Film uses science, not religion, to debate Darwin
With nothing but a projector screen and folding chairs, the tiny Embassy Auditorium of the Davidson Conference Center is a far cry from the 50-foot-high IMAX theater where Darwin’s Dilemma was originally scheduled to be screened. Even though the California Science Center recently backed out of its contract to host the film’s Los Angeles premiere, the tensions created by the controversial documentary’s release followed the event to its new location.
As everyone settled into their seats, the room was already bustling with conflicting opinions on Darwin’s 150-year-old theory of evolution.
Controversy · The California Science Center’s IMAX Theater backed out of a contract to screen Darwin’s Dilemma, a pro-intelligent design film. - Photo courtesy of Illustra Media
“I don’t believe in this intelligent design stuff,” one attendee whispered; another gently poked fun at the idea of humans popping out of a random interaction of atoms. Even in today’s modern world, the intimate room was a clear display of the debate raised since Darwin first published The Origin of Species in 1859: Who are we and where did we come from?
The night started off with a short clip from We Are Born of Stars, the first 3-D film created for IMAX projection. Choppy, rough and with limited black-and-white computer graphics, the film provided a structural view of our essential building block of life — DNA. Unfortunately, the film was in Japanese, and those who came without a basic scientific knowledge of DNA structures were left in the dark. But this brief prelude was meant to portray the deep mystery of DNA in living creatures, which is an integral component in Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Darwin’s Dilemma, screened shortly afterwards, was a much more modern and technologically sophisticated film in comparison. The final installment of Illustra Media’s long-planned Intelligent Design trilogy, this documentary brings to light the contradiction between the fossil record and Darwin’s theories. It focuses on the Cambrian explosion, a time period in the earth’s history in which there was a sudden “explosion” of complex species without any ancestral trace.
The film can be divided into three counterarguments.
First, it states that the Cambrian explosion heavily conflicts with Darwin’s theory. According to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, every organism requires a prior ancestral form. But even Darwin admits that the fossil record below the Cambrian strata is devoid of any evidence of such creatures. How, then, did these vast and inexplicably new species suddenly appear out of nowhere?
Darwin attributed it to an incomplete fossil record, but after 150 years, scientists are still searching to fill the gap. The film goes into depth on this point, giving several reasons and evidence on the lack of Precambrian fossils that are ancestral to modern phyla in the Cambrian strata.
Next, the film questions the truth of Darwin’s theory. The graph drawn according to Darwin’s theory is very much like a tree of life, stemming up from one common species and branching into many different groups of organisms. But the film turns this graph upside down, suggesting that a basic structural form for complex life existed first, which then evolved into the differing, elaborate details.
It also gives several reasons why a gene mutation cannot be transformed into a new species, mainly because DNA is actually not responsible for the blueprint of animal development. DNA by itself cannot assemble cells, tissues, muscles and body parts. The film uses these ideas to form its final proposal: intelligent design.
Though unmistakably pro-intelligent design, Darwin’s Dilemma takes on a purposefully secular stance. The word “God” is never mentioned. Instead, less threatening euphamisms like “information source” and “designer” are used. In fact, post-screening panelist and anti-evolution activist Jonathan Wells emphasized that intelligent design is not creationism or natural theology.
“Intelligent design is not a random, convenient solution to evolution,” Wells said. “In fact, it actually opens more doors to scientific research and investigation.”
This, according to Wells, is because a lot of scientific claims come from from a preconceived “story” (Darwin’s theory), in which the scientists just plug in the “plot” (or whatever fossil they happen to find) to make the story work.
Darwin’s Dilemma is indeed an eye-opener, but it does so in an analytical and scientific way. It addresses many key points and counterarguments, providing ample evidence and support with the help of cutting-edge computer graphics and interviews from several leading scientists, some of whom are not even proponents of intelligent design.
It challenges a lot of conventional scientific ideas about evolution, including information from educational textbooks.
But does it leave the viewer with a definite conclusion to this evolution debate? The film ends appropriately with a quote from Darwin: “I can give no satisfactory answer.”
This being a controversial and emotionally charged subject, the large number and varying types of questions thrown by the audience to the post-screening panelists was not surprising. David Berlinski, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and author of numerous books such as The Devil’s Delusion, touched upon the social implications of evolution.
“Discussion and debate over evolution is not just limited to scientific issues,” he said. “It is a conflicting view of the nature of human beings, and the society that we humans want to build.”
Will the debate ever come to an end? Will we ever reach a satisfactory answer to the origins of life?
Berlinski answers, “Maybe, but probably not.”
And thus, the dilemma goes on.
Henry wrote:
The real question here is: Is there purpose in biology or is it a matter of random natural occurrences? If it’s the former then ID is true. If it’s the latter then Darwinism is true. I think we can agree that ID and Darwinism are opposite conclusions to the question of origins. As a result the falsification of ID would be Darwinism and vise versa. ID and Darwinism can’t BOTH be true. Either biology shows evidence of ID or it doesn’t. So the falsification of ID would be Darwinism.
The same can be said of their place in science. Either both are science or neither are science. You can’t say that Darwinism is science while denouncing ID as science. If you can’t test the hypothesis of ID in science, then you can’t test Darwinism. Some how Darwinism has become immune from evidence and critique.
In the same vein, I find it rather ironic that you caution me to not taking Kaku literally, but for some reason it’s OK to take Dawkins, Hitchens and their ilk literally. It’s clearly a hypocritical way to approach this topic. I can’t figure out if you really don’t understand that you are biased or if you are doing it on purpose.
“Your assumption that ID is based on religious beliefs is unfounded. “
Now here we go again ,, around in cricles,. There just is no aruging with people who believe that the dinosaurs died out because they wouldn’t fit on Noah’s Ark.
When Judge Jones a bush appointed, conservative, federal juge, (self proclaimed born again Christian),says.
“The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom. “
So what part of Lying sack of crap don’t you understand?
Henry wrote:
Please keep that quote in context. You are pulling his thought out of context and twisting it to serve your point of view. Dembsky talks a lot about his personal belief system and he does a good job of separating what he believes with his research on design.
