Evaluating Dembski's ID

[rossum]

I read a comment recently that seems appropriate here:

“Darwinian reasoning … allows one to cite their own imagination as if it is evidence.”

Behe’s challenge regarding the evolutionary paths of IC systems remains unanswered thus far – except by the imaginary “possible paths” that are claimed as evidence.

Behe originally asserted that it was impossible to evolve IC. As soon as any possible path is shown then the assertion of impossibility fails. Behe himself recognised this and, correctly, adjusted his hypothesis to read “unlikely” instead of “impossible”.

If something is indeed impossible then there cannot be any possible way to do it. We now know that it is indeed possible to evolve IC systems from a non-IC start. See Line of Descent for the complete line of descent of an IC system from a non-IC precursor. We know that it is possible for IC systems to evolve. That is why Behe changed his position. That is how science works, hypotheses are proposed and tested. Those that fail the test are rejected and replaced with better hypotheses. Behe was doing science correctly. Even his failed hypothesis was useful in that it triggered a lot of useful and interesting work. He is to be congratulated on an interesting failure.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I think this means that we should be able to observe in real-time the evolution of new biological structures with the kind of complexity found in IC systems.

We can. See Lenski’s work on the development of citrate digesting bacteria. The ability to digest citrate was not originally present. A sequence of three mutations was required to enable the ability - any two of the mutations were insufficient. That is by definition a three-part IC system. This was done in 20 years, well within Behe’s 20,000 year timescale.

This also should provide some opportunities for evolutionists to predict the outcomes of when those new IC systems will evolve and what they’ll be like.

This also should provide some opportunities for IDists to predict the outcomes of when those new IC systems will be designed and what they’ll be like. If ID is, as it claims, science then where are the positive scientific predictions from the ID side?

I don’t think we’ve even seen anything looking back in history.

You need to look harder, Lenski published his results in July this year.

rossum

 

[Sideline]

We can. See Lenski’s work on the development of citrate digesting bacteria. The ability to digest citrate was not originally present. A sequence of three mutations was required to enable the ability - any two of the mutations were insufficient. That is by definition a three-part IC system. This was done in 20 years, well within Behe’s 20,000 year timescale.

Well, shows you what I know.

 

[reggieM]

We now know that it is indeed possible to evolve IC systems from a non-IC start … That is how science works, hypotheses are proposed and tested.

Regarding the OP’s question about ID, I’m reminded of the joke about the Darwinist response to such.

“ID is not science. It’s not falsifiable.
Plus, scientists have done a lot of great work to test it and refute it.”

 

[reggieM]

We can. See Lenski’s work on the development of citrate digesting bacteria.

I just looked at it and noticed the calm, objective tone of the article (where they made sure to ridicule creationist & ID straw-men). All this on a theory that was supposedly proven a fact 100 years ago (but apparently a finding in June 2008 needs to be trumpeted as the best thing they’ve got).

It says quite a lot that this extremely minor finding elicits such an emotional response on Wikipedia. Obviously, someone has been covering up some very weak data up until now.

 

[reggieM]

This also should provide some opportunities for IDists to predict the outcomes of when those new IC systems will be designed and what they’ll be like. If ID is, as it claims, science then where are the positive scientific predictions from the ID side?

I’m delighted to see you concede this point. OK, I’ll accept that evolutionary theory has an equivalent value in predicting the future development of IC structures (or nature) as ID theory does.

As for the positive predictions from ID – one very prominent one was that so-called “junk DNA” (a name given it by Darwinists) actually had a function in the cell.

This was proven correct later and the term Junk DNA is now seen as an erroneous label.

 

[reggieM]

Behe hasn’t proved anything. He has said this is impossible. What he has said is impossible has been shown to be possible. It doesn’t need to be proved that it happened that way. He, or at least someone, has to prove those possibilities wrong. And even then, it only proves that IC is possible.

Impossible is a function of probability.

Something that is extremely improbable reaches a threshold where it is considered impossible.

As Catholics, we know that nothing is impossible – so, when speaking in materialistic terms, one must look at probability.

