"Your argument is analogous to arriving at an automated assembly plant for cars and stating that the robots "assembled" the cars and there was no need for human engineers when in fact it was human engineers who designed the robots to assemble the cars which were designed by human engineers."
The problem with this analogy is the origins of the robots: it could very well be possible that something else rather than human engineers "designed" the robots or the robots could have always existed. That said, the analogy does do a fairly good job of describing the situation we find ourseleves in. It is like we have entered an "automated" world full of machinery, assembly plants, and factories. So how do we make sense of it all?
A similar analogy was recently put forward by Mike Gene at Telic Thoughts where he more broadly and skillfully illustrates the predicament we find ourselves in:
"Consider some movie where you, the viewer, know that Jones killed Smith, because you watched it happen. Jones, of course, subjectively knows that he killed Smith. The police investigator doesn’t know this, he simply believes that Jones killed Smith because of some clues. The investigator then privately confronts Jones and accuses him of murder. Jones, privately knowing the investigator is correct, simply replies, “There is no evidence and you can’t prove it” and the investigator knows this is true.
Right there, in that scene, we see the difference between evidence and truth. Relying solely on the evidence may very well deliver only a superficial, or even false, understanding of the world."
So let's open up the comments with this: how do we determine whether design is an illustion or not, and perhaps more interesting, should we be making that judgment at all?
Note: I am a supporter for a side-by-side paradigm where those who believe design is an illusion can work productively with those who think design is not an illusion. Both side have interesting things to bring to the table while keeping each other in check.
how do we determine whether design is an illustion or not, and perhaps more interesting, should we be making that judgment at all?
ReplyDeleteIf design is something that can be objectively studied, then we can use the scientific method. Based on the tenets of design theory, what predictive hypotheses can one make to determine if design happened?
Unfortunately for the design camp, there is no design theory. It is restricted to "some entity did something at some time using some mechanisms."
If we knew the entity, we could make predictions based on the properties of the entity (similar to looking for diagnostic gnawing marks left by hyenas who consume bones). But that is not possible.
If we knew the something that the entity did, we could make predictions based on the knowledge of how that happened, or again look for the fingerprints of the entity in the design. Oops, that seems to be problematic as well.
If we knew the time that this happened, we could make predictive hypotheses based on what should have happened since that time. Bummer; no time is specified in ID theory.
If we knew the mechanisms, again we could look for the evidence that such mechanisms were employed (similar to looking for diagnostic flint-kapping marks on a putative stone tool). Dang, ID theporists give us no specific information about the mechanisms.
So we are left with philosophical meanderings, rather than scientific activities. That might be interesting, and it sure can be entertaining. But it ain't science.
When ID comes up with more specificity re who, how, when and where design is thought to have occurred, then we can apply scientific methods (i.e. predictive hypotheses and directed experimentation) to this question. Absent such specificity, however, we are forced to philosophize. And that is remarkably unproductive and unsatisfying, don't you think?
Don't get me wrong, I do think that it would be incredibly exciting to find evidence of design. Unfortunately the design theorists seem to have left us no avenues to proceed in that direction!
"Note: I am a supporter for a side-by-side paradigm where those who believe design is an illusion can work productively with those who think design is not an illusion. Both side have interesting things to bring to the table while keeping each other in check."
ReplyDeleteDuly noted. The problem you're ignoring is that those who think design is not an illusion lack the faith and integrity to put their hypotheses to the test.
They are frauds who have nothing to bring to a scientific table. Science is about producing new evidence in the process of testing hypotheses, not apologetics and debate.
I don't know if you are aware of this classic example, but if not, perhaps it can provoke some thoughts about whether design is an illusion.
ReplyDeleteThe recurrent laryngeal nerve innervates, as you might guess from the name, the larynx. This is the nerve which, if damaged during thyroid surgery, gives you a hoarse voice. It is a branch of the vagus nerve, whose other branches supply branchiomotor innervation to most laryngeal and pharyngeal muscles; provide parasympathetic fibers to nearly all thoracic and abdominal viscera down to the splenic flexure; and receive the special sense of taste from the epiglottis.
As with all cranial nerves, the vagus originates during development as an outgrowth of the developing brain and brain stem. The branches that pass into the abdomen, as well as the branch that innervates the larynx, grow downward toward that region of the developing embryo. At the same time the heart and aorta are developing, and the recurrent laryngeal nerve grows under the developing aortic arch, which now blocks the way back toward the head. In order to get to the larynx, which develops later, this nerve must pass under the arch and grow backward toward the head. Once this is accomplished, it joins up with the larynx to form a functional connection. All vertebrates have this same developmental pathway.
One of those vertebrates is the giraffe. The detour around the aortic arch adds several meters to the required journey for this nerve.
