Evolution Engineered

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor

2011-02-04T22:57:00.004-07:00

A physicist's wet dream, or just a cool video? You decide. ;)

HT: Small Dead Animals

Best Start to Hockey Game ... EVER!

2011-02-04T22:42:00.003-07:00

"35 seconds in! Three fights and a goal! You havin' fun yet?!"

View the fun, here.

Back at Blogspot (For Now)

2010-12-03T15:19:00.002-07:00

EE.com seems to be having some issues. So until they get sorted out, I'll be at the "old" blogspot blog. Not that I was blogging very often these days anyway!

Moving Out!

2009-04-28T21:13:00.002-06:00

I've been thinking of moving EE to a new location for a while, and now it has finally happened. EE is now at evolutionengineered.com

I will be moving some of my favourite posts over in the next few days/weeks. And there will be new posts coming soon too.

It's been fun here at evolutionengineered.blogspot.com, and I hope the fun continues at evolutionengineered.com

See you on the other side!

The Stanley Cup Playoff Post

2009-04-24T15:30:00.002-06:00

It's the best time of the year! Stanley Cup Playoffs are here! In an earlier comment, I predicted the teams for the Conference Finals: Detroit and Chicago in the West; Boston and Carolina in the East (from which one can infer - correctly I might add - that I predicted the Rangers would beat the Caps!)

All comments regarding the playoffs and other hockey news is welcome here!

I know this is late, but at least the first round hasn't ended yet.

Gravity Works! (Well, Sort of)

2009-04-24T15:16:00.002-06:00

"Is there something we don’t know about GRAVITY?”* was the cover story for the March 2009 issue of Astronomy. This piqued my interest since I recall reading an article last year about the Pioneer spacecraft not being where they were expected to be (of course, I neglected to bookmark it and now can’t find it. Help, anyone?), and I was curious if this article expanded on the Pioneer anomaly.

The author, Dr. John D. Anderson (formerly of NASA’s JPL and now a consultant for the Juno and Rosetta space missions), began with a very brief historical overview of gravitational theories, from Newton to Einstein. To date, Newtonian and Einsteinian (sp?) gravity has worked quite well for astronomers. However, there have been some curious anomalies.

The first two anomalies mentioned are relatively minor. First, the Moon’s orbit around the Earth is becoming more elliptical.

“[James G.] Williams [of Caltech’s JPL] reported in 2006 that the distance difference between the Moon’s farthest and closest approach to Earth is increasing nexpectedly by about 0.2 inches (6 millimetres) per year. ...

“After accounting for changes expected from tidal friction, Williams still has a residual change in the Moon’s orbit that he can’t explain.”

Second, the value of the Astronomical Unit (AU) is increasing by about 7 metres (or 0.000 000 047%) per century. IMO, these two anomalies can be considered trivial since the changes are so extremely small that one could consider them, and their effects, negligible.

Dr. Anderson then focused on the Pioneer Anomaly, that there seems to be some mysterious and unexpected force slowing down the probes:

“The tracking data showed that, in 1998, the Pioneer 10 spacecraft was about 36,000 miles (58,000 kilometres) short of what we expected, based on the laws of motion given by Newton and Einstein.. …

“The situation with Pioneer 11 is similar. …we have determined the spacecraft is about 3,700 miles (6,000 km) short of its predicted distance. It is as if something is putting the brakes on both spacecraft by just the right amount that they both change their speed at the same amount in the same interval of time.”

The final anomaly mentioned deals with “anomalous orbital energy changes of six spacecraft that flew by Earth for gravity assists… These changes do not obey Newton’s law of gravity.” These spacecraft include Galileo, Rosetta, and NEAR Shoemaker. The unexpected speed increases were small (from 1.8 mm/s for Rosetta to 13.5 mm/s for NEAR). At first glance, the data appears to suggest an inverse proportional relationship between magnitude of speed increase and closest approach to Earth (the closer the approach to Earth, the greater the magnitude of speed increase).

Are there explanations for these anomalies using already understood physical mechanisms? A proposal to explain the Pioneer anomaly is heat radiating from the Pioneer spacecraft. However, Dr. Anderson notes that if this were the case, then the rate of deceleration would have decreased instead of staying constant as observed for 11 years. With respect to the fly-by anomaly, currently understood effects have been found to be negligible or only account for a small fraction of the speed increase.

So is a new theory of gravity required? Dr. Anderson focused on one proposal - modified Newtonian dynamics, or MOND. Anderson notes that MOND “is not a theory, but a modification that simply fits the data.” The modifications are due to another anomaly, this one at the galactic scale.

“Since the 1970s, astronomers have known that the outer regions of galaxies appear to violate Newton’s gravity laws. We would expect the stars in a galaxy’s outer regions to travel in elliptical orbits with their orbital speeds decreasing with increasing distance. However, this is not observed. Instead of decreasing, the speeds are essentially constant over a wide region of the galaxy.”

The current theory in play to explain the above effect is “that the galaxies actually contain large quantities of unseen material [dark matter] that hold the stars in the galaxy.” Anderson acknowledged that if MOND is correct, dark matter would be superfluous and discarded.

I found Dr. Anderson’s article interesting and informative. First, I find astronomy very interesting (personal interest). Second, the article never made over-reaching and/or grandiose claims. Dr. Anderson simply stated the facts and the direction of research being done, but reported them in a manner that grasped my attention and interest. Finally, the article served as another reminder that we don’t know everything about our world and universe. Current theories, as well as they may perform, represent an incomplete view of our world and universe. Alternative thinking should not only be scrutinized, but welcomed.

*The article capitalized GRAVITY.

Now That I Have Some Free Time...

2009-03-23T22:30:00.003-06:00

I find that free time to spend at EE is hard to find these days. One of my goals is to "tie up some loose ends" here that have been bugging me.

One of them is an apology to comments of Full Disclosure. One of these days, I will learn to shut down comments on specific threads.

I am also introducing two more blogs to the blogroll. I find Allen MacNeill to be one of the more engaging critics over at TT. Thus, I am re-including "The Evolution List" to the Blog Roll.

The second one is for the "truly brave" to dare to lurk/comment (for the dense, I'm joking). After lurking around "The Swamp"/"After the Bar Closes", I don't see what the big deal is about foul-mouthed adult men and women. After all, I've been to Fort McMurray! ;) So in a continuing effort to provide balance to EE, I'm including AtBC in the Blog Roll.

To close, I'm still alive. I'm thankful to be working and I am busy at home with family and home projects. But I also hope to still contribute to EE every now and then.

UPDATE (5-Apr-2009): AtBC, being a forum not a blog, is being moved to the FYI section.

Full Disclosure(?)

2009-03-11T22:54:00.003-06:00

Are you a creationist? Do you believe in Teh Flood?

This was the second time I was asked/accused of being a creationist at TT. I don't like this question for several reasons:

1. It assumes there is something wrong with being a creationist (there isn't),
2. It's dishonest,
2a. The question seems more suited to distracting from the original argument,
2b. It isn't a strict yes or no question
3. If the one question answers yes, then, in the questioner's mind, this poisons all arguments from the one questioned.

To clear the air, I've offered to give full disclosure, but this has the drawback of never completely satisfying the questioner. I could make my position clear, but there would either be some aspect I'd be "overlooking" or it would give the questioner reason to disregard my arguments.

Also, one must keep in mind that my position - just like everyone else's - should be considered tentative. For instance, as recent as last May, I didn't consider common descent to be valid. However, that position has changed recently.

That said, I offer the following as insight as to where I am coming from. I will not respond to any comments on this thread. In fact, as soon as I see them, I will delete them.

-I am a Christian who accepts the Nicene Creed and the doctrine of the Trinity (God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)
-I believe God worked through 40 different people to create the 66 documents that make up the canonical Bible and I believe that the overarching message to be consistent and (in general) non-conflicting
-I believe Jesus entered human history and died on the cross to bridge the gap between God and man that was created by man's disobedience to God.
-I believe the universe is approximately 14 billion years old
-I believe the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old
-As a structural engineer, I depend on the laws of physics and chemistry in order to do my work properly, and I have no problem believing the validity of such laws.
-As a means to acquiring knowledge, I believe science and its laws have finite and definable limits, and it is the duty of science to determine such limits.

Is that enough to ~~convict~~ categorise me as being a creationist?

A Balanced Essay On The State Of ID

2009-03-11T22:46:00.002-06:00

It's late, but I wanted to draw attention to (IMHO) is one of the more neutral and balanced essays regarding the scientific status of Intelligent Design. I hope to write in more detail about it at a later date.

Click here for the essay.

HT Bradford @ TT

Fire MacTavish!

2009-02-07T23:58:00.003-07:00

I can be fairly patient as an Oiler fan, but I've reached my limit. Nine years of mediocrity is enough! The Oilers need to clean house and fire head coach, Craig MacTavish! And while they are at it, clean house and let the rest of the coaching staff go, too.

This is an open thread for those sports fans who need to vent.

New Addition To The Blog Roll

2009-01-18T09:23:00.003-07:00

It is always flattering to find out you have a following. EE has two followers, one of which I don't ever recall having the pleasure of discussing issues with on EE or elsewhere. (If we have, please refresh my memory).

Checking out Alaninnont's blog, Logically Wondering About Existence, he strikes me as an honest seeker of knowledge. So I will be listing his blog in my Blog Roll for now so EE visitors can check it out too.

Note: I dropped Darwinian Fundamentalism from the Blog Roll due to lack of posting (no posts since end of October).

Probabilistic Design

2009-01-17T14:54:00.003-07:00

(This post originally appeared Jan. 14, 2009 at TT. I have re-posted here for further input.)

Approximately thirty years ago, the design methodology for structural engineers was deterministic. Discrete values were used to define loads/demand (D) and resistances/capacity (R). In the Working Stress Design method (WSD), a design was considered satisfactory if the ratio of R to D (representing the nominal resistance and nominal demand, respectively) was greater than or equal to a prescribed factor of safety, whose minimum value was based on engineering experience and was different depending on the structural element being designed. There are drawbacks to the WSD method*, one of which is it doesn’t adequately account for the variability inherent in R and D.

Today, most structural engineers incorporate probabilistic design into a new design philosophy called Limit State Design (LSD). From my graduate class notes:

“[LSD] is a design philosophy that requires the designer to recognize the various limit states for his/her structure and design to reduce the probability of each of these limit states being exceeded to an acceptably low level.”

It is now widely recognised that there are uncertainties in determining both R and D. Uncertainties in D (loads/demand) are due to the fact that they may vary depending on location and time (eg. there are no snow loads in summer, change of use). Different types of loads acting in combination serve to increase the amount uncertainty. There are three main factors that affect uncertainties in R (resistance/capacity): geometry, material properties and theory. The geometry of the member may be different than assumed during design (this is especially commonplace for cast-in-place concrete members). Similarly, material properties, such as strength, may be different than assumed. The strength of the member is determined using simplified equations that may not exactly represent the behaviour, which can be quite complex.

The range of values for R and D are assumed to be represented by lognormal distribution curves (See Figure 1). This assumption has been found to be reasonable because of the control of material properties and positive skewness of known load distribution curves. When R and D are plotted on the same graph, the location of the non-zero probability of failure is the region where the two curves overlap (D > R). This method of determining the likelihood of failure is known as statistical interference.

A convenient way to assess the probability of failure (D > R) is to consider a single lognormal distribution curve called the safety margin or S, where S = R – D (see Figure 2). The portion of the curve on the negative side of the graph (D > R) represents the probability of failure. This location is bound by bs_S where b is the safety or reliability index and s_S is the standard deviation for S. Figure 2 implies the higher b is, the lower the probability of failure will be.

However, most engineers (including myself) prefer to use deterministic values rather than probability distributions in their design calculations. Thus, the LSD method uses nominal values of D and R that are multiplied by load and resistance factors, respectively, that incorporate a low probability of failure. For a design to pass, the factored resistance must be greater than or equal to the factored demand, or f R ≥ aD, where f is the resistance factor (generally less than 1) and a is the load factor (generally greater than 1). The equations for f and a are derived using the lognormal distribution curve S (Figure 2) along with statistical mathematics and algebra. Thus, when engineers use the LSD, they can use discrete (nominal) values for R and D while accounting for uncertainties using load factors that were developed using probabilistic design theory.

Now that we've seen how structural engineers make use of probability theory in their designs, let's shift gears a bit. Is it plausible that the engineering method used to design life's biodiversity was based on probabilistic design? A piece of supporting evidence is that several evolutionary mechanisms tend to be stochastic processes, which means their behaviour could be potentially represented by distribution curves (normal, lognormal, or other). Thus, these curves have the potential to be incorporated into an engineering design methodology to design the first life form to evolve according to a preconceived plan (i.e. design objective).

I’m not alone in suggesting probabilistic design could have been part of the engineering design method used by a front-loading engineer.

“Life’s designer may have also made an intelligent use of chance. …the bait could have been the entire cell, or set of heterogeneous cells. What the blind watchmaker could subsequently find was then constrained by the carefully chosen initial conditions. …life’s initial conditions [may] have been rigged by the design of the cell’s architecture and the choice of which components to employ.” (emphasis mine)

The Design Matrix, Chapter 7, p. 153

The terms “bait” or “baiting evolution” are mentioned (in one form or another) several times in Chapter 7. IMO, this suggests that a front-loading engineer could use stochastic properties of evolutionary mechanisms to design the structure of the first life forms to achieve certain design objectives (my apologies to Mike if this was not his intended message).

Let me be clear. I am not suggesting that probabilistic design was actually used by a front-loading engineer. I am only saying this is an intriguing, yet plausible, option that deserves a closer look.

*This is not to say that structures designed to WSD were unsafe and are ready to collapse at any moment. Quite the opposite: WSD would generally lead to “overly” safe, robust, and (more often than not) costly structures as compared to structures designed using LSD method.

A Challenge

2009-01-17T14:45:00.003-07:00

Lately, I've found myself quoting and referring to The Design Matrix to answer questions from critics of front-loaded evolution (FLE). A lot of frustration could be avoided if the book was actually read and any references could be quickly looked up by both advocates and critics.

I also want to thank the critics here at EE by name.

Freelurker
Dave R.
Art Hunt
Tony Hoffman

I hold you to a high standard that I've found most critics of my TT posts do not possess.
(Please let me know if you don't want your name in this post and I'll remove ASAP).

In the spirit of a challenge given to me first by Dave R., I wish to issue a challenge to all critics who have NOT read The Design Matrix (DM). If you read DM, I'll read a book of your choice.

Deal?

UPDATE 22-Jan-2009: I have one stipulation: the proposed book should be of comparable price with DM (currently just under $20 at Amazon). And kudos to Dave for taking me up on my challenge. I knew you'd be first! :)

World Junior Champs Again!

2009-01-06T21:52:00.002-07:00

Oh Canada! Five in a row! Again!

Hockey is Canada!
Canada is hockey, period!

Mike Gene's New Blog

2009-01-06T21:40:00.002-07:00

Sometime over the Christmas holidays, the original Design Matrix blog was hacked and can no longer be accessed. Unfortunately, it looks likely that all the postings from that blog have been lost. idthink.net was also affected but Mike saved all the postings from it and plans to re-post them soon.

But Mike is taking the lemons dealt to him, and making lemonade by starting The Design Matrix blog anew. Comments can even be left, something that couldn't be done very easily at the old site. I encourage you all to visit and participate in the discussions.

Oh yes, and a Happy 2009 to y'all!

New Book Order (And I Mean It This Time)

2008-12-26T15:20:00.002-07:00

Several months ago, I posted on a new book order. Due to time constraints and economic uncertainty, that book order was never made. These are interesting times we live in and one has to take a myopic view of his/her day-to-day work, never knowing whether tomorrow will be the day the dreaded pink slip arrives.

But that day is not now. Using birthday money, I made an order last night through Amazon (boy, I'm good with the cheap plugs, eh?):

1. Nature, Design, and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science - Del Ratzsch
2. Design Paradigms: Case Histories of Error and Judgment in Engineer - Henry Petroski

Order is expected to arrive in January, and when they do, the Library link will be updated.

