A Balanced Essay On The State Of ID

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

Redundancy - A Mark of Design?

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.

Irreducible Complexity

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

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 Explanatory Continuum

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

Lessons from the Scablands

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.

A Tip O' The Beer Mug To Mike Gene

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.

Open Discussion on "Confirmed Prediction" of ID

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 ;)

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

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.

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

"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!

Yoko Ono No Go

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

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

The Expelled Syndrome

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:

1. Just because you don't see persecution taking place where you are at does not mean that it isn't happening elsewhere.
2. Everyone in the IDM should tone down the rhetoric. This is NOT the USSR under Stalin.
3. 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

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.

The Problem of Design - Part 3: The Proposed Framework

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:

1. Material,
2. Assembly, and
3. 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:

1. Material always contains a minimum amount of information, I(m) > 0, and
2. 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:

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


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


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


4. 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...

Oops, I Did It Again!

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

Mechanisms and Engines

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".

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

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

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.

Ya Oughta Know, Part Deux

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:

1. I allowed for the possibility of plant macroevolution (MEvo) due to polyploidy.
2. 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).
3. 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.
4. 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".
5. 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