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]
Not the best account I’ve of seen Tesla’s account of coming up the AC induction motor (bizarrely, it claims that it started the Industrial Revolution, although arguably it was a crucial component of the “Second Industrial Revolution”), but it seems to be much like other sources’ accounts of this “moment of inspiration,” so I’m using it here:
http://www.teslasociety.com/hall_of_fame.htm
Hogue can say as much as he wishes about how many people worked on the AC motor, but the basic concept was Tesla’s. Someone had to come up with it first even for the others to do work on it. It really wasn’t something that could be done incrementally, it’s a whole concept that has to be integrated in its several parts. Hogue isn’t all that incorrect about complexity being incremental (Tesla’s idea was fairly simple, although to many it would at least be “complex”), because certainly Tesla wasn’t going to invent, say, the power system of the Tesla automobile in his head in one shot (or, more likely, it coalesces into a coherent whole after much thought, yet hardly evoking the incrementalism of evolution even so).
But that’s part of the problem with Hogue’s discussion, he’s confusing “creative inspiration” with complexity. Revolutionary ideas–the “basic inventions”–by contrast, are generally not all that complex, even if they may be IC or some such thing. This is also a problem with ID, that it conflates complexity and creativity/invention, when in fact intelligence isn’t that great at handling complexity, even though it can make the leaps to new ideas (unlike evolutionary processes).
One could overdo the concept of Gestalt and how important it is, but are we really to doubt that it identifies actual phenomena, like the fact that often mental conceptions do come together as coherent wholes at certain points? This does happen in invention in some cases (Tesla may exaggerate how momentary it may be–or not–but it’s a non-evolutionary development in any case). Working out such ideas in practice rarely is possible in one shot, of course, rather one must tinker, try things out, experiment.
Wozniak isn’t a very good example of the rational leap because any computer is a quite complex set of interconnecting systems. To be sure, if Hogue’s talking about complexity, he’s doing fine with it. If he’s discussing inventiveness, the matter is different. The two should not be confused.
Glen Davidson
Anyway, didn’t read the review very closely, sort of skimmed my way through most of it, but read some bits more closely.
I’m impressed and positively surprised that Vincent went to such lengths to look up material from authors who clearly disagree with him (such as Larry Moran and Jerry Coyne), and consulted other experts who aren’t blatant coolaid drinkers even if they have sympathies towards ID.
I’ve read quite a lot about the inventions required for sewing machines. The more you read, the more incremental it looks.
I think inspiration of the gaps is pretty much the same as god of the gaps.
Howe, the inventor of the lock stitch machine, attempted to imitate the motions of a seamstress. This was quite hard to do in a machine, but the inspiration was by analogy.
Is all this argument about incremental design by humans all that relevant?
We do design things by mixing parts from other designs. Axe claims he tested that with proteins and it failed. Shouldn’t we therefore conclude that biology doesn’t resemble human design?
No, but I think that game playing programs demonstrate that insight can evolve.
I will grant that playing a board game is a rather narrow ability, but such programs have only had a decade or so of development.
Plus, we have autonomous cars driving around. They would not be possible if every possible response had to be anticipated by humans and discretely programmed.
This sounds familiar to me: the programmer needs to smuggle the “high-level function” in the code so that it works. It’s nonsense. But it’s also a huge goal post shift. GA’s show how evolutionary mechanisms can build complexity
If the clever guy already knew what the GA can do, he wouldn’t need a GA.
That’s because the ID folk are goal oriented. They see everything as oriented toward the goal of producing modern humans. And if that is their perspective, then there use of probability isn’t that bad.
If, however, there is no specific goal (but a gazillion possible goals) and modern humans just happened to be the result, then the ID folk are way off.
It doesn’t strike you as being hypocritical?
Barry writes:
I don’t mind holding him to his own claims. Legally he can do whatever he wants, but we can point out what he’s actually doing when he takes down a review that would appear likely to facilitate rational argument at UD if it had been left up.
Glen Davidson
I’m not convinced it would have facilitated a rational argument.
I think it is a rational argument, and I think it invites a rational response. But I think Barry is right to think VJ’s opus would not result in a rational discussion.
It certainly wouldn’t help book sales.
