Evaluating Dembski's ID

  • Thread starter Thread starter FrankSchnabel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sideline said:
If you look at my post comparing SETI and Archaeology to ID, I give a rather lengthy explanation as to why SETI doesn’t share ID’s fate. Specifically, it isn’t looking for design in isolation. It is looking for something out of context in nature.
Click to expand...
Hi Sideline,

Let’s think about arrowheads. Archaeology and history teach us that folks back then made arrowheads out of flint and such. Archaeology can even associate certain forms with different cultures and periods. So take the general pattern of an arrowhead and let that be our specification. It is a detachable and independently given pattern.

So when I go out into a field and find a piece of flint, being equipped with this background information (context), I can assess the liklihood whether a given piece arose by human design or just natural processes. Sometimes it is easy, as when the piece very clearly conforms to the specification. Sometimes it is not easy, as when the conformity is only partial. Sometimes a piece was worked on just a little bit and then discarded. But the point is that, given enuff conformity to a specification, I will make a design inference.

But archaeology operating in this instance doesn’t make any appeals to probability. It seems to rely just on specifications. But in theory, there is no reason why it couldn’t bolster its design inferences based an assessment of probability as well. For example, knowing the geological context of obsidian and how nature itself can disseminate rocks from one location to another through natural geological processes, what would be the chances of finding obsidian fragments in location X in a certain stratum?

So I see archaeology operating in the same general fashion as ID. SETI is no different. An archaeologst wandering a field looking for arrowheads and a SETI researcher are both looking for sumptin based on a specification gained from some background knowledge (context).

Actually, the more I think about this, the more I am coming to the conclusion that specifications aren’t a problem for ID. The problem with ID maybe lies more in how we can accurately determine probabilities.
 
rossum said:
A springless mouetrap does not work as a mousetrap, but it may work as something else. Given that it does have a function then it is possible for a springless mousetrap to evolve. The existence of a fuction allows natural selection to drive its evolution. The step from a springless mousetrap to a mousetrap with spring is far less unlikely that the step from nothing to a mousetrap with spring.
Click to expand...
An IC system requires all the parts to be in place in order for the system to fulfil the function that it has. If some of the parts are missing, then the system cannot fulfil the function.
The springless moustrap does not work as a moustrap – therefore, it’s critical function (catching mice) cannot be fulfilled.

If that springless mousetrap could do something “similar” to catching mice, then that might be an evolutionary path.
But I didn’t follow what function a mousetrap without a spring would have.

The bacterial flagellum is an example. The propeller, bushings, axle and motor all work to propel the bacteria. The blade on the propeller could have some other function but it cannot propel the bacteria.

Michael Behe uses the example of blood clotting as an IC system. The elements of blood clotting could have other functions individually, but they don’t clot blood unless they all work together in a system. Thus, if blood is not clotted, the organism will die. So, the “other functions” have to relate to the function of the IC system.

Perhaps something like a tricycle could be an example.
A tricycle (let’s say for this example) has the necessary purpose of transporting things from one place to another. But the tricycle is not an IC system. It could fulfil the same function with two wheels. Thus, the evolution of the tricycle could add some features that improve the system (by adding another wheel). Even the bicycle is not IC because it could be reduced to a unicycle and still fulfill the function of moving things (with limited success). But probably, the gears, petals, seat and wheel make up an IC system with the unicycle.
If a subsystem has its own function then that subsystem can justify its own existence in evolutionary terms.
Click to expand...
Yes, but again that system has to be related to the function that the more advanced system can perform. Otherwise, if the organism can survive without that function then there’s not really a problem with it.
Eventually the speed of closure is such that the plant does not need any glue at all. The secreted fluid can be completely specialised for digestion and only needs to be produced when there is something to digest.
Click to expand...
I think you’re skipping a step in the evolutionary path here. The specialized fluid has to be created in order to digest the insect. But it won’t need to be created if there is no insect to digest. The evolution of the trap would have to coincide with the evolution of the digestive fluid. Otherwise, there would be no reason to have a trap to catch the insect, whether it traps the insect quickly or slowly. The digestive fluid would have to evolve (through a gradual process from ordinary plant digestion to a “carnivorous” digestive process) without having any flies to digest.

