Barry Arrington was astonished to find that Larry Moran agreed with him that it would be possible for some future biologist to detect design in a Venter-designed genome.
He was further astonished to find that REC, a commenter at UD, agreed with Larry Moran.
Barry expresses his epiphany in a UD post REC Becomes a Design Proponent.
Has Barry finally realised that those of us who oppose the ideas of Intelligent Design proponents do not dispute that it is possible, in principle, to make a reasonable inference of design? That rather our opposition is based on the evidence and argument advanced, not on some principled (or unprincipled!) objection to the entire project?
Sadly, it seems not. Because Barry then gives some examples of his continued lack of appreciation of this point. Here they are:
For example, consider this typical objection: “All scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism, and you violate the principle of methodological naturalism when you make a design inference in biology.”
If that objection is valid (it is not, but set that aside for now), it is just as valid against REC’s and Dr. Moran’s design inferences as it is against any other design inference.
Yes, indeed, Barry. It is not a valid objection, and if it were, it would be as valid against REC’s and Dr. Moran’s as against ID. There is nothing wrong with making a design inference in principle. We do it all the time, as IDists like to point out. And there’s nothing wrong with making it in biology, at least in principle. There is certainly nothing that violates the “principle of methodological naturalism when you make a design inference in biology”. I wonder where Barry found that quotation?
The point sailed right over REC’s head. He responded that the objections were not valid as to his design inference, because his design inference (opposed to ID’s design inferences) was “valid and well evidenced.”
I doubt it sailed over REC’s head. I expect it was the very point he was making – that there is no reason in principle why one cannot make a valid design inference in biology, but whether the inference is valid or not would depend on the specifics of the evidence and argument.
But that is exactly what ID proponents have been saying for decades REC! We have been saying all along that the various “typical objections” are invalid if the evidence leads to a design inference.
REC, the only difference between you and us is that you are persuaded by the evidence in a particular case and not in our case. But you are missing the point. If what is important is the EVIDENCE, then th “typical objections” lose all force all the time.
Barry, consider the possibility that you have been misreading the “typical objections” the entire time. That the yards of text that are spilled daily at UD railing against Lewontin and us benighted “materialists” are entirely irrelevant. The objection to ID by people like me (and Moran, and REC, and any other ID opponent I’ve come across, including Richard Dawkins in fact) is not that it is impossible that terrestrial life was designed by an intelligent agent, nor that it would be necessarily impossible to discover that it was, nor even, I suggest, impossible to infer a designer even if we had no clue as to who the designer might be (although that might make it trickier). The objection is that the arguments advanced by ID proponents are fallacious. They don’t work. Some are circular, some are based on bad math, and some are based on a misunderstanding of biochemistry and biology. They are not bad because they are design inferences, they are bad because they are bad design inferences.
In other words, the objection “all scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism” is invalid in principle, not in application, if it is even possible to make a valid design inference based on the EVIDENCE.
And here is where Barry steps on the rake again. Of course all scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism. It’s the only methodology we have in science – it is another way of saying that scientific claims must be falsifiable. That doesn’t mean we can’t infer design. Design is a perfectly natural phenomenon. If Barry means that we can only infer natural, not supernatural, design, he is absolutely correct, but that is simply because a supernatural design hypothesis is unfalsifiable. The reason Lewontin was correct is not that science is terrified of letting the supernatural in the door of science lest we have to face our worst nightmares, but that if you accept the supernatural as a valid hypothesis, you throw falsifiability out of the window.
You agree with us that it is the EVIDENCE that is important, and objections thrown up for the purpose of ruling that evidence out of court before it is even considered are invalid.
Yes, it is the EVIDENCE that is important, But on the other side of the EVIDENCE coin are the predictions we derive from the theory that we are testing against that EVIDENCE. If there are no predictions – and a theory that can predict anything predicts nothing – then we have no way of evaluating whether our EVIDENCE supports our theory. In fact, the word EVIDENCE only makes sense in relation to a theory. I’m no lawyer (heh) but doesn’t there have to be a charge before there is a trial?
Of course, by the same token, nobody can claim that ID is false – it may well be true that life was designed by a supernatural designer, whether at the origin-of-life stage as some claim, or at key stages, such as the Cambrian “Explosion” (scare quotes deliberate), as others claim; or for certain features too hard to leave to evolution such as the E.coli flagellae that enhance their ability to maim and kill our children. Or even to design a universe so fine-tuned that it contains the laws and materials necessary for life to emerge without further interference. Science cannot falsify any of that – nor, for that matter the theory that it was all created ex nihilo Last Thursday.
