Has Intelligent Design some merit to get to new theories?

Conversation
, ,
1

I found this forum searching for newer thoughts about irreducible complexity. It’s quite different compared to other ones I know, the postings are more polite and less aggressive. So I try to share some thoughts with you.

May I introduce myself? Turning 70 some months ago I live as retired science teacher (biology, chemistry, computer engineering, ethics, all K13-level) in Germany. I discuss with anti-evolutionist since 50 years, knowing quite lot of them personally, published some articles and chapters in books (in German, of course) about creationism and ID. At the moment I’m writing PhD-Thesis abour irreducible complexity.

Being staunch naturalist, but not anti-theist, I’m more interested in scientific than theological issues. I read quite a lot about history of evolutionary biology ever since Darwin and I’m quite amused that a lot of very ancient ideas are popping up, e.g. in form of the Extended Synthesis, most of them non-Darwinian.

A greater part of my PhD-Thesis concerns the question about evolutionary novelties. Here I see in ID a very important position to get new insights. Not about Design, but for new naturalistisic theories by checking hypotheses.

From my point of view there are two categorically different issues in evolution: adaptation and novelties.

Darwin’s theory (RMNS in whatever definition) is the only known mechanism for a connection between the environment and traits of organisms. If there is a gradient of function and the system is able to be modified, RMNS is very powerful, e.g. explaining the evolution of an light-sensitive spot to a vertebrate eye. The usual pathway can be compared to a gentle walk to ‘Mount Improbable’ via a ramp.

Darwin saw the weak point of his theory clearly: the biggest problem is the first step and he didn’ get further than hand-weaving. For example, he didn’t write more about abiogenesis than a letter to Hooker and some general remarks.

From my point of view ID has some weight criticizing generative theories, especially concerning irreducible complexity. There is no gentle slope to ‘Mount Improbable’, but it may be compared to a pole on an even surface. Selection is pointless, because there isn’t a gradient for the IC-function. All possible routes have to be indirect and non-darwinian. It’s easy to show this in Dawkins’ weasel program. If one implements irreducible complexity (that works with some lines of PASCAL-code, I can post the source-code if someone is interested), it doesn’t work any longer.

So explanations about how systems with a function adapt are of little concern regarding the issue of generating novelties.

My impression regarding discussions with Behe (I’ve read quite a lot of them) is that most critics don’t unterstand the real problem. They try to show experimental results that don’t impress if you’re not in a position to define the rules (e.g. that homologies are arguments for a naturalistic evolution). Behe is more correct about many issues than his critics see.

From my point of view this kind of critique should be used to check actual theories to get better ones.

My strategy discussing ID-ists therefore consists in disputing a connection between “we don’t know how a system evolved” and “therefore design is the default” and not trying to find arguments that don’t exist, because we don’t know about evolutionary mechanisms.

2 Likes
2

Indirect yes. Non-Darwinian? I don’t see why they would have to be. By my understanding it was shown evolution was expected to produce irreducible complexity decades before Behe published. See the discussion here Talkorigins

I think that you are making the same error as Behe - missing the fact that evolution is an ongoing process and it should be expected to produce things through indirect routes.

1 Like
3

I must take issue with one of your major premises:

I don’t believe that’s true. There have been many proposed routes to IC systems that involve only Darwinian processes. One problem is that Behe’s (and others) definition of IC has been equivocal, conflating “impossible to evolve” with “losing function if any single part is removed”. This assumes that evolution operates, or would only operate, by sequential addition of invariant parts, which is just nonsensical.

Rather than posting the code, I would prefer that you explain what you’re talking about.

Such as?

4 Likes
4

You are disputing a straw man, for ID proponents don’t argue that design is the default position because we don’t know how a system evolved, not at all. In fact, they infer design as the best explanation for certain features such as IC or CSI based on what we currently know about the cause and effect relationships in our universe.

5

Welcome to the PS forum, Thomas. I too am a retired teacher of multiple disciplines. I hope you will find our community interesting and inviting. Thank you for initiating an interesting thread.

6

I wrote that I read a lot about history of evolutionary theory. After the Evolutionary Synthesis direct darwinian routes were standard. But it ist tricky how to definie ‘darwinian’. Do you know the definition of Ernst Mayr? I’m not sure if there are indirect non-darwinian routes.

7

Did you read the discussion in Boston Review? Orr got it wrong, Doolittle also. Kenneth Miller didn’t understand the problem.

Don’t misunderstand me: I’m not proposing that IC-systems cannot evolve (it’s easy, take a reducibly complex system and put away all not necessary parts, e.g. scaffolding). But the property of a system ‘is IC’ is an argument against certain mechanisms, especially darwinian mechanisms.

8

Evolution can follow indirect routes, and being indirect doesn’t make something non-Darwinian. It’s only necessary to note that e.g. penguins evolved from marine to terrestrial to aerial/terrestrial to aerial/terrestrial/marine to terrestrial/marine to realise that evolution doesn’t go in straight lines.