I hope you had a Merry Christmas, and may 2009 bring happiness and blessings to y'all.

Merry Christmas

2008-12-25T23:22:00.002-07:00

The Challenge of Detecting Design

2008-12-19T22:24:00.004-07:00

Mike Gene has an excellent post at The Design Matrix blog. Here's an excerpt:

"The distinction between the mind-like action of designing and the hand-like action of actualizing is key. Conceptualization precedes actualization. Thus, detecting design is much more like detecting another mind than detecting busy hands. In fact, if you did not perceive the mind, the hands would not be detected as designing - they’d be detected as doing. Without making any serious and honest effort to detect the mind-like action of designing, a focus on the hand-like action of actualization will not signal design."

UPDATE 05-Jan-2009: The above link is no longer available.

The "Engineering Hypothesis"

2008-12-19T21:20:00.004-07:00

In Chapter 7 of The Design Matrix, Mike Gene introduces his Front-Loaded Evolution hypothesis:

"Since the design of the first cells entailed the propagation of design through reproducing entities, and reproduction entails evolution, a truly intelligent designer would anticipate evolution. ... Front-loading is the investment of a significant amount of information at the initial stage of evolution (the first life forms) whereby this information shapes and constrains subsequent evolution through its dissipation. This is not to say that every aspect of evolution is pre-programmed and determined. It merely means that life was built to evolve with tendencies as a consequence of carefully chose initial states in combination with the way evolution works. ...

"Front-loading, by definition, is about designing the future through the present. It is about imposing some kind of constraint on evolution, or more simply put, it is using evolution to carry out design objectives."

I want to draw your attention to the bold type. "...using evolution to carry out design objectives." What does it mean to "use evolution"?

IMO, this entails engineering-like knowledge. Engineers need to have extensive and detailed knowledge of the materials they are working with along with the relevant mechanisms involved. In FLE, this means the designer requires the same knowledge with regards to the materials of life and evolutionary mechanisms.

FLE implies that the designer utilised this knowledge in the design of the first life form to map out probable outcomes based on how the evolutionary mechanisms would affect the life form and its descendants. However, a caveat is required:

"This is not to say that every aspect of evolution is pre-programmed and determined. It merely means that life was built to evolve with tendencies as a consequence of carfully chosen initial states in combination with [evolutionary mechanisms]."
Mike Gene, Chapter 7, The Design Matrix

Now, I shall attempt to expand upon the FLE hypothesis. Thanks to a commenter at Telic Thoughts (TT), I shall call this the "engineering hypothesis" (but I get 100% of the royalties once I trademark it).

In my first TT post, Common Descent & Common Design - An Unexpected Outcome, I wrote how I found it unexpected, yet reasonable, that through the lens of FLE that the differences between common descent and common design evaporate and that common descent would be a design preference for the designer. Using evolutionary mechanisms to do the work through time is using the available energy and materials in an efficient manner. Why re-invent when one can "borrow" from previous designs? This also limits the amount of interventions by the designer to a minimum. To clear any confusion and misunderstanding, common design used in this fashion is different than what is used by human engineers in that it is front-loaded in the first designed life form rather than inserted at various times.

One commenter stated:

"...JJS seems perilously close to admitting he expects no detectable differences between the process in his engineering hypothesis and the process currently accepted by biologists."

There is a big difference. The "engineering hypothesis" implies the currently accepted processes, while valid for accounting for the variation of biological organisms, are not sufficient to start life. Thus, the process in the "engineering hypothesis" differs from the currently accepted process at the beginning of the process.

I should state that this is not a scientific way to detect design in nature, but merely an expansion of an origin of life hypothesis, of which there are many. I hope to be able to expand upon this in future posts, both here and at TT.

EE Blog News!

2008-12-09T23:44:00.004-07:00

If there's one thing I've learned in life, it is that things change.

Blatant self-promotion warning!!!

I am now a contributing blogger at Telic Thoughts. I've always held TT in high regard, so it is an honour to post there. I plan on writing my first post soon.

I am also experimenting with W*rdPr*ss right now. I will notify everyone if I do decide to move EE. The reason for this potential change? Let's just say time and work are against me and a different location may help.

You may have noticed changes to the sidebar. I get bored easily, and my sidebar appearance is a casualty ;)

I hope to have a new post that is more relevant to EE soon. Stay tuned...

A Glimpse Of The Future

2008-12-07T09:03:00.002-07:00

Just as the analog age is coming to an end and the digitial (HD) age is upon us, along comes football in 3-D! On Thursday, the NFL Network experimented with implementing 3D technology during the Raiders-Chargers game. There were a few hiccups, but overall the reviews were largely positive (LA Times review here).

A few comments:

1. I wonder what it will be like when they work out the bugs?

2. I guess I can hold off that plasma or LCD TV. 3D is the future baby!

3. I bet Dr. Heddle can't wait for this technology to be used for NASCAR!

4. Speaking of other sports in 3D, I can't wait for this to come to hockey!

Dembski Has Dispensed With The EF. Big Deal!

2008-12-05T14:51:00.002-07:00

This is a couple of days old, but this comment by Dr. William Dembski at UD has some tickled pink:

I’ve pretty much dispensed with the EF. It suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not. Straight CSI is clearer as a criterion for design detection.

For me, it's no big deal. I've said EF has had its shortcomings here. And apparently even hard-core ID defender Dave Scott saw it, too.

The asylum is open. Keep it clean.

Free Time? What's That?? (Oh, And Don't Forget The 2 New Blogs In The Blogroll)

2008-11-30T17:18:00.005-07:00

Techne, a new contributer to Telic Thoughts, has an interesting blog called The Teleomechanist. I say interesting loosely because I've only had a chance to skim through it briefly; I need some free time to give it the attention it deserves.

Anyhoo, The Teleomechanist has been added to my blog roll, and it is getting long! I may have to do a re-organisation of my blogroll closet soon (again, need free time which I do not have much of).

Oh, and I also added the Dilbert blog, too. Can't be an engineering blog without it! ;)

UPDATE 02 December 2008: 2nd attempt of re-organising done. I'm probably going to piss off everyone with this, but keep in mind this is not final, especially with all the distractions going on around the house.

Calling All Engineers Who Want To Be A Part Of Evolution Engineered!

2008-11-23T22:48:00.003-07:00

As to be expected when your chosen profession is engineering, work has a tendency to become insanely busy, which it recently has. Couple that with house issues (one of which may make an interesting post, once it becomes resolved) and family life, and I find myself with very little time for posting and/or commenting here at EE.

I am very pleased with how EE has developed during its short existence. There have been several excellent and lively discussions (sometimes too lively!). So much so that I have not had the time to properly investigate some commenters claims.

I have come to the conclusion that EE has become such a sucess that it is too much for one practicing engineer to maintain. Therefore, I am putting out a call for any interested engineers who wish to post here at EE. I don't care if you're on one side or the other; I believe I have more than demonstrated my tolerance for hearing out both sides. I want to hear what engineers think about evolution and ID.

For those interested in writing posts for EE, email me at JJS.PEng@gmail.com

Lest We Forget

2008-11-11T15:15:00.005-07:00

I apologise for the lateness of this.

This post is dedicated to current and former soldier who fought, and still fight, for the freedom we enjoy.

I Couldn't Have Say It Any Better...

2008-11-06T16:31:00.002-07:00

"...natural selection doesn't "produce" anything. As Darwin himself wrote to his friend Charles Lyell, natural selection preserves certain forms and eliminates others. The real "engine" of change in biology is not natural selection, but rather the "engines of variation" that produce the blizzard of new forms, a few of whom survive and reproduce."

-Allen MacNeill @ TT
IMO, Allen MacNeill is absolutely correct. Natural selection cannot create/design anything. It is merely a filter.

My One (and Hopefully Only) Post on Global Warming

2008-11-06T11:00:00.004-07:00

A couple of days ago, author Michael Crichton passed away. He was a gifted storyteller and someone who was not easily swayed by mainstream thinking. I particularly enjoyed reading one of his speeches from 2003 called "Aliens Cause Global Warming". As my salute to Michael Crichton, I present his speech to you for your reading enjoyment.

Outside the Box, Back in the Blogroll

2008-11-01T22:47:00.005-06:00

I once had the blog, Outside the Box (OtB), on my blogroll to the right, but removed it due to lack of updates. I can see now that was a mistake on my part. That is an error that is quickly corrected. OtB has made its return to the EE blogroll (which is getting quite large actually!).

With that done, I found several interesting posts @ OtB regarding the reasons for his belief (parts four and five to come). I encourage you all to read them and post comments, should you feel the need, just keep them clean.

Here are some excerpts I found interesting...

"...the arguments from fine-tuning, no matter how intuitively they point to a Creator, can never prove the existence of God. For me and many others, however, Occam’s razor (the logical construct which says, “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best”) leads us to a strong likelihood of a “superintellect” First Cause. The alternate explanations, while plausible, are complex and lack evidence. It is my view that the simplest solution is to credit fine tuning to the hand of the Designer, Planner, and Creator of the universe."
-Cliff Martin, "Reasons: I. Finely-Tuned Cosmos"

"Well, a priori [reasoning from cause to effect] one should expect that the world would be rendered lawful [obedient to law and order] only to the extent that we [human beings] intervene with our ordering intelligence... [But instead we find] in the objective world a high degree of order that we were a priori in no way authorized to expect. This is the ‘miracle’ that is strengthened more and more with the development of our knowledge."
-quote from Albert Einstein as posted by Cliff Martin, "Reasons: II. Ordered Universe"

"Denton uses the term “directed evolution” to help answer the inevitable questions about how complexity of such staggering proportions could ever come to self-organize. Mike Gene suggests another term, which I prefer: front loaded evolution. Both of these theorists have proposed that the incredibly elaborate machinery inside the cell, machinery composed of variously shaped protein molecules specified by RNA blueprints, demand a designer. Not the designer of the Intelligent Design theorists who propose a designer for complex organisms. Rather, the designer of the DNA process which is capable of building such organisms over time through the processes Darwin described."
-Cliff Martin, "Reasons: III. Markers of Intelligence"

It's November, and That Means...

2008-11-01T22:28:00.002-06:00

...it's time for post-season football, Canadian style!

Unfortunately, one of my Canadian teams was eliminated today. The University of Saskatchewan Huskies fell to the Simon Fraser Clan (no that is not a typo, there is actually a team named "the Clan") 40-30.

However, the defending Grey Cup champions, the Saskatchewan Roughriders, have clinched home field for the CFL Western Semi-Finals next Saturday against the B.C. Lions. LET'S GO!!! RIDERS!!!

I'm hoping they repeat because my American teams ain't doing squat! Michigan just got eliminated from bowl contention today and the Seahawks are cursed with injuries.

In Case You Haven't Noticed...

2008-10-28T08:27:00.002-06:00

... I have tried to steer my blog, Evolution Engineered (EE), towards more engineering topics. The posts, Redundancy - A Mark of Design? and WTC7 & ID have been, in my opinion, very successful in terms of providing stimulating and entertaining discussions. I hope to continue this trend in future posts, but I also reserve the right to post on stuff that interest me (call it the blogger's home field advantage).

I hope you continue to enjoy visiting and commenting at EE.

Information Theory Post at PT

2008-10-23T10:39:00.003-06:00

I'd like to think that I have a reputation of being fair to both sides of the ID/evolution debate, giving credit and criticisms where due.

That said, I enjoyed a recent post at Panda's Thumb by PvM entitled "Information Content of DNA" (see my blog roll at the right). I found the post to be interesting and fair. I would have preferred more details (i.e. equations, reference papers) to support the claims made, but I'm sure someone will point me in the right direction.

As some of you know, I believe Information Theory is a key area of interest/research in biology and could help shed light on the ID/evolution debate. The tricky part is determining exactly what constitutes information in biology, something the PT post commented on.

Critical Thinking

2008-10-20T16:23:00.003-06:00

From a post at Mike Gene's blog. I particularly like numbers 2 and 4:

"2. understand and define terms (make others define terms, too)

4. question the conclusion: do the facts support it? is there evidence of bias? remember correlation does not equal causation."

Free Plug For AcademicFreedomBlog

2008-10-19T22:00:00.003-06:00

I like the blog AcademicFreedomBlog so much that it is part of my blog roll at the right. Like Tom Gilson at Thinking Christian (another free plug!), I find Dr. Mc's commentary to be even-handed and level-headed.

In the latest post, Baraminology and Pseudoscience, Dr. Mc made some, what I will call, in-your-face comments; direct and brutally honest (IMHO):

"The current classification structure of genus (meaning general) and species (meaning specific) is bankrupt.I don’t think that’s too strong a statement, since after hundreds of years of use a clear definition of what a "species" is has not emerged. Take for instance the coyote ( Canis latrans), the gray wolf (Canis lupus), and the black backed jackal (Canis mesomelas). They are classified as three different species in the genus Canis, yet domesticated dogs of any description are all considered to be the same species (Canis familiaris). The term virtually has no meaning. So why haven’t scientists abandoned this antiquated classification system, developed by an 18th century creationist, in favor of a more precise one? Because fuzzy boundaries serve evolution theory well. If clear boundaries are discovered between classifications of organisms, then that lends support to creationism and undermines evolution. So science is not allowed to advance in that direction! In order to keep baraminology as pseudoscience, we must live with pseudospecies."

I would encourage you to make any comments you feel are necessary over at AcademicFreedomBlog. I am too busy at work to follow the comments at EE (with the exception of this one).

Paging Dr. Heddle (or Some Other Physicist-Type Person)!

2008-09-20T23:18:00.003-06:00

Thanks to a lack of posts that I feel I can competently comment on or are worth commenting on (I blame you UD and AtBC!), I was wandering down one of my favourite site, What You Ought to Know, and watched the episode, Gravity, You Failed Us.

I want to know two things:

1. Explain in layman terms - or maybe undergrad physics terms - what the big deal is with solving for a Three-Body System, and

2. Is there something to this "Electric Universe" thingy?

Feel free to discuss here,

Cooption Confirmed?

2008-09-20T14:39:00.001-06:00

I'll just point you to Mike Gene's blog post and you can come back and discuss here.

WTC7 and ID

2008-09-19T22:35:00.002-06:00

During the comments of a recent post, it was suggested I look into the collapse of WTC7 from September 11, 2001. A theory going around the web suggested that the collapse was due to a controlled demolition. Not being a big fan of conspiracy theories (which this sounded like one to me), I was skeptical, but I looked into it and found this briefing from the National Institute of Standards and Testing (NIST) dated August 21, 2008. The following is from the linked briefing:

Determining the probable collapse sequence for WTC 7, NIST found that the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, and the fires burned out of control on six lower floors. The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories.

“When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain,” Sunder explained. “What followed in rapid succession was a progression of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the most eastern side of the building. Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns in the core of the building failed. Finally, the entire façade collapsed.”

The investigation team considered the possibility of other factors playing a role in the collapse of WTC 7, including the possible use of explosives, fires fed by the fuel supply tanks in and under the building, and damage from the falling debris of WTC 1.

The team said that the smallest blast event capable of crippling the critical column would have produced a “sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile,” yet no noise this loud was reported by witnesses or recorded on videos.

As for fuel fires, the team found that they could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to fail a critical column, and/or would have produced “large amounts of visible smoke” from Floors 5 and 6, which was not observed.

Finally, the report notes that “while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.”

A chain of probable causes was discovered and laid out in detail by the NIST investigative team. The bottom line: the evidence did NOT point towards controlled demolition.

This parallels the situation of ID: how can we determine if design is a legitimate explanation? At first glance, it may look like design, but peer deeper into the details, and the design may show itself to be an illusion.

Mike Gene has laid out how we may investigate our suspicions in The Design Matrix, but he leaves it at the investigation stage. This is perhaps due in part to ID being "a nascent protoscience".

So let's open the floor for comments. The theme is "By purpose or by accident: how can we tell?"

Welcome to BLOG-O-RAMA-RA-MA!

2008-09-19T22:30:00.021-06:00

It is BLOG-O-RAMA-RA-MA time! The rules are simple: how many posts and comments can I do in a 48-hour period?