I posted an article from the Nature Encyclopedia of Life Sciences on this topic previously (excerpts in next post).
 
(Carnivorous Plants entry, Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig and Heinz-Albert Becker, Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany Abstract)

So, by which blind mutations should the suction trap have originated?’
And regarding the problem of further evolutionary stages
the writer continues: ‘Even a perfect suction trap displaying
the astonishing ability to rapidly catch animals would
have no advantage in the struggle for life because the prey
would not be digested. Conversely, the production of
highly effective digestive juices would be of no avail for the
tip of a leaf as long as it could not capture the prey, which is
absolutely necessary. But even if suction trap and digestive
juices cooperated, nothing would be gained in the struggle
for life. The dissolved proteins must also be absorbed and
metabolized to species-specific proteins. The formation of
the suction trap requires the perfect cooperation of many
different genes and developmental factors. At the end a
benefit is reached in the struggle for life, but not by any
evolutionary stage.’ Nachtwey concluded that none of the
contemporary evolutionary theories was able to answer
these questions, proposing that the answer might lie outside
the present scientific paradigms.
Yet, even authors preferring ‘gradual evolutionary
change through unimaginable aeons of time’ (Slack,
2001, p. 19) admit the depth of the origins problem for
carnivorous plants: ‘Unfortunately this is a question which
we cannot hope to answer without suitable fossil evidence,
and one can offer a mere hypothesis’ (Slack pp. 18/19).
Moreover, it appears to be hard even to imagine clearcut
selective advantages for all the thousands of postulated
intermediate steps in a gradual scenario, not to mention the
formulation and examination of scientific (i.e. testable)
hypotheses for the origin of the complex carnivorous plant
structures examined above.
The reader is further invited to consider the following
problem. Charles Darwin provided a sufficiency test for his
theory (1859, p. 219): ‘If it could be demonstrated that any
complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been
formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my
theory would absolutely break down.’ Darwin, however,
stated that he could ‘not find out such a case’. Biochemist
Michael J. Behe (1996, p. 39) has refined Darwin’s statement
by introducing and defining his concept of ‘irreducibly
complex systems’, specifying: ‘By irreducibly complex I
mean a single system composed of several well-matched,
interacting parts that contribute to the basic function,
wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the
system to effectively cease functioning.’
Some biologists believe that the trap mechanism(s) of
Utricularia and several other carnivorous plant genera
(Dionaea, Aldovanda, Genlisea) come at least very near to
‘such a case’ of irreducible complexity. It is to be hoped that
future research will fully clarify these questions.

… most writers agree that the nine fully substantiated families belonging to six different plant orders already clearly show that carnivory in plants must have arisen several times independently of each other. In a scenario of strong convergence based on morphological data the pitchers might have arisen seven times separately, adhesive traps at least four times, snap traps two times and suction traps possibly also two times.
 
Sideline said:
There are so many people that argue that Intelligent Design is a science, only to turn around and criticize science itself. It makes me wonder why people want to argue that it is a science if they don’t think that science is worthwhile. It’s like they claim that a certain location is due north, only to criticize the concept three dimensional space when they can’t find the location they sought after.
Click to expand...
It’s a good point. But I think people are arguing that contemporary science (which does have its own biases and philosophical foundations) excludes the possibility that an intelligent designer had some discernable influence on the development of nature.

Like just about everything in this discussion, it depends on what we mean by “science”. Interestingly, science itself cannot provide the “true” definition of that term. There is no way to test it because that term cannot be found in nature.

So, we rely on philosophical ideas, opinions and consensus to determine a meaning for the word “science”. Certainly, that leaves a lot of room for debate about whether someone is using the “right” definition or not.
 
reggieM said:
An IC system requires all the parts to be in place in order for the system to fulfil the function that it has. If some of the parts are missing, then the system cannot fulfil the function.
The springless moustrap does not work as a moustrap – therefore, it’s critical function (catching mice) cannot be fulfilled.

If that springless mousetrap could do something “similar” to catching mice, then that might be an evolutionary path.
But I didn’t follow what function a mousetrap without a spring would have.

The bacterial flagellum is an example. The propeller, bushings, axle and motor all work to propel the bacteria. The blade on the propeller could have some other function but it cannot propel the bacteria.

