Evolutionary Certainty
As the old saying goes, it’s not what they don’t know that scares me, but what they know for sure. Nowhere is that more applicable than with evolution as
The Guardian’s Andrew Brown reminds us today when he
writes, “Evolution is actually true.” Don’t blame the messenger, Brown is merely repeating what evolutionists say. And while it is true that evolution in a limited sense it true (change over time, adaptation, and so forth), no such nuance is intended by evolutionists. When evolutionists inform their audiences that evolution is true, they are referring to the origin of species via blind processes. The problem here is not that this claim of knowledge is questionable or controversial—the problem is that the claim is unequivocally false. Evolution may or may not be true—that is debatable. But we do not know it to be true—that is not debatable. We can argue about how the scientific evidence bears on the theory of evolution (not well), its predictions (mostly false), how likely is it that evolution is true (not very), and so forth. Some may be more charitable toward the theory that says the species arose spontaneously. But we certainly do not know evolution—in the broad sense as intended by Brown and the evolutionists—to be true.
Not from a scientific perspective anyway.
What this never-ending truth claim reveals is the underlying metaphysics at work in evolutionary thought. Everytime evolutionists insist that evolution is a fact, is true, is undeniable, and so forth, they are making it clear, yet again, that this is not about science. From a scientific perspective no such truth claim would be possible, not even close. If anything we would be discussing whether we can say evolution is false, or merely astronomically unlikely.
But evolution has an internal contradiction. It is not that there is anything wrong with religious arguments and proofs. But evolutionists insist they are all about science. Their theory, they say, is a scientific theory. Yet they continually make religious premises and arguments, and make truth claims that are far beyond, and contradictory to, science.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
Can there be a valid theory of evolution without an understanding the origin of life?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the theory of evolution begins in Chapter 2 of "the book of life" and Chapter 1 is missing entirely.
Chapter 1 needs to contain an explanation of how the laws of nature can conceive of a code and implement that code in "hardware" so to speak. There has to be foreknowledge of how that code will work: what specific sequences of code elements will code for what unique outputs.
As it turns out, some of those unique outputs (i.e., proteins) have to exist in the macninery that is used to create proteins. In other words, new proteins cannot be created without the existence of proteins in the first place. If this is not an irreducibly complex configuration, what is?
Exactly. How life originated dictates how it evolved. If life was intelligently designed then we would infer it was designed to evolve and evolved by design. And only if blind watchmaker-type produces produced life then we would infer those types of processes are responsible for its subsequent evolution.
DeleteAnd if a codes could be reduced to laws of nature then A) they wouldn't be arbitrary and B) coding would be easy.
double e
DeleteCan there be a valid theory of evolution without an understanding the origin
Can there be a theory of ID without an understanding of the origin of the designer?
We have no real idea about the origins of matter and energy and the laws that govern them. Does this mean that relativity and quantum mechanics are not good theories?
Deletevelikovskys said, "Can there be a theory of ID without an understanding of the origin of the designer?"
DeleteThis is like asking, "Can my house be standing without my having an understanding of the origin of its architect."
The answer is Yes, of course.
I have no idea who the architect was. I have no understanding of the architect's origin or his/her personal life or motivations: did he or she like green beans? did her/she use a computer to draw the plans? what was the architect's motivation?
Who knows? Who cares?
All I know is that the architect was obviously intelligent.
Definition of ID: "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe (like my house) and of living things (like my hand) are BEST explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process..."
To identify Design, there is no need to have any understanding of the origin of the Designer or the Designer's work ethic or personal motivations.
Glenn:
DeleteThis is like asking, "Can my house be standing without my having an understanding of the origin of its architect."
The answer is Yes, of course
The determination of ID as best explanation assumes that such a intelligence exists. So if TOE is required to show how life originated to be valid, the origin of the designer seems equally necessary..
To identify Design, there is no need to have any understanding of the origin of the Designer or the Designer's work ethic or personal motivations.
