Comment on “Blindingly Obvious Artifacts” of Intelligent Design by pauluc.
Gene Fortner: The ability to detect design is God given.
Send a couple of 10 year olds through a field looking for artifacts, they will come back with arrowheads, broken pieces of pottery, nails, ……
I am glad you agree with the position on design I have previously articulated.
Design is simply pattern recognition. No science involved. It is simply a function of a brain. Ants and insects can recognize unusual variants from their natural world. Humans have at least the same capability. It is built into a brain at an early point and is reflected in the imputation of purpose in our cognition. This is evident by the studies of teological thinking in Kids
And even scientists and academics in the arts.
Intelligent design is really just pattern recognition. A deep psychological comfort that is built into our brains to see purpose in the natural world and atefacts as comforting reminders of our presence and volition
Table of Contents
pauluc Also Commented
“Blindingly Obvious Artifacts” of Intelligent Design
Im not following your logic. You cant have it both ways. Either
1] peer review is inadequate and letting anything be published as science as you seem to suggest here or
2] It is being highly selective in excluding from publication lots of critical novel data that is rejected because it does not fit some arbritrary idea of science.
I think you need to have a united front on this. Sean and Bob are saying peer review is much more difficult than it was 100 years ago and Einstein Wegener would not be published today. You are saying that lots of things that are wrong are being published.
Some real data or evidence would be helpful. A rejection letter from Sean for a publication on his theory of 1000FSAAR would certainly help me be convinced that papers are really being rejected because of ideology not poor quality science.
“Blindingly Obvious Artifacts” of Intelligent Design
And now for something completely different. Logic according to John Cleese;
Rabble; A witch. We have a witch. Burn her! burn her!
Rabble; We have found a witch may we burn her?
Benamere; How do you know she is a witch?
Rabble; She looks like one
Witch; Im not a witch
Benamere; But you are dressed like one
Witch: They dressed me like one
Rabble No No Yes well a little bit. We put on the nose.
Benamere; What makes you think she is a witch
Rabble; She turned me into a newt.
Benamere; A nnnewt?
Rabble; I got better
Rabble: Burn her. burn her anyway.
Benamere; There are ways of telling whether she is a witch
Rabble; Are there?
Benamere; Tell me. What do you do with witches?
Rabble; Burn her! burn her!
Benamere; And what do you burn apart from witches?
Rabble; More witches. Wood.
Benamere; So why do witches burn?
Rabble; —— Because theyre made of wood?
Benamere; Goooood. So how do we tell if she is made of wood?
Rabble; Build a bridge out of her
Benamere; Ahhh But can you not make bridges out of stone?
Rabble; Oh yea.
Benamere; Does wood sink in water?
Rabble; No It floats. Throw her into the pond.
Benamere; What also floats in water?
Rabble; Bread, apples, very small rocks, cider, gravy, mud, cherries, churches, lead
Stranger; A duck.
Benamere; Exactly! so logically?
Rabble; If she weighs the same as a duck then she is made of wood.
Benamere; And therefore?
Rabble; A witch, a witch
Benamere; Very good! We shall use my largest scales.
Benamere; And who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?
stranger; I am king arthur
(Dialog from Monty Python and the holy grail).
What on earth does that have to do with the blinding obviousness of the artefactual nature of a granite cube? The problems is that like monty python you confuse categories. You argue from an obvious artefact to suggest that anything that appears designed for a purpose must have a divine creator.
You are arguing that a molecular “machine” is precisely the same as an artefact and therefore must accept the same implications of design. That is not at all established. Now or when Paley made the teleological argument based on a watch. It is an assertion just like the many assertions that populate this blog. We have all the usual suspects here.
SETI; You manage to find supportive Shostak and manage to get him to say something that supports your position even tho SETI supporters have specifically dissociated themselves from IDC and its modus operandi as you will find from a simple google searh. You specifically miss his comment;
…the champions of Intelligent Design make two mistakes when they claim that the SETI enterprise is logically similar to their own: First, they assume that we are looking for messages, and judging our discovery on the basis of message content, whether understood or not. In fact, we’re on the lookout for very simple signals. That’s mostly a technical misunderstanding. But their second assumption, derived from the first, that complexity would imply intelligence, is also wrong. We seek artificiality, which is an organized and optimized signal coming from an astronomical environment from which neither it nor anything like it is either expected or observed: Very modest complexity, found out of context. This is clearly nothing like looking at DNA’s chemical makeup and deducing the work of a supernatural biochemist.