Of course it’s hypocritical. My point was that he owns the site and gives select people posting priveledges. If someone posts something that he doesn’t agree with, I don’t have a problem with him removing it. Other far more reputable sites also do this. But his scouring the comments threads to erase any reference goes beyond this. It is one thing to not want an OP on your site. It is another to take action to pretend that it never existed. One is maintaining control on editorial control. The other is just childish petulance.
I disagree. After reading VJT’s review, I am tempted to buy it.
Vincent,
If you are reading this, just as a friend to a friend, I hope you archive copies of all that you wrote at UD. You can always host them elsewhere and it is not that hard to set up a website to showcase your work. I’d hate for you to not benefit from the substantial investment you made in your writings.
Sal
VJT please post the picture of the tragedy fish (piscis cothurnus?)
Fair use and all that.
That’s a classical process, difficult to predict, not a random process. (The same is true of most genetic variation in offspring, though some point mutations evidently are triggered by quantum-scale phenomena. The common “random mutation, deterministic selection” dichotomy, which VJ passes along, suggests that physical chance plays a greater role in evolution than is indicated by the relevant science.) We commonly model uncertainty probabilistically. We rarely get into trouble talking about the odds or chances of uncertain outcomes of deterministic processes, because we rarely do so in circumstances where there’s any danger of reifying the model. ID, however, is all about reification of probabilistic models. ID theorists always convert uncertainty about deterministic processes into physical chance. It’s a crucial error, but a very difficult one to explain. (The first response of virtually everyone is to scoff when I say that rolls of dice and flips of coins are deterministic processes.)
The fact of the matter is that evolutionary theory does not depend on whether physical randomness actually exists. “Random with respect to fitness” is not a metaphysical assertion.
Vincent:
Along the lines of what’s been said before here, how can you calculate the probability of “life originating via unguided natural processes” without exhaustive knowledge of all the relevant natural processes?
Do you have a model from which this probability follows?
While I’m tossing off undeveloped thoughts relevant to VJ’s review, I’ll mention that, in addition to allowing ID proponents to turn Monod’s “chance and necessity” philosophy into the essence of materialism (especially evolutionary biology), we’ve given them a free lunch with the metaphysical assertion of intelligence.
ID depends critically on uncritical acceptance of the notion that intelligence is a physical cause of some things we observe. Folks, there is no empirical evidence that intelligence exists. Psychologists and ethologists refer to it as a hypothetical construct, and define it operationally. Intelligence may play the role of a cause in a model, but it is merely an abstraction of unidentified causes.
It’s unspeakably bizarre to me (my undergrad education is in experimental psych) that the putatively scientific explanations of ID smuggle in intelligence as an ontological category, and the would-be defenders of science have nothing to say about it.
I challenge ID proponents to demonstrate that physical reality is indeterministic.
petrushka,
They are all searching for something …
As a behaviorist I consider that to be a lost cause.
Only Go works there. I’m not aware of success in evolution of strategies for chess and checkers. (I gave checkers a couple tries, and didn’t get much for my efforts.) The successes are in evolution of static board evaluators, which are used in conventional minimax game tree evaluation. They fit what Axe (according to VJ) says.
vjt:
If one can show how it is calculated less, with more rigour than combinatorial nonsense based on thermodynamically impossible (not just unlikely) random alpha-peptide strings in a soup, one might have an idea what is expected to fall out of this otherwise rather empty challenge.
Cole,
Actually, abiogenesis is the least of non-teleologists problems. The hardest work is in what happens after the first simple cell ‘miraculously’ comes into existence all by itself.
We’ll assume (thanks to the input from our non-teleological evolutionary consulltants on this board)The first cell was quite simple. In this case, we have to consider how the first cell was able to divide without any machinery to make it happen.
But OK, then. Lets assume the cell miraculously fell upon cell division due some unknown catalyst. Ok, so the cell divided. Lets go the next one.
Now there is competition with itself. But its doesnt know that. We have to remember the cell ‘knows’ didly squat. Next.
