Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

It is apparent that speculation about the nature of the designer isn't a part of the scientific method, and therefore isn't "scientific". To make speculation "scientific" it must be fleshed out with a formal hypothesis to provisionally explain observations, the crucial conducting of an experiment, and analysis of results. Speculation about the nature of the designer has no elements of observation and conducting of experiments and analysis of results versus predictions of the hypothesis. There isn't anything "scientific" about pure speculation. 

The ID research conducted by those few ID-friendly scientists working in the field deliberately stays away from such speculation - it isn't science. These investigators are simply trying to scientifically establish that contrary to Darwinism there must have been some creative intelligent teleological factor in evolution, maybe a designer or designers, maybe something else. That is enough of a challenge, not finding "a bridge to a scriptural Deity" .

I think that scientists researching ID deliberately stay away from the question of the nature of the putative designer or designers (either immaterial or material) precisely because it just can't be investigated by the methods of science as it has been practiced for a few centuries.

It is a problem with threads that go on for hundreds of pages that points will inevitably get made and remade and remade. I can remember making this same point several times since I started this thread three years ago.

In short, scientists who argue that ID is unscientific often make the argument that science must adhere to methodological naturalism. Naturalism means a definition of natural that excludes the so-called super-natural. Any appeal to a supernatural designer is therefore not scientific and it must follow that ID which, they say, clearly appeals to the supernatural, spiritual or divine, cannot be scientific. 

However, while the more prominent ID researchers have made it clear that many of them are indeed practising Christians and that their research is funded by religious foundations, they have used precisely defined scientific methods to show the weakness of the neo-darwinian model. I've seen debates posted on YouTube where their opponents flatly refuse to address such research because, they claim, it is unscientific for the reasons just explained. I've posted a clip previously where methodological naturalism was specifically invoked to disqualify the arguments of ID proponents (skip to 49 minutes in this clip).

https://youtu.be/2S-OGNpItwo

Surely, if evidence of intelligence and purpose in nature is apparent, it should be a legitimate field of inquiry for science even if the nature of such intelligence is not? Otherwise, consciousness itself would be ruled out of bounds for science. Some eliminative materialists such as the Churchlands and Dennett (philosophers) would support that extreme position maintaining that consciousness is an illusion and has no actual reality. But for others, even hard-line atheists like Sam Harris (another philosopher), consciousness cannot be dismissed so lightly. He says:

Consciousness—the sheer fact that this universe is illuminated by sentience—is precisely what unconsciousness is not. And I believe that no description of unconscious complexity will fully account for it. It seems to me that just as “something” and “nothing,” however juxtaposed, can do no explanatory work, an analysis of purely physical processes will never yield a picture of consciousness.

Even Scientific American has published articles on the relationship that science has with consciousness. This is a recent (and interesting) example:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/obs...tractable/

ID is serious science regardless of this issue you are so concerned about. If its proponents in the DI are predominantly Christian so be it - their research and following of the evidence is still valid in coming to the conclusion that there has been an important teleological intelligent design element in evolution. So what if these Christians generally ascribe the role of the intelligent designer to the God of the scriptures. 

That doesn't change the validity of their scientific findings. If you think it does, please cite where and how, for instance in Catholic Michael Behe's insights into irreducible complexity, and into the basically creatively impotent and genetically devolving nature of Darwinist evolution.

Trying to understand the parapsychological psi mechanisms that may be behind the creative physical interventions in evolution that must have occurred is certainly a worthy goal, but it isn't necessary to simply demonstrate the bankruptcy of Darwinism. At this point in history Darwinism is very firmly entrenched in our culture to the point of being a de facto secular religion that stifles inquiry and promotes nihilism. First things first.

Feser himself is Christian, and it was his criticisms that helped me see how bankrupt the idea that ID could show "God" - as in the deity who is credited with creation of Everything - exists. The argument is an a priori limit on what ID can reveal - in this it is in the vein of the Hard Problem which you yourself have referred to in the past.

So we already know that ID will never find evidence for a big-G God. Now, as for whether there even is "teleological intelligent design" you should take that up with Dembski and ask why he is mentioning impersonal telic process as an explanation for perceived design.

As for their findings, I'm curious what you believe counts as specifically *their* findings? What experiments have they conducted? If ID's primary vehicle is Neo-Darwinism's incompleteness as explanation, then it seems we should also note ID's own incompleteness given their lack of experiments regarding the likelihood of who or what the designer(s) is(are)?

In any case I am not challenging whatever their findings are, but I don't believe a serious science is simply a set of arguments in favor of a particular idea - in this case that there is evidence of design. For example we know neurons have something to do with consciousness, but we'd cry foul if neuroscientists simply stopped and refused to even look for signs of quantum biology because the latter is more accommodating of a soul. Or if physicists simply decided to stop at the collapse of the wave function without trying to find evidence for which interpretation is most plausible.