You repeat your usual assertion without novelty or explication;
1] “.. there is no known mindless natural mechanism that is able to produce any kind of mechanical machine, biological or otherwise, beyond very very low levels of functional complexity.”
2] “…natural selection is a real force of nature, it is more of a preserving force for what already exists rather than a creative force of novel biomechanical systems. Of course, random mutations can change the letters of DNA and natural selection can select among these changes for the ones that happen to survive or reproduce better than their peers. However, this process is very very limited to low levels of functional complexity..”
3] “…because of what happens to “sequence space” with each step up the ladder of minimum size and/or specificity requirements. With each step up this ladder of “functional complexity” the ratio of what is potentially beneficial, but not yet discovered, within sequence space decreases exponentially relative to the number of non-beneficial sequences.
4] “..random mutations and natural selection is .. statistically limited to very low level systems this side of a practical eternity of time..”
5] “Even someone like Richard Dawkins is dimly aware of the basics of this fairly obvious concept.” This is something new. Dawkins does not know but Sean Pitman does.
6] “The only question that should be asked is if there is any known natural mechanism that can really explain the common ancestry and diversity of all living things on this planet over just a billion years or so? The problem with the Darwinian mechanism of random mutations and natural selection is that this mechanism is statistically limited to very low level systems this side of a practical eternity of time (i.e., nothing that requires more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid building blocks). Without a viable mechanism the only thing that comes close, as with the SETI artefacts, is an appeal to a very intelligent designer.”
And this is not a classic God of the Gaps argument because..? I guess because you say it is not.
You seem to completely miss the point that not only Judges and Scientist but most everyone appreciates that Intelligent design or more properly IDC or Intelligent design creation is a restatement of literal creationism for the 20th century.
1] Do you admit that this is the origin of the term? Do you admit any history of this term at all?
2] Do you accept that there is a difference between the natural and the supernatural. They are categorically different so the method of one cannot be use for the other.
3] You believe in an old earth and universe because of the bible not because of any science.
4] Yet you believe in a recent literal creation around 6000 years ago not just because of the bible but because the scientific evidence for it.
5] You seem to believe that artefacts of humans and machines are directly comparables
6] You believe that biological systems are biological machines and just as machines are created by intelligent people so therefore must all biological machines.
7] You make no distinction between a molecular machine and a physical machine or an artefact.
8] If we take you logic to its extreme it is completely reductionist. Biology is just mechanics. This is certainly consistent with your incredulity about emergent properties.
Recent Comments by pauluc
LSU memorandum confirms Educate Truth’s allegations
To summarize the issues in your long response.
1] NHP as you have articulated do not offer any possibility of deciding between relatedness by descent and “God made it that way”
2] ID only hypothesis; Has never been formulated in any rigorous way that has been subject to testing. I do not even know what you mean by “ID-only”. Most scientists would understand ID as code for “We dont understand this except God did it”.
3] Hypothesis testing you say
“Real science demands that models be at least theoretically falsifiable. That means that a particular model can be shown to be false even if there is no other model with which to replace the current model. A false model is a false model. It’s as simple as that.”
Unfortunately it is nowhere near as simple as that as you would know if if you had bothered to try to understand science beyond your sectarian base. Although the poperian model of science as hypothesis testing and a requirement for falsifiability is still the dominant understanding it is much more complicated than that. The discussion by Alistair McGrath in “A scientific theology vol 3 theory” pg 192-214 of the Durham – Quine theory and the nature of hypothesis testing would be a useful start to understand hypothesis testing and falsifiability. In summary however the theory suggests that a thesis such as quantum mechansisms, origin of life by evolution by common descent is surrounded by a group of agregated interrelated hypotheses. These might include Darwinian natural selection. In reality as Jerry Fodor has suggested in his book “What Dawin Got Wrong”, the Darwinian hypothesis can be rejected based on evidence without at all rejecting the core evolutionary hypothesis. As he says in his eassy “Fodor against Darwinism” found on his website
“None of this should, however, lighten the heart of anybody in Kansas; not even a little. In particular, I’ve provided not the slightest reason to doubt the central Darwinist theses of the common origin and mutability of species. Nor have I offered the slightest reason to doubt
that we and chimpanzees had (relatively) recent common ancestors. Nor I do suppose that the intentions of a designer, intelligent or otherwise, are among the causally sufficient conditions that good historical narratives would appeal to in order to explain why a certain kind of creature has the phenotypic traits it does (saving, of course, cases like Granny and her zinnias.) It is, in short, one thing to wonder
whether evolution happens; it’s quite another thing to wonder whether adaptation is the mechanism by which evolution happens. Well, evolution happens; the evidence that it does is overwhelming. I blush to have to say that so late in the day; but these are bitter times.”
