Why Intelligent Design Is a Scientific Theory
In the comments to a previous post, Micha took issue with what I think is an absolutely crushing argument in the "Is ID scientific?" debate. To repeat the argument: Many orthodox biologists etc. (whom I shall call "neo-Darwinians" for lack of a better term) say that not only is ID wrong, it's not even worthy of being called a false theory. To them, to explain the first cell as being consciously designed (rather than searching for a story involving lightning, amino acids, etc.) is like explaining thunderstorms by the anger of Zeus.
This is too narrow a conception of what science is. My favorite way to demonstrate is the following consideration: It is certainly possible that life on Earth was seeded by intelligent aliens, who designed a cell with all sorts of sophisticated DNA etc., then set it loose here billions of years ago. Now just suppose that were true. How in the world would we humans ever figure that out? Why, through people doing the exact type of research that the ID people are doing. And a necessary component of that process of learning the truth would be to critique the Darwinian explanations, by saying, "Yeah, you can tell a nice story about photosensitive cells gradually turning into a human eye over millions of years, but you haven't actually listed each specific step."
Now in response to my argument here, Micah in the comments said that this is just pushing back the problem one step: Where did the alien designers come from?
We don't know, because we haven't observed them yet. As a Christian, of course, I think they were ultimately created in the mind of God, as was everything else. But the Darwinian story might work for them.
This is a misconception about Michael Behe's notion of "irreducible complexity." Behe doesn't simply say, "I believe Genesis so shut up." He doesn't even just say, "Wow organisms are complicated; must be God." No, what he says is that there are many organisms whose overall structure could not have arisen step by step, with each intermediate stage conferring reproductive advantage over the previous one.
Now maybe Behe is wrong about this; maybe it is just his lack of imagination. But the point is, if Behe is right about life on Earth, the aliens could have evolved the way neo-Darwinists say it happened here. And if Behe looked at their cells under a microscope, he might be able to say, "Oh, now these cells aren't irreducibly complex! See, they're just this simple pattern repeated over and over. I can see how the aliens could've evolved into their current form from the sludge on their home planet, given enough time."
So again folks, if you want to say the ID people are nuts, and that they're liars who care nothing of science and just want to push their religion on people, OK fair enough. But this claim that ID isn't "scientific" is goofy. It prevents us from ever learning the truth if the alien story just so happened to be true. In that case, how would we ever learn? From philosophers? Theologians?
This is too narrow a conception of what science is. My favorite way to demonstrate is the following consideration: It is certainly possible that life on Earth was seeded by intelligent aliens, who designed a cell with all sorts of sophisticated DNA etc., then set it loose here billions of years ago. Now just suppose that were true. How in the world would we humans ever figure that out? Why, through people doing the exact type of research that the ID people are doing. And a necessary component of that process of learning the truth would be to critique the Darwinian explanations, by saying, "Yeah, you can tell a nice story about photosensitive cells gradually turning into a human eye over millions of years, but you haven't actually listed each specific step."
Now in response to my argument here, Micah in the comments said that this is just pushing back the problem one step: Where did the alien designers come from?
We don't know, because we haven't observed them yet. As a Christian, of course, I think they were ultimately created in the mind of God, as was everything else. But the Darwinian story might work for them.
This is a misconception about Michael Behe's notion of "irreducible complexity." Behe doesn't simply say, "I believe Genesis so shut up." He doesn't even just say, "Wow organisms are complicated; must be God." No, what he says is that there are many organisms whose overall structure could not have arisen step by step, with each intermediate stage conferring reproductive advantage over the previous one.
Now maybe Behe is wrong about this; maybe it is just his lack of imagination. But the point is, if Behe is right about life on Earth, the aliens could have evolved the way neo-Darwinists say it happened here. And if Behe looked at their cells under a microscope, he might be able to say, "Oh, now these cells aren't irreducibly complex! See, they're just this simple pattern repeated over and over. I can see how the aliens could've evolved into their current form from the sludge on their home planet, given enough time."
So again folks, if you want to say the ID people are nuts, and that they're liars who care nothing of science and just want to push their religion on people, OK fair enough. But this claim that ID isn't "scientific" is goofy. It prevents us from ever learning the truth if the alien story just so happened to be true. In that case, how would we ever learn? From philosophers? Theologians?
