Hi Tedd,
You write:
>I should add that your criticism of of the "metaphysics and game
>rules" of some scientists is probably without merit because I
>suspect those people just don't see the evidence for design that
>you do. For example, I've never ruled out teological explanations,
>I just don't see the evidence for any such hypotheses. But
>that may mean I'm just ignorant.
I am well aware that this may be the case. But let me tell you why
I don't think so. Two questions, when coupled, strongly support
my contention (IMO). First, when you ask a scientist what type
of data would cause him/her to suspect ID behind the origin of
some biological feature, you usually get no answer. But in all
fairness, this is because most scientists don't even think much
about origins and the issue of origins is largely irrelevant to their
science. However, if pressed, those who do have an interest in
origins will answer this question by citing things that really
are far closer to some needed proof for design than something
that merely raises a suspicion. Okay, so maybe these people are
just hard-core skeptics. But then comes the second question.
Most of these same "skeptics" also believe that RM&NS were
indeed the main mechanisms behind the origin of every biological
feature. Yet when I ask for the evidence behind this belief, I
get none. What happened to that hard-core skepticism? So on one
hand, we have a community that doesn't seem to know how to process
a question about data that would raise a suspicion of design, yet on
the other hand, the same community widely accepts and promotes
a belief for which there seems to be very little evidence. This apparent
double standard is best explained, in my opinion, by realizing just
how much the "metaphysics and game rules" drive this question for
many. After all, many leading scientists have written that they
*begin* their analysis by excluding teleological explanations;
this act has been defined as being an essential ingredient of science.
When this happens, why bother training your mind so that it can
detect traces of ID (since it's a taboo explanation)? And of course
trivial observed examples of RM&NS become inflated to explain
everything, as there is no solid alternative. From this perspective,
one doesn't need evidence that RM&NS evolved some feature
because the mere existence of RM&NS is sufficient.
Tedd :
>"Biology needs teological language and concepts" Do you mean
>biology *needs* teological concepts or that humans *tend*
>to engage in anthropomophizing behavior about things,
>be they cars, weather, or molecular machinery?
I meant the former. If it were the latter, then other branches of
science (physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, etc.) would
be as dependent on teleological language and concepts as is
biology. But they are not. Since I addressed this issue on this
list a few months back, I'll simply re-post some excerpts:
" But I think it most telling that, while it officially excludes intelligent
design, biology works because it extensively employs intelligent
design language and concepts. As a physical scientist, Paul Davies,
wisely observed in his latest book:
" Concepts like information and software do not come from the
natural sciences at all, but from communication theory, and involve
qualifiers like context and mode of description - notions that are
quite alien to the physicist's description of the world. Yet most
scientists accept that information concepts do legitimately apply to
biological systems, and they cheerfully treat semantic information
as if it were a natural quantity like energy. Unfortunately, "meaning"
sounds perilously close to purpose, an utterly taboo subject in biology.
So we are left with the contradiction that we need to apply concepts
derived from purposeful human activities (communication, meaning,
context, semantics) to biological processes that certainly appear
purposeful, but are in fact not (or are not supposed to be)."
[Davies commitment to methodological naturalism prevents
him from following through on this "contradiction."]
The fact that biology invokes intelligent design concepts like
proofreading and quality control in order to make sense of life
is, to me, very suggestive. Of course, this is not the type of
thing that is likely to trigger the suspicions of a naturalist,
as his/her trigger is set to detect only things that essentially
amount to the designer him/herself paying a visit to that
naturalist. But if biology is supposed to reduce to nothing
more than chemistry and physics, why do we need to appeal
to engineering concepts to make sense of biology? Where in
geology, astronomy, physics, and chemistry do we find the
concepts of proofreading and quality control?
It is often said that ID is not science and has contributed
nothing to science. But how can this be when biology is
built around ID concepts and language? How is it that
advances in our own understanding of our own designs
help to illuminate biology in a very fundamental way?
For example, in trying to explain feedback and homeostasis
to new biology students, biologists do not draw from basic
chemistry or physics. They draw from the manner in which
furnaces and thermostats are designed to work."
and
"1. You are missing a subtle, but important point. It's
not simply the use of design concepts, it's the fact that
an *understanding* of our own designed artifacts actually
sheds *real* light on biology (but not geology, astronomy,
physics, or chemistry). The more we understand about
design, the more we understand about life. It's more than
handy metaphors. It's the *applicability* of real concepts.
Understanding how computers work really does help
us understand cells. And if there is truth to the design
inference behind life, I will predict that as our own designs
improve by becoming smaller, more complex, and more
sophisticated, our understanding of cellular/molecular
processes will likewise improve.
2. Yes, humans attach human characteristics to pets.
They also attach them to molecules. For example, chemists
sometimes speak of a hydrophobic molecule as those
which don't "like" water. This is all anthropomorphism.