The response to data that would falsify one of the hyptheses is to change that hypothesis to better account for the new fact without at all changing the original thesis.
A recent review on evolution of cellular complexity by ratchet like mechansisms rather than selection also critiques Darwinian selection as the mechanism of generating complexity but does not question the well established rubric of evolution of cellular complexity. (Gray MW, LukeÅ¡ J, Archibald JM, Keeling PJ, Doolittle WF. Irremediable Complexity? Science 2010 Nov;330(6006):920 -921). This is the model of scientific advance you are confonting. Science could completely reject all darwinian mechanisms but the thesis of evolution would remain because of the absence of a better theory.
Your approach of pointing out the problems you see with some aspect of the evolutionary model completely misses this point. You are approaching science and knowledge from the approach to truth you hear from the pulpit and from fundamentalists like Bob Ryan. You cannot be a christian unless you believe in the literal creation. You cannot have a sabbath unless the literal creation is correct. There can be no second coming unless the creation is literally true. This is not the mindset outside the inclaves of fundamentalism. The pillar talk of people like this engender the idea that failure at a single point destroys the whole edifice. This does not pass the test of realism.
You cannot hope to change the scientific paradigm that is the thesis of evolution by pointing out even a multitude of errors or inconsistencies in the surrounding interrelated hypotheses without a compelling alternative core model. You have to provide both an overarching alternative to evolution as a thesis and to each of the surrounding interrelated hypotheses each of which provide support for the overall hypothesis.
I know you have taken the view that you can and must personally understand everything related to origins and have published critiques in all conceivably related fields. This is all well and good but these have to be both credible and well informed in each field.
for Eg do you seriously want us to believe that geo biodiversity can be accounted for by a model of plate tectonics that suggests that in 6000 years south america moved >11000 km from Gwondanaland. This is incredible; minimal rate of nearly 2 Km per year! The constraints imposed on the model, a 6000 year earth history makes your task of credibility virtually impossible. But if you move away from the “about 6000” of divine relevation you are on your own and well away from the mothership of the church.
You have a problem in that your core thesis that God created everything 6000 years ago was the dominant model some 150 years ago but this has been tested and progressively rejected as untenable because of accumulating evidence for the alternative model over the last 150 years. It is extremely unlikely that this will ever be a scientific thesis although it will always remain as a faith statement which is outside the magesteria of science and hypothesis testing. People like Prof Kent seem to recognize this.
4] The organization of the genome;
“Beyond this, your notion that the genome is a hodge-podge poorly planned jumbled mess is a view that is at odds with the currently emerging view of the genome”
I think it interesting that you would take a journalists view, albeit published in science, as the best evidence for “currently emerginf view of the genome”. Even given this caveat I do not read this review as supporting your contention of design on which it is completely silent. Unless of course you see in a Mandelbrot and all complexity the finger of God.
If you had read the chicken defensin gene paper you would have an example of what I mean by messy. Within this gene family
a] Why are the introns of different length ie different ?random intronic lengths
b] why are the intergenic distances variable?
c] why does the gal13 have partial repeat sequences
d] why is the orientation of the gene seemingly at random?
This does not to me seem the carefully ordered regular precise structure I would expect of intelligent design. If you suggest that we do not yet know but that all of this nonetheless reflect careful thought or that it reflects interference and corruption from the devil as David Read woudl suggest I would have to conclude that your ID concept is vaccuous has not explanatory value and is far from scientific.
In contrast the evolutionary model of common origin and ancestory has extraordinary explanatory and predictive value. It predicts that changes between species will reflect this history of origin by descent from common ancestors.