Remember, it's not just any old blog-o-rama: it's BLOG-O-RAMA-RA-MA!!!

Post Count:
1. WTC7 and ID
2. Cooption Confirmed?
3. Paging Dr. Heddle...

Comment Count:
1. EE (yes, my blog counts too) ;P
2. Thought Provoker
3. Thinking Christian
4. Exiled From GROGGS
5. EE
6. EE
7. EE
8. EE
9. Reasonable Kansans
10. Coincidence Theories
11. EE
12. Reasonable Kansans
13. Reasonable Kansans
14. Coincidence Theories
15. Coincidence Theories
16. EE
17. EE
18. EE
19. Coincidence Theories
20. Coincidence Theories
21. EE

Paging Dr. Phil (Plait That Is)

2008-09-18T09:05:00.009-06:00

Many of you may have noticed a link I have to Dr. Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy site that debunks the Moon Landing Hoax theory quite nicely. Well, I have a bone to pick with Dr. Phil.

It's kil-AW-met-er, not KILL-o-mee-ter. So :P

And those "right-thinking people" who applauded you either don't follow hockey (which means they're not real Canadians) or they're geeks who live in their ~~mother's basement~~ own little world. So double :P

And yes I know I'm just a little bit late in responding to this, but hey, this makes a good "unofficial" start to BLOG-O-RAMA-RA-MA*, eh?

The comments for this post are reserved for humourous verbal smackdowns (but leave yo' mama out of it).

*Just for Dr. Phil, it's pronounced BLAWG-OH-RAHMAH-RAH-MAH

BLOG-O-RAMA-RA-MA This Saturday!!

2008-09-18T09:05:00.003-06:00

It's not very often I have time to roam the blogosphere and leave comments here and there. This Saturday (and possibly this weekend) will be one of those times.

So I'm having fun with this. I hereby christen this weekend BLOG-O-RAMA-RA-MA! Tune in for comments galore and maybe even a post or two!

BLOG-O-RAMA-RA-MA! Buy all our playsets and toys!

Side note: I am disabling comment moderation on a trial basis. Your comments should be appearing in real-time now.

UPDATE: It has occured to me that many may ask "What exactly is BLOGORAMARAMA?" I will set up a post listing all the comments I've left behind at various blogs on Saturday night (maybe I'll cheat and start Friday). Any bets I can make 100?

New Moderation Policy

2008-09-11T14:57:00.002-06:00

Due to recent events, I've had to change EE's Comment Moderation Policy. Up until now, all comments were posted real-time and without moderation. Now, all comments go through moderation and if I find that the insults go too far, then I reject the comment and ask that the comment be re-posted without the insults.

I apologise for the inconvenience. I hope to have an open door policy again in the near future.

Redundancy - A Mark of Design?

2008-09-08T12:09:00.006-06:00

Staying up until 3am does have its upsides. I stumbled upon an excellent NOVA episode in the wee hours of Sunday morning called "Building on Ground Zero". The program went through both the ASCE and NIST investigations into the collapse of the Twin Towers (WTC1 and WTC2). Both reports came to similar conclusions (impact and explosion of airplane coupled with weakening of steel trusses by fire brought the Twin Towers down), but attributed different mechanisms (pancake floor collapse as opposed to truss connection pulling columns inward causing fracture).

"Building on Ground Zero also focused on a design feature used frequently by structural engineers called redundancy. In structural engineering, redundancy generally means multiple load paths. The ultimate goal of a structural engineer is to safely transmit the loads to the ground. This is usually done by focusing on a primary load path. But what happens when the primary load path is compromised? If the load cannot safely get to the ground, then the equilibrium of the structure is shot and collapse (in part or in whole) occurs. If a structure is said to be redundant, then there are multiple loads paths. Redundancy is also a means to prevent progressive collapse where the failure of a single member causes the failure or collapse of the structure (in part or as a whole). In part, it was the redundancy of Twin Towers' structural design that allowed them to remain standing despite multiple columns being severed, thus allowing several hundred occupants the ability to escape.

So can redundancy in a natural object point towards design? Possibly. Taking the Mike Gene approach, let's grant that a redundant feature in a natural object is possibly the outcome of a purposeful design. In order to progress to plausibility, I propose one of the things that needs to be looked at is the context of the redundancy (i.e. does the redundancy serve a purpose?). Redundancy without meaning or context points more towards a "Myopic Tinkerer" than a "Rational Engineer".

However, there is an interesting flip side to this: I don't believe the designer of WTC1 and 2 intentionally incorporated redundancy for the events of 9/11.* This would mean that redundancy was an accidental outcome rather than purposely used for the case that several columns at a certain point would be missing. So where does this fit in to the "design paradigm" and it is possible to even know if the redundancy was purposely designed or not?

The asylum is now open. Let the comments commence!

*The tubular structure of WTC1 and 2 were designed to resist wind and earthquake loads, as well as the impact of a Boeing 707. I don't believe that the impact studies looked at the possibility that the 707 would take out several columns at a certain elevation, but I could be wrong.

It Is Official: Football Season Is Upon Us!

2008-09-03T13:15:00.003-06:00

With the NFL regular season about to kickoff on Thursday, I hereby declared the season of football officially open. Any given weekend, I now have up to four teams to follow from the NFL, NCAA, CFL (Canadian Football League) and CIS (Canadian Interuniversity Sport - not the OTHER CIS).

I am pumped about my 7-2, 1st place Riders, and am looking forward to the second-half of the CFL season.

I am pumped about the prospects of my NFL team, the Seattle Seahawks. Loudest stadium in the league, an experienced and speedy defense, and Matt Hasselbeck at the reigns means high expectations. I'm always nervous about those 10am PT starts, though, and of course, the Hawks play in Buffalo on Sunday 10am.

My college teams are enigmas.

Each year, I never quite know how the University of Saskatchewan Huskies are going to do, but they're usually near the top of the Canada West conference. A 25-0 stomping of the U of Calgary Dinos was a good start!

And then there's the Michigan Wolverines. New coach, new system, no players. Could be a long year. A bowl game would be an awesome year (how's that for reduced expectations, eh?) But that loss to Utah last weekend was painful.

Oh well, my pro teams will keep me interested.

Comments open: Are you pumped about football returning?

Blog Posts That Interest Me (For One Reason Or Another)

2008-09-02T14:50:00.003-06:00

As you may (or may not) have noticed, I have quite a few blogs listed at the right. Following what they all have to say can be quite the task. Here are some posts from the listed blogs that have caught my eye for one reason or another:

JFS Special: Eleven things you may not know about food irradiation - Junkfood Science

This blog is a personal favourite and the comprehensive post on food irradiation is one of the reasons why. Sandy Szwarc is level-headed yet not afraid to push back at the scare-mongerers.

Is evolution theory important in medical research, or not? - I'm From Missouri

I'm not a fan of the name-calling (on both sides), but this topic really needs to be looked at more closely (cue the comment flood!).

An interesting comment quoting Jerry Coyne:

"To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably."

Lying to Advance a Cause - Telic Thoughts
Bio Prof: "It Is OK to Use Some Inaccuracies Temporarily" to Sell Evolution - Darwinian Fundamentalism

I really hope this is only one man's opinion on teaching evolution.

UPDATE (03-Sept-2008): This is an awesome comment by Thought Provoker at TT. It's also entertaining to read his responses to this Coturnix fellow.

Why I'm not a Behe fan, Part I, Why I'm not a Behe fan, Part IIA: the malaria scam, Behe botches basic probability...how likely is that?, Why I'm not a Behe fan, Part IIB: abusing genetics - Quintessence of Dust

Me thinks Dr. Matheson is not a Michael Behe fan. Seriously, I have to read EoE and re-read these posts to get some proper perspective.

Please fire U.S. gymnastics coach and poor sport Martha Karolyi - Coincidence Theories

The U.S. got beat by 13-years olds. Neener! Neener! Nee! Ner!

Slavery Revisited: the lesson of John Newton - He Lives

An excellent post on one aspect of Christianity. A good lesson to all that once you accept Jesus, you do not magically become perfect.

Consider this an open thread to discuss any topic of interest.

I Like My Solar System Rare, Please!

2008-08-29T11:07:00.006-06:00

I have enjoyed my nice little break/vacation from the biological ID/evolution debates*. But I have poked my head in at several sites (including EE) out of curiosity.

A post at Telic Thoughts entitled The Uniqueness of Our Solar System caught my eye (HT: Bradford). Referencing a blog post and an online article, the post goes on to say:

"Paradigms change with time. The one advancing the belief that we inhabit a not very special solar system having an ordinary star is being challenged.

Intelligent Design has a cosmological component. If life arising is an unusual event in our universe, the formation of solar systems, with planets having earth-like conditions, might be rarer still."

A couple of not-so random thoughts:

1. When looking for a level-headed argument, I usually head over to Dr. David Heddle's blog, He Lives. It is interesting to note that while he does not think much of biological ID, he does fully support cosmological ID**. So let me do an experiment. When mentioning biological ID or IC, I get a huge response.

UPDATE (03-Sept-2008): So let me throw this out at you:"Cosmological ID is science". I am curious what the response will be. (Note: While Dr. Heddle is sympathetic towards Cosmological ID and says it is on more firm scientific ground than Biological ID, he never explicitly stated that it is science. - HT: freelurker)

UPDATE 2 (03-Sept-2008): It's always best to get it from the source (thanks Dr. Heddle).

2. I have always been intrigued by the stark differences in the various solar systems, but I have never come across a comprehensive listing of these extrasolar systems. I would like to see the following in such a listing: parent star spectral type and mass, planetary mass and diametre***, orbit details (eccentricity, closest distance to star, furthest distance to star, etc.), and comparison (both tabular and graphical) to our solar system.

*Let's face it: family, work, and my lawn will always take priority over EE. I could probably add barbecuing, football and hockey.
** To save you time, Dr. Heddle's cosmological ID posts are here, here, here, here, here, here, and probably more before 2005.
*** One must include diametre along with mass since Newton's equation for gravitational force comes into play for determining the likelihood of life - simple or complex - on these planets.

For Your Entertainment...

2008-08-13T12:13:00.003-06:00

I am not one to fall for or to espouse conspiracy theories. In fact, I think Oswald acted alone.

That said, there is a book available from amazon.uk.co called The Darwin Conspiracy by Roy Davies. From the book site, here is the synopsis:

"Charles Darwin has been hailed as the greatest scientist of the 19th century for his discovery of the secrets of evolution. Today, the impact of his work is still felt throughout the world.

But did Darwin really come up with the idea of evolution himself or did he take it from a young researcher trying to impress him?

The Darwin Conspiracy examines how Darwin struggled for years in scientific dead-ends until he was presented with the solution to the greatest scientific puzzle of his day by a naïve naturalist collecting beetles in a tropical jungle.

So began the conspiracy by which eminent scientists promoted the ideas of Darwin ahead of those of Alfred Russel Wallace in order to achieve ever-lasting fame for their greatest friend.

Using extensive research about contemporary shipping time tables and Darwin's own correspondence, the author challenges the commonly-held belief that Darwin scored a scientific breakthrough when in reality he used another man's insights for his own benefit, and committed one of the greatest scientific crimes in history.

The Darwin Conspiracy is a true story about deceit and deception and stands as an outstanding metaphor for the idea of survival of the fittest."

Based on the site, a review (see below) and a portion of the book provided, it would appear that The Darwin Conspiracy is an overview of previous research into the history of Darwin's research. I would find this interesting to see how Darwin fits in with other research done by Lamarck, Blythe and Wallace (among others).

As for the "conspiracy" charge, there may or may not be something to it. Let's grant for the moment that the upper-class Darwin was favoured over the lower-class Wallace. That Darwin was favoured over Wallace doesn't surprise me either since it is almost "natural" that the upper class will support one of their own over someone "below" them. From this alone, I don't see an active conspiracy.

For fun, let's pretend Darwin did "plagiarise" Wallace. Would this affect the science of evolution? I say no, but Darwin being the academic equivalent of common thief kind of puts a damper on Darwin Day celebrations, eh?

(HT to David Tyler @ ARN)

Peer Review .. Plus Other Notes

2008-08-11T08:31:00.002-06:00

Last week, two full years after I submitted my Master's thesis for publication, my paper was submitted to the ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering. That means I will be facing the dreaded PEER REVIEW soon! I have to say that defending my thesis was one of the most humbling experiences I have ever had, so I am NOT looking forward to this. This will probably reinforce my decision to NOT go for my Ph.D.!

In other news...

I think I should make Bilbo my agent. I get a review of The Design Matrix posted at Telic Thoughts and EE becomes THE place to comment! It almost makes me want to place ads at the asylum, but I don't think I'm ready to be a "blog whore" yet. ;) Thanks to all the new (and old) commenters. Your views and comments are respected and appreciated.

I have posted 4 reviews of The Design Matrix, and I find it interesting that the only post that has NO comments is on the Explanatory Continuum. Does this mean we're ready to discard the Traditional Template and enter a new phase of the age-old debate?

Thank you all for voting on the poll. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis won over Endless Forms Most Beautiful by a mere two votes. OK, I'll admit, one of those votes was mine, so technically Denton's book won by 1 vote.

That said, I am in a little bit of a bind. I find myself wanting to either take a break from reading evo/ID books, or just setting aside Punctuated Equilibrium and Edge of Evolution for something I am more currently interested in reading.

ID Research Themes

2008-08-03T22:04:00.010-06:00

This is the fourth in a series of posts regarding themes in Darwin’s Black Box and The Design Matrix.

"The vast majority of scientists do not view Intelligent Design as science and I happen to agree with them. ... At best, Intelligent Design may only be a nascent proto-science..."
Mike Gene, Introduction, The Design Matrix

Interesting start to a post entitled "ID Research Themes", eh? However, it would appear that Gene switches gears from his introductory comments later on:

"Actually, the concept of design can be useful as a research guide. Several years ago, while reading some scientific articles describing the proofreading process of protein synthesis, it occurred to me that an important step of information flow appeared to lack proofreading. Already aware that the process of making DNA and protein synthesis was proofread, I wondered about transcription, the process of making RNA. I could not recall ever hearing anything about proofreading being associated with RNA polymerase activity ... It struck me that this was a great opportunity to use the hypothesis of design. Since the terminal step in information transfer (mRNA to protein) is proofread, could I use [ID] to infer that the earlier step in the information transfer (DNA to RNA) was likewise proofread? Yes.

... With this hypothesis in hand, I could go into a lab and design experiments to discover whether proofreading does indeed occur during transcription. ... If I had, in fact, performed these experiments, my prediction would have been borne out. A literature search I performed after coming up with this hypothesis provided support that there is good evidence that RNA polymerase can proofread. Thus, the suspicion of design was able to direct a line of thinking that not only could generate research, but could also uncover truths and further understanding of our biological world." (Emphasis mine)
"Mike Gene, Chapter 4, The Design Matrix*

Impressive, but Mike just keeps on giving. In Chapter 10, Mike Gene lists several testable hypotheses he developed from each of the four criteria within the Design Matrix (links provided where provided):

Rationality:
1. transcriptional proofreading (from Chapter 4)
2. lagging strand synthesis
3. use of cytosine as part of the DNA molecule

Discontinuity:
4. investigating the bacterial flagellum (here too)
5. investigating the eukaryotic flagellum

Analogy:
6. degradosome (an earlier hypothesis here)
7. use of nano-wheels in the cell

Foresight:
8. assisted in developing the hypothesis of front-loading evolution

There you go! Eight (8) working design hypotheses!

To the teleologist, go! Develop your own hypotheses (or use Mike's) and design your own experiments.

To the non-teleologist, please drop your argument about ID not being able to develop a viable research programme. Mike Gene has shown that it is an empty argument

*See link to #1 if you object to this prediction.

Source:
Gene, M., The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues, 2007
http://www.idthink.net/

Next: Engineering Thinking in Darwin's Black Box and The Design Matrix

The Design Matrix Revealed

2008-08-01T12:53:00.004-06:00

This is the third in a series of posts regarding themes in Darwin’s Black Box and The Design Matrix.