IDers, OTOH, largely seem content to stop just at the point where things get interesting.

Surely, if evidence of intelligence and purpose in nature is apparent, it should be a legitimate field of inquiry for science even if the nature of such intelligence is not? [url=https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness/][/url]

Not sure we disagree -> See my most recent post above - How could the nature of such an intelligence not be a legitimate field of inquiry?

That IDers look for design but don't want to try and weight the varied interpretations for who the designer(s) is(are) is what I believe discredits the field.

I do agree that looking for evidence of design is a perfectly legitimate scientific inquiry, but stopping at that and pretending that any designer one wishes to project onto said evidence is acceptable is what I think is unscientific. Just as the Hard Problem gives us a priori reasons for rejecting Physicalism, Feser - a Catholic himself - clearly shows that ID will never provide a path toward the big-G God we expect from varied world scriptures including the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita, etc.

Not sure we disagree -> See my most recent post above - How could the nature of such an intelligence not be a legitimate field of inquiry?

That IDers look for design but don't want to try and weight the varied interpretations for who the designer(s) is(are) is what I believe discredits the field.

I do agree that looking for evidence of design is a perfectly legitimate scientific inquiry, but stopping at that and pretending that any designer one wishes to project onto said evidence is acceptable is what I think is unscientific. Just as the Hard Problem gives us a priori reasons for rejecting Physicalism, Feser - a Catholic himself - clearly shows that ID will never provide a path toward the big-G God we expect from varied world scriptures including the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita, etc.

I don't think I was attempting to disagree with you, Sci. I just wanted to point out that this discussion has repeatedly reinforced the idea that ID research is a scientific challenge to neo-darwinism, not (as many would have us believe) an argument from religion. I just think that there is a difference between investigating evidence of design (science) and speculating on the nature of the designer (philosophy? religion? ideology?). 

We could argue that scientific research has come up with evidence to suggest design which clearly requires intelligence but what we can't argue is that such evidence points directly to the Abrahamic God or some other divine being. It may be that consciousness has an innate tendency to evolve in a manner we would define as intelligent and that biological evolution reflects that tendency. Or it might be that consciousness has a creative nature and is able to construct worlds with living, self-aware beings within its own mind. 

The fact is that there is something rather than nothing. How that something came about is probably a question that can never be answered but it is a fact. I would maintain that it is also a fact that this something is aware, creative and intelligent and probably evolving. I would contend that we, whether by science or by philosophy, are merely trying to discover our place within the evolving something. The alternative is a myriad somethings from nothing and order, complexity, subjectivity, creativity, awareness and intelligence by sheer fluke. I don't buy the alternative.

I wonder how the ID'ers from the DI,  given that in general they have a strong belief in miracles the ultimate source which can only be christ or the devil - can speculate about a creator other than the christian god. It's interesting that dembski, meyer ect. have refered to their god at times in their interviews but haven't in my recollection refered to satan, lucifer, the devil. . .

I'm not aware of any biblical evidence that the devil can do genuine miracles although I know the church often gives him far more credit than he deserves.  I suppose it was prophesised that he would produce false signs and lying wonders, but are these the same as miracles?  Anyway I see no problem with speculating about other possible  "creators" from the point of view of their science - it would be unscientific not to do so.   I am a christian because of personal evidence but if it wasn't for that, my desires would be for a watered down Hare Krsna faith and my intellect for pantheism.  I can certainly speculate about other creator types if I wish without putting aside what I believe in.  It's called hypothesizing.

I'm not aware of any biblical evidence that the devil can do genuine miracles although I know the church often gives him far more credit than he deserves.  I suppose it was prophesised that he would produce false signs and lying wonders, but are these the same as miracles?  Anyway I see no problem with speculating about other possible  "creators" from the point of view of their science - it would be unscientific not to do so.   I am a christian because of personal evidence but if it wasn't for that, my desires would be for a watered down Hare Krsna faith and my intellect for pantheism.  I can certainly speculate about other creator types if I wish without putting aside what I believe in.  It's called hypothesizing.

Sorry, I think most of the ID/DI folks want to have their cake and eat it to. They want to have the certainty of science and some how marry it to their literalistic belief in the Christian bible which they believe is the only way to salvation. Big disconnect for me.
There is a conspicuous lack of speculation of the possible sources of a creative intelligence or intelligent designer in their narratives other than the Big G. It's easy to see why they would not want to speculate very much about such a source given if discovered it could potentially undermine  their entire world view.

There is a conspicuous lack of speculation of the possible sources of a creative intelligence or intelligent designer in their narratives other than the Big G. It's easy to see why they would not want to speculate very much about such a source given if discovered it could potentially undermine  their entire world view.