Then likewise TOE can be recognized as the best explanation without an explanation of the origin of life, unless ID is not an real alternative explanation.
velikovskys:
DeleteThe determination of ID as best explanation assumes that such a intelligence exists.
In the SETI project, is it assumed a priori that such an intelligence exists? I think not. SETI is looking for signs of intelligence.
The obvious example is from the movie Contact. A series of pulses in a radio signal contained the series of prime numbers from 2 to 101. The existence of an intelligence was inferred from the complex specified pattern.
I submit that it can be inferred from the complex specified pattern in DNA that an intelligence was responsible for its creation.
velikovskys:
DeleteThen likewise TOE can be recognized as the best explanation without an explanation of the origin of life, unless ID is not an real alternative explanation.
The TOE is on extremely shaky ground without an understanding of the origin of the "life making machinery."
It is the supposed random changes in DNA that can somehow alter a body plan step-by-step over many uncountable generations. Until the exact mechanism of how the information in DNA and epigenetic information combine to build a body, there is no theory (i.e., explanation) of evolution.
This does not even account for the extremely low probabilities that must be considered when postulating a random change can create a new protein.
Maybe Professor James Tour is right when he asserts that no scientist knows how evolution really works.
double e:
DeleteIn the SETI project, is it assumed a priori that such an intelligence exists? I think not. SETI is looking for signs of intelligence.
There is some debate whether SETI is actually science. Unlike ID, SETI's goal is to detect the intelligence by making certain assumptions about the nature of the hypothetical intelligence, motives capabilities. ID actively avoids the detection of the actual intelligence.
I submit that it can be inferred from the complex specified pattern in DNA that an intelligence was responsible for its creation.
How, when and why the parameters of scientific explanations. That an unknown something at an unknown time with unknown capabilities for unknown reasons created some form of DNA does not seem very explanatory or falsifiable.
velikovskys wrote: "The determination of ID as best explanation assumes that such a intelligence exists."
DeleteQuite the contrary. ID infers such an intelligence. Just as, based on the structure of my house, I infer its architect is intelligent.
Just as evolution infers numerous processes that evolution claims MUST EXIST for organisms to reach their present state.
Problem w evolution, it claims entirely material processes which ought to be seen in nature but aren't. (Yes, micro evolution, but macro has NEVER be observed.)
This is NOT a problem for ID. We see the operation of Intelligence every single day. Again, again, again: ID says the BEST explanation for certain features is intelligence.
velikovskys:
DeleteThere is some debate whether SETI is actually science. Unlike ID, SETI's goal is to detect the intelligence by making certain assumptions about the nature of the hypothetical intelligence, motives capabilities. ID actively avoids the detection of the actual intelligence.
I really don’t understand your point about detecting an intelligence by making certain assumptions. The intelligence is detected by the receipt of some complex radio signal received from outer space. The nature of that complex signal remains unknown until one is actually received. The signal could be ambiguous – that is, not complex enough, yet unlike any other signal detected so far. Once it is concluded that a signal from an intelligent being has been received, only then and depending on the nature of the signal would it be warranted to make certain assumptions about the nature of the intelligence.
Either a pattern is complex enough to infer that it originated from an intelligence or it isn’t. It seems to me that it is special pleading to rule out the detection of an intelligence if that intelligence might be God.
What do you mean when you say ID avoids detection of the actual intelligence? ID does avoid naming the intelligence God since the nature of the intelligence cannot be inferred from the data.
Glenn,
DeleteQuite the contrary. ID infers such an intelligence.
1.hypothesis: the pattern exhibited by organisms can only be created by an undefined intelligence.
2. Assuming 1 is true,one can infer that such an undefined intelligence exists.
3 Therefore an undefined intelligence exists.
Just as, based on the structure of my house, I infer its architect is intelligent.
You are smuggling in information you do not have ?You are not inferring the existence of architects, they are observable, you also know that architects design houses.