Michael Behe uses the example of blood clotting as an IC system. The elements of blood clotting could have other functions individually, but they don’t clot blood unless they all work together in a system. Thus, if blood is not clotted, the organism will die. So, the “other functions” have to relate to the function of the IC system.

Perhaps something like a tricycle could be an example.
A tricycle (let’s say for this example) has the necessary purpose of transporting things from one place to another. But the tricycle is not an IC system. It could fulfil the same function with two wheels. Thus, the evolution of the tricycle could add some features that improve the system (by adding another wheel). Even the bicycle is not IC because it could be reduced to a unicycle and still fulfill the function of moving things (with limited success). But probably, the gears, petals, seat and wheel make up an IC system with the unicycle.

Yes, but again that system has to be related to the function that the more advanced system can perform. Otherwise, if the organism can survive without that function then there’s not really a problem with it.

I think you’re skipping a step in the evolutionary path here. The specialized fluid has to be created in order to digest the insect. But it won’t need to be created if there is no insect to digest. The evolution of the trap would have to coincide with the evolution of the digestive fluid. Otherwise, there would be no reason to have a trap to catch the insect, whether it traps the insect quickly or slowly. The digestive fluid would have to evolve (through a gradual process from ordinary plant digestion to a “carnivorous” digestive process) without having any flies to digest.

I posted an article from the Nature Encyclopedia of Life Sciences on this topic previously (excerpts in next post).
Click to expand...
In an nutshell, the counterclaim is that purpose is accidental.
 
The_Barbarian said:
The guys who invented ID wrote about the basis of ID:

Governing Goals
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

That’s what they admit when they think no one else is listening. It’s a religion, but not a Catholic religion.

No. The methodology of science is unable to even investigate the supernatural. But it has one great advantage over ID. It works. Nothing devised by man works better at understanding the way the physical universe works. ID is unable to do that, because any problems are glossed over with “God musta done it.” For science, ID does nothing. And if it doesn’t do anything, what good is it?

We have science and Christianity. ID is a poor substitute for either of them.
Click to expand...
I thought we were past this already.

Bottom line - motivation does not negate truth.
 
FrankSchnabel said:
So I see archaeology operating in the same general fashion as ID. SETI is no different. An archaeologst wandering a field looking for arrowheads and a SETI researcher are both looking for sumptin based on a specification gained from some background knowledge (context).

Actually, the more I think about this, the more I am coming to the conclusion that specifications aren’t a problem for ID. The problem with ID maybe lies more in how we can accurately determine probabilities.
Click to expand...
I think you are missing the point here. Archaeologists are looking at areas where there is no obsidian save for these strange fragments. SETI is looking for something that has only been found when created by humans. Something that doesn’t exist outside of that one context that we know of. ID is looking, metaphorically, down the mouth of a volcano and claiming that it is unlikely that one of the shards could be shaped that way.

The equivalent function of ID to what archaeologists do would be discovering a system in a bird made high carbon steal.
 
Orogeny said:
I don’t know it, I just take him for his word. He sees athiesm as the motivation behind science.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
I see atheism as a motivation behind much science also.

As I posted elsewhere, I see commercial gain as a motivation behind science, and I showed where the “science” was actually skewed to support commercial interests.
 
Sideline said:
I think you are missing the point here. Archaeologists are looking at areas where there is no obsidian save for these strange fragments. SETI is looking for something that has only been found when created by humans. Something that doesn’t exist outside of that one context that we know of. ID is looking, metaphorically, down the mouth of a volcano and claiming that it is unlikely that one of the shards could be shaped that way.

The equivalent function of ID to what archaeologists do would be discovering a system in a bird made high carbon steal.
Click to expand...
It is entirely possible that I am missing the point. I yam, after all, a Bear of Very Little Brain (BOVLB) and haff very liddle scientifick eddication besites.

But it still seems obvious to me that archaelogists, when they judge some object to be culturally modified, are making a design inference. Their background knowledge allows them to make the CMO inference as the best explanation for the object in question and rule out that it came about by purely natural causes.

So when Dembski points to archaeology as a field where design inferences are made, he is being quite accurate, IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top