I'm going to be away from my computer for a long weekend while I attend a wedding near DC, but I didn't want you to be left wondering why I haven't replied. I'll say one thing that immediately popped to mind when reading your latest.
Reg 4) I think you understand what I was trying to say about rate of change, acceptance of change, etc. You put it very elegantly. Where I want to comment in this short note is Instead, there must be some guiding force, whose methods are inexplicable in principle (because they are un-natural, or supernatural).
Why limit the force/deity to a role as a guide? Maybe that isn't what you intended to mean, but I think ID is more apt to say complex system were designed as a whole by the force/diety, rather than tinkering with a natural process to achieve a particular result.
Your definition of theory sounds a lot like "hypothesis". And your basic outline would be very proposable, if we knew all of the givens. With (A), I am aware that there is ample science about observed rate of mutations. Whether this rate has been constant throughout biological history is unverifyable. If you look to the fossil record for evidence of the consistancy in the rate of mutation, you err in accepting what you are trying to prove. (covered that ground already, that's bad!) With (B) I am not aware of a method by which we can measure this rate even in the current world. It simply takes too many generations for even the fruit fly to yield an answer, and that wouldn't be in a natural environment. With (C) there might be some good measurements (I'm not sure) along with a model to go along with it, but I'm sure there are variables for which we do not know past values, like rate-of-events that divide a population.
Without this data, a hypothesis like the one you began is hard to come by, and perhaps there is where ID fails for you, it doesn't provide this hypothesis that is testable. But I would argue that it doesn't make it any less of a theory, when you view a theory as a model, like I do. When Darwin proposed evolution, did he have rate of speciation, rate of mutation evidence? I confess that I have not read "Origin of the Species," but I doubt he did. He probably proposed a model to explain anomalies in the model of his day, and it was labeled a theory, right?
What started out short has turned out longer than intended. I shall comment more thoroughly after I return, as there is always lots to talk about, and I do have a lot more to say.
Just wanted to say how much I do sincerely appreciate your assistance in refining my ID arguments. It is a good intellectual persuit after a long day of programming. Hope this evening finds you well..
Thank you for your complement, I do appreciate it. You may have suspected I have a similar distaste for those that would argue without arguments.
1) I think you have a significantly more complex grasp of the word 'theory'. I use it pretty loosely to mean "model," like weather-pattern modeling (Earth simulator), facial reconstructive modeling (Egyptian mummies), or aerodynamic pressure modeling (the shuttle design, excluding foam). By this I mean the science behind explaining observations, and perhaps making predictions. The predictions are something "testable or falsifiable", like when the Earth simulator guys use the last 100 years of data to try to predict the next hundred. If they're anywhere near close to accurate, we'll conclude that their model represents more closely the system that it is modeling than mere chance would likely produce. I can agree that without counterevidence, ID or any other theory/model is not really a science-based model.
However, it can be a religious-based model, just as a (Hindu?) Sanscrit loudly declares that the moon is so many million more miles farther than modern science has concluded. Hindu scholars could embark on explaining the observations of light and chemistry and gravity, etc, using the Sanscrit document as a basis for a theory/model (however, I'm not aware of such an effort, kinda pointless). It would still be a theory, just not good science.
I don't think we're that far off from each other's viewpoint on theory, just on the scientific merits of ID as a theory.
2) I like your 2a, about the 11-inch long tongue, and the tube to match, which were only verified later in Madagascar. Since I have limited time to devote to this discussion, I can offer you one (I think) fascinating testable/falsifiable ID hypothesis.
As you know, many ID thinkers believe in short-earth history based on the Bible record--a big difference with long periods of time of the common evolutionary model. Normal 'theists' as you called them, do not stop and think "How did we get all the variety on the planet using one boat, of known demensions?" ID doesn't have a long period of time to work with normal microevolution, and although it may be enough time to count as a component of the diversifying factor, it is not enough by itself. This is the same problem encountered when accepting one man and one woman as the beginning of the human genome. We simply do not generate diversity in a short enough period using microevolution alone.
One ID-accepting scientist wrote a journal article I read. He was talking about the existance of TAs (don't remember what this stands for) in the human genome, and what this meant for biological diversity. These genetic sequences are viral-like in nature, and we're full of 'em. Very little is known about them right now even though they're a pretty high percentage of the total genetic makeup, and there's ongoing research about how they came to be and their function. This researcher hypothesized that these TAs are, or are part of, a larger mechanism that exists in a negative-feedback cycle for genetic diversity. As populations are scarce, perhaps triggered by the similarity of the chromosomes received from both parents, the TAs participate in increasing the rate of genetic change. The existance of such a mechanism would be a testable/falsifiable claim of one ID-accepting researcher.