The cell also doesn’t ‘know’ it needs nutrition. So how does the process of taking in nuttrients into the cell and processing them take place? There are as yet no membrane pores to allow for and control intake of nutrients and release of byproducts. There is no machinery to process the nutrition. OK, lets now go ahead and assume another natural catalyst is responsible for cutting holes in the membrane causing some pressure differential that sucked in stuff.. Then lets then also assume that said nutrients, since the just happened to naturally fall into the cell, now somehow, vis-a-vis yet another natural catalyst, gets paired up with other stuff and somehow becomes a molecule that the cell can tolerate.
Lots of assumptions, yes. But bear with me. We have only got assumptions to work with. Its still so very fuzzy around the edges.
So now, that some unknown catalysts are assumed to be responsible for the first cell division, and the first experience of nutrition uptake. Lets go to the next level.
The cell divides. The cell uptakes nutrients. Now, even though its doesnts ‘know’ it, the cell will require sense mechanisms, since assuming logically, that through natural catalytical means, it acquired the ability to divide and uptake nutrients, it will need to ‘find’ more nutrients and protect agains other cells trying to take its nutrients or even try to ingest another cell as a nutrient.
So now we move on to vision and defense. What would affect the cell in a primorial environment that would induce a change in its simple structure to be able to invent such a thing as a sense mechanism, or a defence mechanism?
Well, I think you get the picture. Its appears an endless slew of speculative scenarios are required to extricate the first cells from a design explanation.
But the real question is what drives supposedly smart people to actually consider a an extremely long string of speculative scenarious preferable to a design explanation.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.33.486&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Incredulity, therefor presupposition without evidence.
Tell you what Steve. When science decides to accept “Steve’s ignorance-based personal incredulity” as a valid argument you’ll be the first one we tell. 🙂
From the abstract:
The standard term is static board evaluator. Chellapilla and Fogel used a conventional minimax strategy, due in its original form to Claude Shannon (1951?).
“Tom English was…”
I also know Kumar from way back. It’s been 7 or 8 years since I looked closely at the literature. I would guess that someone has recently attempted to apply to checkers/chess something similar to the deep neural-net architecture that worked well for Go.
Now, a fundamental question to ask, which I overlooked in my previous comment, is whether a system that evolves without an explicit fitness function (ignore the issue of whether the strategy is preset) is selective in the sense of Axe. The minimax strategy is essentially part of the “environment” in which the neural nets compete. The probabilities of survival of the neural nets are determined by their numbers of wins and losses in competition against one another. So just how “selective” is that? I mean, the experimenter does not specify anything at all as to how the neural nets should work. All that’s ever determined in the evolutionary process is which work better than which.
What’s more important in responding to Axe, I suspect, is the issue of knowledge. Do you get only what you know how to make? The answer to that, coming from evolutionary computation, is a top-of-the-lungs NO!!!. I’ve set up a number of evolutionary systems that ended up knowing, in clear operational terms, how to do what I hadn’t a clue how to do. [ETA: Of course, not all attempts are successes. But many attempts are successes.]
Axe’s book not only nails it but hits the great point of human intellect, so instinct, in regardss to complicated things and discovers design is the only intellectual conclusion unless opponents did more then just say CHANCE can do anything.
UD is a great place but i was surprised at such a negative review.
It is a ID forum, with tolerance for YEC and any critic, but there is a purpose here.
I can understand why its unreasonable to have a UD writer so completly attacking what is common, classic, and new insights well done on these matters.
Its too much a rejection of great cideas from ID generally.
Steve,
I’m not aware of anyone, smart or otherwise, who thinks of things the way you have sketched.
If we are taking the Lampoon Route, try this. What God Did. He took some clay and went kinda ‘alakazam’ and all these organisms just kinda appeared with multicellular bodies without development, diploid but with no parents, then somehow they made and merged haploid germ cells and the next generation went through a developmental process but still ended up the same as the first ‘alakazam’ generation. Is that what smart people believe?
Robert Byers,
But what if he’s right?
Then Robert wouldn’t know it.
Glen Davidson
Huh, actual explanation instead of making up a Super Designer.
I mean, why the former rather than the latter?
Glen Davidson
It’s abundantly clear going by Torley’s review and his quotes of the book, that Axe’s “Undeniable” is the biggest compilation of lies and BS that the DiscoTute and the ID movement in general have presented to date. It really raises the bar of dishonesty and fallacious nonsense
I suppose that the Axe book was intended as thr evolution kikker, an upddate to Black Box.
