In summary, this paper:
(i) creates a dichotomy between ID and evolution which Dembski has
elsewhere denied
(ii) minimizes (or ignores) empirical evidence for evolution.
(iii) denies the demonstrated ability to test organic evolution through
retrodiction and darwinian evolution by prediction.
(iv) endows gaps in naturalistic explanations in biology with a
significance greater than that of similar gaps in other natural
sciences.
I will just pick on a few points in detail. I will use JC to
distinguish the beginning of sections containing my comments.
7b & 8. Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable?
Yes to the first question, no to the
second (snip).
On the other hand, falsifying Darwinism seems effectively impossible. To
do so one must show
that no conceivable Darwinian pathway could have led to a given
biological structure (snip).
JC How is it possible to falsify intelligent design in general (to me a
belief that the the universe is the result of the actions of a creative
designer? It is possible to falsify the Intelligent Designer of the ID
movement, by showing naturalistic paths to achieve the apparently
irreducible complexity. To me, this is the fatal flaw of the whole
movement as many will inevitability jump to the conclusion that
falsification of the second means that the first is also falsified.
This was the whole problem of Paley and Darwin and God of the gaps
thinking.
JC Secondly both evolution in general and darwinian evolution are
falsifiable. Evolution in general (descent with modification) is
falsifiable by detailed study of fossil lineages and molecular
biological studies. Darwinian evolution (natural and sexual selection)
is falsifiable by field and laboratory studies. As I recall,
neodarwinian evolution also includes for geographic isolation
12. (snip) From the design theorist's perspective, the positive
evidence for Darwinism is confined to small scale evolutionary changes
like insects developing insecticide resistance. (snip)
JC. This is understating the evidence, which goes far beyond toxin
resistance or even industrial melanism. Speciation has been observed in
historic times when new ecological niches have been created. Example I
recall include as introduced rodents in sub-antarctic islands,
appearance of indigenous arthropods to feed on introduced plants in
Australia, similar appearance of fruit flies to feed on bananas in
Hawaii, and speciation events of fish adapted to flowing waters to
tranquil waters. The changes involved in these examples included in
feeding strategies, limb and jaw morphology, and chromosome number.
Now if Dembski has alternative explanations, that is fine. But he
should not ignore these data, or even state that they don't exist. But
perhaps he doesn't know about them.
23. (snip) ...intelligent design utterly rejects natural selection as a
creative force capable of bringing about the specified complexity we see
in organisms.
JC This is an a priori statement of belief. The intelligent designer
cannot use natural selection as a creative force. This does not say
much for the intelligent designer as even we use genetic algorithms in
design. I see an implied definition of specified complexity: that which
cannot be explained by natural selection. How is this different from an
intelligent designer of the gaps?
I find it curious that Dembski should say this. His name is on the
subcommittee of the ASA Commission on Creation found on the ASA home
page. It says with respect to ID: "ID is logically consistent... with
theistic evolution..." Theistic evolution includes Darwinian variants.
24. It's evident, then, that Darwin's theory has virtually no
predictive power. (snip). Newton was able to predict the path that a
planet traces out. Darwin's disciples can neither predict nor retrodict
the pathways that organisms trace out in the course of natural history.
JC Partly false. While I think it is true that you cannot use
specifically Darwinian retrodictions for the ancestry of organisms, some
can make some general evolutionary ones. One can predict what sort of
ancestry and evolutionary pathway particular organism might have and
then look for evidence in the fossil record and in molecular biology to
test that hypothesis. If that does that work one can look for
alternative evolutionary explanations. If none of them work, and there
is good data of the fossil history and molecular biology of an organism
then the time might have come to think of non-evolutionary explanations.
With contemporary organisms, darwinian theories postulate particular
responses to changing environments. These can, and have, been tested in
both the field and the laboratory. It is specious to deny either of
these.
Dembski also confuses the differences between prediction in the physical
sciences which is perscriptive) with than in the historical sciences
(which is probablistic).
29 & 30. The same cannot be said for Darwinism and the naturalism it
embodies as a framework for
science. Suppose I were a super-genius molecular biologist, and I
invented some hitherto unknown
molecular machine, far more complicated and marvelous than the bacterial
flagellum. Suppose further
I inserted this machine into a bacterium, set this genetically modified
organism free, allowed it to
reproduce in the wild, and destroyed all evidence of my having created
the molecular machine. Suppose, for instance, the machine is a stinger
that injects other bacteria and explodes them by rapidly pumping them up
with some gas (I'm not familiar with any such molecular machine in the
wild), thereby allowing the bacteria endowed with my invention to
consume their unfortunate prey.