The problem is that the vague maybe-its-aliens-maybe-its-God-we're-not-telling-because-we -think-it's-God-but-we-want-to-get-into-the-public-schools-anyway explanation is *so vague it's untestable.* There are no constraints on this "designer" hypothesis, not even the laws of physics because a supernatural designer is possible.
ReplyDeleteWith no constaints there are no empirical implications and thus no way to test the idea scientifically.
In real life, i.e. archaeology or criminalistics (sorta real life) SETI, what is actually hypothesized are highly constrained designers who follow the laws of physics, have scrutable motives, in police work you have identifiable motive-means-opportunity hypotheses which can then be double-checked against evidence, etc. The ID movement gives us none of that -- because, of course, they think it's God and they know (a) they can't constrain the supernatural and (b) if you assume the designer is supposed to act like a human mid then you have obvious contradictory evidence, i.e. "designed" adaptations in mortal combat with each other.
The assertion that "evolution can't do X" is not an ID prediction or test, it is a test of evolutionary theory. Which shows (a) evolution is testable and (b) the ID people don't know what they're talking about because their objections to evolution are *always* shockingly uninformed, poorly thought out, and easily refuted by someone with the right background (the right background is somewhat rare, not that many people are experts in flagellum evolution).
"Why, through people doing the exact type of research that the ID people are doing."
ReplyDeleteOut of curiosity, can you point to some actual research that ID people are doing? I'm not trying to be a dick and seriously want to read what they're working on. Ben Stein failed to include any of it in Expelled and I would like to give the ID community the benefit of the doubt.
And I do not think the ID people are nuts, I think they are all very sincere and believe they are correct.
However, I still think their claims are entirely incorrect. Nor does a lack of evidence on ID's part mean they are incorrect, however in order to back up their claims they need some kind of tangible evidence, just like everyone else that makes a claim.
For instance, Behe's idea has been shot down several times for the simple reason that other researchers have shown other mechanisms for the creation of the intermediary steps he says does not exist. For instance, see Chapter 8 in the online video Judgment Day.
As far as your contentions regarding why electrons have certain charges, that is not in the same realm as the discussion of biological evolution. Not that it is not important, but anyone can conjure up a reason for why this bits of material synthesized that way.
I don't think that modern-day speciation would somehow unravel because fossil hunters digging through geographic strata are unable to detail exactly why a positron has a mass of 511 KeV.
The two are entirely separate discussions.
"Yeah, you can tell a nice story about photosensitive cells gradually turning into a human eye over millions of years, but you haven't actually listed each specific step."
ReplyDeleteBut this is not evidence of a designer. This is only evidence that we don't yet have a complete understanding of each intermediate step. To conclude from lack of evidence and understanding that a designer must have done it is, as you so aptly put it, like explaining thunderstorms by the anger of Zeus.
No, what he says is that there are many organisms whose overall structure could not have arisen step by step, with each intermediate stage conferring reproductive advantage over the previous one.
As far as I know, Behe has not demonstrated (at least to the satisfaction of his colleagues working within the scientific paradigm) that bridging these "irreducible complexities" is logically impossible, only that we have not yet discovered the evolutionary mechanism bridging the gap. Which is what biology and science is all about: looking for gaps in our current knowledge and understanding of the natural world and seeking an explanation, using the tools of the existing paradigm. When an explanation isn't quickly and easily discovered, actual scientists don't just throw their hands up the air in exasperation and claim Zeus did it. They keep on looking for answers within the existing paradigm, or, if they can develop a better paradigm that does the work of the previous paradigm plus more, they engage in the process of scientific revolution. Behe and the IDers have not done that.
But this claim that ID isn't "scientific" is goofy. It prevents us from ever learning the truth if the alien story just so happened to be true. In that case, how would we ever learn? From philosophers? Theologians?
Um, yes. Scientists don't get to claim a monopoly on truth. They have a certain perspective, subject to certain epistemological rules, and philosophers, and perhaps even theologians, have different perspectives, subject to other sorts of rules. Just because some knowledge is outside the scientific paradigm doesn't necessarily make it false or unattainable. Reread Gene's comments in the other thread:
I don't think scientists are wrong to demarcate scientific explanations from other types of explanation. In the natural sciences, a valid explanation must point to some natural law producing the observed phenomenon. Where they do go astray is in claiming that ONLY scientific explanations have any validity.