All quotes in this post are from Chapter 10 of The Design Matrix.

The Design Matrix

Mike Gene’s book, The Design Matrix, is an interesting and enjoyable read which culminates in Chapter 10 where the Design Matrix (DM), a method to gauge the degree of design in a natural object, is described in detail.

The DM has four separate criteria for scoring*:

1. Analogy (A): The more similarities of biotic features to features known to be designed (engineered), the stronger the analogy.

2. Discontinuity (D): Non-teleological processes cannot explain biotic feature. When A is coupled with D, the design suspicion is strengthened.

3. Rationality (R): Does the biotic feature display function and “purpose”? IOW, would a competent engineer design it that way?

4. Foresight (F): Are there aspects to the biotic feature(s) that point towards thinking forward rather than immediate success? (Engineer with foresight vs. myopic tinkerer)

“The Design Matrix … works by taking the scoring along each criterion and fusing them together as a whole… In this way, the four criteria are treated independently as possible, yielding their own respective score. Then, the scores are simply averaged to give a final score…”

Each criterion is given a score by the user that ranges from -5 to +5 where a positive score leans towards a suspicion of design while a negative score suggests no design. For example, if the evidence either way is “strong”, then +/- 5 is scored; if moderate, +/- 3; if modest, +/-1. Zero represents a thoroughly ambiguous situation. Once all four criteria are scored, their average is taken: sum of A, D, R, and F divided by 4. The final score suggests whether a suspicion of design is warranted or not.

Mike Gene goes through several examples. While I’ll leave it to the reader to sift through the details, here is how Mike scored various objects, both natural and human designed (A, D, R, F, final score):

Pseudogene: -5, -5, -5, -3, -4.5
PCP Pathway: +1, -5, -4, 0, -2
Eye: +3, -3, +2, -2, 0
Genetic Code:+4, +2, +4, +2, +3
Book: +5, +5, +4, +3, +4.25
Car: +5, +5, +4, +4, +4.5

Thus, according to Mike’s scoring, the genetic code demonstrates a moderate suspicion of design, the pseudogene and the PCP pathway lean towards non-teleological explanations, and the eye is ambiguous. It should also be noted that the scores are subject to change should new evidence come forth.

Strengths and Weaknesses

“Again, we must be clear that the scoring is not objective. The Design Matrix is not intended to be a scientific instrument, …”

As I have surmised in previous posts, the DM is not an objective measure of design in nature. So what use does it have? Let’s look at its strengths to help us define its use.

“Combining the scores … happens to eliminate one of the most popular arguments against design – ‘god of the gaps.’ A Discontinuity score, by itself, is quite vulnerable to this complaint. But if the Discontinuity score is combined with three lines of positive indicators of design, the “gaps” complaint no longer applies.”

“Within the Matrix design is not inferred simply because there is a lack of evidence that something evolved. Instead, such considerations are simply one piece of the puzzle, where Discontinuity, combined with Analogy, Foresight, and Rationality give us a broader perspective with which to reach a tentative conclusion.”

With the DM, Mike Gene combines scores from four (mostly) independent lines of evidence into a single score that suggests whether teleological processes (design) should be suspected or not. This means that the negative evidence of IC can be augmented by positive evidence from A, R, and F, thus strengthening the design suspicion. However, the opposite can be true: a lack of positive evidence from A, R, and F weakens the suspicion of design raised by the negative evidence of IC.

The second strength of the DM is it forces each user to put their reasoning for scoring out in the open. Willy-nilly scoring won’t cut it. Each score has to be supported evidence. As in court cases, the more evidence, the stronger the case. Also, independent scoring from a separate user of the DM can point out both strengths and weaknesses in the original scoring.

Summary

“If you, the reader, still find yourself wanting independent evidence of a designer and needing some part of evolution to be disproved, you will have been disappointed.”

While the DM is not an objective measure of design in natural object, it can be a useful tool, helping to provide direction to those who wish to “follow the Rabbit**”. Suspicions of design can be strengthened and thus a direction for future research and experiments can be made clearer.

*These descriptions are brief. For a more detailed description, read Chapters 8 and 9 of The Design Matrix.
**The Rabbit and Duck theme is a favourite of Mike’s. It has its origins from this drawing, suggesting two people can look at the same thing yet see two different things. Mike defined the Rabbit as those who see design in nature and the Duck as those who see nature caused by non-teleological mechanisms.

Source:
Gene, M., The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues, 2007

Next: ID Research Themes

Irreducible Complexity

2008-07-31T15:58:00.005-06:00

This is the second in a series of posts regarding themes in Darwin’s Black Box and The Design Matrix.

Behe Starts a Furor

“By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease function.”
Michael Behe, Chapter 2, Darwin’s Black Box

In 1996, Dr. Michael Behe provided in his book, Darwin’s Black Box (DBB), this simple definition for a simple, yet potentially powerful concept – irreducible complexity (IC). In the subsequent years, an academic war of words broke out which beckoned the question: why the furor? Surely the above definition alone couldn’t have started the maelstrom of criticisms that began soon after it was published?

Let me propose that much of the hullaballoo (did I really just write hullaballoo???) is due to Behe’s application of IC, which amounts to IC = evolution impossible. To clarify Behe’s argument, while it is impossible for a direct evolutionary pathway to produce an IC system, it is possible for indirect evolutionary pathways to do so. However, when he scanned the scientific literature, Behe noted that there was no paper describing the indirect routes in significant detail.

The Traditional Template Invoked

The concept IC as defined by Michael Behe is simple, brilliant and stands as a potential marker of design. To provide backup, Behe eloquently presented several cases of IC systems (cilia, flagellum, blood clotting, etc.). He also anticipated most of the criticisms directed towards his thesis and answered them fairly adequately. However, Behe became entangled within the Tradition Template of the debate the moment he presented a negative argument (IC = evolution impossible), and even though Behe attempts to make a positive argument for design in Chapters 8 through 11, the negative argument dominates DBB. In my opinion, this tactic has halted the concept of IC in its tracks before teleologists could take it for a proper test drive. By arguing an impossibility, Behe unwittingly assumed the “traditional role” of the dissenter.

Accordingly, Behe’s critics were more than willing to assume their “traditional role” to demonstrate that it is possible for DE to produce IC systems. Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University, is generally credited with proposing the best argument against Behe’s application of IC: cooption* - the parts of an IC system were coopted from parts of other precursor systems. With cooption, Miller showed it was possible for evolutionary mechanisms to develop IC systems (Note I said possible, not plausible nor probable). Since Behe is arguing it is impossible for evolution to produce an IC system, all Miller had to do was show it was merely possible. Thus it would appear that the Traditional Template has given a seemingly crushing blow to IC**.

Hopping Down the Bunny Trail

Enter Mike Gene. In his book, The Design Matrix (DM), Gene takes IC for a test drive within the Explanatory Continuum.

First, Gene pointed out that cooption was “really the only evolutionary explanation that has the potential to explain the origin of an [IC] system.” Second, he recognised a flaw in the cooption argument:

“The most basic problem with the conventional use of [cooption] is its complete reliance on chance.”
Mike Gene, Chapter 8, The Design Matrix

Third, Gene made the cooption explanation plausible by incorporating his working front-loaded evolution*** (FLE) hypothesis.

Mike Gene then applied the brakes and headed back to the starting line. He granted that cooption is possible, thus avoids getting entangled in the Traditional. Gene then investigated what independent evidence is needed to progress it to plausible.

If cooption was to be a viable explanation, it must be gradual. Then Mike Gene pointed out that to construct an IC system through gradual cooption, “the previous existence of simpler precursors and multiplied functions” should be abundant. If these precursors are missing, then the IC system can be said to consist of “system-dependent parts”.

“A system-dependent part would be something that does not exist or function apart from the context of the machine.”
Mike Gene, Chapter 8, The Design Matrix

With this, Mike Gene laid the framework for one of four criteria in his Design Matrix (more on this in the next post). This, coupled with FLE, has advanced IC from Behe’s simple yet powerful concept to a possible marker of design. Thanks to Mike Gene, IC has new life.

Sources:
Behe, M., Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, 2006
Gene, M., The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues, 2007

*Even if I am wrong and Miller did not originally come up with cooption, he is at least credited with being the “front-man” for the argument against IC = evolution impossible.
**There are many other critiques of Behe and IC; one of the more extensive (and honest) ones comes from Thornhill and Ussery, “A Classification of Possible Routs in Darwinian Evolution.” from Journal of Theoretical Biology in 2000. A summary of their findings can be found in Chapter 8 of The Design Matrix
*** “Front-loading is the investment of a significant amount of information at the initial stage of evolution (the first life forms) whereby this information shapes and constrains subsequent evolution through its dissipation. This is not to say that every aspect of evolution is pre-programmed and determined. It merely means that life was built to evolve with tendencies as a consequence of carefully chosen initial states in combination with the way evolution works.” Mike Gene, Chapter 7, The Design Matrix

Next post: The Design Matrix Revealed

Good Post at Thinking Christian

2008-07-31T10:38:00.002-06:00

Tom Gilson @ Thinking Christian has a good post that nicely expresses my views on the subject (with one exception which I expressed in the comment section here).

Get thee to T.C. and read all about it!

:)

The Gould Fan Club Speaks!

2008-07-30T08:52:00.003-06:00

I kid, of course. The masses (all three of them) have spoken, and the next book I shall read will be Punctuated Equilibrium by the late Stephen Jay Gould, which 2 of the 3 voters selected.

There is still plenty of time to vote on the other poll: What book shall I order:
Endless Forms Most Beautiful - Sean Carroll (2 votes)
Evolution: A Theory In Crisis - Michael Denton (1 vote)
Your Inner Fish - Neil Shubin (0 votes)

Thanks to all three of you for voting. :)

WTF Dembski?!!

2008-07-28T09:56:00.005-06:00

There are a couple things on my mind today (other than getting wrapping up details of a project at work). One is on the content of the IC post I'm working on, the second regards the latest antics by Dr. William Dembski.

First, let me say that Dembski is smart and has made significant contributions to the foundation of ID. That said, his behaviour is troubling, bordering on bewildering and asinine.

There are two specific incidents that have left me shaking my head. The first is this post at UD. Two things bother me about it. The first is the picture that goes with the post. There was no need for it as it did not contribute at all to the message other than to denigrate the subject, Olivia Judson. When I first saw it, I said, "WTF Dembski! What were you THINKING?!" I think the answer is self-evident. The second was this "gem" of a quote:

"Could we please dispense with any patronizing nonsense about Darwin being less than the messiah of a materialistic religion that pretends to find its justification in science. If Darwin was not the alpha and omega of evolution, then he was either a knave or a fool or a madman. Darwin did not leave us any other options. He did not intend to. [Hat tip to C. S. Lewis.]"

This is an insult to C.S. Lewis's original argument and doesn't even rank as a third-rate knockoff. All this quote does is to further reinforce opposition opinions that Dembski is fueling the culture wars.

The second incident occurred this morning when Dembski banned one of the most thoughtful commenters at UD, Bob O'H. Bob provided a good balance to the discussions at UD and is one of the reasons I like lurking there. When I first saw the comment, it was another "WTF Dembski?" moment.

As someone who is sympathetic to teleology/design-in-nature standpoint, I am greatly disappointed. We (myself included) are not perfect, but need to be called to accountability. These actions do nothing to further the debate or the ID cause, just to exacerbate tensions that need cooling desperately.

Dr. Dembski, I urge you to re-instate Bob O'H and, at the very least, delete that picture. If this post gets me banned from commenting at UD, so be it. It had to be said.

New Book Order Soon

2008-07-24T15:20:00.003-06:00

Now that I've finished reading 3 out of 5 books from my previous book order and am about to start #4, it's time to start considering a new book order. So let's have some fun, eh?

Poll #1:
My book order thus far consists of:
Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life - Hubert Yockey
Invention by Design: How Engineers Get From Thought to Thing - Henry Petroski
Nature, Design, and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science - Del Ratzsch

You get to decide what the fourth book in my order will be from the following options.
1. Endless Forms Most Beautiful - Sean Carroll
2. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis - Michael Denton
3. Your Inner Fish - Neil Shubin

Poll#2:
I have two books left from my previous book order. Which one should I read next?
1. The Edge of Evolution - Michael J. Behe
2. Punctuated Equilibrium - Stephen Jay Gould

Both polls can be found at the top right of this site. I will order/read the books selected by the final poll results.

Have fun!

The Explanatory Continuum

2008-07-24T13:43:00.006-06:00

This is the first in a series of posts regarding themes in Darwin’s Black Box and The Design Matrix.

All quotes in this post are from Chapter 2 of The Design Matrix.

The Traditional Template

It appears one of Mike Gene’s goals in writing the Design Matrix is to change the current structure of the ID/evolution debate, which he calls the “Traditional Template”.

"…proponents of design look for some feature that cannot possibly be explained by natural causes. Then, once a feature has been proposed, it is argued that only a designer can account for the existence of this feature. (Emphasis mine)

The Traditional Template assigns the non-teleological explanation the default status.

…because this template pushes the design proponent into the position of opposing Darwinian evolution, the design proponent ends up trying to prove a negative. Proving a negative is notoriously difficult to do for any topic." (Emphasis not mine)

Thus, it would seem that the Traditional Template is a “rigged” debate. Darwinian evolution is presumed “true” and teleologists are left with unenviable task of proving it impossible. The Template is analogous to a defendant having to prove his innocence in a court of law, which is contradictory to our system of law (innocent until proven guilty). Gene implies that it is the job of the proponent (prosecutor) to provide evidence to support his suspicion (charge).

Enter the Explanatory Continuum

How is this done? It starts when the detective first arrives at the scene of the crime. He starts with a hunch and looks for clues to support it and move forward by looking for more incriminating evidence. When enough clues are gathered to get a conviction, an arrest is made. The Design Matrix suggests this is similar to what occurs with the historical sciences, such as evolutionary biology.

Following in the footsteps of the detective analogy, Mike Gene proposes an Explanatory Continuum with the following steps:

1. Impossible
2. Possible*
3. Plausible
4. Probable
5. Fact

Mike Gene suggests that “All investigations must begin with a hunch or suspicion.”, and then grants the possibility of the hunch or suspicion; IOW, all investigations begin at step 2 of the Continuum. This is a radical change from the Traditional Template because all arguments start at the same point in the Continuum. Even though this is a huge step forward (and possibly relief) for teleologists, granting design in nature as a possibility is NOT the end of the investigation.

"Possibilities do not really carry that much weight when trying to account for something that actually happened."

Thus, all suspicions are encouraged to move forward through the Continuum. As defined by Mike Gene, the next step is “plausible”. To move from possible to plausible, some circumstantial evidence needs to be dug up that supports the “suspicion”. Experiments need to be proposed and performed, data collected, and so on. There is work involved to move from the possible to the plausible. But what does it mean that a suspicion is plausible?

"Plausible explanations function to arouse or heighten suspicion but are in need of more evidential support."

IOW, even though our certainty level has increased, more evidence and investigation is required to move forward through the Continuum. The next step forward is “probable”. One moves from plausible to probable as the result of:

"…a vast amount of data that all converge and best make sense in light of the explanation. The probable emerges when it becomes clear to unbiased observers that the explanation is the best way to account for all the relevant data." (Emphasis mine)

Note that “a vast amount of data” is required to move from plausible to probable, which could take years to accumulate, maybe even decades. Also note that the level of fact is approached, but rarely attained. This allows for new and contradictory evidence to be taken into consideration.

Scientific Certainty Revisited

A couple of months ago, I created a post referencing this post at An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution that listed six meanings for the word evolution and arranged them according to levels of scientific certainty. After reading The Design Matrix, I wondered how these meanings fit into the Explanatory Continuum. So I propose that we take a look at the six meanings of evolution through the lens of the Explanatory Continuum. Please refer to the linked post for a more complete definition of each meaning.

E1. Change over time: I think everyone would agree this would fall into the probable category.