But all of that said – I think you and rossum have both answered positively on the question of whether ID is science and whether it can be tested and falsified.

Thus, another evolutionist canard is refuted by both of you guys.

 

[Sideline]

Impossible is a function of probability.

Something that is extremely improbable reaches a threshold where it is considered impossible.

If you understood that Behe’s initial claim was wrong, why didn’t you admit that, and save us all the trouble.

But all of that said – I think you and rossum have both answered positively on the question of whether ID is science and whether it can be tested and falsified.

Thus, another evolutionist canard is refuted by both of you guys.

I see. You’ve decided to start making things up now. Very good. I shall leave you to it then.

 

[reggieM]

If you understood that Behe’s initial claim was wrong, why didn’t you admit that, and save us all the trouble.

Given that I was told by evolutionists that Mr. Behe is a liar and is ignorant of science, I can see their own falsehood in using him as an authority on this matter.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hey Rossum,

you spake thusly: "I agree that intelligent agents can produce complex outcomes. That does not mean that non-intelligent agents cannot also produce complex outcomes - a snowflake is complex. As for Dembski’s Complex Specified Information I can see two problems with it; firstly there needs to be an objective definition of what does and what does not constitute a specification, and secondly there needs to be a way to distinguish newly generated information form information that is merely copied from one place to another.

Copying infomration is a big problen, because a non-intelligent process can copy information and in particular random mutation and natural selection can copy information from the environment into the genomes of organisms living in that environment. Without a way to distinguish between copied information and newly generated information in a genome the argument from CSI fails."

I’ve pondered the specification problem myself. Dembski says that it is no good to “draw the target around the arrow after it hits the wall.” But isn’t that is what is done any time you isolate a biological system as a candidate for SC? I don’t think Dembski has given a good answer to this problem. Any body have any insight here?

 

[reggieM]

I’ve pondered the specification problem myself. Dembski says that it is no good to “draw the target around the arrow after it hits the wall.” But isn’t that is what is done any time you isolate a biological system as a candidate for SC? I don’t think Dembski has given a good answer to this problem. Any body have any insight here?

Hi Frank,

I don’t see Mr. Dembski’s idea as a question of moving the target. He is seeking to choose some features in nature and discover if they are examples of specified complexity and then using some probability studies to determine if it’s reasonable to accept that they were formed by natural causes.

That’s basic forensics work – it’s the same method that SETI uses in deciphering signals in space and looking for intelligence. It’s actually similar to what specialists who try to decode encrypted computer data have to do.

 

[rossum]

Regarding the OP’s question about ID, I’m reminded of the joke about the Darwinist response to such.

"ID is not science. It’s not falsifiable.

Currently that is correct. It is possible that ID will become science in the future, but at present it is not science. Since ID refuses to characterise the designer/s in any way it is impossible to describe anything that could not have been designed. Evolution excludes a mix of mammalian and avian characteristics, as with a pegasus. ID cannot exclude a pegasus bacause the designer/s might have decided to make a pegasus.

Archaeology can say that stone age man could not have designed a jet engine. This is possible because the tools, techniques and knowledge available to stone age man are broadly known. Until ID describes the tools, techniques and knowledge available to the designers it is not possible for ID to say anything useful about what the designer/s may or may not have done.

Naturally, for political reasons and for funding reasons, ID is currently very reluctant to make any pronouncements about the details of -]God/-] the designer/s. If ID decides to move away from its political objectives then it is possible for it to become science. While its political objectives are still its primary aim then it is unlikely to be science.

Plus, scientists have done a lot of great work to test it and refute it."

IDists have made statements about evolution, such as “X cannot evolve” or “Evolution cannot explain Y”. These statements have been refuted. Such statements are not ID, but statements about evolution.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I’m delighted to see you concede this point. OK, I’ll accept that evolutionary theory has an equivalent value in predicting the future development of IC structures (or nature) as ID theory does.