I feel even the basic premise of a big-G God, as in the Creator, being responsible for the evidence of design seen in ID raises questions that defeat the premise.

After all if the big-G created everything and is the Ultimate Cause for the evolutionary process itself occurring within our physical universe why would He/She/It need to later make the edits to [this same] process that IDers claim as their evidence? Not even direct edits but manipulations of probability?

Doesn't this suggest the big-G erred and needed to self-correct? How can this God then be All-Knowing? If we then posit that the evolutionary track was previously set off course by, say, fallen angels (or "asuras" for Hindus, "djinn" for Muslims, etc) and only then did the big-G intervene...doesn't that mean the evolutionary process is manipulable by entities far lower on the cosmic ladder than the big-G?

But if that's the case, why even posit the big-G's involvement at all? Why not some other entities that have nothing to do with the particular scriptural story the IDer wants to try and support with their evidence?

After all if you come to my house and see a ham sandwich on the counter by a reasonable analysis of causal proximity it makes more sense that I made it for lunch than God for inexplicable reasons made the sandwich all of a sudden. Similarly if a lesser spirit can weight the dice of random mutation it makes more sense to say that is the likely candidate for the "designer".

That the IDers aren't even discussing this sort of thing is why the practitioners aren't doing serious science.

I feel even the basic premise of a big-G God, as in the Creator, being responsible for the evidence of design seen in ID raises questions that defeat the premise.

After all if the big-G created everything and is the Ultimate Cause for the evolutionary process itself occurring within our physical universe why would He/She/It need to later make the edits to [this same] process that IDers claim as their evidence? Not even direct edits but manipulations of probability?

Doesn't this suggest the big-G erred and needed to self-correct? How can this God then be All-Knowing? If we then posit that the evolutionary track was previously set off course by, say, fallen angels (or "asuras" for Hindus, "djinn" for Muslims, etc) and only then did the big-G intervene...doesn't that mean the evolutionary process is manipulable by entities far lower on the cosmic ladder than the big-G?

But if that's the case, why even posit the big-G's involvement at all? Why not some other entities that have nothing to do with the particular scriptural story the IDer wants to try and support with their evidence?

After all if you come to my house and see a ham sandwich on the counter by a reasonable analysis of causal proximity it makes more sense that I made it for lunch than God for inexplicable reasons made the sandwich all of a sudden. Similarly if a lesser spirit can weight the dice of random mutation it makes more sense to say that is the likely candidate for the "designer".

That the IDers aren't even discussing this sort of thing is why the practitioners aren't doing serious science.

I sense a pronounced hostility towards the notion of there being something like the Christian God of the scriptures (especially the Old Testament). I think I share a little of that, but that doesn't change the fact that there is much scientific worth in the research and thought of the major proponents of ID in the DI.

Any apparent conflicts between their scientific findings regarding the evident operation of some sort of intelligent design process in the remote evolutionary past, and the supposed capacities and characteristics of the scriptural God, should most likely be ascribed to the human limitedness and sometimes folly of fundamentalist religion.  

To repeat my earlier challenge, "So what if these Christians generally ascribe the role of the intelligent designer to the God of the scriptures. That doesn't change the validity of their scientific findings. If you think it does, please cite where and how, for instance in Catholic Michael Behe's insights into irreducible complexity, and into the basically creatively impotent and genetically devolving nature of Darwinist evolution."

Do you have any arguments for the invalidity of intelligent design as elucidated by these mainly Christian thinkers and scientists, for instance of the concept of complex specified information as (beyond a certain level) the unique product of intelligence, and of the concept of irreducible complexity and its unachievability by blind processes such as Darwinism?

I sense a pronounced hostility towards the notion of there being something like the Christian God of the scriptures (especially the Old Testament). I think I share a little of that, but that doesn't change the fact that there is much scientific worth in the research and thought of the major proponents of ID in the DI.

This assumption of hostility is why I referenced Edward Feser, a Catholic Theologian who obviously is not trying to undermine belief in Christianity. I actually never realized how flawed the IDers' hopes were until I read his (IMO damning) criticisms of the movement's strategy for reconciling evolution with the Biblical God. His previously linked-to remarks regarding "Signature in the Cell" (linked for convenience) are pretty much on point - even a "Made by Yaweh" message in DNA cannot be construed as definitive evidence, as it's not as if "Made by Quetzacoatl" should mean mass conversion on the part of IDers. His point is not that ID cannot show some evidence of intervention, but rather this evidence is never going to point to the big-G God.

But that's also why I mention alternatives - it doesn't matter whether one's idea of the big-G God is the Christian's Yaweh, the Hindu's Isvara, or the Neo-pagan's Divine Mother. The problem is what any IDer wants to claim as potential evidence for this big-G is fatally flawed because it starts with the assumption of a mechanistic universe created by the big-G and then has to explain the intervention of probability manipulation at a later date. This, as I point out in my last post you quoted, opens a serious can of worms.