Demksy writes in The Design Revolution, p. 26:
Your assumption that ID is based on religious beliefs is unfounded. As with Dembsky, religious beliefs are based in ID not the other way around as you accuse.
I’m tired of not being able to click on the “Reply” button so I’m starting new threads. Hope that’s OK…
Henry wrote:
Well, that’s a good way to remain closed minded. If you approach the topic of ID this way it’s no wonder why you don’t understand it – you simply refuse to understand it. The parallel would be astounding if it wasn’t so laughable.
Ultimately, though, you preach about claims needing to be falsified yet when you have the chance to falsify one of my claims you refuse to do it. I told you where to look and I even told you where in the movie to look yet you refuse to look because I didn’t give you the exact coordinates to where it is in the movie. You can’t get much more closed minded then that.
I told you it’s there and where to find it. If you want to disprove it then do it. If not then your idea that I’m wrong is based on your resistance not my lack of “proof”.
From the article: “But this brief prelude was meant to portray the deep mystery of DNA in living creatures, which is an integral component in Darwin’s theory of evolution.”
I was unaware that DNA was integral to Darwin’s theory. Wow, you learn something new every day!
I know , I know,, The flying spaghetti monster did it.
http://www.venganza.org/
They make a far better argument than of you ID/creationist ever did.
Mitchell, most ID proponents (as well as opponents) don’t take the FSM seriously. It’s nothing more then a straw man fallacy. Pointing to the FSM only shows that one has an elementary way of thinking. Critical thinking skills look beyond platitudes to try and see its legitimate underpinnings. The FSM is a tired charade of anecdotal nonsense.
Steve, the points made in the Flying Spaghetti Monster idea are analogous, and seems to be of equal validity, as the main points of Creationism. So if you think FSM is nonsense, it follows that creationism is nonsense.
Any first year philosophy student will tell you that analogies are a poor form of argumentation because they cannot prove anything; they serve only to illustrate.
The FSM does nothing to debunk the necessity of or how legitimate the inference to an Intelligent Designer of the universe.
William Lane Craig shares similar thoughts about the FSM:
The real shame of the FSM is that people, like yourself, are duped into believing that caricatures like the FSM genuinely show the “nonsense” of the gods of the great religions of our day. It shows your ignorance in not only what god really means to people of religious persuasion, but also how utterly ignorant you are of the works of Anselm, Aquinas, Leibniz, Paley, Sorley, and a host of others, past and present.
Anybody who knows science, and especially biology, knows “information source” and “designer” are not meaningful unless defined (and falsifiable).
Discovery Institute doesn’t answer serious scientific questions, thus not a credible example of “using science”.
Kyle, you are avoiding answering the question – how would evolutionists explain
where the information comes from in living matter? Information requires a source.
Heinz,
I did give examples of information being added by natural mechanisms. For example, gene duplication. See my other comments above.
Henry, your example of adding information does not answer my question.
In your example of gene duplication you assume a living organism with
DNA already existing. My question – how is information added to non-living
material (that contains no information) to produce a living organism (that
contains information in its DNA)?
Moreover, you must also consider other relevant scientific findings:
1. Chance mutations cannot produce new information.
Read “Not by Chance” book by Dr. Lee Spetner.
Read “Signature in the Cell” book by Stephen Meyer.
Of course this only applies to matter already living
and having information.
2. Natural Selection can only select from existing
information in the living matter. And that information
must exist first before it can be selected. Again read
Stephen Meyer’s book “Signature in the Cell.”
Conclusion – Neo-Darwinian mechanisms do not explain
how evolution works, let alone how information is injected
into non-living matter in the first place.
Heinz,
First of all, evolution is about the change of life from existing life, not about the origin of the very first DNA or life from non-living material (abiogenesis). Evolution is about how information is modified, and even added, to existing life, by natural processes such as random mutations. That type of creation of information has been observed many times. I’ve given some examples of that.
Your question is not about evolution, but abiogenesis: how the very first life got information from non-living material. But notice that any pattern implies information. In this sense, even non-living things already contain information. Complex molecules by themselves (outside of and apart from living beings) contain information. So the question is not how information is created from non-information, because even non-living things already contain information.
A more relevant question is how the type of information in living things (such as in the DNA), can arise from other types of information that already existed in non-living things. It is not an issue of how information can be created from zero information (as you wrongly think), but how information can be modified from one type to another by natural processes. It is still a hard problem, but not as impossible as you made it sound, since non-living things already have information to begin with.
Now, back to evolution, to answer your more specific points …
Spetner is wrong. Chance mutations can add information. For instance, there are observed increase in genetic variety in bacteria, observed by Lenski. Other examples: there are hundreds of enzymes where random mutations produce increased specificity (increased information).
Natural selection, by itself, can only select from existing information, but that existing information can be the result of chance mutations (see previous paragraph). Hence, the combination of natural selection plus random processes can produce additional information.
Spetner’s arguments sound plausible, but a deeper look shows flaws. His measure of information is proportional to substrate, but he doesn’t define substrate. His concept of information cannot be measured experimentally. In fact, even his own example, for instance Xylitol metabolism, does not support his claim.
See here for a nice scientific rebuttal of Spetner’s argument:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/spetner.html
Who’s afraid of ID? Isn’t the theory of evolution by means of natural selection the scientific theory most corroborated by the evidence found in nature and so certain and robust as the law of gravity? Shame on you pos-modern Darwinians for Darwin himself would love this debate!
Henry…
We know a lot about what natural causes are capable of producing and what they are not capable of producing. Natural causes are not capable of orchestrating a series of purposeful events toward a distant goal, nor are they capable of adhering to a pre-set, complex, specific pattern. Such feats are exclusive to agency.
We know a lot about what lies at the base of all life forms. We knew nothing of the sort in Darwin’s day. Today we know that even the simplest single celled organism requires vast amounts of complex specified information. This information exists in the specific arrangement of nucleotides along the DNA double helix. We know that this DNA is a “code,” a “language,” a “program.” Pick your exact word, they all work perfectly. They work perfectly because they are much more than mere analogy – they are perfect descriptions.