E2. Common ancestry: According to the scientific world and Evangelical Dialogue, this would fall under probable, but why? It would appear that E2 is closer to the boundary of probable and plausible since much of the evidence appears circumstantial and any “hard” evidence either appears to be lacking or is controversial. That said there are two reasons for E2 to be in the probable category: no competing hypothesis and the shear weight of the accumulated circumstantial evidence. Both lend credibility for E2 to be considered probable.

E3. Evolutionary mechanisms: not much controversy here – this falls squarely in the probable category. However, an argument could be made that the mechanisms are well established enough to be considered fact, of which I would have no problem with. After all, the controversy is not whether the mechanisms (gene duplication, genetic shift, etc.) exist, but how they are applied, which brings us to…

E4. Mechanisms (E3) account for (physically) common descent: Charles Darwin argued for the possibility of natural mechanisms to describe the history of life. 150 years later, there is only circumstantial evidence to support Darwin’s hunch. Therefore, E4 falls in the plausible category.

E5. Origin of life (or chemical evolution): This is an interesting category. Circumstantial evidence has come and gone over the years with nothing really sticking. Given Mike’s definition of the Explanatory Continuum, E5 automatically starts at the possibility stage. Is there interesting research occurring in the OOL field? Absolutely. Has the research produced enough circumstantial evidence to proceed forward to the plausible stage? IMO, no.

E6. Evolutionism: This is stuck (and I predict will remain stuck for a long time) in the possible stage. After all, anything’s “possible”.

Summary

Mike Gene’s Explanatory Continuum is a radical shift in the current structure of the evolution/ID debates because it provides more maneuverability and puts the onus on the proponent to provide evidence to prop up his hunch. The “suspicion of design” (a phrase found often throughout The Design Matrix) can be acknowledged while recognizing that evidence is required to progress forward (from possibility to plausibility and from plausibility to probability). So where does that leave ID at this point?

"The debate between teleology and non-teleology is at least 2500 years old and has involved some of history’s greatest thinkers. … But if history spans 2500 years or more, consider the possibility that the non-teleological view has just recently gained the upper hand with more sophisticated versions of the same arguments from old. Teleologists have the potential of evening the playing field somewhat by also reviving their arguments in more sophisticated versions."

Roll up your sleeves, ID; there’s work to be done.

*Note that the Traditional Template falls within steps 1 and 2 of the Explanatory Continuum.

Sources:
Gene, M., The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues, 2007
An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution, “What Does Evolution Mean? A Framework For Christians”

Next post: Irreducible Complexity

What You Ought To Know About Autism

2008-07-23T22:45:00.001-06:00

I just thought I'd throw this out at ya. Enjoy!

Lessons from the Scablands

2008-07-23T08:57:00.003-06:00

Last night, I watched an intriguing episode of NOVA called Mystery of the Megaflood which provided the scientific evidence that the Scablands were formed by a catastrophic flood that was caused by the abrupt (brittle?) failure of an ice dam thousands of years ago. I would encourage everyone to watch this very education and eye-opening show.

Watching Mystery of the Megaflood also made me think of the evolution/ID debates and what lessons can be applied from this:

1. Gradualism is not always the answer. Geology has been dominated by gradualism: geological formations are best explained by erosion via water and/or wind or other mechanism over large periods of time. Catastrophic events were shunned. In fact, when J. Harlen Brentz presented his hypothesis of how the Scablands were formed in 1923, he was ridiculed. However, his hypothesis was later vindicated.

Just as Catastrophism was/is frowned upon by the geological establishment, so is a similar hypothesis frowned upon by the majority of evolutionary biologists: saltationism. Could saltationism be vindicated sometime in the future?

2. A qualifier to point 1 is that Brentz's hypothesis was vindicated due to a large amount of scientific investigation over a period time. Brentz wrote his paper in 1923, his insights were vindicated by the 1950's, and the details were filled in around the 1990's. The point: Catastrophism needed a wealth of scientific experimentation and verification, something that ID is sorely lacking at present. The term "Less talk and more action" seems appropriate.

3. How Brentz's hypothesis was accepted is a great example of how to go through the Explanatory Continuum as proposed by Mike Gene in The Design Matrix: it started as a possibility in 1923 (a remote one); then circumstantial evidence was gathered and the hypothesis progressed to being plausible (1950's); details were filled in such that the hypothesis is now seen as probable (1990's). Note that almost 70 years were needed to progress from possible to plausible to probable. See Chapter 2 of the Design Matrix for more on the Explanatory Continuum.

On an engineering side note, I found the small-scale models presented interesting and educational. However, as any engineer knows, what works at a small scale does not completely translate to a larger scale. This is called "scale effect", and I'd be interested in knowing what scale effects there are in this research.

The Altenberg Sixteen and The EES

2008-07-14T21:01:00.006-06:00

Suzan Mazur has been writing on the so-called Altenberg 16 Summit that occured last week. Now she is writing an e-book on the summit, and she has some harsh words regarding the current synthesis (Neo-Darwinian Evolution or NDE) and natural selection:

Evolutionary science is as much about the posturing, salesmanship, stonewalling and bullying that goes on as it is about actual scientific theory. It is a social discourse involving hypotheses of staggering complexity with scientists, recipients of the biggest grants of any intellectuals, assuming the power of politicians while engaged in Animal House pie-throwing and name-calling: "ham-fisted", "looney Marxist hangover", "secular creationist", "philosopher" (a scientist who can’t get grants anymore), "quack", "crackpot". . .

In short, it’s a modern day quest for the holy grail, but with few knights. At a time that calls for scientific vision, scientific inquiry’s been hijacked by an industry of greed, with evolution books hyped like snake oil at a carnival.

Perhaps the most egregious display of commercial dishonesty is next year’s celebration of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species – the so-called theory of evolution by natural selection, i.e., survival of the fittest, that was foisted on us almost 150 years ago.

Scientists agree that natural selection can occur. But the scientific community has known for some time that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. ...

I broke the story about the Altenberg affair last March with the assistance of Alastair Thompson and the team at Scoop Media, the independent news agency based in New Zealand. ... But will the A-16 deliver? Will they help rid us of the natural selection "survival of the fittest" mentality that has plagued civilization for a century and a half, and on which Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are based, now that the cat is out of the bag that selection is politics not science? That selection cannot be measured exactly. That it is not the mechanism of evolution. That it is an abstract rusty tool left over from 19th century British imperial exploits.

Or will the A-16 tip-toe around the issue, appease the Darwin industry and protect foundation grants?

-Suzan Mazur

Eeeyikes! Just think what she would have wrote if the topic were creationists!

All kidding aside, there does seem to be, at the very least, a degree of frustration with the role natural selection plays in evolution. Suzan reports that cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-de-Faria, author of "Evolution Without Selection", "sees any continuance of the natural selection concept as 'compromise'." She also accuses science blogs of "stonewalling" new ideas such as self-organisation:

...one of the stars of the symposium, New York Medical College cell biologist Stuart Newman, hypothesizes that all 35 animal phyla self-organized at the time of the Cambrian explosion (a half billion years ago) without a genetic recipe or selection (hardwiring supposedly followed). Emphasis mine

Allow me to address two items. First, I can see why the science blogs* are bristling at either setting aside or demoting natural selection. Take away NS and all you are left with is one big game of Yahtzee. IOW, evolution without the contingency of NS becomes a framework of chance. If this is true, then I think it's obvious that the new synthesis will be weaker than the one it replaces. What would you prefer: pure chance or chance coupled with contingency?

Second, this could very well be a case of a reporter "glamorising" a simple symposium to sell her article and get her name out there. Take the words of Massimo Pigliucci (HT to Todd Berkebile @ TT):

So, what are the Altenberg 16 going to do in Altenberg next week? ... The agenda is to discuss the current status of evolutionary theory, with a particular emphasis on developments -- some of them under intense debate -- that have occurred since the last version of it has been in put in place back in the 1930s and ‘40s. ...

In the 1930s and ‘40s it became clear that one had to integrate the original Darwinism with the new disciplines of Mendelian and statistical genetics. Such integration occurred through a series of meetings where scientists discussed the status of evolutionary theory, and through the publication of a number of books by people like Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, George Gaylor Simpson, George Ledyard Stebbins and others. The result was an updated theoretical framework known as the Modern Synthesis (MS). But of course evolutionary biology has further progressed during the last eight decades (unlike, one cannot help but notice, creationism). So for a few years now several evolutionary biologists have suggested that it may be time for another update, call it evolutionary theory 3.0 or, as many of us have begun to refer to it, the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES)**.

A number of authors, including Stephen Gould, Mary Jane West-Eberhard, Eva Jablonka, Stuart Kauffman, Stuart Newman, the above mentioned Gerd Müller, and myself, have published papers and books recently attempting to articulate what an EES might look like, and which elements of the MS will need to be retained, modified or discarded (just like the MS had retained, modified or discarded individual components of the original Darwinism). The goal of the Altenberg workshop is to get some of these people around the same table for three days and trade ideas about these sorts of questions.

So is this a case of tip-toeing to "appease the Darwin industry and protect foundation grants", or is Suzan Mazur exaggerating the outcome of the summit?

The asylum is now open for comments.

HT to Grandma O'Leary @ Post-Darwinist

*I am sure that not all of the science blogs are "stonewalling". This is likely a generalisation on Suzan Mazur's part that isprobably accurate for the majority of the science blogs out there.

**I would encourage everyone to read this pdf file describing the framework for the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (myself included). After all, this is the potential new synthesis many anticipate will come from meetings like Altenberg. Time will tell whether the EES survives or not.

A Tip O' The Beer Mug To Mike Gene

2008-07-14T10:46:00.003-06:00

This is sad news. Mike Gene is retiring from Telic Thoughts to spend more time with his family.

Mike is that unique voice in the ID/evolution debate who will not be pigeonholed into an extreme position and whose views are well-thought and demand to be taken seriously on their merits alone. Mike's posts at TT have helped to influence my views; his inputs will be sorely missed.

(raising a mug of Grasshopper)

Here's to Mike Gene. May God bless your time with your family and allow to keep following the Rabbit wherever it goes.

Should We REALLY Be Surprised???

2008-07-10T11:51:00.003-06:00

On ~~second~~ third thought, perhaps I was right the first time around: PZ's Pharyngula definitely should have been rated lower than high school:

But then again, based on this (HT: FtK), that would be an insult to elementary kids. Maybe "High School Bathroom Wall" is more appropriate.

The real surprise is that any one is shocked at this. This is just PZ being PZ. Cut him loose already, sez I.

"Readability" of EE

2008-07-08T15:46:00.006-06:00

According to this site, EE has a reading level of Undergrad.

What this means exactly, I have no clue and I don't put much stock in it either. However, it is nice to have one's ego stroked once in a while (oh yeah! Right there! Ahhhhhhh!)

UPDATE 09July2008: Results from the other blogs were deleted.

Grandma's Universe

2008-07-08T09:19:00.003-06:00

The "grandma" of ID, Denyse O'Leary, has "recently" created a new blog called "Colliding Universes" to complement a book project of hers on multiple universes. Seeing as how astronomy is of special interest to me*, I have spent some time checking it out, and Grandma O'Leary has some cool posts there**.

While I am more interested in the articles she refers to, Grandma's comments are interesting too. Take for example a recent post on the recent findings on Mercury by the MESSENGER probe (not only does Mercury appear to have an active magnetic field, but it also appears like it has volcanic vents!):

"Does the planet Mercury need to exist? - I mean in the business sense. Does it do anything? Or is it like those souvenir shells that persist forever on the mantelpiece? They have no use, but that's not the same thing as saying that they are not there for a reason. There is a difference between use and reason."

I like Grandma O'Leary. Everyone should have a grandma like her. That said, I don't think Mercury is "useless". To provide one possible answer, perhaps Mercury is there to increase our understanding of how the solar system and universe works and thereby employing many talented ~~nerds~~ astronomers to gather data and interpret. Granted, there is no physical law that demands Mercury be there, but there it be, so I sez let's examine it and learn from it.

One thing I must note from the referred article: why are astronomers always surprised that the solar system/universe is different than expected? The Voyager missions should have taught us by now to expect the unexpected.

*When I was a kid, I wanted to be an astronomer; can you say "NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD!!!"? But hey, nerds are OK and are sometimes cool. There, that's the extent of my olive branch. Take it or be swatted by it ;)

**Some other interesting Colliding Universes posts with article links can be found here, here, and here.

Reflections on Body Worlds

2008-07-02T12:21:00.010-06:00

Well, despite all nagging concerns I had, I went to Body Worlds (BW) on Monday.

Before I comment on the actual display, I wish to address the concerns I had:

1. I found the allegations that BW received human bodies through suspicious means groundless. No concrete evidence was uncovered since the allegations were made. On top of that, BW went out of their way to show the process and consent forms for accepting bodies via donations to science. In short, I was satisfied the donors had given their informed consent.

2. The consent forms include a box to check if the donor consents to his/her organs being sold to educational institutions, with proceeds going to covers the costs of the plastination process, not for profit. I found this to be a reasonable request.

3. The BW display did not show the donors in a demeaning fashion. The poses were mainly for educational purposes, although I would recommend not taking children under 12 to the show (of which there were quite a few, unfortunately).

To sum up, I am satisfied most of my concerns were adequately met and I felt more comfortable viewing most of the displays.

That said, for those who feel comfortable, I fully recommend seeing Body Worlds. The exhibit I went to organised the displays by the different systems of the body which included (not an inclusive list) skeletal, muscular, nervous, circulatory, respiratory, digestive, urination and kidneys, reproductive, etc. The only room I didn't spend a lot of time in was the fetal development room. I took a quick scan, found I wasn't entirely comfortable with viewing it, and waited outside for my wife (who found it very interesting and would recommend all teenage girls see it in order to give them a more complete picture of what goes on during pregnancy).

Also included were banners showing the history of anatomy. One of the most intriguing (IMO) was the viewing theatres from Renaissance times were the rich and poor would mingle amongst each other while viewing autopsies/dissections (I would have thought there would have been a section set aside for the rich and another for the poor).

The displays showed both a "normally functioning" body and how diseases affect the function (there were a lot of smokers who donated their bodies!). The "normal" bodies displayed many impressive features, including (and forgive me for not remembering the proper names) four arteries going from the heart to the brain that connect in a circle at the base of the brain, helping to ensure sufficient blood flow in the event one of the arteries gets blocked.

The main thing I took from this is that a "normally functioning" body gives the strong appearance of an efficiently designed system*. By efficient, I mean that each discrete system (i.e. skeletal, circulatory, etc.) appeared "designed" to provide optimum function of that system given certain constraints and requirements from other discrete systems and/or the larger system (i.e. the human body). Each discrete system works together to provide a larger multi-functional and adaptive system. Take away or significantly change a component of a local system, the larger system can still function, but not at the efficiency of the "normal" body.

All in all, I found Body Worlds to be a fascinating exhibit that treated the donated bodies with dignity and respect while providing an educational aspect that the layman can grasp.

*Efficient System Design is a concept I will be dealing with in more detail in the near future, but feel free to comment on it. I enjoy and appreciate everyone's point of view (thus far).

Random Thoughts About Body Worlds

2008-06-26T15:44:00.005-06:00

I am going to see the Body Worlds exhibit on Monday. It has piqued my curiosity and interest and I am expecting a fascinating display.

From the website:

"The BODY WORLDS exhibitions are first-of-their-kind exhibitions through which visitors learn about anatomy, physiology, and health by viewing real human bodies, using an extraordinary process called Plastination a groundbreaking method for specimen preservation invented by Dr. von Hagens in 1977.

"Each exhibition features more than 200 real human specimens, including whole-body plastinates, individual organs, organ configurations and transparent body slices. The specimens on display stem from the body donation program that Gunther von Hagens established in 1983.The exhibitions also allow visitors to see and better understand the long-term impact of diseases, the effects of tobacco consumption and the mechanics of artificial supports such as knees and hips. To date, more than 25 million people around the world have viewed the BODY WORLDS exhibits."

It is apparent that this exhibit is not for everyone. As for myself, I love watching live operations, can tend to be a violence junkie, and don't get queazy very easily, so Body Worlds should be right up my alley.

Or will it?

