Glenn,
One of your main criticisms of the Intelligent Design movement is that it
doesn't offer specific experimental means for substantiating its claims. It
seems to me, however, that the notion of an outside intelligent agent
actually precludes any ID affirming experiments. Unlike the regularities of
nature which can be measured experimentally, an outside intelligent agent is
by its nature not experimentally available. An experiment would have to be
designed essentially to catch God in the act. So it would be reasonable
that the ID folks couldn't offer specific affirmative suggestions. It seems
to me that because of this, the real issue becomes reasonableness. I don't
know about Behe's claim that no one has offered viable detailed Darwinian
explanations for any complex biochemical processes, but if he is right then
unless the Darwinians are able to show some successes in explaining those
processes like blood clotting then we're stuck with a reasonableness
approach. It ends up like the anthropic principle. Is it more reasonable
to explain the extraordinarily rare chance for a life producing universe by
believing in a designer or infinite universes?
Also aren't the Darwinians just as stymied by the lack of affirming
experiments. Clearly some principals can be affirmed with simple cases like
bacteria, but is it reasonable to make a leap from simple mutative systems
to more complex ones? Wouldn't that proposition have to be confirmed? But
how would the multitude of inferences be avoided for more complex processes
with many variables.
It seems to me that biochemical processes provide an ideal situation for
research. They are simple enough to minimize variables and complex enough
to be good test cases. As a design engineer for more than 25 years, I find
the ID arguments about irreducible complexity reasonable, but as a person
who has embraced Darwinian evolution, I await detailed technical responses
to the ID challenges. There's a lot of high level rhetoric going on between
the camps, but I hope that something more detailed and substantial will be
forthcoming.
Best Regards,
Steve Petermann
----- Original Message -----
From: "glenn morton" <mortongr@flash.net>
To: "Russell Maatman" <rmaat@mtcnet.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 7:57 AM
Subject: A response to Maatman with transcript
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Russell Maatman" <rmaat@mtcnet.net>
>
> > Steve Meyer--"...standing there trying to avoid answering by saying his
> > argument was restricted to the origin of life...."
> >
> > Michael Behe--"not answering [a particular] question seriously...."
> >
> > William Dembski--"...the deer in the headlight look on Dembski's
face..."
> >
> > Really. You make it sound like these three leaders in the ID movement
> acted
> > like dummies. If they were that bad, they have certainly changed since I
> > saw them in action.
> >
> > Glenn, if you refer to those who disagree with you in this way and keep
> > saying it, we'll have another Bishop Wilberforce myth to debunk.
>
>
> I don't recall you being there at Baylor to know one way or the other.
Thus,
> your comment means that you simply don't want to believe what I say. Why
> don't you simply say, "I don't believe you" rather than taking this very
> circuitous route to the same end? You will never know if I am correct or
not
> because you weren't there! I was there; I spoke to the people who attended
> getting the feel for what they saw. And I know that Bob DeHaan felt
> similarly as I did
> about Schaeffer, because we had dinner after that session. (Bob, you can
> confirm or deny it if you want). Tom Pearson was there at that talk, in
> fact, he came up to me because I had given my name at the start of my
> quesiton to Steve. Both of them can chime in with their comments but I
have
> a transcript.
>
> Now so you will know what I say is true, I have transcribed part of Behe's
> Q&A and much of the Q&A after Steve spoke and will append it to the end in
> transcript form. You didn't want a new Wilberforce myth but you may now
have
> caused one with the publication of this transcript.