We know a lot about the source of vast amounts of complex specified information: always, without exception, that source is intelligent agency. We know of no other source capable of generating complex specified information. Indeed, we know why other candidate sources aren’t capable.
If inferring design from the available data is not a legitimate scientific enterprise, somebody needs to tell the archaeologists. If it is, then you need to start dealing with it rather than peddling denial.
Here it is in a nutshell: Symbolic representation. Only top-down design is capable of such a thing. There is a 100% satisfying prediction for you. Certainly it beats the predictions of naturalism. Like atomism, an eternal universe, and spontaneous generation, to name but a few.
You may not buy into design and that’s your right. but you have absolutely no rational basis to dismiss it as illegitimate. When it comes to the origin of life, what needs to be explained is the origin of complex specified information.
Joe,
Yes indeed, we know a lot now.
We know that “complex specified information” is not even well-defined in a way that can be measured. I challenge you to give such an operational definition. I challenge you to show how it can be measured, and what the concrete criteria is to decide from that measurement which cases are design and which are not.
We know of observed examples of information evolving naturally. For example in fungi or bacteria. Those are concrete examples of information evolving.
We know that DNA does not work perfectly. Ever heard of genetic disorders? Hundreds of diseases happen because the DNA is NOT working perfectly. Try to explain that with ID. On the other hand, they are easy to explain if you know that changes in the DNA are not purposeful.
And by the way, Shame on Sophia Lee and the Daily Trojan. I expected better from USC.
Even a bush appointed, conservative, federal juge, (self proclaimed born again Christian), ruled in the Dover Pa trail that ID is nothing more than creationism and is not science. He also said the DI people were fundamentally dishonest.
Judge Jones said.
“The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom. “
The comment on the association of ID with religion is simply a response on the title of the Daily Trojan article. It says “not religion” explicitly in the title. That’s false.
Of course naturalism has limits. But there has never been an alternative that systematically produces better results (in terms of making correct predictions). I challenge anybody to give such an alternative.
Of course perception is limited. But again, I challenge anybody to give a (supernatural? non-perception based) alternative that systematically produces better predictions.
Instead of making big statements, try to give a concrete example of an alternative to naturalism. It’s easy to find limits. What’s your alternative?
More specifically, and more relevant to the article, give a concrete example of how Intelligent Design has proven a new theory. In fact, that’s probably too hard. There is an even simpler, but still unsolved, challenge: give a rigorous definition of “Intelligent Design”.
The difference between living and non-living matter is that living matter requires
information (DNA) and a program (instructions) on how to reproduce living matter.
Naturalism cannot explain how information gets added to non-living matter to
produce living matter and then further reproduce that living matter using random
mutations and natural selection. Information requires a designer – we know that
by our experience. ID explains this very well. Even Dawkins has no answer
for how information can be added to non-living matter to produce living matter.
Of course increases in information have been observed to evolve naturally. One example, increased genetic material (hence, increase in information) by evolution has been observed in Iberian freshwater fish. Other examples have been observed in fungi, bacteria, and various other organisms.
From our everyday experience, information requires a designer. But science is much more than our everyday’s experience. Just because you haven’t seen information created naturally in your everyday experience doesn’t mean it cannot happen. You are only arguing from your ignorance. In fact, information can be added by natural processes. See examples above and below.
Dawkins’ ability or inability to give an example is not a measure of the whole field’s ability to give examples. It only reflects what he knows. Perhaps he is just less knowledgeable in this particular issue. But evolution does not rely on one person’s knowledge. There are many examples, given by other authors, of how mutations can add information. For instance, gene duplication, a natural process, can add information, such as observed in yeast. See http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/8/931.pdf
Other than the flurry of ad hominem attacks (making their points inferior because a) they come from Discovery Institute, b) they are less reputable due to their disbelief in unguided natural forces’ creative abilities, c) that the non-darwinist scientific community is -because of a different vision- a priori incapable of presenting science due to the opinions of its popular counterpart, d) that it is creationism in disguise), the case in point still stands. However, the fact that ID’s propositions eventually culminate in an information source is indeed a worthwhile argument to elucidate. I will show now that the fundamental vision of naturalism that divides the “scientific steps” with the “non-scientific steps” is rationally flawed, thereby proving indirectly its only other alternative, supernaturalism.
Naturalism is a religion, not a science, by the simple fact that the only way to prove naturalism is through supernaturalism. In perception, how can you know everything natural is natural? Because it is “just so”? THAT is an irrational religion, as it does not provide a reason to its own basis. In objectivity, “everything was done naturally because nature is all we see” obviously a) makes the statement’s point of view absolute (making the observer perfect) and/or b) implies omniscience (EVERYTHING, huh?). In logic, it cannot explain irrationalities, because rationality is the basis for the concept of nature: therefore irrationality is by definition outside the realm of such an idea. Thus saying that something is “unscientific” because it is non-natural is unscientific in itself…
However, epistemologically, there is only one maximum container for all knowledge: infinity. Describing its “limits” in terms of finite containers (words) as if it had ones (if it does, explain because?) is irrational. However, to say that it is beyond natural knowledge to explain it is not, as it implies the correct hierarchy, that our perception is a part, and inferior in quantification to, the maximum container of reality. So, their derivation that knowledge ends in an ultimate information source Beyond Nature is perfectly rational.
The past is a part of reality way beyond our perception (fossils don’t count, as they, too are in the present, and are only in our mind’s past due to OUR date/age attributions). Therefore, only under naturalism can it allow for simple natural forces to create present realities. Under supernaturalism, however, the story is never set on stone, as there are infinite interpretations to what could have happened, that are beyond human knowledge. That we accept some as superior does not mean they are, and thus, that the scientific community wants to apply a certain vision to the past does not mean that the others are worse.
