Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

Well it matters if we want a complete scientific investigation into ID.

And I'm not sure that it is possible to have a complete scientific investigation into the identity and nature of a designer or the intelligence in the system. Scientists would probably agree that such a question is beyond the remit of science which is constrained by adherence to methodological naturalism.

And I'm not sure that it is possible to have a complete scientific investigation into the identity and nature of a designer or the intelligence in the system. Scientists would probably agree that such a question is beyond the remit of science which is constrained by adherence to methodological naturalism.

Archeologists might not be able to be 100% sure who built particular buildings, but they can at least try to suss it out.

We're in an even better position to see if there are non-local communication abilities in, say, bacteria that allow them to adapt in novel ways.

Archeologists might not be able to be 100% sure who built particular buildings, but they can at least try to suss it out.

We're in an even better position to see if there are non-local communication abilities in, say, bacteria that allow them to adapt in novel ways.

OK - I think I see where you are going with this now and, to some extent, I agree. It may be informative to try to determine nature of the influences on evolution - at least to the extent that we can say "well, that can't have been random" or "that bears the unmistakeable hallmarks of design" and that if we accept some kind of intelligent intent we may be able to move forward in our understanding - perhaps even to the point of universal acceptance that something beyond accident is at work in our universe.

However, for the foreseeable future, I strongly doubt whether Darwinists are going to accept a supernatural influence or ID researchers are going to be moved from their belief in an Abrahamic deity. In that respect, our discussion is probably more enlightened than either side.

OK - I think I see where you are going with this now and, to some extent, I agree. It may be informative to try to determine nature of the influences on evolution - at least to the extent that we can say "well, that can't have been random" or "that bears the unmistakeable hallmarks of design" and that if we accept some kind of intelligent intent we may be able to move forward in our understanding - perhaps even to the point of universal acceptance that something beyond accident is at work in our universe.

However, for the foreseeable future, I strongly doubt whether Darwinists are going to accept a supernatural influence or ID researchers are going to be moved from their belief in an Abrahamic deity. In that respect, our discussion is probably more enlightened than either side.

But I think it can have relevance in the here and now. Can a biological entity use Psi to change their own structure?

Can someone prevent the passing on, or even development, of genetically inherited diseases?

Is psychic healing using the same mechanisms that might allow for bacteria to game probabilities in what gets passed to their offspring?

But I think it can have relevance in the here and now. Can a biological entity use Psi to change their own structure?

Can someone prevent the passing on, or even development, of genetically inherited diseases?

Is psychic healing using the same mechanisms that might allow for bacteria to game probabilities in what gets passed to their offspring?

And I assume that, by extension, you are arguing that being faced with a "God did it" alternative to Darwinism, we might not see that kind of investigation?

And I assume that, by extension, you are arguing that being faced with a "God did it" alternative to Darwinism, we might not see that kind of investigation?

Well I think simply not asking the question is denying the natural course of scientific inquiry. Even with Cosmological Fine Tuning you see people asking questions like,

"Is this Universe a Computer Simulation?"

or

"Does QM suggest Objective Idealism is true?"

So even in the case of the temporally far removed origins of this Universe science is looking for ways to test questions like the above.

It seems hard to believe that something much more [temporally] "local" to our current existence, evolution of life on earth, cannot have a fruitful line of similar inquiry.

Well I think simply not asking the question is denying the natural course of scientific inquiry. Even with Cosmological Fine Tuning you see people asking questions like,

"Is this Universe a Computer Simulation?"

or

"Does QM suggest Objective Idealism is true?"

So even in the case of the temporally far removed origins of this Universe science is looking for ways to test questions like the above.

It seems hard to believe that something much more [temporally] "local" to our current existence, evolution of life on earth, cannot have a fruitful line of similar inquiry.