Um, yes. Scientists don't get to claim a monopoly on truth. They have a certain perspective, subject to certain epistemological rules, and philosophers, and perhaps even theologians, have different perspectives, subject to other sorts of rules.
ReplyDeleteMicah, I just want to make sure you didn't mistakenly concede to something here that you don't actually believe. In the unlikely event that aliens designed the first cell that was placed on Earth billions of years ago, you are saying that, for the rest of time, science would never shed any light on that historical fact? You are saying that by definition no scientist could ever posit, let alone come up with ways of trying to test or refute, this theory of the origin of terrestrial life?
BTW, is your name spelled "Micha"? I know sometimes people mistype...
ReplyDeleteNo, Bob, I am not saying that. Suppose tomorrow it is announced that, while sequencing some DNA, scientists have discovered an encoded message that says something along the lines of, "This gene sequence is brought to you by your friendly, neighborhood intelligent alien designers." That would be scientific evidence in favor of the existence of alien designers.
ReplyDeleteMy response that you quoted was only meant to establish that science need not be able to answer all possible questions related to truth; we cannot conclude from science's inability to address certain questions that therefore these questions prove that our understanding of what science is is mistaken.
And yes, my name is spelled Micha, and pronounced with the Hebrew, gutteral "CH" sound, much to my chagrin. Why my parents chose to give my a name that even my own father cannot pronounce correctly, I do not know. I generally introduce myself as "Micah" to non-Hebrew speakers just to avoid hassle and excess spittle.
This response is to anonymous:
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that the vague maybe-its-aliens-maybe-its-God-we're-not-telling-because-we -think-it's-God-but-we-want-to-get-into-the-public-schools-anyway explanation is *so vague it's untestable.*
No it isn't, and the fact that you think that shows indicates that you are probably spending more time reading critics of ID than the actual IDers. You really sound comparable to, say, a creationist who says, "What these atheists are afraid to admit is that the probability of modern life arising through sheer coincidence is the same as a monkey typing out Shakespeare."
William Dembski has laid out very precise rules for testing whether something is designed. I apologize for not being able to dig up a paraphrase of his rules; his officious title is "specified complexity of low probability" or something like that.
The basic idea is, for something to be a candidate for "designed by intelligence," it has to be complex, and the probability of it ending up as-is without intelligence being involved has to be low.
Now look, you can say this is dumb or not helpful, and that's fine. But the ID movement is tons more sophisticated than your caricature suggests.
There are no constraints on this "designer" hypothesis, not even the laws of physics because a supernatural designer is possible.
With no constraints there are no empirical implications and thus no way to test the idea scientifically.
Again, you are speaking in broad a priori brush strokes here. Just suppose for a moment that a lab technician accidentally runs some DNA sequences from a mosquito through a codebreaking algorithm, and out pops this "message":
"Hello, Jim! Don't be alarmed, but (of course) I knew you would discover this message in the year 2008, after my son's birth. Be of good cheer! You will go down in history as the the most important prophet of all time. You and the rest of my children are now ready to receive further, explicit instruction just as I did with Moses. For the next chapter, have your fellow researchers look at the blah blah blah sequence and run the same algorithm..."
Now after the guy changed his shorts, and then ran out and tried (successfully) reproducing the above decryption with different mosquitoes and different computer workstations, would it be unscientific for him to suppose an intelligent being had arranged the DNA in that way? He wouldn't have to assume it was the God of the Old Testament--it could have been a genetic engineer with a sense of humor in Asia, for all he knew. But are you seriously maintaining that he would have to say, "Hmm, there must have been an interesting confluence of weather and crop conditions to select for this particular strain of DNA..." ?
In real life, i.e. archaeology or criminalistics (sorta real life) SETI, what is actually hypothesized are highly constrained designers who follow the laws of physics, have scrutable motives,
That's a good point. You're certainly right, the theory "it was designed by a bank robber" is a lot crisper (and more easily falsified) than "it was designed." But I'm saying there is not a qualitative difference between the two, just one of degree. If it's scientific to ask whether the statues on Easter Island were designed thousands of years ago (by whom we don't really know), why is it unscientific to ask whether prokaryotes were designed billions of years ago (by whom we don't really know)?