Your undefined intelligence has not been observed and even if it exists you don't know that it designed the pattern of organisms. That is what you have to show true.
Just as evolution infers numerous processes that evolution claims MUST EXIST for organisms to reach their present state.
Except those processes have been observed are actively being studied. Now if mutations had not and possibly could not be observed, then you might be correct the TOE inferred mutations. Not the case.
*
Problem w evolution, it claims entirely material processes
Any examples of immaterial design ?
which ought to be seen in nature but aren't
For example?
.
(Yes, micro evolution, but macro has NEVER be observed.)
So evolution is not inferred, just the strength is in question.
This is NOT a problem for ID. We see the operation of Intelligence every single day.
No the problem is none of the intelligence observed existed 4 billion years ago or if intelligence is necessary for all life, is the designer not living?
Again, again, again: ID says the BEST explanation for certain features is intelligence.
Without any independent evidence of a designer, you can't know the undefined intelligence exists or even the probability that it exists, you have no idea if it is a better explanation
velikovskys:
DeleteWithout any independent evidence of a designer, you can't know the undefined intelligence exists or even the probability that it exists, you have no idea if it is a better explanation.
In other words, without independent evidence of the existence of an extraterrestrial intelligence, you cannot infer from a sufficiently complex signal received from outer space that an extraterrestrial intelligence exists.
What I infer from your comment is that inferring the existence of an intelligence from a sufficiently complex pattern is valid only if the intelligence is not supernatural.
The ID folks specifically state that the design inference points only to the existence of an intelligence; the inference cannot tell us anything about the nature of the intelligence.
You come along and say the ID folks are really talking about God, therefore the complex pattern that would otherwise justify an inference to an intelligence is not valid. So the same kind of evidence in one case can be valid, but in another case can be invalid depending on one’s personal views.
Doublee: In other words, without independent evidence of the existence of an extraterrestrial intelligence, you cannot infer from a sufficiently complex signal received from outer space that an extraterrestrial intelligence exists.
DeleteYou could certainly make a tentative inference, but that inference would immediately lead to investigation of the posited intelligence, starting with the details of the independent evidence, and the collection of new evidence concerning the posited intelligence.
Doublee: The ID folks specifically state that the design inference points only to the existence of an intelligence; the inference cannot tell us anything about the nature of the intelligence.
That's what makes it vacuous. It stops just when the questions begin. It refuses to make the obvious entailments, that if there is an artifact, then there is causal chain of art and artisan.
doublee:
DeleteIn other words, without independent evidence of the existence of an extraterrestrial intelligence, you cannot infer from a sufficiently complex signal received from outer space that an extraterrestrial intelligence exists.
Good question. depends on the the nature of the sufficiently complex signal, But I expect that non intelligent causes would be examined before any inference was made. The " wow" signal did not result in the inference that ET exists.
But again, SETI is based on motives and capabilities of a designer, why else look for radio waves? Radio waves would confirm that specific assumption based on known intelligent agents.
ID says the designer possesses intelligence,no other assumptions are necessary or warranted. Inferring a undefined designer is more problematic than a designer which uses radio waves to communicate.
What I infer from your comment is that inferring the existence of an intelligence from a sufficiently complex pattern is valid only if the intelligence is not supernatural.
That of course is an example of the the perils of inference, you have insufficient knowledge to know the likelihood of the truth of that inference.
However the more independent sources of inference you have the more likely the inference would be correct. If you knew my religious affiliation that would make your inference more likely to be correct
Inference depends on predictability,regularity. What exactly is known about the parameters of a supernatural intelligence which would make it possible to predict specific actions?
But this does not help ID, the nature of the designer is verboten.
The ID folks specifically state that the design inference points only to the existence of an intelligence; the inference cannot tell us anything about the nature of the intelligence.
As opposed to your example of the radio signals which are significant because it does tell us something about the designer, they are similar to known intelligence.