Plus, even with no evidence, one can be right. Reality is independent of our perceptions, and thus, of ANYTHING we can muster to show our “rightness”. However, how these can be logically accounted for determines the rationality/irrationality of a claim. The fundamental vision of Darwinism is materialism/naturalism, and as such it is intrinsically wrong, even if the mechanism was right. ID can accept the mechanism, but not the fundamental irrationality that founds it.
(A good challenge for naturalism: explain the existence of laws of logic independent of nature without saying they are natural – for it is already acquiesced that That is what’s going to be proven)
Please don’t start the straw-men arguments against religion, which have nothing to do with a fundamental posture for rationality.
Intelligent Design is just a modern argument for the existence of God without explicitly mentioning the word “God”. However, all it’s leading proponents believe the “designer” is God, more specifically, the God of Christianity.
All the main proponents of Intelligent Design are associated with the Discovery Institute. Here is a quote from that institute’s manifesto: “Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.” See http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
William Dembski, one of the biggest proponents of Intelligent Design, wrote: ” … the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ.”. See his book, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology.
Intelligent Design is NOT exclusively based on empirical evidence. It has so far failed to give a rigorous test to identify intelligence. In fact, it isn’t even able to define the term “intelligent design” rigorously. Even the movie doesn’t give this. I challenge anybody to give a counterexample.
What the scientific community agrees upon may be wrong. But the rejection (in case it is wrong) is also done by agreement within the scientific community. The Ptolemaic system was rejected and corrected, also by agreement within the scientific community. Whether an empirical result is accepted is decided by the scientific community. Supporters of Intelligent Design aka Creationism don’t want to accept this because they know they are overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community, because they have neither rigorous empirical evidence nor well-defined concepts that can be accepted scientifically.
There are problems with the Darwinian theory of evolution. Some are mentioned in this movie. But they do not necessarily (scientifically) imply “Intelligent Design”. To conclude that it is “intelligent design” requires an additional NON scientific step.
Don’t confuse the implications of a scientific theory with the theory itself, or its methods. It is the methods employed that determine what is science, not the consequential implications.
To be sure, intelligent design theory can produce powerful arguments for God as understood by Christians (and others), but belief in god/s is neither part of the theory, nor its methods.
Intelligent Design theory is a theory for detecting design in nature, NOT designers. This is because examples of things which may have been designed are directly observable and scientifically controllable. The designer/s of a particular thing may or may not have fled the scene, may or may not be identifiable, and may or may not be co-operative with experimenters or observers: in short, they are not necessarily available or amenable to experimentation or observation, whereas the things that they have designed can be.
Intelligent Design theory presents a method for empirically detecting design in certain particular cases where a certain quantifiable characteristic (“specified complexity”) is present to a degree which regularly occurs only in things known to have been designed. On the basis of the compliant application of this theory to any particular case a ‘design inference’ can be made and physical and logical tests proposed which are appropriate to the case in hand. (On that basis, for example, DNA has been inferred to be a designed feature of nature, and the test prediction is that most examples of what, on an undirected evolutionary hypothesis, is considered to be “junk DNA” will turn out to be functional DNA).
Of course, a design requires a designer, so a successful inference implies a designer. Who that designer may be in some cases is likely to be beyond the reach of science alone, but it may be possible to identify certain necessary properties of the designer/s in particular cases, and these could provide a basis for further investigation or test. In other words, scientifically we may not be able to answer the question “who”, but we may be able to answer the question “what”.
As for a definition of ‘intelligent design’, the term (in various forms) has been in use (in a non-labelling/non-partisan sense) since at least the 18th century by its friends and foes alike, and most people can see what it is intended to convey. What it means is intentional/wilful/purposeful planning or action originating in a conscious mind. It can be observationally distinguished from chance and necessity, and with those two constitutes the three exhaustive proximate explanations behind the ‘formal’ causes of anything we observe in nature.
The scientific community is largely opposed to intelligent design theory not because the theory is scientifically deficient, but partly because that community is dominated by a-theists who are not prepared to face up to the failings of the Darwinism upon which their world view rests, and partly because of a well-founded fear that Intelligent Design theory provides a “foot in the door” for non-scientific creationism.
Although the term “intelligent design” has been used for some time, that doesn’t mean it has been well defined, as Thomas claimed.
Thomas said about Intelligent Design:
“Intelligent Design theory presents a method for empirically detecting design in certain particular cases where a certain quantifiable characteristic (”specified complexity”) is present to a degree which regularly occurs only in things known to have been designed.”
But how do you define and test “specified complexity” (as defined by Dembski)?
Let’s look at the procedure.
The way Dembski explains it (see his book), the procedure is eliminative, hence asymmetric: it gives a special treatment to the alternative of “design” (over other alternative explanations). Basically it says: if other explanations fails, then it must be designed by default, without having to prove design directly. That’s a flawed procedure. The burden is on others (non design-based explanations) to prove their case, and if they fail, then it must be “design” – without having to prove design directly. The “design” alternative gets a special advantage in the procedure. See the following article for a good explanation and illustrations why this is a flawed framework: http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/theft_over_toil
As far as direct test is concerned: so far the idea of “Intelligent design” has not produced any prediction that has already been proven empirically (directly, not in the eliminative way).
Furthermore, the definition of “specified complexity” itself is flawed. The definition relies on the idea that if the probability of something happening is lower, the complexity is higher. Hence, if we can measure the likelihood, that will give a measure the complexity. It conflates definitions of information and complexity. But those are two distinct mathematical conceptd that don’t have a necessary relationship between them. Shannon’s theory of Information does not have implications toward Kolmogorov’ complexity, and vice versa. For example it is possible (in fact, it is easy) to create a simple Turing machine producing an unlikely string. This is an example of something unlikely which can be produced by a simple machinery.
Both the proposed definition and the procedure to test “specified information” are flawed.
There is a very good reason why ID has been widely rejected by the scientific community, including scientists who are theists.
Thomas said “don’t confuse implications of a scientific theory with the theory itself, or its methods”, in an effort to separate the religious motivations of ID proponents with the methods.
So far so good.
However in the last paragraph, he accused scientists of having a-theistic motivations. This is the very mistake of confusing motivations of atheist and the scientific arguments they have.