2b) Your list of falsibility criteria is excellent. I don't see one in the list that ID couldn't accept. I did want to look a little at the blind, see-through creatures we observe in lightless environments. (Seems there was a term for creatures in this environment, but Google couldn't help this time.) You're point was coming from one direction, (not a reproductive advantage), but the argument can be made the other way (sight and coloration were a reproductive disadvantage). This observation fits well in both the ID and evolution models, but ID also counts for a third possibility, that this was an intended genome that only has sur
You have certainly been a part of this debate a long time. I'll use you're framework of numbers for response:
1) A theory can most certainly be an 'emphatic rejection' of another. In the same way that Darwin's "Origin of the Species" was an emphatic rejection of the previous theory that a diety had to have created every variation of biological definition, so Intelligent Design (or any other theory) can reject the assumptions or conclusions of another theory. That's fundamental to the scientific method.
2) On testable predictions, if you could please name one testable prediction of the theory of evolution, I'll try to respond to name one similar in kind for Intelligent Design. Those that would claim that "there is NOT sound evidence that the incredible complexity of life is not the result of natural processes" are also presuming that there exists sufficient unknown natural processes to explain the paradoxes produced by believing only natural processes can explain the origin or diversity of biology. Life from non-life, for example.
Every theory (not law) has evidence for it and against it, and is subject to revision to resolve evidence against it. ID is "Actual science", on the basis that it resolves evidence against the theory of evolution, and so does say "this is the current best conclusion."
3) I would look at your argument quite in the opposite direction. Rejecting ID is silly on the same grounds. Rejecting ID is assuming that everything is a product of natural processes--that which it is trying to prove. The synthetic rock is a great example of good science coming to the wrong conclusion. Suppose that aliens had engineered all the 'natural' rocks around it. The conclusion should have been that the rock in question was very similar in composition and properties to the rocks surrounding it, saying nothing of its origin. This would eliminate the assuption of 'natural' rocks, and thus is better science.
4) I think my post agreed to the extent that promoting religion with such an instrument as ID does it a disservice by removing its science base, and subjecting it to unnecessary association with religious philosophy. You've begun to dip into philosophy and religion in this point. A diety is by definition different from us. Projecting our way of thinking on to a diety is quite absurd, in the same way thinking worms can know 'love' as we understand it is absurd. So I think philosophically there is no reason why a diety could not do anything it jolly-well-pleases for any period of time, including forever. When you think diety, think 'Not like me', that should help. The sidenote: Macro-evolution might propose that the appendix is an organ-in-development that will someday be used for some unknown purpose that betters the species, while it is useless now (a presumption that there is not an unknown 'natural' process that requires it). ID might propose that the structure is used in an unknown process and/or a process now no longer available, for instance, the pre-existance of a now-exinct species of plant matter beneficial or detrimental to the body for which the appendix contributed processing/control.
Second 4) It was unclear whether you meant that by accepting micro-evolution as a plausible theory, that macro-evolution was necessarily accepted. I do not see these as one-and-the-same theory. By my education in the sciences, micro results in genome variation (general stability in number of genes), but adding/subtracting chromosomes and the huge quantity of genetic materials necessary to add a new function--a wing or an appendix, is a quite different beast (pardon the pun).
Evolution is very cause-effect. Separated populations see their gene pool change because of a reason. Micro evolves out of necessity for the survival of the population, but macro? I cannot assert that appendix will someday be rendered useful in a significant number of individuals of a population at the same time that those individuals are in near-enough proximity and with propensity to mate,
I happen to have worked previously at a business that produces academic research products about Intelligent Design. There is a lot of confusion about what it is, exactly. If I were to put my spin on Intelligent Design, here is how I would define it:
Intelligent Design is the emphatic rejection of the scientific merit of macroevolution as mathmatically and logically unreasonable and unproveable.
Contrary to what you might expect, within the concept of Intelligent Design is plenty of room for acceptance of microevolution as an explanation for the diversity of biological life, but not for the existance of life itself.
True Intelligent Design itself does not take a stance on religion, but many Christians do it a disservice by promoting it as a rejection of atheism--the defacto religion of modern science.
That all said, I do personally do believe that macroevolution is a crutch by which the atheist rejects logic in favor of rejecting existance of divinity, but this is not an argument of Intelligent Design. Intelligent design argues that there is sound evidence that the incredible complexity of life is not the result of natural processes alone.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going to be away from my computer for a long weekend while I attend a wedding near DC, but I didn't want you to be left wondering why I haven't replied. I'll say one thing that immediately popped to mind when reading your latest.