That’s why nothing in evolutionary biology is a threat to belief in God or gods, and why the paranoia surrounding “methodological naturalism” is so completely misplaced.
What is a threat to us all, though, I suggest, is bad science masquerading as science, and that is my objection to ID. Not the “broader” project itself as stated in the UD FAQ:
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.
but its fallacious (in my view) conclusion that:
…that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
Fallacious not because I assume that the “intelligent cause” is supernatural, but because the math and biochemistry simply do not support that inference. Even if it’s true.
vjtorley:
Vincent,
Keep in mind that Collins only considered two multiverse hypotheses:
vjtorley,
Hi Vincent, glad to see you here again. You have the option to author your own post if you have the time.
I think I’m with Lizzie in thinking there is no coherent definition of supernatural.
I have not seen or read about any thing or phenomenon that I would call supernatural. If it exists, it’s natural.
The word supernatural exists because for most of human history, people believed that unseen causes were the actions of sentient, invisible beings.
Such entities have evaporated as science has found regularities. Any residue remaining is subject (in my opinion) to being cleaned up by continuing research.
petrushka,
I’ll pose the same question to you that I asked of Lizzie, for which she had no answer:
petrushka,
Fair enough, I certainly don’t have one in mind. I think my statement makes sense and has the same meaning with the word “supernatural” removed.
Patrick,
Only if by “unconstrained” you mean that the entity in question is not only omnipotent but also shows no detectable regularity in its behavior.
Most of the supernatural entities that people actually believe in are presumed to exhibit such regularities, meaning that testable supernatural hypotheses regarding these entities are possible and are fair game for science.
When compared to the speed of the original adaptation.
We’re not discussing theory, but testing for the process of natural selection. You’ve been provided such a test, including potential falsification.
That is incorrect. We can show that bacteria vary in their resistance to antibiotics, that the trait is heritable, and that it leads to differences in reproductive success depending on the environment the bacteria find themselves in. We can show this in the lab, or in nature.
The simple answer is that I was away from home and commenting using a smart-phone while doing other things. Excuse me for not giving you the attention you deserve
Yes, I understand. The process of natural selection sifting gene combinations in individuals in a population is so blindingly obvious to me that perhaps I’ve become a little dismissive of those not so convinced about the process.
This is a bit garbled. In general, selection is provided by the environment. Where the environment is controlled by other organisms such as human breeders or ants tending their fungus colonies, we might speak of artificial selection and in sexually reproducing species, there is an additional effect where attractiveness to the opposite sex is selected for even to the extent that overall survival fitness can be affected (Irish elk, for example)
But you can perform controlled experiments on fast-reproducing bacteria and change the environment to see what happens, as Zachriel has already explained regarding resistance to antibiotics.
What does the ‘it’ refer to? As I said, I think organisms are designed – by the environment. Do you have a different candidate for the designer?
I don’t think it is possible unless you posit a mechanism, a candidate for the designer. I have mine – the environment.
I was! And guess what designed me. The environment!
I admit that’s hard. On the other hand, evolutionary theory is such a neat explanation, especially when taken together with the way cell biology works that sometimes my enthusiasm for it outruns my knowledge. But we can always learn more!
ET correct too many blockquotes
Not to me.You are just pushing the “Why is there Something” question back a generation. I do not see how this can be coherent.
Perhaps coherent is not the right word.
The concept of a creator separate from creation seems like the same kind of nonsense as panspermia as the solution to origin of life.
petrushka:
That’s my point. I don’t think the supernatural exists, but it seems coherent to me. Hypotheses can be coherent without being true.
Exactly! Any phenomenon posited that has no constraints or entailments might just as well not exist for all the good it does to search for it scientifically. Stuff is real and detectable, or posited from an entailed hypothesis and can be searched for (like SETI’s aliens or gravitons) or it’s beyond our reach outside the light cone (if it exists) or entirely imaginary. There may be whole other universes out there and I grant permission for anyone with a method to go find them. 🙂
Though I don’t disagree with Patrick either. As soon as you grant your “supernatural” phenomenon some real entailments, you can go look. My reservation is, as I’ve said, even if you establish a coincident link between being prayed for and getting better (than the null) you demostrate nothing about the causal link. Why should “God” be brought into it before eliminating [potential]* real causes, such as an “empathy wave” emanating from the prayor to the prayee?
ETA in sq brkts
I have not, since age 12, been able to find any form of dualism to make sense. Age 12 was when I encountered the 1950s equivalent of religion for dummies, and was able to read summary descriptions of the world’s religions.
