Can ID be disproven?

[Meadmaker]

That's now how I'd interpret what he said:
You need to check every possible biological mechanism, because it is possible that such a mechanism is exactly what evolved into the one under consideration.

It's not my argument that does the harm, but Dembski's. Since it is impossible to enumerate all possible biological mechanisms, it is not possible to perform the last step in his paragraph. Thus, nothing can be shown to be IC.

I just finished Dembski's paper, although I skimmed some of the boring parts.

I think this is a real misrepresentation of what he was saying. The notion of irreducible complexity isn't hard to grasp. My body is irreducibly complex, because if you take out my liver, it stops working. The liver is part of the irreducible core.

However, that is a slight oversimplification, because Dembski threw in a bit of a curve ball into the description by saying that if a simpler system can do the same function, then the original, more complex, system, is not "irreducible".

But notice in his paper that he talked about how it had to do the same function in the same manner. In other words, I can look at all other systems that have liver, kidneys, brains, lungs, etc... and the simplest one would be considered irreducibly complex. However, I don't have to look at fish with their swim bladders, because their swim bladders do not perform the same function as lungs. The fact that the swim bladders evolved into lungs doesn't disqualify terrestrial vertebrate respiration systems as irreducibly complex. The swim bladders don't perform the same function.

As for the paper, I would have no objection if that paper were presented to my son in a biology class as an example of what some people believed about biological systems. I would hope he would be able to critically evaluate it, and spot the same flaws I spotted in it. I spotted two that were extremely important.

First, in critiquing evolution, Dembski correctly notes the lack of emprical evidence. "Darwinists" can't show a specific pathway by which one complex system evolved from another. However, he asserts that using this lack of knowledge is not an "argument from ignorance". It clearly is, in fact, an argument from ignorance.

Second, in analysing "specified complexity", his argument fails, and fails for exactly the same reason he says the Drake equation fails. For those not interested in reading the paper, the Drake equation predicts the probability that extraterrestrial life will be detected, based on the probabilities that necessary precursors to the detection of extraterrestrial life will occur. Dembski has an "origination equality" that purports to do the same thing for computing the probability that an irreducibly complex system will arise via evolution. Dembski's inequality fails, for exactly the same reason. It has a bunch of probabilities in it, and none of them can be computed.

Which leaves us with the fact that Dembski's argument has not disproved evolotion nor has it proven Intelligent Design. So what harm is there in showing it to a group of fourteen year olds and asking them to think about it for themselves? Being challenged by it would be more effective as a teaching tool than being told to ignore it.

What I found most interesting is that Dembski's paper was basically championing the notion of theistic evolution. By accepting the age of the Earth, you have a case where one of today's most prominent anti-evolution author is publicly rejecting biblical literalism. I think that's progress.

 

[Mojo]

There's a different form of ID, which allows a gradual transition under the guiding hand of God. I have talked about it as ID by means of theistic evolution, or simply as guided evolution. There, there is no sudden transition, as there would be in the "hopeful monster" theory. And, as before, the small mutations again would be hand picked by an omniscient god.

How would the results of theistic or guided evolution differ in any observable way from the results of evolution by natural selection? If they don't, all "theistic evolution" is doing is saying "Goddiddit."

 

[Iacchus]

How would the results of theistic or guided evolution differ in any observable way from the results of evolution by natural selection? If they don't, all "theistic evolution" is doing is saying "Goddiddit."

Well, if the blue print exists prior to its creation, then the obvious question must be, "whodidit?"

 

[hodgy]

How would the results of theistic or guided evolution differ in any observable way from the results of evolution by natural selection? If they don't, all "theistic evolution" is doing is saying "Goddiddit."

Of course, snow is perfectly explainable as a natural process whereby water is frozen into crystals as it travels downwards to earth, landing where the winds take it.

Whilst I accept that is scientifically possible, I think we cannot rule out the possibility that snowflakes are hand-crafted by pixies in God's winter-wonderland-workshop and then individually dropped from the heavens and blown by the breath of angels into their final positions on earth.

In fact, I find the notion of the intelligent design, manufacture and distribution of snowflakes to be compelling - how else can we explain their irreducible snowflakiness? How else can we explain the purpose of the million tiny chisels found at the North Pole recently? And what about the Big Bumper Book of Snowflake designs rumoured to have been lost with the deluge of Atlantis?