>
> And I do take offense at your implication that I am merely saying this
> because I disagree with them. Unlike you in the above, I treated friend
and
> foe the same. I am friends with Steve Meyer and Paul Nelson. That doesn't
> mean I have to give them compliments every time I write about them or kiss
> up
> to them in order to maintain our mutual respect and friendship. I notice
in
> the above that you played favorites. You criticise me for what I said
about
> Meyer, Behe and Dembski (people with whom you find commonality) and you
> failed to criticize me for what I said about Shermer, Weinberg, Ptashne
and
> Arnhart. Are you being one sided here rooting for special treatment for
> those with whom you agree? God forbid that we do that as a habit. Since
you
> weren't there, you have no right to make such a charge that I am wrong and
> no basis upon which to build it. Your comment shows what I consider to be
a
> big problem in Christianity, the 'root for our side syndrome' which
engages
> in religious/righteous rooting regardless of how bad we are! And this
> encourages less than accurate research. I said things about other
> non-christian participants that they won't like either. Look at what
> I said about Michael Shermer, an atheist and avid antiChristian! I wrote:
>
> "Michael Shermer, (looking MAAARVELOUS--however Billy Crystal used to say
it
> on Saturday Night Live) grandstanded to the cameras [smile included] "
>
> Of Weinberg, I said that he did little but insult people: "In my opinion,
he
> did little to help convert people or even give them too much data to
> influence them to change from their non-evolutionary positions. When you
> insult someone (intentionally or not) they quit listening. In order to
> change YECs they must listen to you."
>
> And I will add, Weinberg was arrogant as all get out.
>
> I called Toole's speech the weakest of the night. Here is what I said:
"This
> was the weakest paper of the night. It was too quick a survey of arguments
> for God with little detail being given out. There were too many ellipses
in
> the arguments. "
>
> And I simply castigated Judson for boring people to death--both in the
> session he moderated and during Friday's banquet. I gave what I believed
> was a fair representation of the talks. If you don't want to believe my
> observations, that is fine, but unless you were there in some out-of-body
> experience, you don't know diddly about this.
>
> One note about the transcript. People don't speak in gramatical sentences.
I
> didn't always punctuate the way the speaker would have. They spoke words
> like we all do which are then hard to punctuate. These are the words on
the
> tape as best as I could transcribe them. Here are the transcripts of Behe
> and Meyer when questioned about experimental predictions:
>
> [Note that Behe didn't answer the question.--grm]
>
> Behe: One can't falsify the claim that sometime in the future we will
> discover a process unknown to us now, that will explain what we now take
to
> be design. But what I would advocate as an advocate of intelligent design
> is that the future can take care of itself. Science should work with the
> data it has in hand. And just to give a little example. 70 years ago
most
> scientists thought that the universe was eternal and unchanging and then
the
> motion of the galaxies away from the earth and away from each other was
> noticed. And that led to the big bang theory. Now a lot of people thought
> that the big bang theory had theological implications. And a number of
> people didn't like them and the scientists of that day who didn't like
those
> implications said lets wait lets not too hastily grab onto the theory of
the
> big bang with its overtones of creation and so on. Maybe in a hundred
years
> a new theory will come along that will explain the apparent motion of the
> galaxies without recourse to the theologically charged event and if that
had
> happened physics would have lost out on a lot of progress in the last
> century . So my point is that science has to follow the data wherever it
> leads no matter what the theological implications and let the future take
> care of itself.
> Ptashne: I just, you know.thank you. What is it that you want scientists
to
> do? Science is now making discoveries at a rate in this field, I mean if
you
> had asked me five years ago if this was possible, I would have said
no-this
> is not possible, unbelievable. Now what is it you want us to do? What
> difference would it make. If Behe were in charge of the funding. What
would
> you have us to do? [laughter] I mean someone suggested a very
> straightforward test of one specific idea What is it you are going on
> about?
>
> Behe: If I were in charge of the funding I would keep most of it for
myself.
> [laughter]
>
> What I would do and like to do is for somebody like you to go into your
> lab. Now Prof. Ptashne has written some very interesting things on gene
> regulation and of course the [garble] system which we are very interested
in
> these days are difficult to handle. But he has written on phage lambda In
> fact he wrote the book on phage lambda. And he showed that by putting
> probably most people didn't get the chance to see it in detail. On how a
> switch system might have evolved in phage lambda and starting with a
simpler
> one where one binding site, the repressor binding site. that he
constructed
> a scenario where that might be built up. Now I don't have time to go into
> it. But I know that that looked interesting but I noticed a number of
> stumbling blocks. I would be real happy if someone like Prof. Ptashne with
> his large lab went back and constructed, constructed the starting point.