Reg 4) I think you understand what I was trying to say about rate of change, acceptance of change, etc. You put it very elegantly. Where I want to comment in this short note is Instead, there must be some guiding force, whose methods are inexplicable in principle (because they are un-natural, or supernatural).
Why limit the force/deity to a role as a guide? Maybe that isn't what you intended to mean, but I think ID is more apt to say complex system were designed as a whole by the force/diety, rather than tinkering with a natural process to achieve a particular result.
Your definition of theory sounds a lot like "hypothesis". And your basic outline would be very proposable, if we knew all of the givens. With (A), I am aware that there is ample science about observed rate of mutations. Whether this rate has been constant throughout biological history is unverifyable. If you look to the fossil record for evidence of the consistancy in the rate of mutation, you err in accepting what you are trying to prove. (covered that ground already, that's bad!) With (B) I am not aware of a method by which we can measure this rate even in the current world. It simply takes too many generations for even the fruit fly to yield an answer, and that wouldn't be in a natural environment. With (C) there might be some good measurements (I'm not sure) along with a model to go along with it, but I'm sure there are variables for which we do not know past values, like rate-of-events that divide a population.
Without this data, a hypothesis like the one you began is hard to come by, and perhaps there is where ID fails for you, it doesn't provide this hypothesis that is testable. But I would argue that it doesn't make it any less of a theory, when you view a theory as a model, like I do. When Darwin proposed evolution, did he have rate of speciation, rate of mutation evidence? I confess that I have not read "Origin of the Species," but I doubt he did. He probably proposed a model to explain anomalies in the model of his day, and it was labeled a theory, right?
What started out short has turned out longer than intended. I shall comment more thoroughly after I return, as there is always lots to talk about, and I do have a lot more to say.
Just wanted to say how much I do sincerely appreciate your assistance in refining my ID arguments. It is a good intellectual persuit after a long day of programming. Hope this evening finds you well..
Thank you for your complement, I do appreciate it. You may have suspected I have a similar distaste for those that would argue without arguments.
1) I think you have a significantly more complex grasp of the word 'theory'. I use it pretty loosely to mean "model," like weather-pattern modeling (Earth simulator), facial reconstructive modeling (Egyptian mummies), or aerodynamic pressure modeling (the shuttle design, excluding foam). By this I mean the science behind explaining observations, and perhaps making predictions. The predictions are something "testable or falsifiable", like when the Earth simulator guys use the last 100 years of data to try to predict the next hundred. If they're anywhere near close to accurate, we'll conclude that their model represents more closely the system that it is modeling than mere chance would likely produce. I can agree that without counterevidence, ID or any other theory/model is not really a science-based model.
However, it can be a religious-based model, just as a (Hindu?) Sanscrit loudly declares that the moon is so many million more miles farther than modern science has concluded. Hindu scholars could embark on explaining the observations of light and chemistry and gravity, etc, using the Sanscrit document as a basis for a theory/model (however, I'm not aware of such an effort, kinda pointless). It would still be a theory, just not good science.
I don't think we're that far off from each other's viewpoint on theory, just on the scientific merits of ID as a theory.
2) I like your 2a, about the 11-inch long tongue, and the tube to match, which were only verified later in Madagascar. Since I have limited time to devote to this discussion, I can offer you one (I think) fascinating testable/falsifiable ID hypothesis.
As you know, many ID thinkers believe in short-earth history based on the Bible record--a big difference with long periods of time of the common evolutionary model. Normal 'theists' as you called them, do not stop and think "How did we get all the variety on the planet using one boat, of known demensions?" ID doesn't have a long period of time to work with normal microevolution, and although it may be enough time to count as a component of the diversifying factor, it is not enough by itself. This is the same problem encountered when accepting one man and one woman as the beginning of the human genome. We simply do not generate diversity in a short enough period using microevolution alone.
One ID-accepting scientist wrote a journal article I read. He was talking about the existance of TAs (don't remember what this stands for) in the human genome, and what this meant for biological diversity. These genetic sequences are viral-like in nature, and we're full of 'em. Very little is known about them right now even though they're a pretty high percentage of the total genetic makeup, and there's ongoing research about how they came to be and their function. This researcher hypothesized that these TAs are, or are part of, a larger mechanism that exists in a negative-feedback cycle for genetic diversity. As populations are scarce, perhaps triggered by the similarity of the chromosomes received from both parents, the TAs participate in increasing the rate of genetic change. The existance of such a mechanism would be a testable/falsifiable claim of one ID-accepting researcher.
