    Do you think any one of these transitions is close to reconciling the origin of the first DNA sequences that that were required for these origins?No thanks to DNA the gaps have widened since Darwin and continue to widen as we learn more about the cell.

    I’m curious: what are the first DNA sequences you think were required for the transition from non-mammal to mammal? You should probably figure that out before asking about their origin.

  18. colewd:
    Alan Fox,

    Do you think any one of these transitions is close to reconciling the origin of the first DNA sequences that that were required for these origins?No thanks to DNA the gaps have widened since Darwin and continue to widen as we learn more about the cell.

    Like petrushka said a while back, there you are in your celebration of ignorance. Ironically you’re too ignorant to notice it’s just your own ignorance that you’re celebrating

  19. colewd,

    Do you think any one of these transitions is close to reconciling the origin of the first DNA sequences that that were required for these origins?

    (Asks again) What makes you think any of these is an ‘origin’ in the conventional sense? [… See a couple of posts back for the rest].

  20. origin of the eukaryotic cell
    origin of multicellular life
    origin of vertebrates
    origin of mammals
    origin of man

    Can you spot the pattern there? What Bill’s doing is to enumerate what he perceives as the critical evolutionary milestones in the… wait for it… HUMAN lineage. More self-centric crap as expected. He’s carefully chosen the events for which he needs to reject every present or future explanation and all the relevant evidence, so that he can keep believing that whatever happened, god must be behind it and keep on feeling special.

  21. ….it is reasonable to conclude that God wants to be our friend.

    Yeah, that’s why he built a dungeon of eternal fire in which to throw those people who would rather not ‘be his friend’. Because that’s what friendly people do.

    The book has an entire set of color plates showing how fish of various species cover the genres of fantasy, drama, romance, comedy, horror and tragedy.

    For fuck’s sake.

  22. Allan Miller: I’m currently at the editing stage of a ‘brief’ thesis on an interest of mine, and am concerned that it is way too long to interest the reader. I just checked, it’s 21,548 words: 46 pages of Times New Roman 12pt. And that’s an entire thesis.

    It’s too long if it’s repetitive, but it isn’t. It’s pretty well written. And I suspect VJ is a trifle miffed at Barry. I suspect VJ spent a month or more on this. Maybe a lot more. It’s the most thoughtful thing I’ve seen by an ID advocate.

  23. John Harshman: I’m curious: what are the first DNA sequences you think were required for the transition from non-mammal to mammal? You should probably figure that out before asking about their origin.

    I’m sure ID can provide the steps that actually happened in the creation of or transition to humans. And point out where the saltation occurred.

  24. Still not finished reading Torley’s review but so far it does look like a well thought take down. I mean those are all OLD arguments and it’s sort of sad that it took 3 Christian scientists to convince Torley of the things other experts have been telling them for eons, but this kind of intellectual honesty on his part is refreshing

  25. VJT’s claim that human invention is incremental annoys me, a lot. I suppose that he thinks it’s actually somehow helpful to “designed evolution” (whatever that might be), but it’s neither true (at least not in same sense that evolution is incremental) nor helpful in understanding the issues. I suppose that it is convenient for ID in that it pretends that the blindness involved in organisms’ “design” is due to mental incrementalism, but that’s exactly what is wrong with the idea of mental incrementalism, there are in fact revolutionary thoughts and one simply does not find these in organisms.

    What was incremental about designing the first couple of nuclear weapons (plus the first nuclear explosive device tested in New Mexico)? Well, clearly there were any number of tweaks, a huge number of calculations, incremental work on various means of separating isotopes, incremental development of nuclear reactors. Yes, of course, and if that’s what VJT’s talking about, fine, we don’t develop processes out of whole cloth. But the concepts of slamming one chunk of uranium into another to produce supercriticality on the one hand, and the implosion of plutonium spheres into smaller volumes to produce supercriticality on the other hand, are more or less leaps of rational thought, the like of which we don’t really find in evolution or in computer output. The uranium bomb wasn’t even tested, or at least it wasn’t tested except on Hiroshima, as the rational leaps were sound, and so was the incremental work needed to implement the rational considerations that led to the overall design.