 

[Mojo]

Well, if the blue print exists prior to its creation, then the obvious question must be, "whodidit?"

If the blue print exists before its creation, the obvious question is, in fact, "have you wound your clock the wrong way?"

The problem with discussing a "blue print" is that there is no evidence that a "blue print" existed at all.

 

[Iacchus]

If the blue print exists before its creation, the obvious question is, in fact, "have you wound your clock the wrong way?"

The problem with discussing a "blue print" is that there is no evidence that a "blue print" existed at all.

Well, what makes more sense to you? That the laws of nature existed prior to the Big Bang? Or, that the laws of nature came about (miraculously ) after the Big Bang? This in effect is what I mean by "blue print."

 

[Mojo]

Well, what makes more sense to you? That the laws of nature existed prior to the Big Bang?

If you'd been paying attention recently you'd know that the phrase "prior to the big bang" is meaningless. There is no "before."

Or, that the laws of nature came about (miraculously ) after the Big Bang?

The laws that time and space follow appeared at the big bang, along with time and space. That's when everything started. Call it a miracle if you want; call it an accident if you want. It happened.

 

[Meadmaker]

How would the results of theistic or guided evolution differ in any observable way from the results of evolution by natural selection? If they don't, all "theistic evolution" is doing is saying "Goddiddit."

In my opinion? None.

In Dembski's opinion? Some of the more complex structures wouldn't exist.

How do you prove Dembski wrong? Here's a quote from Dembski:

"Minimally what’s required are detailed, testable reconstructions or models
that demonstrate how indirect Darwinian pathways might reasonably have
produced actual irreducibly complex biochemical machines like the
bacterial flagellum."

Right now, the extent of our knowledge doesn't allow the creation of such a model. Until our knowledge does allow that, ID is not disproven. So, what harm is there in presenting and discussing a paper like Dembski's in a high school biology class?

I suppose a lot of people think education consists of telling students the right answers. Personally, I think the most important part of education is getting students to ask the right questions.

 

[Mojo]

In my opinion? None.

In Dembski's opinion? Some of the more complex structures wouldn't exist.

But Dembski's idea of ID, as far as I can see, is not compatible with "theistic evolution." In theistic evolution, where as you say "there is no sudden transition," structures are built up gradually, but with intervention from a deity to guide the process in the right direction. Dembski's theory states that "irreducibly complex" structures can't have developed gradually, but must have suddenly appeared in their final, irreducibly complex, form.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think this is a real misrepresentation of what he was saying. The notion of irreducible complexity isn't hard to grasp. My body is irreducibly complex, because if you take out my liver, it stops working. The liver is part of the irreducible core.

No, that can't be what they're trying to define as irreducibly complex. No one would argue with that. The question is: Can your liver evolve in small steps from something else, all the while being useful or at least not harmful?

But notice in his paper that he talked about how it had to do the same function in the same manner. In other words, I can look at all other systems that have liver, kidneys, brains, lungs, etc... and the simplest one would be considered irreducibly complex. However, I don't have to look at fish with their swim bladders, because their swim bladders do not perform the same function as lungs. The fact that the swim bladders evolved into lungs doesn't disqualify terrestrial vertebrate respiration systems as irreducibly complex. The swim bladders don't perform the same function.

But then the idea of irreducible complexity is worthless. No matter what the lung evolved from, if it did so in small steps, each if which were not significantly detrimental, then why would we call it irreducibly complex and why would we need a designer?

If by irreducibly complex we are going to mean nothing more than "it has some parts that are necessary for its function," then the term is vapid.

~~ Paul

 

[Iacchus]

If you'd been paying attention recently you'd know that the phrase "prior to the big bang" is meaningless. There is no "before."

Then there's no need to discuss the possibility of a Creator which has always existed then is there?

The laws that time and space follow appeared at the big bang, along with time and space. That's when everything started. Call it a miracle if you want; call it an accident if you want. It happened.

So, if thieves broke into your house and stole all your valuables, would you attribute that to something which "just happened?"

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So, if thieves broke into your house and stole all your valuables, would you attribute that to something which "just happened?"