Ok, I understand but I have to return to the point of this discussion and to reiterate that, from the books I have read or the videos that I have watched, I have found no form of insistence that the answers are to be found in the Bible. Indeed, you might disagree or think it insincere but those that I have read or listened to have always been at pains to distance their research results from their personal beliefs. On the other hand, the Darwinists have been uniformly dogmatic and consistently attempt to reduce the argument to one of faith vs science. 

So again, while I have sympathy with your intention to discuss the nature of the intelligence, I still think that such a discussion is for another thread. I really fear that anything of value that might have been discovered by the ID researchers might be lost in the rush to denounce them all.

Ok, I understand but I have to return to the point of this discussion and to reiterate that, from the books I have read or the videos that I have watched, I have found no form of insistence that the answers are to be found in the Bible.

I never said they did. I'm saying IDers are leaving the science half-finished because they know that once we start trying to figure out the mechanism for non-local adaptation the jig is up.

Indeed, you might disagree or think it insincere but those that I have read or listened to have always been at pains to distance their research results from their personal beliefs. On the other hand, the Darwinists have been uniformly dogmatic and consistently attempt to reduce the argument to one of faith vs science. 

Well I don't think it is wrong to pursue ID in the hopes of providing strong evidence that the same being who set the Finely Tuned constants also intervened in the biological chain of evolution. And that the best candidate for this being is then God in the traditional religious sense.

However this question of whether the Fine Tuner(s?) are the same as the Intelligent Designer(s?) is something that should actually be pursued with the seeking of evidence.

So again, while I have sympathy with your intention to discuss the nature of the intelligence, I still think that such a discussion is for another thread. I really fear that anything of value that might have been discovered by the ID researchers might be lost in the rush to denounce them all.

Well the question remains whether they've discovered anything at all. But sure, I can make a separate thread to discuss the identity of the designer(s).

Since it has no consciousness it is fundamentally incapable of either envisioning or knowing or desiring the future state of being able to move via a new cellular organelle with certain basic components. I disagree that there can possibly be intent in this simple organism - intent clearly implies consciousness, which the bacterium simply doesn't have. The word "mental" simply doesn't apply to this organism.

In the semantic terms that describe anthropic mind, I find your assertions well founded.  I ask you to see a different perspective, a perspective that can be objectively confirmed.  Information science measures, as fundamental and through derivatives, mutual information.  

To know something is to have access to "copies" of key information describing the object.  These matching information structures, measured in bits, are like answers to yes/no questions.  When an agent gets enough mutual information about his object, it may then further process this knowledge into understanding.  That is where it creates depth of context from past experience and can project where the object may be useful in the future.  It need not be a house in the suburbs, just where is the next food particle.

Knowing mutual information changes probabilities of an agent in responding with appropriate outlooks.  Understanding further, can increase mental outlook to active thoughts that organize and emit a response signal.  If mind is simply defined as the information processing system of a creature changing probabilities for activities its gain of mutual information and structured responses to its environments can be measured!

Bacteria can be observed as to the probability of interactions in an environment.  Its physicality can be measured and so can its informational circuits and responses.  Does it have detectors that are able to target food in a new locale?  Can it trigger a response that acquires a target for ingestion?  

  Information Gain and Mutual Information for Machine Learning
by Jason Brownlee on October 16, 2019 in Probability

Last Updated on December 10, 2020

Information gain calculates the reduction in entropy or surprise from transforming a dataset in some way.
It is commonly used in the construction of decision trees from a training dataset, by evaluating the information gain for each variable, and selecting the variable that maximizes the information gain, which in turn minimizes the entropy and best splits the dataset into groups for effective classification.
Information gain can also be used for feature selection, by evaluating the gain of each variable in the context of the target variable. In this slightly different usage, the calculation is referred to as mutual information between the two random variables.

https://machinelearningmastery.com/infor...formation/

Well the question remains whether they've discovered anything at all. But sure, I can make a separate thread to discuss the identity of the designer(s).

Yep, I was thinking of doing so too. It is, no doubt, an interesting discussion. I'll watch for your thoughts and hope that I can come up with something sensible to say.