    How does one think up a jet engine? It’s not all at once, of course, but it’s also not incrementalism that is at all comparable to evolutionary incrementalism. The mousetrap example is another thing that is strangely treated by people on our side. Behe’s right, it’s damned difficult to evolve (maybe it could arise in some contexts, merely because it’s so simple, but it’s the opposite of the classic evolvability of life), but then it didn’t evolve, it was rationally conceived by humans. Why anyone tries to argue its evolvability, save by the mere fact that it’s quite simple, I have never figured out. Proteins, contra Axe, are quite evolvable, mousetraps are not.

    VJT keeps returning to the fact that life is complex beyond our capabilities to achieve–claiming that it’s an argument for design. It’s completely the opposite, it’s the simple and revolutionary that humans excel at, by contrast to an evolutionary process that can’t see ahead, can’t use designs not within its own limited information, and that can’t make a radical shift. Unlike humans, though, evolution and GAs are very capable of dealing with complexity that humans cannot handle, one of the great advantages of GAs. The latter suck at providing good basic structures, but are fantastic at incrementally improving systems too complex for us to think through.

    VJT has come some way from his initial position to understanding evolutionary theory as it actually exists. That said, he certainly swallowed a lot of nonsense–like the unsupported notion that functional complexity (or coherence) is a sign of intelligent design–and he certainly hasn’t given up all of it at this point. But it’s fun to see him giving Barry the fits, and showing, once again, that there’s no open-mindedness in official ID circles. I think that is starting to really sink into VJT’s consciousness as well.

    Glen Davidson

  26. GlenDavidson: What was incremental about designing the first couple of nuclear weapons

    The only part of the Bomb development that wasn’t incremental was the goal. That was kind of a weasel. The other parts that look like top down designs were mostly horizontal transfers.

    But human artifacts are not chemistry. Except when they are chemistry. And when we do chemistry, as in designing pharmaceuticals, we tend to mimic evolution.

  27. petrushka: The only part of the Bomb development that wasn’t incremental was the goal. That was kind of a weasel. The other parts that look like top down designs were mostly horizontal transfers.

    But human artifacts are not chemistry. Except when they are chemistry. And when we do chemistry, as in designing pharmaceuticals, we tend to mimic evolution.

    Hardly, the concept of exponential growth of nuclear chain reaction events was not incremental, nor were the basic ideas of how to effect supercriticality (you merely restate your unwarranted claims without dealing with the examples).

    Likewise with the steam turbine, or the transistor. Of course I don’t deny the incremental work to implement these ideas, but the flash of insight is not incremental.

    Glen Davidson

  28. The flashes of insight you mention took quite a few years of thought by a lot of people.

    I doubt the concept of chain reaction first occurred in bomb development. Dominoes comes to mind.

    I would suggest reading about the history of the transistor if you think it was a single flash of insight.

  29. VJT:

    Dr. Axe does a brilliant job, in chapter 10 of his book, of describing the mind-boggling complexity of multi-level systems such as the visual system. Human inventions don’t even come close to the level of skill it embodies. Design is the obvious and sensible inference to make, barring an empirical demonstration that Nature’s powers of inventiveness far surpass our own. So far, I am not aware of any.

    Yes, life is beyond our ability to design, hence it was designed. That makes no sense.

    To be sure, it made a kind of sense when Paley was pushing the idea, because what other idea of how complex functionality forms a coherent whole was there? Given that, maybe a much smarter Being should be invoked (even if there is the gaping mindlessness as well in life, yet intelligence with blind spots is not unknown). But now we realize that evolution/GAs can deal with complexity rather better than we can, while we do better with basic conceptualization and rational leaps, which we do not convincingly observe in life’s functions.

    What really gets to me, though, is the part where he says, “Design is the obvious and sensible inference to make, barring an empirical demonstration that Nature’s powers of inventiveness far surpass our own.” Apparently he’s demanding evolution in the lab, or at least real-time observations in nature, that demonstrate nature’s “inventiveness,” and not allowing the empiric demonstration of nature’s inventiveness from the genetic evidence of evolution nor from the fossil evidence. He does seem to be speaking for himself there, too, and not merely summarizing what Axe wrote. Yet in other places he points out that nature has far more resources than the labs do, and surely he knows that considerable amounts of evolution take time. Plus, he actually appeals to the evolution of red vision in old world monkeys and apes as evidence of new information arising, and that’s only evident from the past.