There is something bugging me about this, and I believe C.S. Lewis puts it best in Abolition of Man:

"...a similar price is exacted for our analytical knowledge and manipulative power, even if we have ceased to count it. We do not look at trees either as Dryads or as beautiful objects while we cut them into beams: the first man who did so may have felt the price keenly, and the bleeding trees in Virgil and Spenser may be far-off echoes of that primeval sense of impiety. The stars lost their divinity as astronomy developed, and the Dying God has no place in chemical agriculture. To many, no doubt, this process is simply the gradual discovery that the real world is different from what we expected, and the old opposition to Galileo or to `body-snatchers' is simply obscurantism. But that is not the whole story. It is not the greatest of modern scientists who feel most sure that the object, stripped of its qualitative properties and reduced to mere quantity, is wholly real. Little scientists, and little unscientific followers of science, may think so. The great minds know very well that the object, so treated, is an artificial abstraction, that something of its reality has been lost.

"From this point of view the conquest of Nature appears in a new light. We reduce things to mere Nature in order that we may `conquer' them. We are always conquering Nature, because `Nature' is the name for what we have, to some extent, conquered. The price of conquest is to treat a thing as mere Nature. Every conquest over Nature increases her domain. The stars do not become Nature till we can weigh and measure them: the soul does not become Nature till we can psychoanalyse her. The wresting of powers from Nature is also the surrendering of things to Nature. As long as this process stops short of the final stage we may well hold that the gain outweighs the loss. But as soon as we take the final step of reducing our own species to the level of mere Nature, the whole process is stultified, for this time the being who stood to gain and the being who has been sacrificed are one and the same. This is one of the many instances where to carry a principle to what seems its logical conclusion produces absurdity. It is like the famous Irishman who found that a certain kind of stove reduced his fuel bill by half and thence concluded that two stoves of the same kind would enable him to warm his house with no fuel at all. It is the magician's bargain: give up our soul, get power in return. But once our souls, that is, ourselves, have been given up, the power thus conferred will not belong to us. We shall in fact be the slaves and puppets of that to which we have given our souls. It is in Man's power to treat himself as a mere `natural object' and his own judgements of value as raw material for scientific manipulation to alter at will. The objection to his doing so does not lie in the fact that this point of view (like one's first day in a dissecting room) is painful and shocking till we grow used to it. The pain and the shock are at most a warning and a symptom. The real objection is that if man chooses to treat himself as raw material, raw material he will be: not raw material to be manipulated, as he fondly imagined, by himself, but by mere appetite, that is, mere Nature, in the person of his de-humanized Conditioners." (emphasis mine)

Before commenting, I would encourage you to read Lewis's lecture, The Abolition of Man (and for the adventurous, the previous two lectures: Men Without Chests and The Way) so you can get a better idea of his overall argument.

Don't get me wrong. This looks like a fascinating exhibit from which one can learn a lot. The donors gave consent, so that is not the issue either. IMO, the tie-in to Abolition of Man is whether charging people a fee to see human corpses and body parts on display is part of the process of humankind becoming raw material.

Football Season Is About To Start

2008-06-23T14:31:00.003-06:00

I bet most of you are going, "What football? It ain't September yet!" Ah, that is a great time of year when I have four teams (at max) playing any given weekend.

But for the end of June, that means the Canadian Football League 2008 season is about to start! The official start is Thursday, June 26th, but the real start is Saturday when the Edmonton Eskimos visit the DEFENDING GREY CUP CHAMPIONS, SASKATCHEWAN ROUGHRIDERS!

RiderNation is alive and kicking and still recovering from that hangover from last year's Grey Cup.

Open Discussion on "Confirmed Prediction" of ID

2008-06-23T11:26:00.002-06:00

I am an equal-opportunity critic.

On the one side, UCD still causes a little "niggle" to go off in the back of my head that tells me something ain't quite right. I may not know how to describe it at this time, but eventually I may. The discussion of the confirmation of UCD from the previous post is one example.

On the other side is a recent post by Patrick at Uncommon Descent entitled "ID-Compatible Predictions: Foresighted Mechanism Identified?".

First the positive. A recent experiment showed that the genes in E.Coli "reacted" to changes in temperature:

"Indeed, upon transition to a higher temperature, many of the genes essential for aerobic respiration were practically turned off.

"To prove that this is not just genetic coincidence ..., the researchers then grew the bacteria in a biologically flipped environment where oxygen levels rose following an increase in temperature. Remarkably, within a few hundred generations the bugs partially adapted to this new regime, and no longer turned off the genes for aerobic respiration when the temperature rose"
-PhysOrg article

To sum up, inactive genes were activated and active genes were rendered inactive due to a change in environment.

Patrick claims this is an example of a prediction he made: foresighted mechanism/front loading. A foresighted mechanism, if identified conclusively, should be considered an objective sign/aspect of design, and thus confirmation of "ID-Compatible Prediction" (side note: dontcha just love the term ID-Compatible?).

Don't misinterpret what I'm saying here. This is NOT conclusive evidence of fore-sighted mechanism/front loading. However, just like the partial confirmation of "junk DNA" having function from the ENCODE project, it is a tantalising first step (Patrick does acknowledge this in the opening of his post regarding junk DNA and other "ID-Compatible predictions").

So what now? It is obvious that further research is required, or as Dr. Heddle so nicely puts it, "Show Me the Experiment[s]!" The prediction needs to be refined and focused.

Also, IMO, too much emphasis was placed on intelligence in Patrick's post when - according to Sal Cordova and others - we do not have a solid definition of intelligence. However, as Sal nicely puts it, design is more tractable and this is where the focus should be on. Objective aspects of design exist (passive design) and can be universally observed. Developing and defining passive design* (or something along those lines) should be the focus.

Bottom line, the experiment is a good start, but much more needs to be done.

The "asylum" is now open.**

*I know I keep dropping hints of this thing called "passive design". I can only say "stay tuned" and "please be patient"; it is coming. :)

**This is just my unique way of opening the floor for comments ;)

Open Discussion on Confirmed Prediction of Common Descent

2008-06-18T11:57:00.007-06:00

Dr. David Heddle - no fan of ID and no advocate of evolution - recently posted a comment at Telic Thoughts referring to a confirmed prediction of common descent. I asked him for a source and he kindly directed me to this site which also provided this paper, which described the fusing of two primate chromosones to form 1 human chromosone. This provides strong evidence of common descent, going from 24 primate chromosones to 23 human chromosones.

Being an engineer and not being a biologist/geneticist, some honest questions have come to my mind after reading through the references above:

Are the remaining 22 chromosones identical between humans and primates?
Are the experiment conditions listed in the paper comparable to "actual" conditions? [I'm still trudging my way through the paper, but I find reading biologist-ese difficult; I require a translator ;) ]

This an open invitation to civil discussion on the above references. Ad hominem comments are not welcome and will be deleted.

Side note: this appears to be along the lines of what Dr. John A. Davison is proposing, that macroevolution occured in the chromosones, not the genes.

It's Like We're in a Detective Novel...

2008-06-16T13:22:00.003-06:00

I recently made the comment:

"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.

Friday Funnies

2008-06-14T00:46:00.001-06:00

It's tough living with "The Knack"... ;P

The Missing Link in Dr. Kenneth Miller's Rebuttal of Irreducible Complexity

2008-06-11T16:32:00.007-06:00

"From an engineering perspective it would make the most sense for evolution to coopt components already available for molecular machines like the flagellum. However, that is not anywhere near enough. Structures like the flagellum bear such a striking similarity to human made machines that one would also expect them to also have a very tight specificity in both the components and the assembly instructions. The components that make up the motor, the bearings, the universal joint, the whip, etc are interdependent on one another not just from the conformal standpoint but also in their dynamic characteristics (i.e. tensile and torsional strength, toughness, torque, rpm, modulus of elasticity, temperature variances, fits and tolerances, and on and on. At least if one was to design such a device there would be hundreds of design decisions to make and exponentially many more ways to foul up than to make it work.

... Then even if all the components were just right, there still has to be tightly controlled assembly processes that are also interdependent. When I think of all the tightly specific mutation sets required for all this, I'm just bewildered how it could come about without an intentionality of some sort."

Steve Petermann commenting at Telic Thoughts

Bingo!

My Library

2008-06-11T09:29:00.015-06:00

Just doing some house cleaning, folks. I figure this will make the side bar less tedious to look at. All links are included, where applicable.

Currently in My Library - Design:
Darwin on Trial - Phillip E. Johnson
Darwin Strikes Back - Thomas Woodward
Darwin's Black Box - Michael J. Behe
The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues - Mike Gene
The Design Revolution - William A. Dembski
Doubts About Darwin - Thomas Woodward
Mystery of Life's Origin - Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olson
Nature, Design, and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science - Del Ratzsch
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design - Jonathan Wells
The Privileged Planet - Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards

Currently in My Library - Engineering:
Design Paradigms: Case Histories of Error and Judgment in Engineering - Henry Petroski
Structures: Or Why Things Don't Fall Down - J.E. Gordon
To Engineer Is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design - Henry Petroski

Currently in My Library - Evolution:
The Edge of Evolution - Michael J. Behe
Punctuated Equilibrium - Stephen Jay Gould

Currently in My Library - Christian:
The Abolition of Man - C.S. Lewis
The Case for a Creator - Lee Strobel
The Case for Christ - Lee Strobel
The Case for Faith - Lee Strobel
The Case for the Real Jesus - Lee Strobel
Know Why You Believe - Paul E. Little
Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis
The Screwtape Letters - C.S. Lewis

Currently in My Library - Fiction:
Animal Farm - George Orwell
Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
The Hobbit - J.R.R. Tolkien
Lord of the Rings Trilogy - J.R.R. Tolkien
The Silmarillion - J.R.R. Tolkien
State of Fear - Michael Crichton

Possible Future Additions to My Library:
1984 - George Orwell
The Chronicles of Narnia series - C.S. Lewis
The Descent of Man - Charles Darwin
Endless Forms Most Beautiful - Sean Carroll
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis - Michael Denton
The Funeral of A Great Myth (from Christian Reflections) - C.S. Lewis
Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life - Hubert Yockey
Invention by Design: How Engineers Get From Thought to Thing - Henry Petroski
On the Origins of the Species - Charles Darwin
Summer For the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion - Edward J. Larson
The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next - Lee Smolin
What Darwin Got Wrong (scheduled for 2009 release) - Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini

Nope! No Humility Here!

2008-06-05T12:47:00.006-06:00

From the post Mike Lange = Quotation Gold:

As much as I'll be cheering for the Pens, reality says the Red Wings will win the Cup in 6.

D@mn, I'm good!

My Book Order Came In!

2008-06-04T21:52:00.002-06:00

Amidst all the chaos, my Amazon order of 5 books came in.

Darwin's Black Box

Punctuated Equilibrium

The Design Matrix

The Edge of Evolution

All interesting books, and you get to vote which one I'll read second because the one I read first was:

Transformers: Devastation!

Quick synopsis: Decepticons rule! Autobots drool!

P.S. Don't forget to vote ;)

EE at One Month - A Look Back

2008-06-04T09:34:00.005-06:00

Now that I have some free time while the windows in my home get replaced and the landscapers are tearing up my yard, I think it is a good time to look back on one month of blogging at Evolution Engineered (EE).

It has been an interesting and informative experience. I have been blessed with thoughtful commentators who make very good points. There have been lessons learned, projects started and in-progress, and just a whole lot of fun in between. Where to start?

Lessons Learned

There are two that immediately come to mind.

1. The evolution debates that I have been involved in have yielded surprising results (to me, anyway). I was expecting to debate the merits of the Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Synthesis (NDES) espoused by Julian Huxley and, more recently, Richard Dawkins.

That didn't happen.

The arguments made by both Paul (from Thinking Christian) and RBH (in Oops, I Did It Again!) did not depend solely on NDES. It was because of this (in part) that I had to take a step back from my debate with RBH to re-assess.

The points made by Paul and RBH, coupled with the Altenberg 16 summit coming up, could very well mean an overhaul of the evolution debate as we (the general public) know it.

2. There are commentators that can keep one honest and help fine-tune one's arguments. I have found that the previously mentioned Paul and Tony Hoffman (in The Expelled Syndrome) fit that role to a T. Commentators like those two mean I will have to be extra dilligent in future posts, which is a good thing.

Of Mud Pies and Proteins - The C.D.F.

EE was created, in part, to serve as a launching point for the Conceptual Design Framework. As all readers can see, it is a work in progress. There are two items I am examining at this point.

1. The Toddler Mud Pie problem. Is this an example of no-design or a low-level design?

2. Proteins - I am assembling an argument of design based on the C.D.F. There is still much to review and ponder on this.

These two items are not the only issues facing the C.D.F. - and yes, I do find it a little humbling that only I have commented on it thus far (is it THAT bad???). I look forward to developing the C.D.F. in the near future.

Reviews, Reviews, Reviews

The review of a chapter in Know Why You Believe by Paul Little was my first ever review. I am looking to get better with future reviews:

1. The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis - a planned three-part series, each part dealing with each lecture (Men Without Chests, The Way, and The Abolition of Man).

2. The Privileged Planet by G. Gonzolez and J. Richards - my favourite "ID" book.

Future Project

Three words: universal common descent.

My debate with RBH started with a lingering doubt I had over the "certainty" of UCD. It was like I have doubts about it, but I can't put into words what exactly bothers me about it (scientifically, not theologically).

Then, I ran across an article in TalkOrigins titled 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent, by Dr. Douglas Theobald. Here is an article that has been fine-tuned and provides a neat summary for all the scientific evidences for UCD (or CD).

I plan on using my engineering training and knowledge of design* to look at and possibly propose alternative explanations for the evidences provided. It will be a huge task to make my case as robust and "iron-clad" as possible.

Final Remarks

sigh! Blogging is a lot more work than I thought, but the rewards are worth the effort! I look forward to corresponding with current and future commentators, and to constructive criticisms. Thank you all for keeping your stick on the ice!

Note: I am open to have other engineers make posts on this site. If interested, email me at jjs.peng@gmail.com

* Freelurker: I am aware of our previous conversation, but I do believe that engineering design and design in nature have aspects that overlap. If I am out in left field with my points, let me know.

Yoko Ono No Go

2008-06-02T11:06:00.002-06:00

Yoko One lost in her bid to block distribution of Expelled. See here, here and here for details (the CTV.ca link is where I first learned about this).

I guess Expelled is coming to Canada after all.

Book Review - Know Why You Believe

2008-05-31T22:21:00.004-06:00

Was there ever that one book that started a journey of knowledge and discovery for you? For me, that book was Know Why You Believe by Paul Little. I was just starting out in my Christian walk when I first read this book, and an unexpected but exciting world of Christian rationality opened up before my eyes and strengthened my new-born faith.

Know Why You Believe attempts to answer 12 questions regularly asked by university students (both Christian and non-Christian) the author encountered during his speaking tours. However, this review is reserved for only one chapter: “Do Science and Scripture Agree?” I'll take you through several themes in the chapter that stood out for me. As for the rest of the book, I'll leave that for your reading pleasure.

Advice to the Scientist

One of the many things that fuels the so-called “war” between faith and science is the belief some scientists hold that science is the only way to truth. Paul Little takes issue with that stance. (Note: all bolded and italicised words are my emphasis).

"Christians ... believe that science is one avenue to the discovery of truth about physical things, but that there are other non-material realities and other means of attaining truth."

"...science is incapable of making value judgments about the things it measures."

"...science can tell us how something works but not why it works that way."

Think about the above statements for a minute. It means science is a tool, not a way of life. When science is used within its proper context, it is a powerful tool to learn about the world and universe we live in. In contrast, when science is politicised or used to prop up a philosophy, it fails miserably.

Paul Little also addresses the human side of science:

"The presupposition one brings to the facts, rather than the facts themselves, determines one's conclusions."

This book was written in 1967 and it would appear not much has changed in the 40+ years since. Worldviews still have a habit of impressing themselves on the domain of science and influencing how this tool is (or “should be”) used.

"[An] unprovable presupposition that must be accepted by faith is the reliability of our sense perceptions."