You just shattered by non sequiturometer, dude!

~~ Paul

 

[Mercutio]

So, if thieves broke into your house and stole all your valuables, would you attribute that to something which "just happened?"

No, quite obviously it was the Easter Bunny. I saw it all in a dream.

 

[Mojo]

Then there's no need to discuss the possibility of a Creator which has always existed then is there?

There certainly isn't. Because this is clearly nonsense.

So, if thieves broke into your house and stole all your valuables, would you attribute that to something which "just happened?"

I'd attribute it to the thieves.

 

[cyborg]

NO! Clearly it was a god that caused the items to disappear. I wasn't praying hard enough that week.

 

[Meadmaker]

But Dembski's idea of ID, as far as I can see, is not compatible with "theistic evolution." In theistic evolution, where as you say "there is no sudden transition," structures are built up gradually, but with intervention from a deity to guide the process in the right direction. Dembski's theory states that "irreducibly complex" structures can't have developed gradually, but must have suddenly appeared in their final, irreducibly complex, form.

From Dembski's paper:

"Similarly, one can imagine an
organism forming a new structure over the course of several generations
by successively bringing about certain components (perhaps by random
variation), setting them aside (by a goal-directed selection process), and
then, once all the components are in place, putting them together to form
that new structure. Given a prespecified goal, selection has no difficulty
producing irreducibly complex systems."

Perhaps elsewhere he has said something else. I don't know. This is the only paper I've read of his, or any other ID supporter. But in this paper, he is saying that they could develop gradually, if that development was part of a goal-directed process.

 

[Meadmaker]

No, that can't be what they're trying to define as irreducibly complex. No one would argue with that.

Well, somebody is arguing with that.

"A functional system is irreducibly complex if it contains a multipart
subsystem (i.e., a set of two or more interrelated parts) that cannot be
simplified without destroying the system’s basic function. I refer to this
multipart subsystem as the system’s irreducible core." (Dembski)

That's it. That's the definition.


Dembski asserts that such systems cannot evolve in small successive steps that are not part of a goal directed process, but that isn't part of the definition. Actually, his assertion is somewhat more complicated than that, but that's an ok approximation.

 

[Mojo]

From Dembski's paper:

"Similarly, one can imagine an
organism forming a new structure over the course of several generations
by successively bringing about certain components (perhaps by random
variation), setting them aside (by a goal-directed selection process), and
then, once all the components are in place, putting them together to form
that new structure. Given a prespecified goal, selection has no difficulty
producing irreducibly complex systems."

Perhaps elsewhere he has said something else. I don't know. This is the only paper I've read of his, or any other ID supporter. But in this paper, he is saying that they could develop gradually, if that development was part of a goal-directed process.

What he seems to be saying here is that the components appear gradually, but (presumably) have no function until assembled. Is this what you would expect to see in theistic evolution?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Perhaps elsewhere he has said something else. I don't know. This is the only paper I've read of his, or any other ID supporter. But in this paper, he is saying that they could develop gradually, if that development was part of a goal-directed process.

Duh.

Well, somebody is arguing with that.

"A functional system is irreducibly complex if it contains a multipart
subsystem (i.e., a set of two or more interrelated parts) that cannot be
simplified without destroying the system’s basic function. I refer to this
multipart subsystem as the system’s irreducible core." (Dembski)

The problem is that Dembski's definition of IC squirms around like a box of frogs. If that's his complete definition of IC, then he contradicts himself in the quote I gave above. In any event, it would be good if he could demonstrate such an IC system, wouldn't it?

~~ Paul

 

[drkitten]

From Dembski's paper:

"Similarly, one can imagine an
organism forming a new structure over the course of several generations
by successively bringing about certain components (perhaps by random
variation), setting them aside (by a goal-directed selection process), and
then, once all the components are in place, putting them together to form
that new structure. Given a prespecified goal, selection has no difficulty
producing irreducibly complex systems."

Perhaps elsewhere he has said something else. I don't know. This is the only paper I've read of his, or any other ID supporter. But in this paper, he is saying that they could develop gradually, if that development was part of a goal-directed process.

And since what he describes here is exactly a "hopeful monster," this shows in Dembski's own words how ID presupposed hopeful monsters and is thus incompatible with theistic evolution.