In a message dated 10/5/2000 9:36:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Nucacids@aol.com writes:
> But what about all the evidence, someone might say?
> What evidence? The Darwinian mechanism has largely
> been tagged on to the evidence of evolution. That is,
> while we have plenty of evidence of common descent,
> we have very little evidence to indicate it *was* the Darwinian
> mechanism behind most/all of this evolution (that
> is, if we think about the various major evolutionary transitions
> that occurred so long ago).
Of course we do not have nor will ever have the evidence that it was all of
evolution that was Darwinian or even neo-darwinian but at the moment the
neo-Darwinian explanation is the one that best matches our observations. Its
mechanisms are actually observed and the data seem to support these
mechanisms. Does this mean that this is all there is? I doubt it.
In fact, there are already mainstream
> paleontologists, developmental biologists, and molecular
> biologists that are moving in a direction that should be causing
> Darwin to turn in his grave, namely, they are moving away from
> gradualism and its slow, groping climb up Mt. Improbable.
>
Gradualism is but one aspect of evolution. Its existance cannot be denied but
there is indication that there might be other processes which play a role.
Would this be a problem ?
>
> So what do we have thus far? A secular future without a religious
> threat, an eroding Darwinian template, and a divorce between
> teleology and theism. Why is ID/teleology in the cards? Because
> the stage is being set and the non-teleologists have always vastly
> underestimated the power/appeal of teleology (which has only been
> around for over 2500 years).
>
Darwinism is hardly eroding I'd say.
[snip]
> Thus, scientists feel safe teaching about homeostasis
> not by appealing to chemistry, but by appealing to a thermostat
> and furnace. They teach about the cell as a computer and
> a factory full of molecular machines. In fact, it is not uncommon
> at all to hear or read a biologist describe "the design" of some
> feature. The language and concepts so common in modern
> biology would not in any way cause great discomfort to
> a diehard teleologist (to say the least)!
>
We have to be careful to not equivocate the meanings of design as used by the
biologist and as used by ID.
> Currently, even though origins are so thoroughly ambiguous,
> ID has a hard time getting off the ground because it is indebted
> to a religious template in a secular age. Thus, all ID needs is
> a new template and the tiger is out of his cage.
>
Unlikely. The main problem of ID is that design is infered from the absence
of evidence not the presence of evidence. Behe has searched for a reliable
indicator of design that could eliminate natural selection (incorrectly
concluding therefore design) but it seems that the indicator is not that
reliable after all so we are back to the start. In order to show which
explanation matches better we need pathways and data. Absent data we cannot
infer one or the other, but with data we can search for natural pathways and
we can propose intelligent design pathways. So far however Id seems to be
satisfied to not deal with the designer, the pathways but only with the
detection of design. But if the detection of design fails to exclude natural
selection as the intelligent designer then ID has a problem.
> The human race has passed through several stages of development.
> With our industrial revolution, we have designed machines to
> constrain and use the laws of Nature to our ends. Then comes
> the information age, where not only do we learn, we learn to
> make better machines. Where do we go from here? What
> does a human being do when he has both the tools and the
> understanding? He makes. That is, the Industrial Era giving
> rise to the Information Era will inevitably give rise to the
> Era of Creation.
>
I doubt it. Unless Creation includes natural selection and mutation. As has
been shown evolutionary algorithms are quite able to generate information,
therefore again we have a problem. Does information provide us with a
reliable detector that can exclude natural selection? If not, what are the
pathways through which the information entered ?
Behe has his opinion
"During the Q & A, Simon Conway Morris was the moderator. When my hand
went up he called on me. [I took this as evidence supporting the
hypothesis that he liked my question during his talk :-) --grm] I
asked Behe that he has spent a lot of time talking about what wouldn't
work and asked him to tell us what would work--if not evolution, what,
then? Miracles? Behe stumbled around a bit and finally said that God
inputs information into living system all along the way."
http://home.flash.net/~mortongr/wacoday2.htm
Does this make for a good scientific explanation? I doubt it.
"At no step --not even one-- does Doolittle give a model that includes
numbers or quantities; without numbers there is not science."
Behe pp. 95 Darwin's Black Box
> Many already see the coming Biotech Century. But the Biotech
> century, as part of the Era of Creation, will also be the century
> of vastly improved computer technology, including better virtual
> reality, better robotics, and perhaps artificial intelligence. It
> will be an era where nanotechnology will begin to emerge.