Human fallibility is always a potential source of error in an experiment; something that was hammered into my head in junior high science class.

Paul then provides a theological point for the scientist to ponder:

"[Some scientists]...forget that God is not only Creator, but also sustainer. ... Knowing how the universe is sustained is not the same thing as sustaining it."

Sage advice for scientists who like to dabble in theology.

Advice to Christians

Paul also gives good advice to Christians by quoting Kenneth Kantzer [1]:

“‘Let scientists battle it out on the basis of the scientific evidence, but we should not bolster weak scientific positions with misinterpretations of the Bible conjured up for that purpose. God rarely sees fit merely to gratify our curiosity’”

Two things to take from this: a) the Bible is NOT a science textbook, and b) Christians should not try to fit God into a little box (a very tempting thing to do, at times).

Paul Little then describes the variability of science and the consequences of too closely linking the Bible with science:

"Scientific theory is a matter of the highest degree of probability based on the data available. There are no absolutes in it. ... Yesterday's generalization is today's discarded hypothesis. ... If the Bible becomes wedded to today's scientific theories, what will happen to it when science, ten years from now, has shifted?"

Evolution

Let's all give a big scary “oooooooooooooooh!”

All kidding aside, Paul treats this subject very seriously. He starts out by identifying three types of evolution:

1. Evolutionism: a pure naturalistic view of the universe

2. Microevolution: the change or development within a species where new varieties of the species are formed but the varieties remain within the species boundary.

3. Macroevolution: crossing the species boundaries into higher and more complex classification (genus, family, order, class, phylum, and kingdom). On a side note, Paul mentions this is also called megaevolution. Boy, you gotta think Dawkins missed the boat on this one, eh?

All kidding aside, Paul then describes two "non-negotiables" for the Christian regarding human origins:

"God supernaturally and deliberately created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1), and God supernaturally and deliberately created the first man and the first woman (Gen 1:27)."

With that in mind, Paul ends the chapter by providing a typical conversation between an undergraduate student and evolutionist G.A. Kerkut [2]:

"It is quite common ... to ask the student if he knows the evidence for evolution. This usually evokes a faintly superior smile. ...

'Well sir, there is evidence from paleontology, comparative anatomy, embryology, systematics and geographical distributions,' the student would say in a nursery-rhyme jargon. ...

'So you believe in evolution because there is no other theory?'

'Oh, no, sir, I believe in it because of the evidence I just mentioned.'

'Have you read any book on the evidence for evolution?' I would ask.

'Yes, sir.' And here he would mention the names of authors of a popular school textbook. "And of course, sir, there is that book by Darwin, The Origin of the Species.'

'Have you read this book?' I would ask.

'Well, not all through, sir.'

'The first fifty pages?'

'Yes, sir, about that much; maybe a little less.'

'I see. ... Well, now, if you really understand an argument you will be able to indicate to me not only the points in favor of the argument, but also the most telling points against it.' ...

'But there isn't any [arguments against evolution], sir.'

Here the conversation would take on a more strained atmosphere. The student would look at me as if I were playing a very unfair game. He would take it rather badly when I suggested that he was not being very scientific in his outlook...

I would ... indicate to him that the theory of evolution was of considerable antiquity, and would mention that he might have looked at the book by Radi, The History of Biological Theories. ...

There are, however, seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of evolution. ...

The first assumption is that nonliving things gave rise to living material, i.e., that spontaneous generation occurred.

The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

The third ... is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.

The fourth ... is that the protozoa gave rise to the metazoa.

The fifth ... is that the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.

The sixth ... is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

The seventh ... is that the vertebrates and fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds and mammals. ...

The first point that I should like to make is that the seven assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification. They assume that a certain series of events has occurred in the past. Thus, though it may be possible to mimic some of these events under present-day conditions, this does not mean that these events must therefore have taken place in the past. All that it shows is that it is possible for such a change to take place. ... Unfortunately, we cannot bring about even this change; instead we have to depend upon limited circumstantial evidence for our assumptions.”

Hmmmm, I wonder how many biology teachers today are/were like that student?

Paul Little does NOT provide a comprehensive critique of evolution; that was never his purpose. The point he wanted to emphasise was that the science of evolution must be separated from the philosophy of evolution (or the Great Myth, as C.S. Lewis calls it).

Know Why You Believe was not meant to be a comprehensive answer to all tough questions facing Christians, but rather a stepping stone in a journey of faith, of which I am eternally grateful to Paul Little for that.

References:

[1]Kenneth S. Kantzer, "Guideposts for the Current Debate Over Origins," Christianity Today, October 8, 1982

[2]G.A. Kerkut, The Implications of Evolution, London: Pergamon Press, 1960

Friday Funnies

2008-05-30T12:23:00.002-06:00

OK, so I'm probably not encouraging "Off Topic" comments with this one, but oh well!

The Expelled Syndrome

2008-05-28T12:00:00.008-06:00

One of the great things about the blogoverse is the variety of viewpoints on certain subjects. One of the most contentious subjects is the alleged persecution of teachers/professors who advocate or merely mention ID. Some say it's real, others say it is non-existent or blown out of proportion.

There are professors in secular universities (Dr. David Heddle and Dr. Keith Miller come to mind) who have not experienced the persecution claimed by others. They claim that they are free to express their viewpoints in open discussion with their colleagues. I believe their testimony to be true.

On the flip side, you have the cases of Dr. Richard Sternberg and Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, both of whom claim persecution for supporting the ID position - in the case of Dr. Gonzalez, it probably cost him tenure and subsequently his job at Iowa State. I also believe the testimonies of Drs. Sternberg and Gonzalez are true.

So am I fence-sitting here? Hardly. I believe the individual testimonies of persecution documented in Expelled are probably true. However, are the persecutions wide-spread, isolated, or somewhere in-between? I personally think it's "Door #3". Thus, while Expelled is still a movie that'll make it into my video library, and a movie I'll probably enjoy, the movie probably exaggerates the widespread-ness of the persecutions.

Update 02 June, 2008: Portion of post deleted after much thought and debate - see comments for further details.

I would like to close with several points:

Just because you don't see persecution taking place where you are at does not mean that it isn't happening elsewhere.
Everyone in the IDM should tone down the rhetoric. This is NOT the USSR under Stalin.
Playing with people's careers just because they have a different view from you is dastardly and should be condemned by all.

I think I've adequately ticked off people on both sides, so my job is done.

Other Way Smarter People Think Like I Do

2008-05-26T11:34:00.004-06:00

The "grandmother" of the IDM, Denyse O'Leary, posted a link at UncommonDescent to download a pdf copy of the book, The Mystery of Life's Origins, by Thaxton, Bradley and Olson (which I have already done so and added to my Library).

However, an interesting quote by Dr. Charles Thaxton was also included in the post:

"Information theory is a special branch of mathematics that has developed a way to measure information. In brief, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions required to describe or specify it, whether that structure is a rock or a rocket ship, a pile of leaves or a living organism. The more complex a structure is, the more instructions are needed to describe it."

It would appear that Dr. Thaxton, like myself, believes that objects in nature can be measured using Information Theory. The instructions mentioned by Thaxton could conceivably consist of material, assembly and function, as described in the Conceptual Design Framework.

I don't know where and when the quote came from, and I also don't know if the CDF parameters were what Thaxton had in mind when he mentioned instructions, but it would appear that someone way smarter than me has a similar viewpoint on how to measure information in natural objects.

HT: "Grandma" O'Leary @ UD

Note: the "grandma" moniker is a nickname I came up with for Ms. O'Leary based on what I've read from her posts and comments. When I refer to her as "Grandma" O'Leary, no animosity is intended.

Friday Funnies

2008-05-23T11:18:00.002-06:00

Dun-da-dun-dah! Dun-da-dah! Dun-da-dun-daah! Dun-da-dah! dah! dah!

Mike Lange = Quotation Gold!

2008-05-22T12:30:00.002-06:00

Mike Lange is the Hall of Fame play-by-play broadcaster for the Pittsburgh Penguins. He was also probably dropped on his head as a kid, judging by his Langeisms, which hockey fans everywhere are thankful for. Here are just a few gems:

Scratch my back with a hacksaw!

Get in the fast lane, Grandma! The bingo game is ready to roll!

He beat him like a rented mule!

Oh, how much fried chicken can you eat?

He smoked him like a bad cigar!

Oh slap me silly, Sidney!

And that's just after the Pens score. Here's some more gold:

He hit him so hard his kids will be born dizzy!

That was a million dollar move, but [the goalie] had two million in his pocket!

Lord Stanley, Lord Stanley, give me the brandy!

Unfortunately, I don't think Mad Mike will be saying that last one this year. As much as I'll be cheering for the Pens, reality says the Red Wings will win the Cup in 6.

Just to show I have no humility, I told you the Wings and Pens would win their respective series!

Now That You Mention It, I Do Feel A Little Lighter...

2008-05-21T15:27:00.006-06:00

I've often heard it said that "evolution is as much a fact as gravity is".

Speaking of gravity, I've come across an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal that suggests gravity may not quite be the fact we think it is.

From the article:

Indeed, Dr. Turyshev at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and his colleagues around the world regard the Pioneer probes as the largest test of Newton's law of gravity ever conducted. By that axiom, refined by Einstein, any two objects in the universe exert gravitational attraction on each other proportional to their mass and affected predictably by the distance between them.

"We would expect the two spacecraft to follow Newton's law of gravity," Dr. Turyshev said, "but they in fact fail to confirm Newton's law. If Newton is wrong, Einstein is wrong too."

For 14 years, Dr. Turyshev sought a simpler answer. He finally wondered whether heat radiating unevenly from the probe might be the cause but lacked enough information.

...Based on a partial analysis, Dr. Turyshev reported in April at a meeting of the American Physical Society in St. Louis that at least 30% of the force can be attributed to heat radiating from the probe. "The rest is unknown," he said.

Who says science is boring? ;)

HT "Grandma" O'Leary @ Colliding Universes

The Problem of Design - Part 3: The Proposed Framework

2008-05-20T12:05:00.081-06:00

To summarise our journey thus far, the current attempts at objectively recognising design in nature - Design Explanatory Filter and Design Matrix - are not quite adequate due to subjective parameters. While the design inference is legitimate, it seems that Intelligent Design Theory has skipped a step by not more fully incorporating Information Theory. It is also apparent that a new way of measuring information of objects in nature (i.e. a "measuring stick") needs to be developed. Once we have obtained this "measuring stick", we can apply it, using a framework, to objectively recognise design in nature.

The Proposed Framework

As an engineer, I see a designed object as incorporating three basic but essential parameters:

Material,
Assembly, and
Function

For example, take the floor system of a typical building. The "main" materials of this floor system consist of a concrete slab supported by a thin steel deck, which is itself supported by structural steel beams and/or trusses. The beams/trusses are supported by structural steel columns. To assemble the floor, the columns must be installed first, followed by the beams/trusses, followed by the steel deck installed on top of the beams/trusses, and then concrete is poured on the steel deck to form the floor. A function of the floor is to "hold up", or resist, the loads applied by the materials' self-weight, people and various equipment (partitions, desks, carpet, etc.)

Parameters of the Framework

Material:

The material information parameter, I(m), has two features:

Material always contains a minimum amount of information, I(m) > 0, and
A specific material potentially can be a designed object.

To illustrate this second point, take, for example, the structural steel beam mentioned above. The steel beam (material) is fabricated* by rolling/extruding a steel ingot to obtain the shape of an "I". The ingot (material) is the product of combining molten iron-ore with other specific elements/compounds (carbon, manganese, chromium, etc.) It is at the solid iron-ore stage where one can say the "raw material" is found (i.e. no design).

*Please note that this is a highly simplified description of what goes into making a steel beam. The purpose of the description was to provide an example of how a material can be designed.

Now let's look at the example from an information point-of-view. At the "raw material" stage, the iron-ore is at the "lowest-end" of the information scale. At each step, iron-ore to ingot, ingot to structural steel, information is added in the form of "assembly" of extra materials in to a new shape, and function(s) beyond the original "raw material" (ex: in the case of the structural steel beam, resisting applied loads in a floor system).

This is how materials themselves can be designed. However, the levels of design are "noise" right now. Let's consider "raw material" (i.e. no design) from this point on when referring to materials, or I(m) > 0.

To the best of my knowledge, Information Theory is currently able to objectively measure the amount of information of an event, but not of an object. Therefore, we do not have an absolute measure (at this time) for I(m). Thus, I propose a relative measure until an absolute measure is developed. For the sake of discussion, let's say that "raw material" has I(m) = 1.

Assembly:

Let's say a design is composed of only "raw materials", or I(m) = 1. When these materials are arranged (or assembled) in a specific manner, information is increased. The value of the assembly information parameter, I(a), depends on at least three variables**:

a. Natural law: If it can be shown that the "assembly" of the material is one that follows the laws of science, then I(a) = 1 (ex: crystallisation and vortices).

b. Degree of assembly: The more "minimum steps of assembly" required, the higher I(a) becomes (ex: a "sand castle" consisting of a single bucket of sand vs. an actual medieval castle).

c. Various assembly pathways: I(a) increases as the ways to orderly assemble the object decreases (i.e. an object that can be assembled in only one way would contain more information than an object that can be assembled in multiple ways).

Both b and c imply that if the assembly process is beyond natural law, then I(a) > 1.

Function:

A toddler could assemble a "structure" of sticks, stones and mud, but almost no one would consider it a designed object because it lacks function. The value of the function information parameter, I(fn), depends on at least two variables**:

a. Natural law: This refers to the natural properties of the object. If the function of the object goes beyond the properties, then the amount of "functional information" increases [I(fn) > 1].

b. Multiple functions: the more functions beyond natural properties, the more information contained in object [I(fn) increases]. This could be useful in determining the level of design in an object.

**It should be noted that there could be other variables for determining I(a) and I(fn). These are just the basic ones.

Minimum Threshold of Design

All three parameters - I(m), I(a) and I(fn) - contribute to a final outcome to determine design. A simple equation can be stated:

I(object) = I(m) x I(a) x I(fn)

The minimum value of each parameter is set to 1. This means that if all parameters contain the minimum value of information, then I(object) = 1. I propose the following statement for a reasonable minimum threshold for detecting design:

If the amount of information contained in an object is greater than the minimum amount of information contained in raw material (or 1), then the object is considered designed.

Issues Facing the Framework

There is an obvious issue with the above statement: at what point in a natural object do we define I(m) = 1, or what is the "raw material" in nature?

I propose the amino acid as the "raw material". The immediate problem with doing this is that potentially any protein, DNA, cellular structure, etc. could surpass the minimum design threshold when it may have no business doing so. If true, this could be a potential fatal weakness of the framework.

However, there are checks and balances that can be incorporated through I(a) and I(fn). For example, if it could be shown is that proteins organise according to some "law of nature", then I(a) = 1 since the "assembly" of the protein can be fully described by natural law. Also, if it could be shown that the function of proteins "naturally flow" from the function of amino acids (i.e. it is a natural property of amino acids to form functioning proteins), then I(fn) = 1. To the best of my knowledge, neither assembly nor "flow of function" has been shown to be subject to natural law; however, I do concede that this may change with some future discovery. That said, scientists cannot depend on future discovery; they (and we) must work with what we've got at present. Therefore, if presently I(a) and I(fn) > 1 for proteins, then so be it.

There are several other challenges for this framework to be a suitable tool for objectively recognising design. They include, but are not limited to:

Developing a suitable "measuring stick" for determining values (absolute or relative) of I(m).

Determining what (if any) other variables affect the value of I(a) and I(fn).

Further investigation into the minimum threshold for design (currently set at I(object) > 1).

Determining the effect of other (if any) parameters beyond I(m), I(a) and I(fn).

For Public Comment...

Whew! Got all that?

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you my proposal for a framework to objectively recognise design in nature. Keep in mind, this is simply a conceptual framework. There is a lot of work to be done to hash out the details, as described in the list above. If this framework is valid, I fully expect revisions to be made.

So what do you think? Is this framework a good first step or cr*p? Let the discussion/critiques begin...