Yes, the former question is much crisper, and we have a much more confident answer. All I'm saying is that the second is a perfectly legitimate question for a scientist to ask.
the ID people don't know what they're talking about because their objections to evolution are *always* shockingly uninformed, poorly thought out, and easily refuted by someone with the right background
Just as the people in the ID camp can quite justifiably say of 99.9% of their critics.
In my readings of the two sides, they usually talk past each other. As much as it (I assume) drives you crazy when the IDer doesn't even get the position he's critiquing, well, ditto.
Tim,
ReplyDeleteOut of curiosity, can you point to some actual research that ID people are doing? I'm not trying to be a d*ck and seriously want to read what they're working on.
Good question, but I'm going to punt on it. I haven't kept up with this stuff since I really got into it about 3 years ago. So the obvious stuff: Cataloguing ever more examples of "irreducibly complex" features of organisms. E.g. if there were compelling neo-Darwinian stories for everything except the human iris, then that would be one thing. But if there are tons and tons of cases where the biologists have to say, "Well, maybe some day we'll come up with an explanation. You can't prove that we won't!" then the case for the neo-Darwinian story is weaker and weaker.
The other main line of work is Dembski's abstract mathematical stuff. In particular his application of the No Free Lunch theorems from computer science. I actually dug up the mathematical papers where these theorems were proven (not by Dembski), and I was actually working on a way to extend them to handle the case of co-evolution when I left academia. (They were actually game theoretic, which is why I had a chance of being able to publish in the area.) So it's true that Dembski is using a verbal application, but the response of famous biologists (like Orr, see page 4 here) was pretty lame. Of course just because the best response was bad, doesn't render Dembski correct; but I think he is. I am waiting to become a bit more famous and then I will release a YouTube explaining. (Tim you have known me for a while and so you realize that I am just this narcissistic, whereas others might think I am joking... If you read the Orr thing and want me to elaborate, let me know and I'll type it up as a new blog post.)
For instance, Behe's idea has been shot down several times for the simple reason that other researchers have shown other mechanisms for the creation of the intermediary steps he says does not exist. For instance, see Chapter 8 in the online video Judgment Day.
Well, I confess that I am not going to review that; I'm sorry but I just don't have the time right now. All I can say is that in the past, when I tried reading both sides, I came down with Behe. The other side would do something like say, "Oh, Behe says there would be no advantage to having half an eye. Well, this creature over here has a thing on its tail that is like an iris, and this creature over here has a thing on its ear that is like a cornea, and this creature over here has..." Obviously I am paraphrasing but I hope you get my point. In my mind, the critics of Behe hadn't really given a plausible, step-by-step account of how the flagellum (or whatever) could have arisen, with each intermediate step conferring an advantage over the previous one.
I don't think that modern-day speciation would somehow unravel because fossil hunters digging through geographic strata are unable to detail exactly why a positron has a mass of 511 KeV.
I think you misunderstood my analogy. If you want to paraphrase the above we can see if you and I are really disagreeing here.
Micha,
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, Behe has not demonstrated (at least to the satisfaction of his colleagues working within the scientific paradigm) that bridging these "irreducible complexities" is logically impossible, only that we have not yet discovered the evolutionary mechanism bridging the gap.
Right, of course not; it's an empirical question and so of course Behe couldn't have found a way to rule it out as impossible.
Again, all I can say is, just suppose for the moment that the conventional theory is wrong. Then wouldn't it be hilarious that all these famous scientists are basically saying, "Yes we can't fill in the gaps in our theory, but our lack of imagination shouldn't be a strike against it!" ?
What else could the critic of the theory do besides pointing out that the theory is resting on some as-yet-to-be-discovered mechanisms, and then to offer a totally different theory?
Which is what biology and science is all about: looking for gaps in our current knowledge and understanding of the natural world and seeking an explanation, using the tools of the existing paradigm. When an explanation isn't quickly and easily discovered, actual scientists don't just throw their hands up the air in exasperation and claim Zeus did it.
Right, and I'm certainly not suggesting that scientists stop looking for neo-Darwinian explanations. All I'm asking is that people stop calling ID unscientific. I don't expect it to be taught in high school biology, I just want people to drop that particular objection because I think it's ridiculous.