You come along and say the ID folks are really talking about God,
Nope,just you are talking about God.
therefore the complex pattern that would otherwise justify an inference to an intelligence is not valid.
Except the pattern has not be shown to be only the result of intelligence, it could be,but it could be a result of natural causes.
So the same kind of evidence in one case can be valid, but in another case can be invalid depending on one’s personal views.
Which was my original objection to your statement that to be valid that the TOE must have an explanation of the origin of life, so it seems you now agree with me on that point
Zachriel:
DeleteThat's what makes it vacuous. It stops just when the questions begin. It refuses to make the obvious entailments, that if there is an artifact, then there is causal chain of art and artisan.
The ID folks do not refuse to make the obvious entailments; they only go as far as the evidence will allow.
A sufficiently complex signal received from outer space that leads to an inference that it has an intelligent cause does not tell us anything about the nature of the intelligence. Would it be a biological intelligence? Maybe. Would it be an intelligence of a form that is beyond our ability to comprehend? Possibly.
As I interpret the counter arguments, the nature of the inferred intelligence reflects back on the validity of the argument. The very same “rules” in one case allow a valid inference, but in another case do not. The same kind of evidence cannot have two different conclusions that depend on the philosophical bias of the observer. I repeat: this is special pleading.
The only way out of this dilemma is to show that the particular kind of evidence fails to satisfy the criteria for inferring intelligence.
So far, the origin of life problem has not been solved. The creation of a code and the machinery to implement it has a sufficiently low probability of being the result of natural causes that an inference to an intelligent cause is warranted. If the OOL problem has not been solved in another 100 years, what will be the conclusion then? I know – let’s continue researching another 100 years!
Doublee: The ID folks do not refuse to make the obvious entailments;
DeleteSure they do.
Doublee: they only go as far as the evidence will allow.
If scientists detected a possible radio signal from another star, there would be a flurry of activity, to decipher the signal, to learn about the sender. A vast number of hypotheses would be introduced. Telescopes of all frequencies would be enlisted. Satellites would be launced. And an expedition would be mounted. Compare to ID, which is emptiness.
Doublee: A sufficiently complex signal received from outer space that leads to an inference that it has an intelligent cause does not tell us anything about the nature of the intelligence.
Of course it would. First, it uses radio. Second, if it was coming from a star, which is most likely, it would confirm theories of how life evolves. Furthermore, we could investigate the star, determine which planet was sending the signal. We might even decipher the signal. Or we might find some other cause, that it wasn't really intelligent after all.
Doublee: The only way out of this dilemma is to show that the particular kind of evidence fails to satisfy the criteria for inferring intelligence.
The way we normally determine if something is intelligent is by comparing to known intelligent agents, humans. If we detect a signal from another star, the presumption, subject to testing, is that it was coming from organisms with human-like capabilities. They have radio!
Doublee: If the OOL problem has not been solved in another 100 years, what will be the conclusion then?
That humans are still ignorant of the origin of life. However, if we can't resolve the problem on Earth, other planets may offer the clues we need.
Doublee: I know – let’s continue researching another 100 years!
Well, duh!
doublee,
DeleteThe creation of a code and the machinery to implement it has a sufficiently low probability of being the result of natural causes
So how does one compute the odds for an unknown process?
that an inference to an intelligent cause is warranted.
Without knowing the odds of such an intelligence you still have no idea which possibility is more likely.
Zachriel:
DeleteThe way we normally determine if something is intelligent is by comparing to known intelligent agents, humans.
Exactly! The only known creators of codes and the machinery to implement them are human beings, i.e. intelligent agents. The creator of a code has to have a future objective in mind. No coherent code - and one with error correction as well - has ever been shown to be produced by natural processess. Natural laws are incapable of having a future objective. That implies intelligence, does it not?
If you and I could come back in 100 years, I would bet you $100 (not accounting for inflation) that the origin of life problem will still not be solved.