Evolution has already been successfully used to predict the time frame and location of fossils - Tiktaalik is the usual example. Evolution can predict that we will never find a pegasus. Please indicate where ID has been successfully used to locate new fossils. Please indicate whether ID allows or disallows a pegasus.

As for the positive predictions from ID – one very prominent one was that so-called “junk DNA” (a name given it by Darwinists) actually had a function in the cell.

Much non-coding DNA is indeed useless. Recent discoveries have found functions for a part of it (a few percent). The bulk of it is still considered useless. For example the Fugu fish genome has far less non-coding DNA than we do. Much of the non-coding DNA is indeed useless bacause the Fugu fish does perfectly well without it.

This was proven correct later and the term Junk DNA is now seen as an erroneous label.

Yes, non-coding DNA is a better label. Some of it does have a function, and no doubt more functional parts will be found in future. It is still probable that the bulk of no-coding DNA in the human genome will turn out to be useless.

I would appreciate a reference to the ID prediction of the usefulness of “junk DNA” predating the initial findings of the function of some non-coding DNA. Obviously a ‘prediction’ made after the event is not admissable as evidence.

rossum

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hi Reggie,

Hey Rossum,

With reference to “ID is not science. It’s not falsifiable” you sed:

Currently that is correct. It is possible that ID will become science in the future, but at present it is not science. Since ID refuses to characterise the designer/s in any way it is impossible to describe anything that could not have been designed.Evolution excludes a mix of mammalian and avian characteristics, as with a pegasus. ID cannot exclude a pegasus bacause the designer/s might have decided to make a pegasus.

Archaeology can say that stone age man could not have designed a jet engine. This is possible because the tools, techniques and knowledge available to stone age man are broadly known. Until ID describes the tools, techniques and knowledge available to the designers it is not possible for ID to say anything useful about what the designer/s may or may not have done.

Demsbki claims to have a reliable method for detecting design. That’s it. He doesn’t need to characterise the designer in any given instance where the method is applied if all he is setting out to do is identify the presence of design or rule it out. One doesn’t need to know anything about the designer in order to determine whether or not some object is designed.

For example, if SETI succeeds in establishing contact, it will be on the basis of a signal they’ve distinguished from random noise. They will have made a design inference without any knowledge of the designer.

I don’t think Pegasus presents a problem for ID. Why does ID need to make a judgment as to whether or not winged horses are designed, when it hasn’t been established that they exist anywhere but in mythology?

The real concern with ID ought to be whether its method reliably detects design. IOW, does it have a problem with false negatives? Does it ever falsely attribute design to something which in fact is not designed?

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hi Reggie,

Regarding specifications, how does Dembski avoid the charge that his patterns are simply ad hoc or identified after the fact? He has an answer, but it will take me some time to summarize it.

 

[reggieM]

Hi Reggie,

Regarding specifications, how does Dembski avoid the charge that his patterns are simply ad hoc or identified after the fact? He has an answer, but it will take me some time to summarize it.

I’m not familiar enough to respond with any research. There must be a problem here if he had to develop a complex answer.

As I see it, they are not “his patterns” but rather observations of what can be found in nature.

In my view, it’s not different than interpretations of the fossil record which are all after the fact. The claim is that one species evolved into the next based on the evidence of fossils.

But that is also surrounding the evidence with a target.

 

[reggieM]

Recent discoveries have found functions for a part of it (a few percent).

Ok, but the prior discoveries claimed that it was all useless.

I cannot expect that recent discoveries are the entire story of Junk DNA.

In 1994, ID-proponent Forrest Mims predicted that non-coding “junk” DNA would have function, writing a letter to Science, “Those supposedly meaningless strands of filler DNA that molecular biologists refer to as ‘junk’ don’t necessarily appear so useless to those of us who have designed and written code for digital controllers.”