> One can I think rather easily manipulate lambda so that lambda only has a
> repressor site put in place where you think it started initially. Where
> there is no core protein and so on. Take that artificial construction,
grow
> it in the lab for a large number of generations for a large number of
cells
> , see what happens. Does anything happen similar to what you might expect
in
> your scenario. If it does, that's great and that's evidence for your
point
> of view. If it doesn't, like in Barry Hall's case, then maybe its not
> evidence for your point of view and it might make you more suspicious that
I
> might be right.
>
> {Note, that Behe didn't give a single specific prediction of what would
> positively support his concept. He gave a situation in which a failure to
> verify Ptashne's view becomes a reason for suspicion that Behe might be
> right. That is pure, unadulterated God of the Gaps.-grm]
>
>
> *******Steve Meyer Q&A*************
> I was the first with my hand up at the Q&A. Here is part of what went on.
In
> my terribly slow speech and a panic attack on top of that, and with an
Okie
> accent[Note Russ, I am not above criticising myself either--grm], I said:
>
> Morton: "My name is Glenn Morton, this is for Steve. Steve I really want
to
> protest I guess the use of specificity-two things. The use of specificity
in
> your paper and the statement that -let me catch my breath[a huge panic
> attack came over me. My heart was racing, my breath was short and I wished
I
> could sit down-grm] -that only intelligent beings can increase
information.
> To the second point first, Even Lee Spetner, who is a young-earth
> creationist, published in Nature in 1964 that natural selection acts as a
> pump of information from the environment into the genome. Now I think he
> vastly underestimated the rate. But it is an unintelligent process to pump
> information and increase information in the genome. The second thing is
> specificity. You gave the nonsense sequence of random characters and then
> the sequence "Time and tides wait for no man." Spy codes are precisely
> designed to encode a meaningful specified sentence into a apparent
> meaningless sequence of symbols. So a meaningless sequence of symbols or
> what appears to be, can be a specified sequence.[a nearby guy tried to
help
> me talk and said 'Once you own the code] Yeah once you own the code. So in
> that sense I don't see how your entire use of information really plays
out.
> Could you comment on that."
>
> Judson. Once you own the code it is a specificity problem.
>
>
> Meyer: Can I just respond first to [Morton: Sure.] Judson. This sets up
one
> of the special issues Sarkar and I differ on. This is why I tried to
define
> information as something other than when we are talking about biological
> information... [he talked for about 3 minutes]
>
> [He never returned to my question. I was sitting in front of Art Chadwick
> and Art leaned up to me after Meyer finished and said "He didn't answer
your
> question" and it is on tape where I said "yeah". And I would say that
Walter
> Bradley, unsolicited said the same thing to me during the break a few
> minutes later. This type of answer avoidance continued.
>
> De Duve quizzed Steve about his marking chance out of the picture. Maybe
> some day I will transcribe it..-grm]
>
> Later Steve was asked:
> Ptashne: Steve, Can I just ask you, a question from an outsider if I may
> call myself that [garble] I guess ideas Because Everybody has a different
> idea so its not clear I get the feeling that had I started out my talk by
> saying That I'm Christian I believe in God the Father and given the same
> talk everything would be fine. But now in your case and I , I, really. An
I
> also noticed that the guys who are trying, the so called straight
scientists
> have sort of an idea of trying to figure out how it works. Now you say for
> example, you took [garble] Then you present this thing that the sequence
> does not follow that someone didn't follow from principle or properties?
> What exactly is your idea? Do you think that some outside agent, for
example
> to compare a geese with a Drosophila half the genes the same half the
genes
> different. Let's say. So where the genes are different did God come down
and
> line up the nucleotides? Or were they just similar? Is there an idea or
just
> vague unease and therefore you want people to think you actually have an
> idea about what this agent did or didn't do . [one sentence
garbled-Ptashne
> refused to speak into the microphone he was holding-grm] What's the point
> about arguing about the mouse DNA other than to say well I don't know.
>
> Meyer: Well the juxt errr, the jist of the argument is very simple. That
We'
> re looking for causal. A causally adequate explanation for the
information.