I ask you to take any published analysis of a multigene family and ask the same questions. Do they objectively support order and design or are they best accounted for by contingency and chance with a mere modicum of selection.
5] I have dealt with “real science” and new models above but your statement
” … but on the functional aspects associated with the NHP that cannot be explained by any known mindless mechanism while being within the realm of the powers of intelligent design at a very high level.”
is a faith statement, a non-sequitur that does not get to the point of this dialogue which was why the genome is as it is and can you honestly say it is best accounted for by “design”.
The End of “Junk DNA”?
“I’m a very strong supporter of the freedoms of religion, speech, and general expression within the confines of civil law and government………………church employment is an entirely different matter. Church employment is a privilege, not a basic human right. No one should expect payment from any particular organization, to include a church organization, just because one claims the name of that organization”.
Does your rhetoric and claimed principle really just come down to concerns about administrative process and control of thought by economic leverage? Do you have no respect for education as a process that involves academic freedom?
Your approach seems to be blind to the progressive history of Adventism. Adventist have no creed and what you believe about origins is not precisely what early adventists would believe. Adventism has had a doctrine of creation like all christians. Most have adopted a YEC view but that YEC in general has not always believed that the earth was old or that a big bang occurred. The idea that there has been a single standard of belief over the last 150 years is naive. Are you advocating that what you believe now in 2012 including your belief on natural mechanisms of macroevolution (as it is usually defined) and the age of the earth is the gold standard manifests to me a huge amount of hubris and lack of perspective. Have you not read the statement of fundamental beliefs and its preamble? What do you want to do. Sack people every time there is new perspective on mechanisms of creation? Do you have a purge your educational faculties with every change in administration? Doesnt seem to have worked very well for ADRA. Do you think you are the one who can determine the “truth” to which we must educate. How about a little academic freedom and acknowledgment of the true standard. Recognition of a doctrine of creation rather than judging people by the nuances of some theory of creation.
I do not really know the people who teach science at La Sierra but as Prof Kent has suggested it seems to me they may well have projected a lack of respect for traditional Adventist positions and heritage in the past but I suspect you are now beating a dead horse and the University has done what it can to be responsibly responsive to the expressed concern.
“The freedom of expression and the ability to hire only those who will most accurately reflect one’s views is also extended to the “ignorant”.”
Yes we are all ignorant it is a question of whether we are able to admit it and concede expertise to those who manifest it. I have never claimed to be brilliant, I simply try to practice my craft as honestly and consistently as I can and that means accepting the tradition and process of science as a window to understand the natural world and accepting the value and insight of both the Adventist tradition and the Christian faith as it has been practised by our spiritual fathers for 2000 years. I ask only that we practice charity rather than condemnation toward those who are trying to educate in science and in knowledge of God.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Thanks for that. Wise choice, that I knew given your intelligence you would make despite you vigorous defence of your near perfect pair model of origins. We will pass over the assumption that there are no deleterious mutations and that you discriminate against animals with variant expression of FGF4 and consider it deleterious. Why the prejudice against short legs?
Lets recap what we do agree on
1] A genetically bottle-necked population such as 2 Daschunds lacks the genetic diversity to allow rapid selection of phenotypic novelty by selection among allelic variants. imposing a bottleneck on a non-bottle-necked population of wolves is also suspect so you choose 100 pairs.
2] In this you seem to be accepting the conventional scientific view that a bottle-necked population is undesirable as it has dramatically decreased repertoire in their gene pool and high levels of homozygosity. Lack of variation rather than deleterious mutation is the issue.
3] You accept that wolves and their subfamily dogs, foxes, jackal and coyotes are all derived from 2 animals living 4000 years ago. This by definition is a genetic bottleneck
4] These animals had 2 genomes and maximum of 4 haplotypes and alleles for every gene. Any additional alleles has arisen subsequently as random or non-random mutations.
5] The vast majority of the SNP (>2.5million) arose in the progeny of this pair by mutations over a period of 4000 years.
5] The multiple DLA alleles at the class II arose denovo since these 2 animals provided the 4 original alleles.
6] Similarly in man [assuming 8 people on the ark and that Noahs sons were the progeny of he and his wife, and that his daughter in laws were unrelated to each other and to Noah and his wife and were heterzygous] there were a total of 10 alleles at HLA B. this means that 1590 of the HLA-B alleles currently recognized by genotype in man have arisen denovo over the last 4000 years.