At least you should be consistent. If you want to take the religious motivation of theists out of the discussion, then do the same for atheists. Or if you want to discuss the theistic or atheistic motivations, do it for both.
I mentioned the religious motivation of ID proponents in a previous comment because they themselves admitted as much. I was not accusing, just quoting from their own sources. On the other hand, the scientific community includes many theists who accept Darwinian evolution. For example, Francis Collins, a leader of the Genome project, is an evangelical christian, and yet he rejected Intelligent Design.
Henry, you are quick to point out logical fallacies is other people’s arguments, but fail to recognize them in your own. Your negation of ID because the Discovery Institute promotes it is nothing more then the Guilt by Association fallacy. Just because a certain organization promotes ID doesn’t mean it’s not science.
Ironically enough, though, the Discovery Institute has identified some pretty empirically sound scientific research studies that serve to support ID. If you would open your mind just a little you would be able to see that.
My comment on the association of ID and the Discovery institute is not to prove it is wrong, but against the comments from others (including implicitly by the author of the Daily Trojan article) that ID is pure science without any religious motivation. That’s false.
As for how ID is flawed, see my other comments (not the comment on the Discovery Institute).
I didn’t say that you were trying to prove it wrong. My point is that you are blaming ID for something that religious organizations are doing. ID is based on science without religious motivation. Religions are the ones that use ID for religious motivations NOT the ID movement itself. Just because religious organizations use ID for their agenda doesn’t mean ID itself is guilty of having religious motivations.
Yes, there are religious organizations that use ID for religious purposes, but just because religious organizations use ID for their agenda doesn’t mean that ID is based on religious motivations and not science. You are still making ID guilty of religiosity by association. It’s an unfair critique. You need to critique ID based on it’s scientific underpinnings NOT by the organizations that use ID for their agenda.
ID is not only used by religious organizations for their purposes. But the proponents of ID actually made statements that reveal their religious motivations. For example, Dembsky, one of the biggest proponents of Intelligent Design, wrote: ” … the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ.”. See his book, “Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology.”
The ID people are not simply being used by religion. The ID people themselves said such things.
Why is it so important to state that intelligent design theory not religious but scientific? It probably matters only because some people want it to be taught as science in school.
It should not need pointing out that a wholly empirical-based theory is science – but, because of its positive religious implications and attraction to theists, and because it threatens their world view and their a-theistic mis-perception of how to do science, the majority of a-theistic scientists (who dominate the scientific community) maintain that intelligent design theory is religion, not science.
Also, having used Darwinism for 150 years as their main weapon to disparage affirmative religion, they are not about to concede the validity of a genuinely scientific approach which threatens their own belief systems and exposes the incapability of Darwinian processes alone to produce or develop biological life.
The point is that Intelligent Design is NOT wholly empirical. The concept of “intelligent design” has not even been rigorously refined in a testable way. I challenge you to give one.
“Intelligent Design” is a property of something in nature of which its formal and/or final causes have been predetermined (at least in part) by the intentional activity of a mind: in other words, its formal and/or final causes result from a mental activity and cannot be attributed to chance and/or necessity alone.
Briefly, Intelligent Design theory proposes that it is a regularity of nature that when an empirically identifiable measure, “specified complexity”, exceeds an independently determined threshold appropriate to the case under consideration, then the property of intelligent design can be reliably inferred to be present.
Both the method itself and putative cases of design can be rigorously tested.
The most popular example of a successfully tested design inference is currently the DNA code in living cells, with the test being that “junk DNA” is shown not to be “junk”.
Another example of a design inference which is physically testable would be the proposal that complex biological machines are designed, one consequential inference being that, since such machines ultimately require that their design terminates in non-material agency, so there must exist non-material media capable of both sustaining mental activity and interacting with the material world. A suggestive example would be the existence of immaterial minds – so one test would be the (currently more risky) prediction that active minds can be identified in isolation from physical bodies, or, to put it another way, no sustainable evidence will be found that minds are emergent properties of brains/bodies.
Intelligent Design theory would also appear, to me, to predict that in medical science we should be more optimistic about finding ways of defeating harmful bacteria and viruses (instead of assuming that they will always evolve a way round our engineered attempts to overcome them).
For more mundane predictions see Mike Gene’s ‘The Design Matrix’, or Stephen Meyer’s ‘The Signature in the Cell’.
Specified complexity (as defined by Dembsky) has a flawed definition, because it confuses probability and complexity. It tries to measure probability, and infer complexity. But they are not equivalent.
There is no agreed upon “independently determined threshold” for measuring complexity to determine design. In fact, it is not even agreed that complexity is a necessary measure of design at all.
If junk DNA is shown to be not junk, then it falls into the same case as currently known functional DNA, which can be explained by evolution.
I don’t think that currently there is an iota of evidence of immaterial mind.
For additional discussion on specified complexity, see my other comment, a few comments down.
Henry-
Dembski does not “confuse” probability with complexity, he consciously correlates them.
His definition of complexity is coherent, and the correlation with inverse probability provides a useful means of quantification. (Dembski has also developed a correlation between complexity and classical Shannon information, providing another way to quantify complexity).
Dembski has proposed an independently calculated universal probability bound as a threshold for distinguishing between chance & necessity and inferred “design” (with a value of 10 to the power of -150) in biology. His value is much more cautious than those proposed by others in the past (which can be as “high” as 10 to the power of -50). Regarding the method itself, however, different thresholds could be derived for different circumstances and situations, so my statement about the method (as distinct from its controversial application to design in nature/evolution) was intended to be a general one.
Dembski’s proposal for detecting design was originally published as a peer-reviewed philosophical monograph by a world-class university press. That doesn’t mean it’s correct, or even that it’s generally accepted, but it does mean that it has passed a significant level of competent (indeed, hostile) scrutiny.
Whether the majority of scientists currently accept a particular hypothesis or theory is not the determinator of whether it is actually science.