Incidentally, I can turn the "just say Zeus did it" back on you. If you are a Christian biologist then you think everything does serve a purpose, and so you could keep looking. In contrast, a neo-Darwinian can try to give a fitness explanation for something, but if he can't, he can just throw up his hands and say "vestigial feature."
My response that you quoted was only meant to establish that science need not be able to answer all possible questions related to truth; we cannot conclude from science's inability to address certain questions that therefore these questions prove that our understanding of what science is is mistaken.
ReplyDeleteOK that's fine. And we're agreed that we both define science in a way that would include learning about aliens who seeded life on Earth, if that happened to be the case.
What else could the critic of the theory do besides pointing out that the theory is resting on some as-yet-to-be-discovered mechanisms, and then to offer a totally different theory?
ReplyDeleteNo scientific discipline has the answers to each and every possible question regarding the mechanisms and applications of that discipline, at least no scientific discipline that has a research program. Else it would just be a closed system; you could look up any and every question about that system in some encyclopedia.
If critics think they have a better theory, they need to convince the rest of the people working in that discipline, under the old theory, that their new theory is better: that it explains everything that the old theory explains, but also explains some things that the old theory is incapable of explaining.
ID doesn't seem to do this. For every "missing link" ID thinks it can explain better than the evolutionary paradigm, ID is unexplaining even more. What sort of research program is ID giving us? What sort of useful predictions, experiments, etc.? Just positing that "God did it", "aliens did it" or "Zeus did it" isn't science, it isn't a research program, and it isn't explaining anything in useful way that might lead to further explanations.
All I'm asking is that people stop calling ID unscientific.
It depends on what your definition of "scientific" is. If you buy into the Demski/Behi absence-of-evidence-is-evidence-of-absence thesis, and you define science under some sort of logical positivist, verificationist, A. J. Ayer-esque sort of conception, then perhaps you might consider ID to be verified by the evidence (of absence) and therefore science (although I think even an unreconstructed positivist would object to this counting as actual evidence of anything). But if you understand science in a more Kuhnian fashion, as a research paradigm with its own set of internal rules, interests, goals, language, styles, etc. ID has failed to convince those working within the existing scientific paradigm that it even rises to the level of competing scientific theory.
For what it's worth, this discussion inspired a blog post of my own: What Is The Purpose Of Creation Science?
ReplyDeleteBut if you understand science in a more Kuhnian fashion, as a research paradigm with its own set of internal rules, interests, goals, language, styles, etc. ID has failed to convince those working within the existing scientific paradigm that it even rises to the level of competing scientific theory.
ReplyDeleteIf you're claiming that most practicing biologists don't consider ID to be scientific, then I agree with you.
I'm just saying those people are wrong.
There is a difference between something being a scientific question, and something being a fruitful avenue for a research program. (I think my dissertation on Bohm-Bawerk proves this...)
Again, in any other context nobody talks like this. If I say, "I think the statues on Easter Island must have been designed by an intelligent being," nobody says, "Jeez man, just because you can't think of how a tornado did that, isn't proof of a sentient creator! Go read Kuhn."
I'll check out your site later today.
"like explaining thunderstorms by the anger of Zeus."
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the idea of mythology as a collection of crappy scientific explanations has been pretty thoroughly debunked -- see Collingwood, Cassirer, Langer, and Voegelin, among others. No one explained thunder in the way this statement implies.
The other main line of work is Dembski's abstract mathematical stuff. In particular his application of the No Free Lunch theorems from computer science. I actually dug up the mathematical papers where these theorems were proven (not by Dembski)...
ReplyDeleteApparently too abstract to be of any use to anyone. I can't find where he has submitted these ideas on information theory and the detection of specified complexity to anyone (information theorists and statistical journals) capable of reviewing them. You wouldn't think scholars in these disciplines would be part of the worldwide Darwinian conspiracy.
One of the guys who co-wrote the No Free Lunch Theorems is not impressed with Dembski's use of them.
Scripto,
ReplyDeleteApparently too abstract to be of any use to anyone. I can't find where he has submitted these ideas on information theory and the detection of specified complexity to anyone (information theorists and statistical journals) capable of reviewing them.