Having it destroyed on the premier ID discussion site probably didn’t sit well with the DI.
But the toothpaste is out of the tube.
Neil Rickert,
I agree with you here. If biological systems can get built without any purpose or components of biological systems working together then it is possible that stochastic process along with selection could be the answer.
Stop inserting things that were not said and not implied.
It makes you look stupider than usual.
petrushka,
I guess telling someone they look stupid is not the same as “you are stupid” but it gets close.
Torley writes: “That process is Darwinian evolution, which automatically came into effect once the first Very Simple Replicator arose on the primordial Earth”
Darwinian evolution unfortunately needs more than a simple replicator to start with, it needs either to start with a non-trivial replicator, or it needs to be able to make the transition from trivial to non-trivial before it can actually be of help. Simple, trivial replicators evolving is going nowhere, to quote Paul Davies and Sara Walker:
“due to the organizational structure of systems capable of processing algorithmic (instructional) information, it is not at all clear that a monomolecular system – where a single polymer plays the role of catalyst and informational carrier – is even logically consistent with the organization of information flow in living systems, because there is no possibility of separating information storage from information processing (that being such a distinctive feature of modern life). As such, digital–first systems (as currently posed) represent a rather trivial form of information processing that fails to capture the logical structure of life as we know it.”
“Although trivial self-replicators can undergo Darwinian evolution [23, 24], the lack of separation between algorithm and implementation implies that mono-molecular systems are divided from known life by a logical and organizational chasm that cannot be crossed by mere complexification of passive hardware. In that respect we regard the case of the RNA world as currently understood as falling short of being truly living. If primitive “life” was strictly monomolecular, there would be no way to physically decouple information and control from the hardware it operates on, resulting in unreliable information protocols due to noisy information channels. For this rather deep reason, it may be that life had to be “bimolecular” from the start.”
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.4803v2.pdf
So Is biogenesis the last gap?
I get that feeling.
Apparently, Barry Arrington is a reader of our blog!
He quotes Tom English linking to this comment. Barry, you are a registered member here and you are able to post comments directly without fear of having those comments deleted or edited. (There are not-very-onerous rules that may cause comments to be “guanoed”).
As we have caught your eye, I’d be very interested to hear your reasons for “disappearing” Vincent Torley’s book review.
petrushka,
Me too!
My bad.
How about saying that misquoting or misrepresenting another person’s statement looks stupid?
Not to mention the unfathomable inability to understand what the other person said.
So far you have quoted a rhetorical question from Wagner’s Arrival of the Fittest. It might move the conversation along if you read beyond the blurbs.
I know you are not stupid, but you appear not to be following the discussion.
They can still retreat to the anthropic principle after that.
petrushka,
You can always ask for clarification. Though sometimes when I ask, it can make me feel (and look, maybe) stupid. I think the suggestion that, if you can’t explain something to a young child, you don’t really understand it yourself has some merit.
petrushka,
Thanks, I guess. 🙂 I just finished Wagner’s book for the second time. Although I don’t agree with all his arguments I think it is an excellent read. Yes, I did modify Neil’s comment in order to start a discussion on how to set up a probability calculation since this seems fundamental to the discussion we are having.
I would like clarification of “…or components of biological systems working together …”
Where has anyone suggested that evolution does not need to produce components that work together?
Having read Wagner’s book, you are aware that the only probability calculation that matters is the probability that a mutation will not be disastrous. Right?
Neutral, nearly neutral, or beneficial?
All living things already have components that work together. Evolution is not about the origin of first living things. That is being studied, but it is still a great mystery.
Evolution is change in populations. Evolution requires that it be possible to have alternate sequences that are non fatal. The relevant probability calculation is what percentage of substitutions and transpositions are at least non lethal.
Here we go again with the FSCI/O nonsense. Bill, why would that pose a problem for evolution?
Things can be scary outside of the pillow fort – people can disagree with you in ways you can’t ‘dissapear’. But borrow some of Mung’s courage.You’ve got his balls, I’m sure.
That’s not even close to what I said.