If Dembski is wrong in proposing that quantified significant specified complexity (in cases where deterministic and probabilistic explanations can be analytically eliminated) signals design, then no-one has yet shown that to be the case. Those who reject his theory do so because they believe that there are processes of chance & necessity alone which can indeed generate significant specified complexity. They have yet to demonstrate that to be the case, but if they do, then the show-case theory of intelligent design theory will have been falsified.
For several decades “junk” DNA has been cited as an expectation (or “prediction”) of naturalistic evolutionary theory. I have no doubt that, should it be found to be otherwise, naturalistic evolutionary theory would be pliable enough to accommodate it (it has shown itself to be adept at avoiding falsification in the past). However, the point is, that in the face of this claim, the inference to design made by intelligent design theory, in the case of DNA, is that most junk DNA will be found to be actually functional (ie, non-junk).
Thus it provides a prediction and a falsification test for that particular design inference, a way of rigorously testing that particular intelligent design hypothesis.
(It also provides another example of an opportunity for research promoted by intelligent design theory).
Incidentally, as things currently stand undirected evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of functional DNA by purely naturalistic causes (chance & necessity); and indeed intelligent design theorists claim to be able demonstrate that the functional DNA code is incapable of being explained by such processes alone.
Your claim that “currently there is [not] an iota of evidence of immaterial mind” is exactly my point (which I said was risky). Here we have a prediction for which there is very little current supporting scientific evidence (so this is another example of a prediction which is genuine – the theory cannot be adjusted after the event to suggest that it predicted it all along). So, if neuroscientists are able to demonstrate that the mind is merely an emergent property of a material brain/body/other body part, then the prediction would be falsified (and the “who designed the designer” argument of the “new atheists” could then acquire some actual purchase).
Somehow I cannot click reply to put my comment directly under yours, which makes it unconvenient. I will try again to reply tomorrow with a different computer system.
Intelligent Design (ID) theory is not “creationism”, either in its original 19th century sense (referring to science-based rejection of universal common ancestry in favour of ‘special creation’) or in its modern sense (referring to religion-based advocacy of recent special creation in accordance with a literalistic interpretation of the Bible).
ID theory is wholly and exclusively based upon empirical evidence, and employs the principle of uniformitarianism (a principle generally rejected by modern creationists) to determine law-like characteristics which can reliably identify design in nature.
It does not reject modern evolution in the sense of common ancestry over a long earth history, but it does insist that scientific claims are not asserted beyond what the available evidence supports.
Unlike both the modern Darwinist theory of undirected evolution and modern creationism, ID does not employ a methodology (whether methodological/metaphysical naturalism, or biblical inerrancy) which explicitly pre-determines the ‘scientific’ outcome before doing the actual science: rather, ID proponants insist on applying the ‘Socratic principle’ of following the evidence wherever it may lead.
Also, unlike modern Darwinism, it does not rely upon arguments from authority or ‘scientific’ concensus to establish its validity and stiffle enquiry, but relies upon empirical evidence and analysis alone. In relation to any theory, what the scientific community agrees upon for decades is no guarantee of its truth (eg, in the past it was agreed upon the Ptolemic description of the solar system, and upon the universal applicability of Newton’s laws of gravitation, for centuries).
The California Science Center was right to pull out. It’s unfortunate that this reporter accepted the filmmakers’ premise without any further perspectives.
“Intelligent Design” is not, and never has been, science. It is creationism, wrapped up in a supposedly secular disguise.
No scientist of repute argues that evolution does not take place. The “debate” mentioned here is strictly political, fueled by religious fervor. The scientific community has been in agreement for decades. The fossil record the reporter mentions has indeed been filled in, and continues to get more detailed every day. Just recently, important discoveries have led to a deeper understanding about our own ancestors, suggesting a far more complex evolution than even we had previously imagined.
I hope that one day, the creationists will realize that God’s hand in evolution is far more impressive than any of their simplistic explanations.
Those who argue that intelligent design isn’t science is speaking from either ignorance or denial. Scientific evidence for intelligent design is what made Antony Flew change his mind about atheism. Even Dawkins admits that because of the scientific evidence for design it’s possible that an intelligent designer exists (although he refuses to believe it).
These are atheists saying that intelligent design is a viable scientific explanation of origins. I can’t believe that anyone would see the evidence and refuse to believe that intelligent design is based on science.
To not realize that is nothing more then closed mindedness.
Intelligent Design is not science because the idea of a “designer” is not falsifiable, one main requirement of being science. The definition of a “designer” does not allow a falsifying observation, since the designer is beyond realm of the observable.
ID offers an answer, “the designer” which does not need further explanation. That’s contrary to science, in which everything should be provisional and open to further correction.
Furthermore, ID is based flawed logic, known as “argument from ignorance” (if it looks to complex, and we don’t have a clue how it came about, then it must have been designed). It is a logical fallacy.
See Robert T. Pennock. Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives. MIT Press.
There is no theory of origins that is falsifiable. Why do you insist on the impossible for ID, but have different standards for naturalistic theories? Could it be that you’re biased? Hmmmm…
When there is no falsifiable evidence it remains a theory. Science usually begins with a theory and if it can’t be proved it remains a theory until such time that it can be proved. All cosmic origin explanations remain theories since none of the can be falsifiable, including the naturalistic ones.
We don’t wait to call a theory science until it’s falsified, that’s just silly. Science is the process of theorizing, testing, quantifying, falsifying and proving. If we waited until every scientific theory is falsifiable then nothing nothing could ever be called science until it’s proved, including naturalistic theories of origins.
Your idea that ID is based on “argument from ignorance” shows your ignorance about ID (and logical fallacies). ID is a theory of origins based on the improbability that life began as a result of random chance.
Steve, do you even know what falsifiable means? I’m afraid your comments would embarrass even serious creationists.
Being falsifiable is considered the MAIN requirement for any statement to be considered as scientific. Not falsifiable means it is outside of science. It might still be true, but its truth lies outside of science.
Every single theory of science accepted today is falsifiable. In fact, every single proposal must be falsifiable in order to be considered in a scientific discussion. It is one of the requirement for them to be called scientific at all.