By the way, Paul Nelson over at Evolution News and Views has a post relevant to my SETI discussion.
Paul Nelson
Doublee: The only known creators of codes and the machinery to implement them are human beings, i.e. intelligent agents.
DeleteSo your conjecture is that humans devised the genetic code? Or that human-like organisms devised the genetic code?
Doublee: If you and I could come back in 100 years, I would bet you $100 (not accounting for inflation)
You mean the price of a cup of coffee?
Doublee: that the origin of life problem will still not be solved.
In other words, you have no confidence in your own conjecture.
ID seems committed only to detecting intelligence, not supernatural causes. If so, doesn't ID fit easily within a modest formulation of MN? If we regard MN as a reasonable epistemological boundary, not a sweeping ontological claim about the non-existence of the supernatural, then it's hard to see why ID theorists should worry about MN.
DeleteID claims to detect the design, but explicitly ignores the causal link to the designer.
SETI does exactly the opposite. It posits an artisan, an organism that evolved around a star in a process similar to humans, that they faced many of the same technological challenges, along the way inventing radio communications, the art. SETI attempts to detect these radio signals, the artifact.
Zachriel:
DeleteSo your conjecture is that humans devised the genetic code? Or that human-like organisms devised the genetic code?
Ah – the perils of posting on the Internet. I can see why you responded the way you did. I’ll try again. You said, The way we normally determine if something is intelligent is by comparing to known intelligent agents, humans.
All codes in existence, other than the DNA code, have been created by humans. So, if we find a code in nature such as the code found in DNA, then that code must have been created by an intelligence at least as smart as we humans and most likely smarter.
As I said before, the design inference cannot rule out human like organisms as the immediate source of life on earth.
You also said ID seems committed only to detecting intelligence, not supernatural causes.
That is true. ID is committed to detecting intelligence. The design inference can only provide evidence of design and not the identity of the designer. The identity of the designer has to come from some other discipline.
Doublee:All codes in existence, other than the DNA code, have been created by humans. So, if we find a code in nature such as the code found in DNA, then that code must have been created by an intelligence at least as smart as we humans and most likely smarter.
DeleteNot "must have", but conceivably. Now, you trace the causation, the artifact to art to artisan, to find evidence to confirm your initial hypothesis.
Doublee:The design inference can only provide evidence of design and not the identity of the designer.
Which is why it's not science. It asserts there is no causal connection between the artifact, art, and artisan.
velikovskys:
ReplyDeleteCan there be a theory of ID without an understanding of the origin of the designer?
I don't know that I will ever understand a being who can exist in a realm beyond time and space. That is a concept beyond my feeble brain's ability to comprehend. (Can anyone really understand that?)
Nevertheless, if the evidence points to a designer, and I believe it does, I will have to settle for my human limitations.
double e:
Deletedon't know that I will ever understand a being who can exist in a realm beyond time and space. That is a concept beyond my feeble brain's
Well at least you are honest about the origin of the Designer, but this is my issue, all theories should be on a level field. If ID can actually actively ignore the origin of the intelligence on which its theory is completely dependent, then requiring TOE to have a origin of life to be valid is hypocritical.
Nevertheless, if the evidence points to a designer, and I believe it does, I will have to settle for my human limitations.
That is fine, but the validity standards should be equal in order to judge best explanation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTo the man with a hammer everything looks like a nail.
ReplyDeleteTo beings who design, everything looks like it was designed.
But not everything is a nail. Perhaps not everything is designed?
All theories are limited in their explanatory domain. Evolutionary theory only concerns existing life, just as Newton's laws only concern existing matter.
ReplyDeleteBit off-topic, but relates to the evolution of multicellularity. Hot off the presses:
ReplyDeleteLei et al., Cell differentiation and germ–soma separation in Ediacaran animal embryo-like fossils, Nature 2014.
This pushes back the origin of multicellularity about 60 million years, well before the Cambrian Explosion.