If you understand the anatomy, you can easily see that an intelligent design would be to have the laryngeal nerve branch off to innervate the larynx on its way DOWN the neck, rather than to require a trip back up the neck, especially in the giraffe. Design cannot explain this reality. But common descent, coupled with a cursory knowledge of developmental biology, explains it quite well.
Design is an illusion in this case, and in many other cases which biologists have elucidated. Evolution often leads to inefficient designs, because of historical constraints. In this case, once one understands the developmental pathway of these nerves in fish, the lowest vertebrates, which have no necks at all, this bad design becomes explicable.
How would ID explain this anatomy?
dave said:
ReplyDelete"If we knew the entity,..."
So remove knowledge of the entity from the equation. What we're left with are what Mike Gene often refers to as clues, and these clues can point towards design as an acceptable inference.
"So we are left with philosophical meanderings, rather than scientific activities. That might be interesting, and it sure can be entertaining. But it ain't science. ...
"Don't get me wrong, I do think that it would be incredibly exciting to find evidence of design. Unfortunately the design theorists seem to have left us no avenues to proceed in that direction!"
I have my issues with design, as well. IMO, the design detection tools currently proposed (EF and Design Matrix) are inadequate due to subjective parameters. I also think ID missed a step by not fully incorporating Information Theory (IT).
ID and IDM needs to take a step back and develop IT to the point where they can use it to detect design. Based on my limited knowledge of IT and biology, I have made "a layman's attempt" to lay the foundation for any future design detection with the Conceptual Design Framework (still under development)
"I don't know if you are aware of this classic example, but if not, perhaps it can provoke some thoughts about whether design is an illusion.
The recurrent laryngeal nerve..."
Forgive me if the following is an indirect response, but I think it is relevant.
Another classic example is the inverted design of the vertebrate retina. However, after further study, it would appear that this objection is no longer valid. I will provide a couple of papers here and here for reference.
"However, consideration of the very high energy demands of the photoreceptor cells in the vertebrate retina suggests that rather than being a challenge to teleology the curious inverted design of the vertebrate retina may in fact represent a unique solution to the problem of providing the highly active photoreceptor cells of higher vertebrates with copious quantities of oxygen and nutrients."
-Michael Denton
Therefore, what may look like "bad" design at first glance may actually have a very good reason for being "designed" that way. So while the recurrent laryngeal nerve may look like a poor design at this time, I will wait for further research on the specific subject armed with the knowledge that similar "poor designs" have been shown to be "unique" and "innovative" solutions.
On a side note, thank you for keeping your language respectful, dave. Other can learn from your example.
So what are the "clues"? How do they "point towards design"? Finally, and most importantly, what predictive hypotheses and experiments have resulted from these clues?
ReplyDeleteTo my knowledge, the answer to the last question is still nada. Unless ID can develop an explanatory framework, from which predictions and experiments can flow, it will remain firmly in the camp of philosophical meanderings. What explanatory framework has it provided? What am I missing?
Re the recurrent laryngeal nerve, I did not mention it merely as another example of bad design. In line with the comments above, the purpose was to ask "How does design explain this?" Evolutionary theory and developmental biology explain it quite well. In order for ID to have any traction, it will have to explain not just this design, but also all of the other things that evolutionary theory currently explains. That's just the baseline for a new paradigm. So let's start there. Beyond that, any paradigm hopeful of supplanting a successful current paradigm will have to explain things that the current paradigm can't explain. ID is a long way from step one, and a lot further away from step two.
Re Denton's notion about the vertebrate retina, it still ignores the question about who, when, where and how this design was implemented. So pointing to a higher functionality doesn't gain you anything over evolutionary theory, which would predict the exact same thing. You need to do BETTER than the current paradigm; it isn't good enough to say that you have an explanation, particularly when the competing explanation explains it as well AND has a mechanistic framework that allows predictions.
dave, I have this sneaky suspicion that we are "arguing past" one another. So let me try to directly answer at least one of your points: prediction (or lack thereof).
ReplyDeleteI believe Michael Denton in his 1999 book, Nature's Destiny, made a prediction of sorts based on design/teleology that said non-coding or junk DNA have function and are not evolutionary relics. And I believe Dr. Stephen Meyer made a similar prediction in an open letter he wrote around the same time.
Thus, there can be predictions based on a design inference. I will admit that after the above prediction, there are scant few (if any) published predictions based on design inferences that I am aware of.
That said, based on what I have read, design is capable of competing with "evolutionary theory" (in quotes because I am not quite sure which theory you mean) once someone goes through the work of developing the predictions of design inferences.
dave said:
ReplyDelete"Re the recurrent laryngeal nerve, I did not mention it merely as another example of bad design."
Yet are you not suggesting or implying "bad design" by saying: "If you understand the anatomy, you can easily see that an intelligent design would be to have the laryngeal nerve branch off to innervate the larynx on its way DOWN the neck, rather than to require a trip back up the neck, especially in the giraffe."?