All the hypotheses of origins discussed by scientists are falsifiable. For example Stanley Miller’s ideas are certainly falsfiable.
Your comments on falsifiablity would be rejected not only by scientists, but even by ID proponents. Even ID proponents try hard to say ID is indeed falsifiable, such as to make it scientific. Your comments about falsifiability would embarrass even the ID community.
The probability of life coming out of natural processes so far cannot be calculated in a rigorous way because what is probable or not is not that clear.
(1) Sub-atomic particles are not necessarily observable: physicists test for the existence of such particles (eg., the “Higgs Boson”) by predicting their observable effects and then testing for those effects. Similarly, intelligent design theorists test for “design”, not the “designer”. (That is, intelligent design theory aims at providing a method for detecting “design”, not the “designer” because design is easier to observe and scientifically control than any putative designer).
Classical design theory uses two methods for detecting design in nature: analogy and “inference to best explanation” (comparative abduction). Intelligent design theory primarily employs a particular form of comparative/eliminative abduction which aims at providing a method for detecting design without generating “false positives”. It can therefore be “falsified” by finding empirical examples of false positives when the method is used properly (the method here being Dembski’s “explanatory filter” used to infer design by detecting significant “specified complexity”).
Intelligent design theory uses both eliminative criteria and positive indicators for detecting design. Thus both the method and particular examples of its application can be “falsified” by empirically or analytically identifying alleged design cases where the eliminative criteria can be shown to have erroneously excluded the sufficiency of “natural” causes (chance and/or necessity) acting alone (eg., Michael Behe’s examples of the bacterial flagellum or the blood clotting cascade, which a number of opponents of intelligent design theory claim to have been falsified in this way – although Behe repudiates and apparently refutes their claims).
Additionally, specific “design inferences” made using the theory can be “falsified” by demonstrating that predictions based upon those inferences fail (eg, by demonstrating in the case of the design inference for DNA – which predicts that most DNA in a normal cell will be functional – that most DNA is “junk”, or, in the case of functional biological complexity in general, that intelligent activity is always the direct dependent result of a biological process – ie, that biological minds are exclusively produced and operated by brains).
(2) As demonstrated by Godel’s theorem, when considering anything we inevitably come to a point for which there is no further explanation – a “brute fact”. If a particular method of science takes you straight there, that doesn’t invalidate the science.
However, intelligent design theory does not take you straight there: it detects design, not the designer. An inference of “design” implies a “designer”, of course. But far from terminating enquiry at that point, it opens up other lines of investigation (such as searching for other independent examples of design – “consillience”; or checking design inferences against alternative independent methods of design detection; or testing the physical or logical predictions of particular design inferences; or investigating potential mechanisms by which the designer may have implemented particular cases or classes of design – eg, “front-loaded evolution”; or investigating the design principles upon which nature works – “reverse engineering”, if you like; or even attempting to characterise the nature of the designer ).
Indeed, the whole of modern western science was based originally upon the concept that natural laws point to a designer – the Creator God whose works in nature point to the Creator himself (independently of any supernatural revelation such as The Bible) and that therefore the world can and should be understood by investigating it on the basis that it operates according to such laws of nature. In other words, attributing nature to design encourages scientific investigation rather than terminating it.
(3) Whilst the claim that intelligent design theory is a science stopper is palpably false, in no way can the same can be rationally claimed for “scientific naturalism” (where certain conclusions are reached and certain lines of enquiry are ruled out by definitional fiat in advance of doing the actual science).
Henry, on the question of the provisional nature of scientific conclusions, perhaps you should be addressing your corrections to the a-theistic evolutionists who run the National Academy of Sciences rather than to proponents of intelligent design theory. According to the NAS, scientific explanations must be exclusively naturalistic: there’s nothing provisional (or rational) in their insistence on this. Nor does their atual use of the word “fact” to describe the theory of naturalistic evolution encourage us to think that they only hold the theory provisionally (despite their esoteric definition of the word “fact” to actually mean provisional conclusion).
As for intelligent design theory, it is just as provisional as anyother genuine scientific theory: its central claim, that design in nature can be empirically detected by identifying and quantifying significant specified complexity in cases where deterministic and probabilistic explanations can be analytically eliminated, is testable; and intelligent design theorists have already modified (slightly) the concept of “irreducible complexity” (a special class of “specified complexity”) in the face of counter examples which could generate “false positives”.
(4) Intelligent design theory does NOT remotely employ an “argument from ignorance”. It identifies law-like indicators of known design in nature and then applies those indicators to other subjects to see if they also can be inferred to have been designed.
It does not argue that since we don’t know how something could have formed by natural causes (chance and necessity) alone, therefore it must have been designed (the only identified alternative to chance and necessity), but that (a) we DO KNOW that certain features in nature CANNOT have been caused by natural processes alone, (b) we DO KNOW that certain features characterise known examples of design, and (c) we DO KNOW that ONLY intelligent agency has been identified in nature as being capable of causing certain effects.
In other words, intelligent design theorists do not employ a method based upon mere absence of evidence (ignorance), but rather, a method which combines evidence of absence with positive evidence of presence.
Evolutionary naturalism, on the other hand, routinely employs the fallacies of affirming the consequent (by seeking exclusively confirming evidence for undirected evolution whilst failing to test for alternative interpretations of that evidence) and begging the question (by presupposing exclusively naturalistic causes before doing the science).
Henry wrote:
Ummm… wow, you completely missed the point. I’m saying that you are sticking to the highest (and unattainable) standards for the position you oppose. It’s classic bias. If you require falsifiability for ID you must also require it for naturalistic theories of origins.
Ultimately, I think you are confused about falsifiability. Falsafiability is not necessary for something to be considered science.
All that a theory needs to be considered science is criticizability NOT falsifiability. You should read up on Karl Popper. Popper stressed that “unfalsifiable statements are still very important for science and are often contained in scientific theories as unfalsifiable consequences.”
String theory, for example is currently criticizable but not falsifiable. Does that mean that the work of theoretical physicist expert in string theory Dr. Michio Kaku isn’t doing science? Of course not! I challenge you to call Dr. Kaku and tell him that what he is doing isn’t science because it’s not falsifiable. How absurd!