To be fair, existence doesn’t make sense either. But I have a rather high tolerance for not knowing.
Alan,
Your prejudice is showing. God is a “potential real cause” too.
petrushka,
To say that the supernatural doesn’t exist is quite different from saying that it’s incoherent.
keiths,
In what way?
Zachriel,
Banny has moderated you until you say the words he wants. 🙁
What’s especially funny about that thread is that it shows without doubt that
BarryBanny never understood the “Bomb” argument (aka the objective nested hierarchy argument).No wonder he ran whenever I asked him to explain, in his own words, what was wrong with it.
keiths:
Alan:
In the same way that “empathy waves” are a “potential real cause.” They might exist, and they might be a cause.
The evidence is thin for both. For you to single out only one as “real” (later amending that to “potentially real” and thus inadvertently reinforcing one of my earlier points) is a demonstration of your prejudice.
Science can handle hypotheses about “empathy waves” and it can handle hypotheses about “God” — as long as the hypotheses are testable.
Well spotted that man. Those square brackets must have been the give-away!
But my prejudice does not matter. Using the scientific method I can test anything detectable and anyone can check my results. Anyone else can devise and perform what experiments they like on whatever posited phenomenon they like. Prejudice may be so strong to cause someone to fudge or fake data. Important or surprising results will get checked for repeatability.
But this only works where there is a detectable phenomenon to observe. It’s conceivable (or should I say logically possible) that an experiment demonstrated some statistical correlation between people’s outcomes from illness and whether they had been prayed for. I don’t see how this impinges on the credibility of God being involved one way or another.
As long as the hypotheses are testable, perhaps. But that “as long as” is the crux. Let me say again, I’m standing in nobody’s way if they want to find God or “empathy waves”. Best of luck.
I’m still waiting for you to suggest something that is both real and supernatural.
Nevermind. It was
probablyBarry Arrington.{deleted previous off-topic comment.}
Zachriel:
It was. He even announced it:
Revelation,
peace
No, Christians who can’t read trust in Christ just as those who can do. That is what being a Christian means. Since Christ is who he says he is we can trust the Bible.
We don’t need to rely on humans with their fallible intellect at all.
peace
It’s obvious to anyone who has thought about it for a minute that Thor does not meet the job requirements for God.
If you had been interested in actual discussion instead of throwing out a red herring the subject would never have come up.
Instead you claimed that Thor is as likely as Yahweh to be God and act as if I’m in the wrong for challenging you to back up your claims.
Talk about poor ethics
peace
Oh my heavens, there is no speed to the adaptation. No adaptation took place. You killed certain bacteria, but not all of them. What adaptation?
Its no different than if you killed everyone with red hair. The only speed is the method you use to kill them. Maybe you give a cancer to the gene for red hair.
I wish you wouldn’t repeat a false statement. You HAVE NOT shown what the falsification would look like. If you kill off one particular trait in an organism, and eventually that trait comes back if you stop killing it, how have you shown any possible falsification? The falsification would look like what, please describe it.
Alan:
I didn’t say it was hard to spot. I said that it demonstrated your prejudice and that it inadvertently reinforced my earlier point.
It demonstrates your prejudice because neither God nor “empathy waves” are known to be real, yet you arbitrarily designated empathy waves as “potential real causes” while excluding God from that category.
It inadvertently reinforced my earlier point because it showed that entities don’t have to be real to be investigated by science, contrary to your claim. God, “empathy waves”, phlogiston, neutrinos — all are (and were) fair game for science.
Your equation of “natural” with “real” and “supernatural” with “imaginary” is foolish, as is your relegation of the latter to apologetics and philosophy, insisting that science can only investigate the former.
Alan:
Why? I’ve made it absolutely clear that I don’t think there is such a thing. You’re being deliberately obtuse, Alan.
Alan Fox,
Alan, please try to explain, in as clear way as possible, what a falsification of NS would look like. In lieu of that, you have not explained anything, other than repeating what you believe is the theory of evolution.
No falsification has been presented.
What definition of “natural selection” are you using? Just the selection part? Or are you using NS as a shortened version of the whole evolutionary process of genetic variations subjected to filtering selection and carried forward as heritable traits?
Make yourself clear if you want an answer.
Yeah.. Phoodoo.