2b) Your list of falsibility criteria is excellent. I don't see one in the list that ID couldn't accept. I did want to look a little at the blind, see-through creatures we observe in lightless environments. (Seems there was a term for creatures in this environment, but Google couldn't help this time.) You're point was coming from one direction, (not a reproductive advantage), but the argument can be made the other way (sight and coloration were a reproductive disadvantage). This observation fits well in both the ID and evolution models, but ID also counts for a third possibility, that this was an intended genome that only has sur
You have certainly been a part of this debate a long time. I'll use you're framework of numbers for response:
1) A theory can most certainly be an 'emphatic rejection' of another. In the same way that Darwin's "Origin of the Species" was an emphatic rejection of the previous theory that a diety had to have created every variation of biological definition, so Intelligent Design (or any other theory) can reject the assumptions or conclusions of another theory. That's fundamental to the scientific method.
2) On testable predictions, if you could please name one testable prediction of the theory of evolution, I'll try to respond to name one similar in kind for Intelligent Design. Those that would claim that "there is NOT sound evidence that the incredible complexity of life is not the result of natural processes" are also presuming that there exists sufficient unknown natural processes to explain the paradoxes produced by believing only natural processes can explain the origin or diversity of biology. Life from non-life, for example.
Every theory (not law) has evidence for it and against it, and is subject to revision to resolve evidence against it. ID is "Actual science", on the basis that it resolves evidence against the theory of evolution, and so does say "this is the current best conclusion."
3) I would look at your argument quite in the opposite direction. Rejecting ID is silly on the same grounds. Rejecting ID is assuming that everything is a product of natural processes--that which it is trying to prove. The synthetic rock is a great example of good science coming to the wrong conclusion. Suppose that aliens had engineered all the 'natural' rocks around it. The conclusion should have been that the rock in question was very similar in composition and properties to the rocks surrounding it, saying nothing of its origin. This would eliminate the assuption of 'natural' rocks, and thus is better science.
4) I think my post agreed to the extent that promoting religion with such an instrument as ID does it a disservice by removing its science base, and subjecting it to unnecessary association with religious philosophy. You've begun to dip into philosophy and religion in this point. A diety is by definition different from us. Projecting our way of thinking on to a diety is quite absurd, in the same way thinking worms can know 'love' as we understand it is absurd. So I think philosophically there is no reason why a diety could not do anything it jolly-well-pleases for any period of time, including forever. When you think diety, think 'Not like me', that should help. The sidenote: Macro-evolution might propose that the appendix is an organ-in-development that will someday be used for some unknown purpose that betters the species, while it is useless now (a presumption that there is not an unknown 'natural' process that requires it). ID might propose that the structure is used in an unknown process and/or a process now no longer available, for instance, the pre-existance of a now-exinct species of plant matter beneficial or detrimental to the body for which the appendix contributed processing/control.
Second 4) It was unclear whether you meant that by accepting micro-evolution as a plausible theory, that macro-evolution was necessarily accepted. I do not see these as one-and-the-same theory. By my education in the sciences, micro results in genome variation (general stability in number of genes), but adding/subtracting chromosomes and the huge quantity of genetic materials necessary to add a new function--a wing or an appendix, is a quite different beast (pardon the pun).
Evolution is very cause-effect. Separated populations see their gene pool change because of a reason. Micro evolves out of necessity for the survival of the population, but macro? I cannot assert that appendix will someday be rendered useful in a significant number of individuals of a population at the same time that those individuals are in near-enough proximity and with propensity to mate,
I happen to have worked previously at a business that produces academic research products about Intelligent Design. There is a lot of confusion about what it is, exactly. If I were to put my spin on Intelligent Design, here is how I would define it: Intelligent Design is the emphatic rejection of the scientific merit of macroevolution as mathmatically and logically unreasonable and unproveable. Contrary to what you might expect, within the concept of Intelligent Design is plenty of room for acceptance of microevolution as an explanation for the diversity of biological life, but not for the existance of life itself. True Intelligent Design itself does not take a stance on religion, but many Christians do it a disservice by promoting it as a rejection of atheism--the defacto religion of modern science. That all said, I do personally do believe that macroevolution is a crutch by which the atheist rejects logic in favor of rejecting existance of divinity, but this is not an argument of Intelligent Design. Intelligent design argues that there is sound evidence that the incredible complexity of life is not the result of natural processes alone.