By the way, in a recent interview Dr. Kaku stated “we are on the verge of seeing the mind of god.” and no, Dr. Kaku isn’t speaking from a religious perspective.
Sure, falsifiability is an effective methods by which theories can be criticized, but it’s still just a special case of the much more general notion of criticizability. To require falsifiability in ALL science is to have unrealistic expectations.
So to answer your question, yes, I know what falsifiable means and no I’m not in the least embarrassed, well, I’m a bit embarrassed for you, but not for me. Come on, this is philosophy of science 101 stuff!
Steve,
All the theories of science follow the standard of falsifiabilty. At least a theory should include statements that are falsifiable, plus other statements that are consequences of such statements. So creationist ideas should follow the same standard.
A theory might contain some statements that are not falsifiable, but they are consequences of other statements that are, or they motivate statements that are.
There are numerous examples of falsifiable statements within evolution. For example see Ridley’s textbook on Evolution.
On the other hand, ID is not only not falsifiable, it’s basic ideas are not even well-defined. For example, it often relies on probability to show “specified complexity”. But what is the cutting point of probability such that beyond it we should assume it must be designed? Furthermore, how exactly do you calculate those probabilities? These basic issues are not even well defined, let alone falsifiable.
You are right, string theory is hard to test (at least with current tools). And in fact, some have actually questioned whether it could be called scientific. Those critics include prominent physicists such as Sheldon Glashow and others. But notice, it is only hard to test, not in principle impossible. Furthermore, since string theory is based on quantum mechanics and relativity, which are falsifiable, it is indirectly falsifiable. Any example that falsify relativity or quantum mechanics will falsify string theory indirectly.
Kaku might mention God, but you have to be careful to interpret what he means by God. It is similar to how we know that Einstein mentions God in some often quoted statements, but further reading makes it clear he does not mean a designer God. Similarly, don’t take Kaku’s statement literally.
Antony Flew has given different arguments on the issue of intelligent design, sometimes retracting what he has said before. Although he still claims to believe in God, it is not clear what his current argument is on the issue of intelligent design. See http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=369
Besides, even if Flew believes there is scientific evidence for intelligent design, his argument fails to convince most (almost all) scientists. It’s just his personal opinion.
Steve, can you give me a quote that “Dawkins admits that because of the scientific evidence for design it’s possible that an intelligent designer exists”. ? I doubt he said that. You need to give me a quote.
One I can think of off the top of my head is in Ben Stein’s movie Expelled And it’s not something Ben Stein said, it comes from Dawkins’ own mouth during an interview.
I saw Ben Stein’s movie. I don’t recall that quote. Not only that, it is a very unlikely quote, considering Dawkins’ position. Give me the time in the movie where this quote appears, so I could check it. Otherwise I have to conclude you are making this up.
This is a response to Henry just below this. I can’t click on his “Reply” link for some reason.
Henry wrote:
My Reply:
So you are refusing to believe that Dawkins said that unless I provide the exact coordinates in the movie so you can check? One doesn’t get much more closed minded then that. I’m not going to do your research for you. If you don’t believe me then fine, I don’t really care. You can stay closed minded if you want. If you want to check it out for yourself then feel free I don’t really care if you believe me or not. I will tell you though, since you seem to have a need for people to state the obvious, it’s in the part of the video when Stein interviews Dawkins (towards the end of the movie).
Hey Steve,
Two things.
First of all, the person who makes a statement has to prove it. You made the statement about Dawkins saying things. You should prove it. Yes, you should do research, if you want to make a statement. That’s normal procedure in arguments. You don’t ask others to find the proof for your statement. You made the statement, you prove it. No proof, your statement is ignored.
Second, I actually checked the video, as I said before. I did the research, although it should’ve been your job. And I didn’t find that statement as you claimed. So I could already say you are wrong. But I was just trying to be nice and ask perhaps I missed something (although I checked) and I am giving you the chance to prove your point by showing the time, in case I missed it. But fine, you refused even to do your job or to take the chance to prove your case.
Okay then, since I did check it and it’s not there, then you are wrong. As simple as that.
Antony Flew’s position on intelligent design is not clear. He has given different arguments on the issue of intelligent design, sometimes retracting what he has said before. Although he still claims to believe in God, it is not clear what his current argument is on the issue of intelligent design.
Besides, even if Flew believes there is scientific evidence for intelligent design, his argument fails to convince most (almost all) scientists. It’s just his personal opinion.
Wait, you’re admitting that Flew believes in God but you are discounting him because it’s not clear (to you) what his current argument is on the issue of ID? That’s a biased view.
His view on ID is based on his study of DNA and the improbability that it is the result of random chance.
See: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/
Our discussion is not about believe in God, but about how ID proves God. Hence, if Flew is not clear about ID, then his opinion about God is discounted, as far as our discussion is concerned.
You gave me a link from 2004. That’s 5 years ago. It’s only his opinion at that time. But Flew has changed his opinion several times over the years. Often retracting his earlier opinions. See here a track record of Flew’s various opinions on ID, collected from a large number of his interviews and writings over many years. See how he changes his mind. http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=369
Again, I can’t click on Henry’s “Reply” link. This is a response to his post below…
Henry wrote:
<
blockquote>Our discussion is not about believe in God, but about how ID proves God. Hence, if Flew is not clear about ID, then his opinion about God is discounted, as far as our discussion is concerned.
No, our discussion isn’t how ID proves God. That’s not even what the article is about. No ID proponent I know of (including myself) claims that ID proves God’s existence. I think this is your fatal flaw. ID proponents claim that ID proves design NOT God. Thomas already spoke about this:
I’m not arguing for the existence of God so if you wish to argue that point I’m not interested. The article is about ID not God. You are trying to make the argument about something it’s not which is a Red Herring Fallacy. As I said before, you need to critique ID based on it’s scientific underpinnings rather then try to discount it by associating it with those who use ID for their religious agendas.