7] In this case if we accept Seans value of 1600 HLA-B allels then 99.3% of the variation seen today has arisen by chance mutations and selection.
8] If we conservatively estimate the HLA-B serological specificities associated with amino acid changes and differences in peptide binding are 60 and all of the 10 HLA-B alleles in the 8 people on the boat were associated with serological specificity then we can assume that at least 83% of the variation in the highly functional amino acid changes in HLA-B seen the current population were derived by chance mutations.
9] There seems little reason to argue that the same process that must occur in highly polymorphic systems such as the MHC do not occur in other gene systems.
9] If between 83% and 99% of the variation in the progeny of 2 animals and 8 humans arose rapidly over 4000 years and in the case of canines this acquired variation was able to generate at least the species wolves, coyote, foxes and Jackals, it is hard to then mount a consistent criticism that species can never arise by acquired mutations.
10] You can of course invoke miracles. Indeed I think it is the only logically consistent conclusion given your premises.
1] All species variation arose over 4000 years from an extremely bottle-necked population
2] Mutations account for any variation not present in the original near perfect pair.
3] These mutations cannot generate anything useful or novel that can contribute to the phenotypic development of breeds or species.
I have great faith in your ability to reconcile these but I do not have the intellectual horsepower to do so except by invoking miracles.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
“Don’t sell yourself short! You think you’re just as right in your opinions and that I’m clearly mistaken. You’re certainly no less “gifted” in this regard than I am.”
No Sean this is really the core of the differences between you and me. It is not a matter of opinion but a matter of statistical probability. In almost all of what I have posted on this site I have reflected the evidence for the consensus view rather than my opinion.
Dismiss me as kowtowing to authority if you will. I have faith in the process of hypothesis driven science and the community of scientists that seeks to arrive at objective truth by free and open communication of ideas by publication and peer review. In this process I continue to participate for I do think it is one of the most noble human endeavours.
As a outsider to this process and as one who has never had formal training in science you uncritically accept the paranoid meme that says you must be somehow blessed by some scientific inner circle to have your papers accepted. You feel excluded but have you actually tried to participate?
I accept in good faith the work of scientists and the derivative consensus view in most areas of science but like all good scientist understand it is always a tentative synthesis. I maintain a cynical attitude which unfortunately taints the way I view your claims. I nonetheless can appreciate the elegance of a solution to a conundrum and an hypothesis that has huge explanatory value while still accepting its tentative nature. I understand my limitations and have some inkling of the extent of the biomedical literature. I recognise expertise and am therefore happy to defer to the expertise of others with an appropriate track record.
In contrast because of your religious views you do not accept the consensus view of scientists in a vast number of areas including geology, climatology and paleoclimatology, volcanology, oceanography, genetics, paleontology, cladistics, and molecular biology. In all these areas you imagine that you have more expertise and insight than the people who have dedicated their lives to the study of the content of these areas.
In spite of the way you construct it I am not suggesting I am more righter than you and I have only ever suggested that you have some respect for the history of the current consensus view in science and a little more realism in your perception of mastery of these areas. You may view this as a contest and that you easily best some fool from the antipodes but in rejecting my appeals to the evidence and the orthodox consensus view in areas in which I have some expertise you are essentially claiming you know it all.
[to save time I will acknowledge this space as containing some castigation from you or Bob Ryan such as “Gotta love the appeal to authority!!!”]
Which brings me to the question of probabilities. Statistically who do you think is more likely to be right? 1] An MD from Southern California whose ambition in life seems to be to extinguish any open discussion of views that do not align with his own views and interpretation of most all of science. 2] The consensus view of many scientists who in good faith attempt to understand the world through a process of hypothesis testing and experimentation and open communication of that information and interpretation.
Concerning your fixation with the numerology I can use R and bioconductor probably better than the average biologist but like lawyer jokes the adage about “lies, damn lies and statistics” resonates because it has some basis in reality. Biologists use statistics to decide what is the likely among the possible processes and hypotheses. Statistics and mathematics are tool in biology not the reality. Particularly annoying I find the abuse of post hoc probabilities which are largely meaningless and depend on the rigor of your definition of the dependent variables proposed as precedent to the outcome. Bayes and the savy gambler understood the real purpose of statistics.