The metaphor of a filter is misleading, first off. In the bacteria experiment for example, someone is deciding what method to kill certain bacteria. Alan is calling that “someone” who decides to apply which killing method, the environment. Their choice being one particular drug that targets one particular genetic variation. Its no different than creating a designer drug that killed all people with blue eyes. So in this case what would the falsification of an experiment that killed all people with blue eyes look like? The people with blue eyes don’t die? I don’t see what a falsification would entail.
So when we get to the larger picture, nature as a whole, we have to look at individual traits in an organism. Did they appear as a result of a filter. Again, the filter being the environment. So pick any trait. Ear wiggling let’s say. Did that trait arrive as a result of NS? The ONLY answer to that question is yes, because the trait arrived.
There is no falsification to that theory. Did a propensity for certain cancers arrive as a result of NS. Again yes, because it exists. Propensity for Diabetes? Yes. Gay gene. Yes. EVERYTHING is naturally selected.
There is no way of determining a no to the question.
Please answer the question. What definition of “natural selection” are you asking about. Don’t pull a Mung and run from providing your definition, unless you’re just trolling like Mung.
No because there also exists the mechanism of neutral drift that can fix alleles and therefore traits in a population.
Are you asking how any particular trait can be tested to see if it was fixed via selection or drift?
It is your fallible intellect that tells you what God does, omnipotence does require that God reveal infallibly to you, He may choose otherwise . Or if you rather, you presuppose an entity who reveals what you detect with you fallible intellect.
Never heard that , sounds close to having many Gods if each person of the Godhead can vouch.
Perhaps Thor lied on his resume
When people belIeve God acts according to His plan as most people do , God is acting with regularity. The problem is we do not know what His plan is or how He intends to accomplish it, which from our limited perspective would appear irregular.
Knowledge is impossible if God can lie.
I rest my case
peace
Three Persons one God.
What makes the Christian God different than all the others and why comparisons to Thor are so ridiculous
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Thump, thump, thump…
“I rest my case”
If only.
Oh? Out of interest, what bible verses speak of three persons, one god?
And are you aware that triads of complementary gods were a common theme in pre-Christian mythology?
So if that’s what makes the christian god “different” then you are in error, there are plenty of examples prior to christianity existing. Zeus, Poseidon and Hades were considered to be such a triad. It seems the first christians just stole from the Roman mythology they were surrounded with.
Now you’re quibbling semantics. The predominate trait changed in the population. If you prefer, we could start with a clonal population without antibiotic resistance. Turns out that antibiotic resistance will soon appear through a process called mutation.
Hypothesis: there are differences in bacteria subject to natural selection due to the presence of antibiotics
Test: put bacteria in environment with antibiotics
Falsification: there is no difference in reproductive success
Verification: some strains out reproduce other strains
The result would be falsified if there were no difference in reproductive success when in the presence of antibiotics.
You seem to have trouble following the conversation. Antibiotics are naturally occurring substances. The test can be made in nature by observing bacteria in the presence of mould.
If you believe God reveals knowledge then that seems true, most people just assume knowledge is possible.
Not if both are fictional.
Zachriel,
Zach, I suggest it is you who is having trouble understanding the question.
You are simply killing some bacteria, and then saying, do the dead bacteria reproduce as well as the live ones. It is no different from killing a group of bacteria with a hammer or a village of people in Africa with knives.
That is not a test of NS. How is more than one result possible? Dead bacteria don’t replicate.
But now here is your biggest problem: “If you prefer, we could start with a clonal population without antibiotic resistance. Turns out that antibiotic resistance will soon appear through a process called mutation…”
Which happens first, that some bacteria have resistance to some antibiotics, or that after being exposed to an antibiotic, bacteria begin mutating resistance?
Since you refuse to give the definition of NS you’re asking about it’s obvious you have no interest in getting an answer.
Creationists just love their stupid “gotcha!” games.
Antibiotics may not kill all the non-resistant bacteria, but can slow their reproduction. It depends on the antibiotic and the level of exposure.
Actually, it is. If you kill bacteria with a hammer, the difference between the dead and the survivors is not due to a heritable trait.
None of them have the trait at first. However, some develop heritable resistance whether exposed to antibiotics or not. This is called mutation random with respect to fitness. When then encountering antibiotics, those with the resistance are more reproductively successful, and the population of the resistant strain increases in predominance. This is called natural selection.
Zachriel,
Ok, I want to try your test. I get a group of bacteria, and I expose the entire colony to 1000 degrees centigrade heat. I check if there are any differential rates of reproduction. Turns out there aren’t any. NS is false.
LOL! That experiment highlights your, er, understanding of how science works quite nicely. 🙂
How about trying 0 to 1000 in 10 degree increments?