The Massive Confusion On ID and Evolution

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@T_Aquaticus

You write: “Your post seems contradictory. If ID says that design is provable, then doesn’t that put the burden of proof on ID to demonstrate that certain mutations are designed and others are not?”

I acknowledge that my post seems contradictory… in part because of my clumsiness in trying to reconcile two different issues. From the very beginning, the ID camp should have been able to say, one of the better testing protocols is to set up the hypothetical element as an Independent Variable… but who can set up God as an Independent Variable! So I do think they lacked the clarity they should have had… but so did the Evolution side of things.

However, the other way of demonstrating a null hypothesis is ludicrously impossible, because the science community has to say, definitively, that all tests have been run. When would science ever be able to say this? Every decade there are new methods and techniques to test. And this is what the Science side has been saying all along, and the ID side doesn’t acknowledge.

As for your last question: “If someone says that they think God designed nature but it isn’t scientifically detectable in any way, then I see no reason to question their claim.” It’s really the only thing left to say! But I doubt if we will ever hear Behe say it!

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

Behe’s Amazon blog was moved to Uncommon Descent, when Amazon changed its policy and no longer allowed author blogs. The link is:

http://behe.uncommondescent.com/

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Eddie

Something could be both designed and executed by natural causes.

[Not relevant… but perfectly accurate]
Again, to repeat myself against John Harshman’s complaint of my long-windedness…

that is the point of Denton’s book, Nature’s Destiny .

@Eddie

What would be an example of “design by natural causes”?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

By this, do you mean, “design executed through natural causes”?

Assuming this is what you mean, here is an example of a “front-loaded” evolutionary hypothesis, in which evolution works out wholly through natural causes:

There might be, built into the core genome of the first living things, a number of inactive “modules,” lying perhaps in the non-coding zone of the DNA, ready to be activated upon certain environmental signals, and start up a new direction of evolution. Later developments in evolution would thus be implicit in earlier stages.

The first organisms would thus be the organic equivalent of a “James Bond car” – you know, the sort of car that, when Bond is being chased toward the ocean by Spectre agents, can sprout pontoons and an outboard motor, and escape over the water. The possibility of the boat is implicit in the design of the car, even though you’d never suspect it by looking at the car in its normal operation.

Of course, that image isn’t quite accurate. In evolution, the unfolding would be stepwise, because macroevolution doesn’t take one only from car to boat, but from boring, everyday walking to boat (and beyond, to aircraft and space ship). Just as a pogo stick wouldn’t immediately become a motorboat, so an amoeba wouldn’t become a bat; evolution would take some bridging forms. The modules would be activated only in a certain order. But perhaps you get the idea.

Note that I am not arguing dogmatically that this is physically possible; it may or may not be possible, given the way genes, developmental processes, etc. work. But conceptually it’s possible that God could have created an evolutionary process that worked in that way.

Nor am I saying that this is the only possible way of conceiving of evolution as a front-loaded, natural process. But you asked for an example, so I gave one.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Eddie

Nor am I saying that this is the only possible way of conceiving of evolution as a front-loaded, natural process. But you asked for an example, so I gave one.

@Eddie

You said that the writer’s thesis (Denton’s) is that DESIGN can be executed by natural causes.

Were you being sloppy, or is this fundamentally the same as the Pool Shot Model?

The Pool Shot is “all natural” in its sequence… but its design is Divine/Miraculous.

So when you said design could ALSO be “just natural” (my words)… i was pretty surprised.

Does this jog your memory? Or shall we walk your statement back to a less ambitious one?

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

The reason i reject this example is that I dont see how you can call it design if the “veiled plan for more evolution” is a random development.

If God installed the hidden plan… then it is STILL the Pool Shot Scenario!

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@gbrooks9

So when you said design could ALSO be “just natural” (my words)

As you said, your words, not mine. I never said the DESIGN was natural. I said the physical process by which the design is realized, once it starts, is all natural. In Denton the evolutionary process is all-natural, but the setup of the universe in advance requires a divine designing mind.