Yet to be clear, the failure of ID to provide satisfactory evidence for a big-G God doesn't mean such a god doesn't exist (obviously Feser believes in Yaweh after all). As I've said earlier at least fine-tuning, for example, deals with the fundamental constants of the known physical universe and thus can suggest the hand of such an entity. There's also philosophical arguments like the ones Feser provides in his excellent book Five Proofs of God, though I do think the classical theist "God of Philosophers" is less like Vishnu or Yaweh and more like the One of Neo-Platonism who Plotinus tells us it is pointless to worship...something for another thread...

Any apparent conflicts between their scientific findings regarding the evident operation of some sort of intelligent design process in the remote evolutionary past, and the supposed capacities and characteristics of the scriptural God, should most likely be ascribed to the human limitedness and sometimes folly of fundamentalist religion.  

But the flaw is that is there are various candidates for the designers but the field of ID, AFAICTell, does not put any serious effort into discussing the viability of these options. Contrast this with physicists discussing the pros and cons of the varied explanations for what is going on with the collapse of the wave function.

Take some of the examples Dembski mentions - Aliens and the Simulation Hypothesis. We can look at Ufology and the varied arguments for the idea we're in a Simulation and see how likely it is that the designer(s) are aliens (or "neighbors" as Vallee suggests in Passport to Magonia) or the programmers of our supposed Simulation.

That Dembski compares ID to manipulation of a RNG shows that IDers can see if you really need a big-G God to weight the probabilities of mutation. A variety of PK-type experiments could be done, for example take some germs and see if adaptability to some anti-bacterial or anti-viral agent occurs at a faster rate if someone is focusing their own mind on this goal. Then see if invocation of some spirit, perhaps by ritual, improves things.

If you can get good results or provide evidence of aliens or the Simulation, then it's much more likely that some lesser spirit/alien/programmer weighted the dice of mutation in the past, for the same reason that a ham sandwich [in] my house is more likely made by me than God suddenly conjuring one up in my home.

To repeat my earlier challenge, "So what if these Christians generally ascribe the role of the intelligent designer to the God of the scriptures. That doesn't change the validity of their scientific findings. If you think it does, please cite where and how, for instance in Catholic Michael Behe's insights into irreducible complexity, and into the basically creatively impotent and genetically devolving nature of Darwinist evolution."

The problem is not with their findings, but a serious scientific field cannot just stop at a convenient point because going any further begins to intrude on personal religious beliefs. It is fine to have a particular preference for who one thinks the designer is, but there is no legitimate argument for why the identity of this designer is not subject to at least some scientific investigation and definitely some a priori argumentation. (Consider that the Hard Problem of Consciousness is an a priori argument for the failure of physicalism.)

Do you have any arguments for the invalidity of intelligent design as elucidated by these mainly Christian thinkers and scientists, for instance of the concept of complex specified information as (beyond a certain level) the unique product of intelligence, and of the concept of irreducible complexity and its unachievability by blind processes such as Darwinism?

It's not that the idea of intervention in the evolutionary process by intelligent beings is necessarily flawed or wrong, it's that there is no good reason not to take things further and evaluate via science who the designer(s) is(are).

............
............

The problem is not with their findings, but a serious scientific field cannot just stop at a convenient point because going any further begins to intrude on personal religious beliefs. It is fine to have a particular preference for who one thinks the designer is, but there is no legitimate argument for why the identity of this designer is not subject to at least some scientific investigation and definitely some a priori argumentation. (Consider that the Hard Problem of Consciousness is an a priori argument for the failure of physicalism.)


It's not that the idea of intervention in the evolutionary process by intelligent beings is necessarily flawed or wrong, it's that there is no good reason not to take things further and evaluate via science who the designer(s) is(are).

The list of papers below is some of the peer-reviewed scientific research papers on ID and ID-related topics published by members of the DI. Looking at this sort of work, can you suggest how such methods and techniques of science could be used to investigate the question of who or what creatively and physically intervened in evolution hundreds or scores of millions of years ago? Short of inventing a time machine to go back and actually observe what happened, I don't think much can be done scientifically other than some semi-informed speculation.

1.  An omnipotent omniscient God could have done it
2.  Very advanced alien extraterrestrial beings could have done it
3.  Very advanced angelic or other sorts of spiritual beings could have done it
4.  Some combination of the above could have done it
5.  Perhaps it was some sort of intelligent and creative force imbued in all of life that did it
6.  Or fill in with your own pet hypothesis about who or what did it

Only 5 or perhaps 6 could be investigated using the methods of science.

- Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) (HTML).
- Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).
- Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).
- Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).
- William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and       Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).
- Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).