But the design terminology in biology is NOT attaching
human characteristics to things. For example, when molecular
biologists interpret a protein as a "sensor", no one envisions
the protein as a conscious entity that is perceiving things
and responding to what he sees or hears. Instead, when molecular
biologists speak of protein sensors, they use this term in the
exactly the same way an engineer uses it when she builds or
describes a mechanical device. And that is all that is relevant.
It doesn't matter if biological molecules are not conscious. It
matters only if the biological molecules can be put in the same
class as mechanical components designed by humans. In other
words, the language of molecular biological is not in the same
class as anthropomorphic metaphors. It is in the same class
as the design terminology employed by engineers."
and
" You miss the point. Intelligent design terminology is
not very useful in these sciences. The non-biotic world
knows nothing of proofreading and quality control. These
concepts come into play only in engineering (things
known to be designed) and biology (the very things in
question). Proofreading and quality control are at the
very core of life, yet are completely absent from every
area of science except those known to involve intelligent
design. I suppose it's all a strange coincidence, but
I have yet to hear a good argument as to why a mere
suspicion of design is not justified by these observations."
Tedd:
>What is the threshold for CSI and how is it chosen?
A great question. This is the very type of thing that I
think ID will address in more detail over the coming years.
One way of thinking about this threshold is to work with
the notion of the minimal amount of complexity and
specificity required to sustain life. This simple question
has the ability to spawn hundreds of research projects,
showing yet again just how fruitful ID can be. In fact,
there already exists much data that can be interpreted in
light of this question. As of now, I suspect this threshold
has been crossed because so much of the features that
appear to be required for life are more similar to non-living
things designed by human (the only known intelligence)
than non-living things generated without intelligent intervention.
>What is the nature of non-intelligent processes that they can not produce
>CSI?
I never said they can't. I simply see no evidence that geochemistry
generates enough CSI sufficient to spawn and sustain life.
>If an intelligent agent designed the laws of physics, why
>couldn't CSI be the result?
I never said the laws of physics couldn't generate CSI. Again,
it's not an issue of what could be, but an issue of the evidence
behind claims of what did happen. And I don't what law is
responsible for so many of life's seemingly contingent features.
Why the 20 biological amino acids when so many more non-
biological amino acids are more commonly generated by
abiogenic simulations? Why the five nitrogenous bases and
not others? Why the genetic code as it is instead of millions of
other possible codes?
Tedd:
>It's all about evidence, not philosophy.
That's similar to what I have been saying in trying to
clarify we are talking about history, not philosophy.
But I should also mention there is no clear cut distinction
between evidence and philosophy. Evidence is not something
we objectively perceive. That's data. Sensory data is then
interpreted to become something we call evidence. Yet what
helps us interpret that data as evidence if not philosophy?
Consider someone who adopts a non-teleological metaphysical
view. This person cannot consider a teleological explanation
for the origin of life because of his/her metaphysics. As a consequence,
the mere existence of life becomes evidence of abiogenesis.
But if one doesn't share the same metaphysical commitment,
one is not obligated to interpret the mere existence of life as
evidence of abiogenesis.
Tedd:
>No, if you are looking for a "truly major evolutionary innovation"
>to vindicate RM&NS, you probably misunderstand evolutionary
>theory. This may provide a hint as to why you prefer an ID
>explanation.
Perhaps. But I am not looking for a truly major evolutionary
innovation in order to vindicate RM&NS. I am just trying
to determine why so many believe RM&NS were the
mechanisms behind major evolutionary innovations. You
would think that people who reject ID because of a lack
of evidence would have evidence to support what they
accept.
Tedd:
>It is a fair observation I think that we can gain information about
>everything within this universe to an arbitrary degree (how long
>that will take is another question). Thus, your designer is
>apparently from outside the universe if we can never understand
>its origin.
I never made the strong claim that "we can never understand"
the origin of the intelligent designer(s). I simply note that
even if design has occurred, this does not entail that we
should be able to understand the origin of the designers.
You need some other premises before you can conclude
we should be able to acquire such understanding.
Me:
> Let's pretend ID truly explains the origin of life. From that truth,
> explain why we SHOULD be able to determine where the
> designers came from. How does the ability to acquire this
> knowledge necessarily follow from the truth of life's design?
Tedd:
>See above.
I still don't see it.
>Entities acting within this universe necessarily
>interact with matter and energy leaving precise and permanent
>signatures behind that can be read at some present or future
>point by human beings.
Indeed. And these signatures are found in the design.
Yet how does one get from this signature to knowledge
of the designer's origins? What if the designers were a form
of ETI that went extinct about 2 billion years ago many
light years from earth? And are you suggesting that if SETI does
not detect a message in the next 1000 years, there is no ETI
in the universe?
>The only entities that leave no trace
>in this universe are those that are not part of it, i.e. they're
>supernatural, or, simply, they're nonexistant.
Be careful. All those imaginary microorganisms concocted
in order the bridge bacteria to geochemistry have left no
trace. Thus, they are either supernatural or never existed.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 06 2000 - 01:56:03 EDT