The pool shot model would be a subset of front-loaded models, or if you wish, a species of the genus “front-loaded evolution.” Denton’s description is not exactly that of a pool shot – it’s not quite as crudely mechanistic – but it is front-loaded. I actually think Denton’s version is more probable than any literal pool-shot scenario. I recommend reading Nature’s Destiny. You’d probably like it.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Eddie ,
“As you said, your words, not mine. I never said the DESIGN was natural.” Well, if you scroll upstream, you will see your exact words: “Something could be both designed and executed by natural causes. Again, to repeat myself against John Harshman’s complaint of my long-windedness… that is the point of Denton’s book, Nature’s Destiny .”

I think you are right… I think I would enjoy Denton’s book. But let’s look at your latest clarification or re-statement: "I said the physical process by which the design is realized, once it starts, is all natural. In Denton the evolutionary process is all-natural, but the setup of the universe in advance requires a divine designing mind." << This is agreed!

“The pool shot model would be a subset of front-loaded models, or if you wish, a species of the genus “front-loaded evolution.” Denton’s description is not exactly that of a pool shot – it’s not quite as crudely mechanistic – but it is front-loaded.” << This is also agreed!

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

As I’ve said repeatedly, and as Behe has said repeatedly, that is one possible option for God as the designer. Another is for him to use some sort of “automated” evolutionary process that proceeds naturally, once programmed.

Did the pyramids erect themselves naturally? If not, then I don’t understand why you are using this example.

@Eddie

How do you know the stones in the Great Pyramid didn’t arrange themselves by chance?

We can observe mutations happening in nature. We don’t observe pyramids forming naturally. How do you apply these concepts to determining which mutations are guided or unguided?

@Eddie

No, that is precisely the link in your thought that I am denying. It might be designed by God from before the beginning of creation, but executed by a complex series of natural causes, also planned by God, though not interfered with by God. It might also be executed by divine interventions. I don’t claim to know which, and I don’t see why one needs to know which, to argue whether or not the thing is designed.

Then why did you say this?

I can look at the Great Pyramid and say the thing was designed. I don’t have to know whether or not every single stone was shaped by human craftsmen. For all I know, there is one stone in the structure that just happened to have the right shape by natural erosion, etc. But I can be sure that, even if there are a few stones that came from nature uncut, the overall structure was designed. Nature would not produce a structure like that without the aid of design.

You are stating that design is detected by looking for things that nature can’t produce.

[T_aquaticus]

@gbrooks9

I acknowledge that my post seems contradictory… in part because of my clumsiness in trying to reconcile two different issues. From the very beginning, the ID camp should have been able to say, one of the better testing protocols is to set up the hypothetical element as an Independent Variable… but who can set up God as an Independent Variable! So I do think they lacked the clarity they should have had… but so did the Evolution side of things.

What clarity do you think the Evolution side is missing? Is it in their definition of random mutations, or something like that?

@gbrooks9

As for your last question: “If someone says that they think God designed nature but it isn’t scientifically detectable in any way, then I see no reason to question their claim.” It’s really the only thing left to say! But I doubt if we will ever hear Behe say it!

That’s my assessment as well. The ID community wants ID to be science. That was the entire goal from the start, and I don’t think they are willing to give up on it yet. A good middle ground would be for them to say that ID isn’t science yet, but they are taking a step back to see where they can proceed.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@gbrooks9

Something could be both designed and executed by natural causes.

OK, I see the problem. There’s an ambiguity in the word-order that I used. You grouped “designed and executed” as one idea, whereas I meant you to group “executed by natural causes” as one idea. So rewrite that as:

“Something could be both designed, and executed by natural causes.”

The separation created by the first comma, followed by the absence of a second comma after “executed”, would have made the word grouping clearer.

Now that we’ve settled what I meant, I’m glad to see that you agree with it.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@T_aquaticus

Did the pyramids erect themselves naturally? If not, then I don’t understand why you are using this example.

The point of my counter-question was that there is no difference in principle between the methods you would use to decide that the stones of the Pyramid didn’t arrange themselves by chance and the methods Behe uses to decide that the proteins in the flagellum didn’t arrange themselves by chance. The difference is that while you agree with Behe about the creative capacities of blocks of stone, you disagree with Behe about the creative capacities of unguided evolutionary mechanisms.

