The Problem with the ID Argument

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

@colewd

I think you are making the same mistake that I was. You are conflating the process of making the artifact with the process of designing it. Tim described a small piece of the semiconductor manufacturing process.

While the design rules had to take this into account the bigger issue is the arrangement of the lines and the transistor arrays. This is what we call the microprocessor architecture.

@colewd

Yes, ID is a limited claim and that is its weakness. As it claims a mechanism (mind) I think it is best described as a limited scientific claim however all scientific claims are limited some just more than others.

Hmm, I don’t think I conflated it, what I’m trying to get at is the process. Here’s an analogy of what these conversations often look like to me:

Question: How did this house get built?
Biologists: A foundation was dug and poured, then the frame was built, roof put on, insulation and drywall, electrical and plumbing, and final painting and finish work.
ID: we know that architects make blueprints

If ID can’t come up with some kind of mechanism (and no, “mind” is not a mechanism, it’s an agent or cause) I have a hard time seeing it as a scientific claim. I could claim “Robots made Stonehenge” as a scientific theory and then when questioned about how they did that, if I simply said “we know robots assemble things” I would be rightly dismissed without a further thought.

@colewd

What the model does not show us is if there is independent origin events. It assumes a single tree. When I am asked if tigers and lions share a common ancestor I have no objective way to make this decision. My decision is just based on intuition.

Hmm, I think it assumes that there is a common ancestry somewhere, not a single tree. I would maybe also look at the difference between rooted and unrooted trees. I would spend a little bit of time to learn how phylogenetic trees are made. It gave me an appreciation for how grounded it is in solid math and I have a better understanding of how powerful they are and some of the limitations. Again, just in a generalized, I’ve just scratched the surface, sense. If you can’t figure out if tigers and lions share a common ancestor, ask a friendly biologist. That’s what’s so awesome about Peaceful Science, once we get past distrusting each other, I think we’ll find a lot of common ground and lots of really smart people willing to help.

@colewd

In what case would the model deliver a tree with more than one starting point?

I think it would really be worth your time to dig into @John_Harshman’s Office Hour: John Harshman: The Phylogeny of Crocodiles because we talked about comparing to random sequences. Also, remember that a generated phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis, so if we had more than one starting point I think we should see problems in our phylogenetic trees when we compare them to morphology or the fossil record.

If we can’t tell the difference between one or multiple starting points, then we can basically just assume UCD as a working model and seek other ways (philosophy, etc.) to tell us about the other starting points.