>
> Ptashne: OK then you say you need a cause every time you make a new DNA
> molecule.
>
> Meyer: No I am confining this argument to the question of the origin of
the
> first information
>
> Ptashne: You just said that the DNA had no intrinsic information and that
it
> 's a big mystery
>
> Meyer: Right!
>
> Ptashne: Ok so then every time you get a new DNA molecule that didn't
exist
> before is it your idea that some agent came down and made that DNA
molecule?
>
> Meyer: No not necessarily. Ahhhhh I ahhhhh if you get to biological if you
> get chemical evolution to biological evolution you have.
>
> [note: Not necessarily???? What exactly does this mean? Maybe God did and
> maybe God didn't? It certainly is a squishy statement--grm]
>
> Ptashne: no no that's chemistry. Those DNA molecules have never been seen
> before. You see every one of you guys has a different way you think the
> agent comes in.[comment: he is probably referring to Behe who stated at
the
> conference that God input information throughout history-grm] Where the
new
> gene appears that has not been seen before it comes from the
> primal-apparently you believe in evolution-I don't know. Sure. But anyway
> whether you do or not. [garble I think he said something about the
> nucleotides in the context of what follows--grm] apparently they are not
> chemically determined and you are very impressed by that. So is it your
idea
> that the intelligent agent came and designed each one of those genes?
>
> Meyer: I think an intelligent agent was necessary to explain the origin of
> the information necessary to build the first living cell. It is a separate
> argument to have about whether or not the Neo-Darwinian process was
> sufficient to build new enzymes. For example you were talking about in
vivo
> I don't think that every time you get a there are all kinds of biological
> processes in replicating this DNA so obviously I don't believe that every
> time you have a new gene being built that that's evidence for this direct
> action of agency.
>
> Ptashne: Its just that your.. This part I can understand. So your idea is
> that the outside agent was there [garble- to tinker out? --grm] the
> eukaryotic cell. Is that the idea?
>
> Meyer: No I am confining the argument to the origin of life. And there I
am
> saying that the best explanation for the origin of information is
> intelligence.
>
> Ptashne: Well can you see why what we need to know is what would count
as
> life? Yeah what is life, I mean are you talking about the first
replicating
> molecule so then everything subsequently follows? Or are you talking
about.
>
> Meyer: I' m talking about getting the information out of chemistry brute
> chemistry. And there's no evidence that that can happen. And that's the
> point.
>
> Ptashne: ok so all those..
>
> Meyer: vis a vis but the object of explanatory interest is the cell, you
> gotta get to that Right? That exists now that's the target for origin of
> life theories.
>
> Ptashne. Most biologists, we think the cell was probably quite a ways
> [something about the cell being down the line quite a ways.]
>
> Meyer: They're presupposing. That's theory driven language. And your
> presupposing that you know that some kind of chemical evolution came
about.
>
>
> Judson broke in at this moment to take a question from the Sarkar.
>
> Judson: I just wonder if we had this discussion with each panel
[garble-grm]
> Sarkar: Can you make one experimental prediction from your model?
>
> Meyer: One of the other areas I, I'd just like to get a chance to chat
since
> you got here. But ah One of the other areas. I think that design has been
> quite heuristically truthful. You see that in the past even if people
aren't
> operating on an explicitly design model there is a lot of reverse
> engineering that has gone on in the history of molecular biology. And one
> thing to say about that is that you have the Darwinian approach in the
> broadest sense where you see organisms manifesting the appearance of
design
> and you have a design theoretical approach where people think there are
> things that they are designed they look designed because they really were
> designed. Ah you might have of course a lot of experimental problems in
> exactly the same way because both groups of theorists would be thinking
that
> there . ah
>
> [note: Steve didn't give a single experiment that could be performed to
> support his view. This avoidance occurred over and over. And believe me,
> even the Christians in the audience noticed it.-grm]
>
> Sarkar: Come on lets talk about your individual response to Mark
> [Ptashne-grm]
>
> Meyer: yeah
>
> Sarkar: Its salient that in your point of view, in fact, there is nothing
> useful. I think I think What we are saying is, the point is that every
time
> we talk about Drosophila or hypercycles or something like that we can make
> predictions. Most of the predictions are announced before so you write
> about it and its really hard to get the hypercycles going and things of
the
> sort. But what I am asking about is So there is a specific model a class
of
> specific models about the origin of information and life we know how to do
> experiments on them So the particularly one you are proposing, what is the
> analogous claim? For example with the hypercycle one of the early claims
> that you got from the cycle itself was the [garble] that there was a
whole
> worry of whether you can get from fifty nucleotides to a hundred
nucleotides
> without the presence of catalysts. But we think it would be the correct
> catalysts. That's the level we operate at. What's the corresponding level
of
> analysis in your model?