@T_aquaticus

We can observe mutations happening in nature.

We see that mutations occur in nature, but we don’t “observe” mutations turning bacteria into human beings in nature. That transformation is inferred, not observed.

@T_aquaticus

You are stating that design is detected by looking for things that nature can’t produce.

Not that nature can’t produce absolutely; that nature can’t produce without design.

Parallel: It’s false to state as an absolute that a group of workmen with tools and materials can’t produce a house; but it’s not false to state that a group of workmen with tools can’t produce a house without a design.

You’re unnecessarily running around in circles about my vocabulary, and Behe’s. The bottom line – and I find it hard to believe that you don’t realize this – is that neither Behe nor I think that natural causes without some underlying plan or direction could turn bacteria into human beings, whereas you think they easily could. That’s the issue. And as you are never likely to change your mind on that (you couldn’t, without giving up your atheism, and I suspect your atheism is dear to you), and as Behe and I are never likely to change our minds either, what point is there in belaboring this? Why not just say that we disagree about the power of undirected mechanisms, and go back to enjoying our various private hobbies?

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@T_Aquaticus,
You ask: “What clarity do you think the Evolution side is missing? Is it in their definition of random mutations, or something like that?”

I think the two sides of the discussion have to make statements that embrace the other side equally!:

"Nobody would have set aside Einstein’s theory of relativity simply because science had not yet achieved the technology to propel particles at close to the speed of light. The “failure to prove” is not the same as “disprove”. This applies to I.D. as well. Like the Alchemists of old, nobody expects the I.D. camp to be able to invoke God’s participation as the independent variable in laboratory research."

"So both sides need to accept the limitations of science… Evolutionists have already done so by explaining that Science cannot verify God or the operations of God. ID advocates have failed to recognize this, and SOME continue to think God might someday become an “Independent Variable” in a test not yet devised. And SOME continue to think there is something wrong with Science’s inability to equate “the inability to disprove ID” with “disproving Evolution”.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Eddie ,

While I agree with the wording I quoted in my last post, I don’t think I can agree with what you have written in this post. Purely a difference of semantics, I’m sure.

You wrote: "Something could be both designed, and executed by natural causes.” I do not find this a sufficiently clear change. I would counter with this wording:

"Something could be designed … <[ note that I have dropped the word “both”!]…

Which changes it enough that we really don’t need “could be” as much as we did before… hence:
“Something designed …
… could be executed by natural causes alone.”

How’s that, @Eddie ?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

There is nothing wrong with your wording. As for mine, to make it still clearer, I could have written:

“Something could be designed [by an immaterial mind], yet executed by natural causes.”

But it’s rather odd that you misunderstood my phrasing in the first place, given that I’ve explained to you the views of Denton on “designed by God but executed through natural causes” about fifty times now, on BioLogos and here. I think fifty times should provide enough context for you to group the words according to my intention. And of course, if you had read Denton at any time between when I first recommended him to you, about three years ago, and now, you would also have had sufficient context to sort out my wording.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

Hi Eddie
I don’t know if you have seen this but this was quite the design presentation from a physicians perspective. Well worth the hour.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Eddie ,

I asked for a clarification because the sentence you wrote was wrong. And it was wrong. And you corrected it. What’s with all the other pontification?

Corrected: “Something could be designed [by an immaterial mind], yet executed by natural causes.”

As long as I was correct in seeing your description was not worded correctly, all your brow-beating - - about how much you know, and how little I know - - is a pretty pointless exercise.

And evidently, your memories of what we discussed at BioLogos have no correlation with what we actually discussed or disputed. Front Loading is the most I went with you … I would stop reading after the first paragraph.

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

The point of my counter-question was that there is no difference in principle between the methods you would use to decide that the stones of the Pyramid didn’t arrange themselves by chance and the methods Behe uses to decide that the proteins in the flagellum didn’t arrange themselves by chance. The difference is that while you agree with Behe about the creative capacities of blocks of stone, you disagree with Behe about the creative capacities of unguided evolutionary mechanisms.