Yeah, I'm not saying I would name Dembski as the godfather of my child. He wrote somewhere about why he doesn't publish in peer-reviewed journals, and it was pretty lame. Especially since that's the primary objection against him, I don't know why he wouldn't at least try.
You wouldn't think scholars in these disciplines would be part of the worldwide Darwinian conspiracy.
Well I don't know your background, but as a reader of this site I wouldn't be surprised if you were skeptical of the "consensus" global warming view, or the "consensus" mainstream economic views taught at Harvard etc. And those people ridicule global warming deniers, Austrian economists, etc. the same way the mainstream biologists ridicule Behe et al.
One of the guys who co-wrote the No Free Lunch Theorems is not impressed with Dembski's use of them.
Yes, I'll deal with this in a new post.
By the way, the idea of mythology as a collection of crappy scientific explanations has been pretty thoroughly debunked -- see Collingwood, Cassirer, Langer, and Voegelin, among others. No one explained thunder in the way this statement implies.
ReplyDeleteNext you'll tell us that people knew the world was round before Columbus, that lemmings don't run off cliffs, that toilets don't flush the other way in Brazil, and that police forces aren't as old as language.
Sometimes the ridicule is well deserved. If you want to play with the big boys (of whom I am decidedly not one) you got to climb in the arena. Sad to say, I'm not really interested in climate change except on the historical level. It's pretty clear that we are increasing the level of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere but I think it is a stretch to predict exactly what may happen. I suppose it's something between flooding the entire east coast and stopping the gulf stream, plunging us into another ice age (or both). If you look at the long term, it's not that friendly of a planet, anyway.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should ask Dembski to godfather your child. The kid'll get dynamite sweaters every birthday.
If you're claiming that most practicing biologists don't consider ID to be scientific, then I agree with you. I'm just saying those people are wrong.
ReplyDeleteYup, I figured we would get to this point, given the similarities IDers have in getting a foothold into mainstream biology as Austrians have in getting a foothold into mainstream economics.
Whereas I am perfectly comfortable saying that all IDers are kooks and should be kept as far away as possible from teaching or publishing anything to do with mainstream science, I am not as willing to say the same about Austrians.
One of the main differences, of course, is that Austrians--when they do good work--can get published in mainstream journals, even when the content of what they are writing about is thoroughly Austrian, whereas IDers cannot get ID "scholarship" published in mainstream scientific journals. I think Milton Friedman had it right: There is no such thing as Austrian economics (if understood as entirely separate from neoclassical economics); there is only good economics and bad economics.
I don't see the difficulty Austrians have in dealing with neoclassical economists as necessarily a bad thing. I think the Austrians at GMU--Pete Boettke representing--are doing just fine getting their work published and accepted by others. (And hell - NYU too! You're an NYU guy. You guys have Mario Rizzo for goodness sake.) The folks at Mises Institute like to portray Austrian and neoclassical as an Us vs. Them sort of thing, where never the twain shall meet. That may be great for funding purposes, portraying the LvMIers as the lone libertarian truthseekers in a world where Chicago School economists are "worse than Communists" and "intellectual criminals" and other Hoppean claptrap, but it's not a great way to get published or to influence the mainstream. I certainly wouldn't want to be called worse than a Communist or an intellectual criminal (although, it's sort of a badge of honor to be on Hoppe's bad side these days).
Anyway, getting back to the original point, I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, and that's exactly what Intelligent Design and the LvMI-flavor of Austrian economics depend upon. They both depend upon believing in an academic conspiracy that is intentionally keeping them out of mainstream circles, not because of truth, but because of an irrational bias in favor of atheism or statism, respectively. It's a lot easier to believe it's just a function of bad scholarship: when ID is packed up in decent philosophical wrappings, it gets published in respected philosophy journals (see Plantinga), and when Austrian economics is packed in decent non-hostile LvMI wrappings, devoid of methodenstreit ramblings, it gets published in respected economics journals.
'That may be great for funding purposes, portraying the LvMIers as the lone libertarian truthseekers in a world where Chicago School economists are "worse than Communists" and "intellectual criminals" and other Hoppean claptrap...'
ReplyDeleteRothbard was grim in this respect. For instance, when Don Lavoie ceased to follow Rothbard in every respect, by beginning to explore hermeneutics, Rothbard dismissed him as having 'sold out to the state,' despite the fact he was still an anarchist!