Friday Funnies

2008-05-16T12:19:00.004-06:00

This week's Friday Funnies is brought to by the 2008 Victoria Day long weekend - the unofficial start of the 2008 ~~garbage~~ garage sale season.

Enjoy :)

Oops, I Did It Again!

2008-05-16T11:51:00.004-06:00

I have this dirty feeling again...

I tend to start up interesting debates at sites where discussion on the evidence for (or lack thereof) evolution is not the intended topic for discussion. I've already unintentionally "hijacked" the discussion at Tom Gilson's blog, which has abruptly ended both there and here (in fairness, the debate never got started here, dangnammit!). :(

Over at Steve Martin's blog, "An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution", an interesting debate with RBH is about to blossom. However, Steve has made it clear that the intent of his blog is not to debate evolution itself. Therefore, out of respect for Steve's wishes, let's move the debate here.

First comment is reserved for RBH. After that, the floodgate's are open. Let the fun begin!

"Keep your stick on the ice"
Red Green

More Gifts

2008-05-15T10:21:00.005-06:00

I like getting gifts :)

Who knew that when I starting rambling about Information Theory that a I would so quickly come across someone who was "a very minor IT guru"? Where one sees coicindence, I see a door opened by God.

William Wallace from the Coincidence Theories blog has provided me with an Information Theory Primer that I need to read and think about before posting further thoughts on IT. (Muchos gracias, WW)

Sorry for milking the cliffhanger, folks. Stay tuned...

Mechanisms and Engines

2008-05-15T09:48:00.007-06:00

Yesterday, I received a gift that keeps on giving. I was searching for a list of "evolutionary mechanisms" that I recalled seeing some time ago on Dr. Allen MacNeil's blog, and I have finally hit paydirt (much thanks to Dr. MacNeil at TT and Patrick at UD). These mechanisms are described by Dr. MacNeil as "real sources of variation".

Note: Dr. MacNeil makes it clear that these mechanisms are NOT a comprehensive list. IOW, there could be more out there; they are just undiscovered currently.

Now I can focus on these mechanisms and ask "What can they do and what can't they do?" (IOW, what are the properties and limitations of these mechanisms).

But the gift-giving (or receiving in my case) did not end there. In the linked post, Dr. MacNeil alludes to an earlier article, What Is The "Engine" of Evolution? and in Patrick's comment, he suggested that the "engine of variation" is the next front of debate. This "engine" description intrigues me as an engineer because I view an engine as multiple mechanisms functioning together to produce a separate and larger function that each mechanism could not accomplish on its own. So much to learn, so little time.

Given this and the upcoming Altenberg 16 summit, it appears to me that there is a growing trend among evolutionary biologists to distance themselves from the "Classic Darwinian" view where natural selection is king. As an "observer from the sidelines", these are interesting and intriguing developments.

It's no wonder Richard Dawkins is concentrating his efforts on "evangelising" atheism rather than promoting the "creative power of natural selection" (because if he did, Dawkins would be an endangered/soon-to-be extinct species) ;)

Note: I am adding the link to Dr. MacNeil's blog to my Recommended Sites as I believe it is a good source of information from the "other side".

Self-Information

2008-05-13T08:10:00.013-06:00

Good morning class. In The Problem of Design - Part 2, a link to wikipedia regarding self-information was referenced as a potential "measuring stick" for information in nature. Let's explore this, shall we?

We'll start off first with an equation.

(collective shudder from the class)

No! No! No! Class! There is nothing to fear from equations. Equations are our friends. OK, I lied. Equations aren't our friends. They actually have no mind or personality whatsoever (like some politicians and others who shall remain nameless for legal reasons). Equations are merely mathematical representations of the real world and are used every day by almost every one.

Um, sir, the equation...

Oh yes. Pardon my rambling: I(x) = log2[1/Pr(x)] (for units in bits)

Expressionless stares from the class.

Translation: The amount of information of event x is inversely proportional to the probability of event x.

More silent stares...

Translation of translation: the more unlikely event x is, the more information it contains.

"Ah"

Before we look at some examples, let's look at logarithms, first. I believe the class should know exponents by now, such as 10^2 = 100 and 2^4 = 16, right?

Silent bobble heads bobbing...

Well, logarithms are similar to exponents, but the reverse. At a more general level, take the expression A^B = C: A is multiplied by itself B times to get C. With me so far?

More silent bobbing...

Good. Now for logarithms, the expression goes logA(C) = B. In other words, we are trying to calculate B, the amount of times we must multiply A by itself to get C.

"Ooooooh! Aaahhhh!"

Excellent! Now onto the examples from the article. For tossing a fair coin, the probability of heads/tails is 50% or 0.5 or 1/2 [Pr(heads) = 0.5] and 1/0.5 = 2. Therefore, when tossing a fair coin, the chances of it landing on heads contains I(head) = log2(2) = 1 bit of information.

For tossing a single six-sided die, the probability of getting a specific number (say six) is Pr(six) = 1/6. Therefore, the amount of information in tossing a six from a single six-sided die is I(six) = log2(6) = 2.585 bits.

For tossing two six-sided dice independently, the probability of a specific two-number combination (say snake-eyes or two ones) is Pr(snake eyes) = 1/6 x 1/6 = 1/36. Therefore, the amount of information in rolling snake-eyes from independently tossing two six-sided dice is I(snake eyes) = log2(36) = 5.170 bits.

Thus, as the probabilities get smaller (1/2, 1/6, 1/36), the amount of information gets larger (1 bit, 2.585 bits, 5.17 bits, respectively).

Now class, can anyone see a problem with using self-information as a "measuring stick" for information in nature?

A curious and bright student raises a hand.

Yes, the student with the inquisitiveness in the back...

Stands up sheepishly. "Um, is it because self-information deals only with events and not objects?"

YES! Very good! Determining the amount of information in an event is all fine-and-dandy, but what it really required is the amount of information contained in any event OR object. Also, an object is not necessarily an event. If you do equate objects with events, then on what objective grounds do you do so? IOW, what probability do you assign to an object and how do you obtain it without any subjectivity?

To sum up, self-information is a good start, but not sufficient as a generic "measuring stick" for information in objects. Class dismissed.

"Um, any homework, sir?"

For the keener, yes. For the rest of you, I hear Game 3 of the Pens-Flyers East Finals is on TV tonight. I expect a full report tomorrow. Class dismissed!

God of the Gaps - The Atheist Version

2008-05-12T11:22:00.007-06:00

Tom Gilson at Thinking Christian has sparked yet another great discussion, this time with his post "Atheism Required for Science?". He linked to a two-part article that listed various scientists throughout history who were Christians or who had strong theistic leanings.

What really struck me was the "hand-waving" comments coming from the "atheist" side. Some of the comments were nothing more than an atheistic version of the "God of the Gaps" argument.

hmmm, sounds like future-post material...

HT: Tom Gilson @ Thinking Christian & Medicine Man @ Sword of the Mind

"What Darwin Got Wrong" - A Future Addition to My Library

2008-05-12T11:02:00.007-06:00

Paul Nelson at Uncommon Descent recently posted regarding an interview with the co-author of "What Darwin Got Wrong", Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini. What may surprise you is that this book is NOT another ID "negative argument" book, but rather a viewpoint of a growing number of evolutionary researchers who reject the consensus view that natural selection plays a large role in macroevolution (MEvo) while still rejecting ID.

Among the "pro" evolution books I am aiming to get, "What Darwin Got Wrong" may have just moved to the front of the line, although it looks like I'll have to wait until late 2009 to be able to buy it (dangnammit!).

Note: the interviewer, Suzan Mazur, has written several articles on other so-called mavericks in evolution, including the "Altenberg 16". Links to the articles can be found by scrolling down the Sccop link provided and are located in a green panel on the right.

HT: Dr. Nelson @ UD

The Problem of Design - Part 2

2008-05-10T22:00:00.027-06:00

In part 1, I described the recent attempts to objectively recognise design in nature and that those attempts have fallen short. It would appear that we're back to the point of William Paley's watchmaker: we can infer that design surrounds us in nature, yet we cannot provide a framework to objectively recognise it without incorporating subjective parameters. So now what?

Ever get that feeling we skipped a step somewhere?

An engineering design drawing, or blueprint, contains information; a lot of information. Wouldn't it make sense that if design in nature existed, that these natural objects/events would contain a substantial amount of information? What if we could objectively measure this information? IMO, this is the step that ID and the ID Movement (IDM) appear to have skipped*.

Information theory** (IT) has the potential to be such an attempt to objectively quantify (or measure) information. IT is a relatively young discipline - approximately 60 years old - and has been applied to various fields of study (communcation, plagiarism detection, neurobiology, thermal physics, etc.). I am not an an expert in IT, but based on my limited understanding of it (IT contains advanced statistics beyond my ability), using a standard measurement unit of information - such as "bits" - one should be able to quantify the amount of information in every object and/or event in the natural world and universe (to the best of my knowledge, this has not been done).

Once information has been quantified, the work of recognising design in natural objects and events can be performed more efficiently and effectively. In Part 3, I will propose a basic framework for recognising design (heavy emphasis on basic).

* In fairness, Dembski does cover IT in The Design Revolution, but does not attempt to use it to objectively quantify information.

** I am aware of the potential pitfalls of using wikipedia as an unbiased resource, but based on what I know, there is no controversy regarding the definition and study of IT, and thus, the linked wikipedia article(s) should be reliable.

UPDATE: Click here for the wikipedia article on self-information, a method of "measuring" information. I think I may have to tease out the measuring of information a bit more before writing about the proposed design framework.

Friday Funnies

2008-05-09T14:36:00.002-06:00

Welcome to the first ever Friday Funnies post where I hope we can set aside differences every week and talk about something totally off topic while enjoying a laugh or two; kind of like a bunch of engineers getting together at the bar (speaking of which, where's my beer?)

Enjoy :)

Ya Oughta Know, Part Deux

2008-05-08T12:54:00.008-06:00

Tom Gilson at Thinking Christian posted this video from What You Ought to Know a few days ago. A substantial amount of comments went off topic and turned what was supposed to be a thread about open-mindedness into a good ol' debate on evolution. I know this because I was personally guilty of steering the comments off-topic, and for this, I apologise to Tom.

However, the back-and-forth I had with a commenter named Paul was informative and enjoyable. Therefore, I propose that this discussion continue in this thread.

To briefly sum up:

I allowed for the possibility of plant macroevolution (MEvo) due to polyploidy.
I remain unconvinced that the examples of speciation given represented evidence for animal MEvo; rather, the speciations listed are good evidence of animal microevolution (mEvo).
A discussion took place over the effectiveness of historical sciences (which was started by this article by Dr. Massimo Pigliucci). I criticised evolutionary biology, paleontology, and anthropology for not paying attention to the fine details.
Paul took mild exception to my "selection" of gradualism (which I believe is the standard paradigm of MEvo) over saltation (i.e. punctuated equilibrium), stating that gradualism does not represent the "current thinking". I mentioned I was very interested in the particulars of this "current thinking".
I asked for, but never received, the mechanisms of MEvo (I have seen a comprehensive list of about 40+ mechanisms listed at a blog, but I can't recall where I have seen them. Help anyone?).

I found Paul to be one of those rare defenders of evolution that don't utilise ad hominem (name calling) attacks. He was the one who helped me fine tune my argument and consistently challenged me respectively. I look forward to continuing the discussion here with Paul and anyone else who has something constructive to contribute.

"Keep your stick on the ice"
Red Green

What I Mean by Keeping Your Stick on the Ice

2008-05-08T10:53:00.003-06:00

Here's an excellent post reminding both sides of the evolution/ID debate on how to keep it clean.

HT to Joel Borofsky

You, You, You Oughta Know!

2008-05-08T10:35:00.004-06:00

ugh! I feel so dirty quoting Alanis Morisette!

Here is the video that started all the kerfuffle at Thinking Christian a few days ago. I think this video is outstanding, both as a summary of a complex issue and as a media production.

Tom Gilson has deleted the post from his blog, and I would respectively request that any further comments on this particular video be made at this blog instead.

Let the debate begin

"Keep your stick on the ice"
Red Green

We Interupt Your Regularly Scheduled Program...For This Hockey Update!

2008-05-08T08:05:00.002-06:00

All debate/arguing and no play makes engineer cranky.

The Stanley Cup Conference Finals start tonight in Detroit with the Red Wings hosting the Dallas Stars. I'm picking the Red Wings to prevail in six games. Tomorrow, the battle of Pennsylvania begins with the Philadelphia Flyers in Pittsburgh to play the Penguins. I predict this will be an entertaining, rock 'em-sock 'em series with the Pens winning in seven games.

For the real hardcore hockey fans, the Spokane Chiefs won the WHL title last night. That means 3 of the 4 teams for the Memorial Cup are set: Spokane, OHL representative Belleville Bulls, and the host Kitchener Rangers. The Gatineau Olympiques are 1 win away from claiming the QMJHL Title and the final spot in the Memorial Cup. (I love junior hockey).

The Problem of Design

2008-05-07T22:23:00.008-06:00

I have been reading up on Intelligent Design for about 4 years. I was drawn to it both as an engineer and as a Christian. The controversy is immense (in the U.S. mainly, not Canada). It seems to boil down to whether design is real in nature and the universe and if so, how can we objectively recognise if something is designed.

To the best of my knowledge, there are currently two attempts at quantifying design in nature: the Explanitory Filter (EF) as proposed by Dr. William Dembski, and the Design Matrix (DM) as proposed by Mike Gene. I will attempt to summarise the EF since I am more familiar with it than DM (I really need to order a copy of The Design Matrix).

There are three filters in EF: 1. contingency/necessity (natural law), 2. complexity, and 3. specification. An event is observed and it's probability of occuring by chance and/or necessity is calculated. How far the event passes down the EF depends on how low the probability is. If the event can be explained by natural law, then it remains stuck in filter #1 and is attributed to necessity (high probability). If the event's probability is less than a value Dembski calls the "universal probability bound" (UPB = 1 in 10^150, very small!!!), then it remains stuck in filter #2 and is attributed to chance (read The Design Revolution to see how Dembski calculated UPB).
The third filter is the most controversial. If the event "matches a conditionally independent pattern", then in passes through the 3rd filter and is called "specified complexity" (another word for design); if the event does not match a conditionally independent pattern, then it is stuck and it attributed to chance.

There is a problem with this last step: how objective is this "conditionally independent pattern"? For a good critique of the EF, read Nature, Design, and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science by Del Ratzsch (another book I need to order!). From what I know about the DM, there are also some subjective criteria used to determine the possibility of design.

So where does this leave us? I think we have a good intuition of what a design looks like, but how can we objectively quantify it? It appears that we're not there, yet.

In Part 2, I will ask the question "Did ID skip a step?" and attempt to provide an answer.

In Part 3, I will propose a basic framework for objectively recognising design in nature.

Welcome to Evolution Engineered

2008-05-07T21:33:00.006-06:00

I know what you're thinking: NOT ANOTHER EVOLUTION BLOG! It does seem like everyone and their dog is blogging about Evolution/ID these days. So what's my unique contribution to this endless (and sometimes mindless) debate? I will try to look at this from an engineer's perspective.

So how does an engineer view the world around him/her? In short, an engineer is trained to apply the findings and fundamentals of physics, chemistry, and/or biology to design a functioning and safe structure desired by a client and/or the public. An engineer is also trained to question his/her design until a satisfactory level of confidence in the functionality and safety of the design is achieved.

Some qualifiers before I start:

I am NOT an expert in evolutionary biology nor design theory. I am more of a sideline reporter. I don't have access to the huddle, but I can view the actions and construct a reasonable opinion/critique based on my observations.
I am very interested in hearing both sides of the debate. Therefore, if you have relevant information, you have my undivided attention.
Just because I am an engineer, I am not claiming "special revelation" or authority over the matter. I'm just commenting on how I see it from an engineer's perspective.

Remember, keep it clean, keep it respectful, and most of all, do not dismiss merely because someone is not an "expert" or an evolutionary biologist/design theorist.

"Keep your stick on the ice"
Red Green