>
> Meyer: For example when Dembski couldn't quite pin you down a few minutes
> ago he said he was vaguely uneasy and he made a prediction He said that ah
> he said you were missing information. We think that starting from purely
> chemical and physical antecedents you 're not going to generate continuous
> increases in information content where we can specify this information.
> Secondly if you assume something like for example, Behe's notion of
> irreducible complexity that's going to pose coupling that with say
> constraint principles in engineering that's going to suggest that there
are
> some limits to variability. So there are some design theorists like Victor
> Cherre[sic?-grm], who are interested in mapping out how wide the envelopes
> of variability are and what levels they might occur in the phylogenetic
> hierarchy. We have a developmental guy, Jonathan Wells, who like many
other
> developmental biologists is well aware that there are a number of
important
> developmental processes which are responsible for body plans or that are
> not captured in an strictly Darwinian view. if you have to shuffle DNA to
> generate new biological form if that's your model, then you are going to
be
> less likely to look at things in the developmental world that suggest that
> there are limits to what DNA shuffling can accomplish. And so he is
pursuing
> research on topics that have been excluded because the Darwinian model has
> dominated the theoretical landscape and so I think that is the level
> different perspectives function heuristically to open up different
problems.
>
> [note that he didn't give a single SPECIFIC experimentally verifiable
> prediction. And this is what is wrong with ID-grm]
>
> Judson: I would add to my list of cautions about the way we use language.
> The Darwinian model is certainly many many things There are lots of things
> in Darwin that are not in the Darwinian model. The Darwinian model has
lots
> of things that are not explicitly or even implicitly about the origin of
> life issue. I have time for one more question. And I will impose a
> preliminary rule a [garble] rule in response to Mark's comment. Are there
> any women who would like to ask a question? Yes all right.
>
> Questioner: I can probably yell. I'm just, I'm trying to understand the
> connection between the designer as Dr. Meyer has defined specificity and
low
> probability. And I was thinking like a simple thing like you cut open a
> tree trunk there are a number of rings to be found which give you specific
> information with a low probability that it would occur just by chance. But
> you know we know how to explain this simply by a chemical processes.
That's
> the kind of information we can take as specific and low probable? Or is
this
> not your position?
>
> Meyer: That is a biological content and I confine the argument to chemical
> evolution.
>
> [avoiding answering the question-just confining his argument to safe
> territory.-grm]
>
> Questioner: But you draw analogy.
>
> Meyer: Specifically it is a biological process.
>
> Questioner, But then I don't know why you use an example of a computer
chimp
> as what you say is the existence of a designer. Well we have something
that
> is low probability and specific. If you are saying I am only talking in
> terms of biological processes in the origin of life.. You keep giving us
> examples from all these other fields about why we should make this
> inference. About why [garble] there is a designer. And I can think of many
> examples of information as you defined it, that we understand perfectly
well
> with just referring to biochemical processes.
>
> Meyer: [Meyer away from the mike and unintelligible on tape. My memory was
> that he said again that he was confining his argument to the origin of
> life.-grm]
>
> Questioner: The number of rings. If you cut open a trunk and count the
> number of rings.
>
> Meyer: [garbled] "that is generated by the biological process."
>
> Judson said that they were talking at cross purposes and ended the
session.
>
>
> glenn
>
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> Adam, Apes and Anthropology
> http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
>
> Lots of information on creation/evolution
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 29 2000 - 19:22:23 EDT