Evolution can produce ‘irreducibly complex’ systems by changing components until they are mutually reliant, rather than by adding components one at a time. Irreducible complexity has never been a barrier to evolution, and in fact was anticipated long before Behe began writing about it.

Are you implementing IC in ‘weasel’ just by reverting it to a random search for the whole string, with no preferential selection of partially correct intermediates? If so, you’re just reinventing Dawkins’s original program.

P.S. ID is just a disguised version of creationism. It has no merit except as a deception, and gives no weight to anything.

3 Likes
9

You’re correct , ‘default’ isn’t correct.

But ID isn’t an explanation at all. As far as I know ID is ‘signal detection’, no mechanism.

The tricky thing is to transfer what we know about artifacts (‘one generation systems’) to evolving systems with metabolism and descent with modification. We don’t know enough about our universe to be able to detect design without detailed knowledge about the designer.

1 Like
10

It’s very unclear what you are talking about. Unlike the “weasel” program Darwinian evolution has no specific target, it only seeks improvements to evolutionary fitness, without any forethought - and it is constrained by the variations available in the population. Moreover fitness is dependent on the environment which may change.

So I don’t see any reason why Darwinian evolution should not take indirect routes. Indeed, it seems obvious to me that it will take indirect routes over the longer term.

2 Likes
11

Yes they do.

That is exactly how Dembski’s ‘explanatory filter’ works: if something can’t be explained by law or by chance it is assumed to have been designed. He doesn’t say that if something can’t be explained by law or by design then it must have happened by chance, or that if something can’t be explained by design or by chance it must be the result of some unknown law. Design is the default position.

3 Likes
12

Perhaps I am not understanding your point correctly. However, it seems to me you are begging the question by assuming irreducibly complex systems or structures (according to Behe’s initial definition) actually exist in biology. If they did, then you would be correct. There would be no gradual slope to climb to the peak of those particular versions of Mt. Improbable. But that gets the argument nowhere, because the existence of such peaks has not yet been demonstrated. It is simply circular reasoning.

1 Like
13

Do you read the evolutionary biology literature? These sentence strongly suggest that you don’t.

This is inane gibberish. The Weasel program was a small part of an argument about cumulative selection. It has never had anything to do with IC, and its creator (Dawkins) never intended it to illustrate anything other than the almost infinite difference between cumulative selection and random flying-together of parts. If you read the literature, you will know this.

1 Like
14

I want to just second @John_Harshman’s questions above.

2 Likes
15

It isn’t even that. It’s just anti-evolution apologetics.

3 Likes
16

I would have to agree with Roy on that. While it is true that not 100% all ID’ers are guilty of design-is-the-default, it sure is awfully common among them.

1 Like
17

Hello @Thomas, and Welcome to Peaceful Science. :slight_smile:

The bit about “Mount Improbable”; it doesn’t hold up in general. You might find specific examples that are unlikely, but fitness surfaces are generally smooth. A recent post at Panda’s Thumb by @Joe_Felsenstein mentions this and links to a longer article (scroll down to " NFL and smoothness of fitness surface")

My own comment there:

If fitness were random, then each new mutation essentially randomizes the fitness at the next generation. If there are a large number of “adjacent” values of fitness, one mutation away, then the odds of find a higher fitness are pretty good. It might be hard to climb to absolute maximum fitness, but the 99.9th percentile would be easy.

You don’t get fitness surface that cannot be traversed even under complete randomness, you would need to design a surface to be un-traversable.

18

I’m new in this forum. You don’t know me or my competence. I’ve told that I published quite some articles about creationism and ID. Why do you write

Do you want to start a flame war?

Why not do the following? Post a list of articles about Dawkins’ Weasel-Program you’ve read. Then I’ll do the same. With comments I’ve made about them.

Because I’ve read quite a lot of literature about that, I know exactly, what that program is (do you know the source code?) and what Dawkins wanted to show.

That doesn’t mean that evolution doesn’t work. But it shows that a specified mechanism (RMNS) isn’t capable to generate systems with a certain property. Other mechanism may be able to do so.

But sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you implement IC in that program, it doesn’t work further. When the program shows, what evolution can do, that modification shows, what it cannot.

19

Before you go taunting other into yet another debate over Dawkin’s Weasel, you might want to check out a few of the many previous discussions on this topic:

https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/search?q=dawkin%27s%20weasel

20

what certain mechanisms can generate or not.

Exactly. But to ‘see’ an improvement there has to be a function. If a system without all of its parts doesn’t have one, there is no possibilty to improve it by natural selection.

The problem is that darwinian evolution via direct route (a gradient of function, allowing small, selection positive steps) is plausible. If the conditions are met, it works.

The question is how indirect routes are working.