    Given his own caveats, it makes no sense to claim that empirical demonstration must occur, or design remains the best hypothesis. It doesn’t, and he’s still ignoring the general lack of basic thought on the part of the Designer that is found throughout life, as “design” remains restricted by the same limits as unthinking evolutionary processes have.

    Glen Davidson

  30. Hi everyone,

    I just wanted to thank you all for your moral support and for your comments. I should mention that quite a few ID supporters feel that my post should not have been taken down. However, it is Barry’s blog, and it’s his prerogative to take a post down if he wishes. I might add that Barry has been very kind to me over the years, so I won’t hear anything said against him. My post now has a new address.

    I’m particularly interested in Glen’s latest comment regarding the process of invention and the origin of complexity. Regarding invention being incremental, I think it might be a good idea to go back to Chris Hogue’s posts and see what you think of them: http://bioimplement.blogspot.com/2012/01/new-series-on-complexity-and-evolution.html , http://bioimplement.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-would-woz-do-inside-mind-of.html and http://bioimplement.blogspot.com/2012/02/history-delusion-intelligent-design.html .

    I know very little about genetic algorithms, but I should point out that Axe does actually talk about genetic algorithms on pages 204-209 of his book, although he doesn’t mention them by name: he simply refers to selective optimization. Briefly, his take is that the adjustments made in selective optimization don’t actually cause the high-level function; they merely tune it. Also, selective optimization proves valuable only when it is being cleverly employed by someone who knows what it can and cannot do. Thoughts?

    That’s all I can manage for now. Got to get some shut-eye. Thanks once again, everyone, for your encouraging comments.

  31. vjtorley:
    . . .
    I might add that Barry has been very kind to me over the years, so I won’t hear anything said against him.
    . . . .

    You might need to plug your ears on occasion around here, then.

  32. petrushka:
    The flashes of insight you mention took quite a few years of thought by a lot of people.

    No, it took quite a lot of discovery. You’re changing things around to fit your prejudices, not dealing with the issues. Even if it took time, what of it? It wasn’t incrementalism in the evolutionary sense. Nor was the invention of the vacuum tube. Once you realize that you can block signal with an applied field, you have a programmable switch. It did not take long in either case to realize this.

    I doubt the concept of chain reaction first occurred in bomb development. Dominoes comes to mind.

    Well who said the concept of chain reaction first occurred in bomb development? Quit making shit up, it’s very inappropriate for you to do so.

    The concept arose as it occurred to people that fission fragments would have rather an excess of neutrons. If some of these were released during the reaction (and the few delayed neutrons made nuclear reactors controllable), possibly a chain reaction could occur.

    How the hell would you come up with the basic design of the respective nuclear weapons incrementally? You’re not dealing with these matters, just protecting your mindless biases.

    I would suggest reading about the history of the transistor if you think it was a single flash of insight.

    I would suggest that you quit making up what I said, rather than dealing with the actual issues. Why must you twist what I say into what you wish I had said?

    Glen Davidson

  33. GlenDavidson: But now we realize that evolution/GAs can deal with complexity rather better than we can, while we do better with basic conceptualization and rational leaps, which we do not convincingly observe in life’s functions.

    The more dimensions a problem has, the more likely it is that GAs can outperform humans. Travelling salesman problem being iconic. And humans are unlikely ever to outperform the best computers at chess and poker and go.

    Oddly enough, these games are prime examples of problems not having a fixed, weasel-like solution. Rather they require foresightful behavior.

    Just my opinion, but I would assert that game playing programs that can outperform their programmers are a demonstration that foresight can evolve.

  34. Tom English:

    I encourage Vincent to post the review here.

    I second that even though I haven’t read Axe or VJ Torley’s review.

    I hope you are well Vincent. God bless.