I believe Michael Denton in his 1999 book, Nature's Destiny, made a prediction of sorts based on design/teleology that said non-coding or junk DNA have function and are not evolutionary relics. And I believe Dr. Stephen Meyer made a similar prediction in an open letter he wrote around the same time.
ReplyDeleteThus, there can be predictions based on a design inference. I will admit that after the above prediction, there are scant few (if any) published predictions based on design inferences that I am aware of.
But that "prediction" cannot be made from pure ID principles (some entity did something at some time using some method or tool).
And it is still true that the vast majority of DNA in metazoans is junk with no apparent function. The "prediction" will only come true if ALL of it is assigned a function; that seems unlikely at present since much of it is obviously ancient baggage like pseudogenes and ERV insertion sites.
And no ID scientist bothered to test that prediction; they just waited until real scientists did the work of sequencing genomes and looking at regulatory sequences and such.
Finally, there is a perfectly valid evolutionary explanation for everything that has been observed so far. ID, if it is to distinguish itself from its competitor, must make at least one prediction FROM ID PRINCIPLES that can be tested, and if tested, provides a new data point that cannot be explained by evolutionary processes and mechanisms.
Look, we both should understand that a mechanistic framework is required in order for a scientific theory (or hypothesis or inference, for that matter) to be valuable. ID has no mechanistic framework. It is purposefully vague re the mechanisms (who, what, when, where, how); it cannot generate testable hypotheses and thus can never be tested against its competitor. Why is that fact so often overlooked by those who are enamored with this notion?
That said, based on what I have read, design is capable of competing with "evolutionary theory" (in quotes because I am not quite sure which theory you mean) once someone goes through the work of developing the predictions of design inferences.
It's been 11 years. Even if we grant that the junk DNA prediction is a valid example (and i don't think that it is), ten years is a ridiculously long time for a powerful explanatory theory to hang fire. Ten years after Prusiner hypothesized the existence of prions, he had the Nobel Prize for that discovery. Ten years after Peter Mitchell hypothesized chemiosmosis, he had the Nobel Prize as well.
It ain't happening scientifically, at least from this working scientist's perspective.
Re the recurrent laryngeal nerve, I did not mention it merely as another example of bad design."
ReplyDeleteYet are you not suggesting or implying "bad design" by saying: "If you understand the anatomy, you can easily see that an intelligent design would be to have the laryngeal nerve branch off to innervate the larynx on its way DOWN the neck, rather than to require a trip back up the neck, especially in the giraffe."?
The key word is MERELY. Sure, it is an example of seemingly bad design. But it is ALSO a case where I'd like to know how ID principles explain the facts that evolutionary principles explain easily.
It has finally hit me. We are "arguing past one another" (to a degree).
ReplyDeleteI am NOT advocating ID. I AM proposing that an inference to design is valid as long as it focuses on objective parameters common to engineering (or active) design. Then the design inference (or what I will call passive design) can be used to make predictions.
I think it is clear now that I need to post on active and passive design. Otherwise, there will be more "arguing past each other" occuring.
It has finally hit me. We are "arguing past one another" (to a degree).
ReplyDeleteI am NOT advocating ID. I AM proposing that an inference to design is valid as long as it focuses on objective parameters common to engineering (or active) design. Then the design inference (or what I will call passive design) can be used to make predictions.
How does your "design inference" differ from that of Behe or Dembski? I'll be interested to hear about it, and even more about the designer, since without some information about the designer (who, when, how etc.), I can't comprehend how it could lead to testable predictions.
I think it is clear now that I need to post on active and passive design. Otherwise, there will be more "arguing past each other" occuring.
I'll look forward to reading that.
JJS wrote
ReplyDeleteI believe Michael Denton in his 1999 book, Nature's Destiny, made a prediction of sorts based on design/teleology that said non-coding or junk DNA have function and are not evolutionary relics. And I believe Dr. Stephen Meyer made a similar prediction in an open letter he wrote around the same time.
Thus, there can be predictions based on a design inference. I will admit that after the above prediction, there are scant few (if any) published predictions based on design inferences that I am aware of.
And Dave responded:
But that "prediction" cannot be made from pure ID principles (some entity did something at some time using some method or tool).
Dave is right: That prediction requires assumptions beyond merely "an intelligent designer did it." Specifically, it requires an assumption about the designer, namely that it designs (and manufactures) according to a 'waste not' principle. Now, where in ID "theory" does that come from? What principle of ID theory implies that the intelligent agency is frugal and makes only functional stuff?
Worse, can one maintain that assumption throughout an ID account of the evidence? IS the designing agency always frugal? If not, what governs its frugality or lack thereof?
Assumptions don't come for free; they have to be justified. How does Denton (or Mike Gene) justify that one?