This again begs the question of how Behe determines which mutations are guided and which are unguided.

@Eddie

We see that mutations occur in nature, but we don’t “observe” mutations turning bacteria into human beings in nature. That transformation is inferred, not observed.

No one has ever claimed that humans evolved from bacteria, so I’m not sure what you are getting at here. What people have claimed is that humans evolved from an ancestor that is shared with chimps. Has Behe looked at any of the mutations that differ between chimps and humans and determined which ones were guided and which were unguided?

@Eddie

Not that nature can’t produce absolutely ; that nature can’t produce without design .

How do you distinguish between the two?

@Eddie

You’re unnecessarily running around in circles about my vocabulary, and Behe’s. The bottom line – and I find it hard to believe that you don’t realize this – is that neither Behe nor I think that natural causes without some underlying plan or direction could turn bacteria into human beings, whereas you think they easily could. That’s the issue. And as you are never likely to change your mind on that (you couldn’t, without giving up your atheism, and I suspect your atheism is dear to you), and as Behe and I are never likely to change our minds either, what point is there in belaboring this? Why not just say that we disagree about the power of undirected mechanisms, and go back to enjoying our various private hobbies?

Until you give me some method of detecting guided mutations, why should I change my mind?

[T_aquaticus]

@gbrooks9

I think the two sides of the discussion have to make statements that embrace the other side equally!:

“Nobody would have set aside Einstein’s theory of relativity simply because science had not yet achieved the technology to propel particles at close to the speed of light. The “failure to prove” is not the same as “disprove”. This applies to I.D. as well. Like the Alchemists of old, nobody expects the I.D. camp to be able to invoke God’s participation as the independent variable in laboratory research.”

"So both sides need to accept the limitations of science… Evolutionists have already done so by explaining that Science cannot verify God or the operations of God. ID advocates have failed to recognize this, and SOME continue to think God might someday become an “Independent Variable” in a test not yet devised. And SOME continue to think there is something wrong with Science’s inability to equate “the inability to disprove ID” with “disproving Evolution”.

The difference being that Einstein’s theory did make testable predictions. The bending of starlight around the Sun is a famous example. I don’t see how ID is making the same predictions. On top of that, Einstein’s theory was able to explain the tiny precession in Mercury’s orbit that Newton’s theories could not. ID needs the same. For example, the most obvious would be some sort of test to distinguish between guided and unguided mutations. What possible test could we use?

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

Alas, @T_Aquaticus, we all know that all analogies ultimately fail. But some little infant analogies arrive in such crowded quarters, they never get enough air to offer a stunted squeak… and pass on to oblivion barely used.

My hypothetical reference to the limits of humanity to test Einstein’s great theory was more a lame lyrical suggestion than a literal statement of the truth. And you have demonstrated the paltry limits of my metaphor by throwing it’s infant body into the surf to see if it floated. And we never saw it again.

So, let me attempt different words:

Evolutionists have to stop criticizing Intelligent Design people for not doing experiments, because (as Behe suggested), it is impossible to make God an “Independent Variable” in any kind of test.

Conversely, ID people have to stop criticizing Evolutionists about refusing to accept failure if they run various tests over the course of years and fail to replicate the natural emergence of this or that “Irreducible Complexity” - - the mysteries of the Universe and of existence are virtually infinite. When do you think a person will ever know enough of everything in the natural world that he is confident about exhausting all the possible ways of influencing form and behavior through Genetics.

If we raise a million generations of Fruit Flies, and they don’t change, why would they - - if the lab environment they live in never changes? Phenotypes change with the environment. And if we intentionally change the environment, which sequence of changes should we use to give a fruit fly extra legs? Or the ability to live under-water? How do you design such tests?

Ultimately, this is why we should not “feed the monster” at Peaceful Science. Creationists are invited here because we endorse the special creation of Adam and Eve - - and because we endorse the idea that God directed or guided Evolution. How will this stance bear fruit if our other guests (Agnostics, Atheist, etc) spend all day with Creationist visitors challenging their fundamental belief, our fundamental belief, that God did design creation (even if nobody can ever ever ever confirm such things in Science)?