  35. GlenDavidson: It wasn’t incrementalism in the evolutionary sense.

    I haven’t said that human invention is closely analogous to biological evolution. We are talking past each other.

    I’m merely arguing that invention is incremental.

  36. GlenDavidson: How the hell would you come up with the basic design of the respective nuclear weapons incrementally?

    I don’t know. Perhaps by bringing together a bunch of really bright people and giving them several years and unlimited funds for experimentation.

    The alternative seems to be putting a really insightful person in a room with some paper on which to draw a blueprint.

  37. vjtorley: he simply refers to selective optimization. Briefly, his take is that the adjustments made in selective optimization

    Would you describe the evolution of a chess or checkers or go strategy as selective optimization?

    If so, what are the limits to the evolution of foresightful behavior?

  38. vjtorley:
    Hi everyone,

    I just wanted to thank you all for your moral support and for your comments. I should mention that quite a few ID supporters feel that my post should not have been taken down. However, it is Barry’s blog, and it’s his prerogative to take a post down if he wishes. I might add that Barry has been very kind to me over the years, so I won’t hear anything said against him. My post now has a new address.

    I can only speak for myself but I don’t have a problem with Barry removing any OP that he feels does not fit with the theme of his site. That is always the risk an author has when they are given permission to post OPs on someone else’s site. The part that I find childish, however, is his actively removing any reference to it in other comment threads, even ones about Axe’s book.

    That being said, I am only about half way through your article and I must admit that, even though I don’t agree with everything you have said, it is very well written and well reasoned.

    If I can make one suggestion. Please don’t start a paragraph (or several) with “And finally…” half way through the article. It is not fair to tear us like that. 🙂

  39. Acartia: If I can make one suggestion. Please don’t start a paragraph (or several) with “And finally…” half way through the article. It is not fair to tear us like that.

    That’s why even established authors have editors.

  40. The term “fantastically improbable” has a very specific meaning in Axe’s book: basically, it refers to any probability that falls below 1 in 10^116, which Dr. Axe calculates to be the maximal number of atomic-scale physical events that could have occurred during the 14-billion-year history of the universe (p. 282). Any event with a probability below this threshold of 1 in 10116 is one whose realization can only be expected to occur in a universe which is bigger (or older) than our own, and for that reason, it is said to be physically impossible. While its occurrence in our cosmos cannot be ruled out, it would be a fantastic fluke, and thus tantamount to magic.

    Buy a bag with 200 dice in it, roll them. The sequence you get is more improbable than Axe’s limit. How’s this possible if Axe’s number is correct? Clearly, rolling those dice is physically possible.

  41. There’s something fundamentally wrong with how ID proponents use probabilities. These numbers they come up with as supposedly miraculously improbable and “practically physically impossible” are violated basically thousands of times every day in totally mundane events.

    Kick your toes into a pile of sand and then try to estimate the odds that those 30.000 grains of sand (or whatever) all landed where and faced the direction they did.

  42. VJT, does the fact that Barry can’t handle a negative book review not tell you everything you need to know about him or UD?

  43. Rumraket: There’s something fundamentally wrong with how ID proponents use probabilities.

    The only probability important for evolution is the probability that there is a non-fatal alternate sequence within the reach, by known kinds of mutation, of any sequence.

    That’s Wagner.

    Any book on ID that does not address Wagner’s argument is worthless.

  44. I think Torley hits the nail in the head here:

    Axe seemed to be trying to calculate the probability of an unknown process

    You can’t calculate probabilities without a model from which to derive them. What IDists always do is to implicitly assume some weird model, like Hoyle’s style full randomization of sequences, or Axe’s version of the molecular crocoduck:

    All Axe had done, he said, was to take two related proteins (A and B), and tweak them very slightly, in an attempt to change A into B […] most scientists believe that there was an ancestral protein C from which A and B could be easily derived, and that this protein would have performed the functions of both protein A and protein B. He faulted Axe for making no attempt to identify the ancestral protein C, and change C into A and into B.

    This is old news, Axe and many other IDists strawman evolution and calculate probabilities for some ridiculous models that no sane person would even consider

Leave a Reply