Science rejected the letter, but in 1998, long before the “junk-DNA” revolution was in full swing, William Dembski predicted function for non-coding “junk”-DNA based upon intelligent design:

But design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term “junk DNA.” Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as “junk” merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. For instance, in a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how “non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development.” Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it.
(William Dembski, “Intelligent Science and Design,” First Things, Vol. 86:21-27 (October 1998))

evolutionnews.org/2006/12/junk_dna_and_sciencestopping.html

 

[reggieM]

Naturally, for political reasons and for funding reasons, ID is currently very reluctant to make any pronouncements about the details of -]God/-] the designer/s. If ID decides to move away from its political objectives then it is possible for it to become science. While its political objectives are still its primary aim then it is unlikely to be science.

Who will decide if ID has moved away from political objectives?
Certainly there is already a lot of scientific work that is done for objectives other than the love of pure science.

Revealed: oil-funded scientific research in campaign against protection for polar bear

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

Science’s Worst Enemy: Corporate Funding

Earlier this year, former FDA commissioner Jane Henney remarked that “it’s getting much more difficult to get that pure person with no conflicts at all. . . . The question becomes both one of disclosure and how much of a conflict you can have and still be seen as an objective and knowledgeable reviewer of information.” More than half the scientists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who responded to a survey conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2005 agreed that “commercial interests have inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention.”

While it might be true that some ID scientists have a religious bias that distorts their work (again, who should judge such things?), I think it’s too sweeping a conclusion to say that ID is not science because some have less than pure scientific motives. I think many evolutionary scientists are motivated by an anti-religious agenda, seeking to prove evolution in order to more-firmly assert atheism. But they’re still considered scientists by the academic and scientific community.

IDists have made statements about evolution, such as “X cannot evolve” or “Evolution cannot explain Y”. These statements have been refuted. Such statements are not ID, but statements about evolution.

An important component of ID theory is to show where evolution is not an adequate explanation for various developments in nature. That must be done first in order that the possibilities of ID can be explored (otherwise, if materialistic-evolution already explains the phenomenon, then there’s no reason for an alternative theory).

 

[rossum]

Ok, but the prior discoveries claimed that it was all useless.

You have been misled by your creationist sources. Scientists have been wondering about the function of non-coding DNA since its presence was first realised:In 1979, Gould and Lewontin published their classic “spandrels” paper (Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 205: 581-598) in which they railed against the apparent tendency of biologists to attribute function to every feature of organisms. In the same vein, Doolittle and Sapienza published a paper in 1980 entitled “Selfish genes, the phenotype paradigm and genome evolution” (Nature 284: 601-603). In it, they argued that there was far too much emphasis on function at the organism level in explanations for the presence of so much non-coding DNA. Instead, they argued, self-replicating sequences (transposable elements) may be there simply because they are good at being there, independent of effects (let alone functions) at the organism level. Many biologists took their point seriously and began thinking about selection at two levels, within the genome and on organismal phenotypes. Meanwhile, functions for non-coding DNA continued to be postulated by other authors.

Source: Function, non-function, some function: a brief history of junk DNA.

I cannot expect that recent discoveries are the entire story of Junk DNA.

Agreed, there is more to discover. However I think that it is possible to predict that there will always remain a proportion of useless DNA. Introns, pseudogenes and poly-A sequences are useless. Transposable elements are only functional for the transposable element itself, not for the whole organism.

evolutionnews.org/2006/12/junk_dna_and_sciencestopping.html

Thank you for the reference. The date of 1994 is far too late to be a prediction. The term “junk DNA” was first used in 1972 and scientists have been discussing it ever since. There is general agreement that some of it is functional and some of it is non-functional. There is disagreement over the relative proportions of the functional and non-functional parts. Experimental and observational evidence confirms that both function and non-functional parts of the genome exist.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

You have been misled by your creationist sources.

I’ve been misled by my evolutionst sources who came up with the term “Junk DNA” in order to “prove” evolution. That’s why they invented the term – because “junk DNA” was supposedly evolutionary by products and junk mutations.

Now we see that evolutionists have reversed themselves on this, as on many other issues.

So for those who say that evolution is more certain than is the law of gravity, I disagree. I don’t see the law of gravity reversed like this, and I don’t accept that evolutionary theory defines a natural law either.