> The Biotech side will evolve from tinkering and
> experimenting with life to designing and redesigning life.
> More and more biology will be done by corporations rather
> than universities. The template for ID will emerge.
>
ID already seems to exist. Natural selection and mutation seemed to be used
to design systems that could distinguish distinctive frequencies. More
evidence that ID will have a hard time excluding natural selection and
mutations. Certainly the fact that we can use our technology to manipulate
biological systems is hardly evidence of ID in nature. That would be begging
the question.
> If religion is once-and-for-all sequestered in the realm of
> the purely subjective, the Darwinian template will no longer
> seem all that appealing -> It will no longer be needed. In a world
> where humans have blurred the distinctions, such that some
> life is "natural" and other life is "designed," how much sense
> will it make to insist that what is "natural" was never artificial?
>
It will still be an important distinction for the explanation of evolution.
That in the future we might be able to manipulate evolution does not mean
that this happened in the past.
> In a world where humans begin to explore and colonize other
> planets, bringing with them their life forms designed to facilitate
> such exploration and colonization, how much sense will it make
> to insist that life arose on this planet without such agency
> intervention?
>
How much sense would it make to insist that life has to arise intelligently
all the time? If that assertion cannot be supported then once again life is
still not a viable indicator of ID, unless ID includes natural processes?
[...]
> What can non-teleologists do? Eliminate the ambiguity.
> As I see it, that is their only hope. Unless they move
> beyond the "could happen" explanations, and pin-point
> the unambiguous evidence that indicates abiogenesis
> happened and evolutionary transitions occurred by their
> non-teleological mechanisms, they will essentially have
> nothing more than stories that depend on their template
> and the prevailing gestalt. Good luck to them.
>
More evidence that ID is based on a false dualism. Similarly ID has nothing
more than stories as well. For it to be scientific we then have to determine
which story is the most likely. Again this does not make ID acceptable.
[...]
Secondly, teleologists need only show that teleology
> does work to help us understand the biological world. And not
Indeed, we need to see pathways and they need to show that ID can make better
explanations than natural pathways.
> only in the molecular/cellular sciences, but also with
> evolution itself. It doesn't have to disprove a non-teleological
> interpretation. It doesn't have to be needed. It doesn't have
> to be flashy. It only has to work. It only has to provide some
> form of pay-off.
>
I thought we were talking science.
> Look at it this way. There is no need for a proof of ID.
> There is no need for a sensational ID break-through. What's more,
> there is no need to convince a single ID critic in existence today
> (sorry people).
>
I disagree.
> All that is needed is this: if the debate shifts from evolution to
> mechanism, if teleology works, and if the future undermines
> the Darwinian template's reason for existence, along with
> introducing a template that introduces a teleological
> inertia, once again, ID is in the cards.
>
>
Which is why ID is unlikely to become a paradigm in science that will work.
Unless it can free itself from the elimination of alternatives and provide
positive evidence of ID, it will continue to struggle with the failure of not
being able to exclude natural selection as the intelligent designer. As such
nothing has changed. Design is infered but it could still include natural
mechanisms. But unlike ID, natural mechanisms stand a far better chance of
being supported by data and provide potentital pathways.than something that
is based on the elimination of alternatives.
The argument seems to be based on the assumption that the use of the terms
design as used in biology combined with increased use of ID in future
biological developments will lead to acceptance of ID. But that seems to be
hopelessly optimistic. Our ability to design systems so far outside the arena
of life has not lead to acceptance of intelligent design as an explanation of
non life structures around us, so why would this be different for biological
systems?
I find it hard to imagine that the paradigm of ID, especially as it stands
right now, has any chance of contributing value to science, especially
biological science. After all its argument is based on elimination, we have
no evidence of design in natural systems as they exist right now. Design
inferences inherently depend on the elimination rather than on positive
evidence. Perhaps if ID can provide us with evidence of the designers or the
pathways then ID would stand a chance to survive but in biological sciences
such seems unlikely and without such evidence, ID cannot exclude natural
designers. Worse, natural pathways, even unlikely ones would still be far
more credible than appeal to an unknown designer, unknown pathway, unknown
purpose.
Intelligent design failed to impress and affect science in the past, why
should this time be different? It still has the same inherent flaws.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 01:09:07 EDT