30(i). Now let's ask the question, If a Darwinist came upon this
bacterium with the novel molecular
machine in the wild, would that machine be attributed to design or to
natural selection? When I
presented this example to David Sloan Wilson at a conference at MIT two
years ago, he shrugged it
off and remarked that natural selection created us and so by extension
also created my novel
molecular machine. But of course this argument won't wash since the
issue is whether natural
selection could indeed create us. What's more, if Darwinists came upon
my invention of a novel
molecular machine inserted into a bacterium that allows it to feed on
other bacteria, they wouldn't
look to design but would reflexively turn to natural selection. But, if
we go with the story, I designed
the bacterial stinger and natural selection had nothing to do with it.
(snip)
JC I have quoted the above in full because it illustrates a number of
interesting points. The example itself appears to be to be a fictitious
equivalent to the bombardier beetle. Essentially: biological feature X
appears extremely improbable/complex and cannot be (easily) explained by
natural selection. It is therefore proof of special
creation/intelligent design.
What interests me about such examples in the ID movement is that they
are always biological. Why are biological features considered to be
especially indicative of ID when they are difficult to explain by
"naturalistic" mechanisms? Why not problems in astronomy and geology?
It is not that such problems do not exist. The origin of sedimentary
minerals dolomite and glauconite very problematic form many years and
still have not been completely "solved". A problem I am particular
interested in with no clear solution (but several lines of possibility)
are the spicule beds of the Late Eocene of southern Australia. Quasars
were an intractable issue for many years in astronomy, gamma ray
bursters still are. No fully satisfactory explanation for the origin of
Uranus and Neptune, or the extra solar "hot Jupiters" exists, although
there are some interesting possibilities. Why doesn't the ID movement
take astronomers and geologists to task for seeking "naturalistic"
solutions to the problems? Is it because biological systems are
perceived to be different? A deep seated vitalism, perhaps?
As a tangent to this, YEC folk would be happy to cite these as examples
of the inadaquacy of "uniformitarianism" However, they seek to explain
them through the flood (at least the geological examples) or the result
of event creation. In themselves the explanations for these phenomena
are naturalistic within a global flood. A rare exception would be
Gentry's pleochroic haloes. Why is this the case?
30(ii) Moreover, intelligent design would confirm the stinger's design
whereas Darwinism never could. It follows that a design-theoretic
framework could account for biological facts that would forever remain
invisible within a Darwinian framework. It seems to me that this
possibility constitutes a joint test of Darwinism and intelligent design
that strongly supports intelligent design -- if not as the truth then
certainly as a live possible theoretical option that must not be
precluded for a priori philosophical reasons like naturalism.
JC Two thoughts seem to be contained in the last 4 sentences of 30. A:
Darwinian explanations can never confirm design. B: A reiteration that
ID and darwinian explanations are mutually exclusive (a point he has
made in several ways earlier).
With respect to A, why should this be the case? Certainly some (like
Dawkins) have argued it, but is it necessary? Do naturalistic accounts
of origins exclude a designer? Working purely within the framework of
"naturalistic" physics and cosmology, some, like Davies orJastrow, see
evidence pointing to the possibility of some form of deistic ID.
With respect to B, a metaphysical naturalist must presuppose
"naturalistic" process. However a non- metaphysical naturalist,
especially a Biblical theist, should see no reason for naturalistic
processes excluding God or "an intelligent designer".
Respectfully
Jon
Jack Haas wrote:
> Greetings: Bill Dembski has been developing his 'intelligent design'
> ideas for a decade or so. During this period his work has been heavily
> discussed by the evangelical community and the broader scientific and
> educational world. PCSF and this list have had their chance to
> critique his ideas - often negatively. Bill's response to a recent U.
> C. Berkeley talk by National Center for Science Education director
> Eugenie Scott represents both a spirited defense of his thought and a
> chance to catch up with his current ideas. Iwould propose that the
> list read his paper (attached) and comment on it. If we get some
> thoughtful response I'd be willing to pull it together and place the
> article and a summary of responses on the ASA web page. Is he saying
> anything new these days? Has he learned anything from 'friendly'
> critics in the past? Has his critique of contemporary Darwinism
> gained ground? Where is lacking about ID for the working scientist?
> Where have his arguments gone right? Wrong? Etc., etc., etc. I have
> numbered the paragraphs for ease in making citations. ThanksJack Haas
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 26 2001 - 19:23:03 EST