Pro-Intelligent Design Op-Ed in NY Times

[SpaceFluffer]

OK, I wasn't intending to write anything, but that article got me pissed. I'd welcome comments on the following:

Michael Behe's 'Design for Living' Op-ed that appeared on Feb 7th is misleading at best. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, it is a religiously based idea. Even if a proponent of intelligent design accepts that evolution occurred, this does not make the idea that a creator had a hand in the process a scientific one. Intelligent design is a non-testable theory, one that cannot be rigorously examined and amended in the same way that scientific theories are. The only 'evidence' that ID has to speak of, is the 'walks like a duck, quacks like a duck - it's a duck' idea that Behe appeals to. Why should we believe that our everyday experience is a good basis for thinking about the very nature of our existence?

The analogy that Behe makes with Mount Rushmore - namely that it looks like it was designed, and we know it was, so anything else that looks designed probably is - only displays the author's misunderstanding of the basic ideas behind natural selection. The mutations that occur during the evolutionary process are indeed random, but only mutations useful to survival will tend to be carried on to the next generation. This process is highly non-random.

The human mind can be fooled, and is fooled on a regular basis. The method that science has developed is one that takes the fallability of the experimenter out of the picture, allowing the true nature of reality to shine through, unaffected by any bias or wishful-thinking on the part of the scientists. Just because most people think that life was designed doesn't make it so. Of course, if everyone were to think that life developed without a designer, that wouldn't make it so either.

The current polling numbers on belief in intelligent design simply reflect that fact that most people in this country have not been taught the scientific method adequately; if proponents of ID begin to win more courtroom battles in the future, this situation can only deteriorate.

Probably a bit long, but I felt like writing it...

 

[69dodge]

The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck.

No. If it looks like a duck, and if we know that non-ducks don't look like ducks, then we may conclude it's a duck.

But that's the very question we're trying to answer: has the non-design process of evolution produced the living things we find around us? If it has, then life does not have the strong appearance of design; it has the strong appearance of evolution.

If we do not already know what non-design is capable of, we cannot say whether something appears to have been designed.

So the argument is quite circular.

 

[Jorghnassen]

OK, I wasn't intending to write anything, but that article got me pissed. I'd welcome comments on the following:


Probably a bit long, but I felt like writing it...

One little comment, which you are probably going to dismiss, but anyway, I really hate it when people talk about the scientific method, like there was a unique, precise (simplistic) recipe one must perform in order to do science. Just my 2 cents...

 

[69dodge]

nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore

Now that's just silly. We know who designed Mount Rushmore. We do not know who designed life, or even whether anyone did.

Alternatively, it is useful to search for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore, and the explanation we've found is: people evolved and then some of them carved it.

 

[alfaniner]

My questions for ID proponents would be:

Without quoting from the Bible (since Behe says " the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea"):
1. What does the present design tell you about the designer?
2. Point to some other examples of this designer's work.
3. What processes did the designer employ in the creation of his designs?
4. Did the designer simply set things in motion and adandon (or step back to observe) the design, or is the designer actively continuing to design? What evidence supports your answer over the other possibility.
5. Where is the designer now?
6. Is the proposed designer natural or supernatural?

One I always wanted to ask is "What makes you think the Universe wasn't designed by a committee?"

 

[BillHoyt]

One has to wonder at the timing of the piece. Last time a battle like the one in Kansas was waged, the mocking laughter from other states caused a reversal and retreat from this idiocy. It looks like Behe wants to give the loonies a New York Times OpEd piece so they can all carry copies of it into the debate. See, even the Times says ID is good for you!

Meanwhile, U.S. schoolchildren keep dropping in ranking when compared with other nations. Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant, I always say. Yee-haw!

Excuse me while I toss my lunch.

 

[headscratcher4]

I think that we should begin a movement to insist that Lysenkoist biology be taught as well....

 

[hammegk]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Psi Baba
My questions for ID proponents would be:

Without quoting from the Bible (since Behe says " the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea"):
1. What does the present design tell you about the designer?
2. Point to some other examples of this designer's work.
3. What processes did the designer employ in the creation of his designs?
4. Did the designer simply set things in motion and adandon (or step back to observe) the design, or is the designer actively continuing to design? What evidence supports your answer over the other possibility.
5. Where is the designer now?
6. Is the proposed designer natural or supernatural?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One I always wanted to ask is "What makes you think the Universe wasn't designed by a committee?"

1. Nothing
2. Reality
3. Unknown
4. Unknown
5. Location Unchanged
6. Natural

Why not? Define committee ...

 

[Brown]

My letter to the Times:

Michael Behe's February 7 column, "Design for Living," purports to answer questions about Intelligent Design, ostensibly a "rival theory" to "Darwinism." This supposed rivalry certainly isn't present in scientific circles, as peer-reviewed scientific journals don't take this "rival theory" seriously. Scientists may debate whether Darwin was right or wrong in various respects, but that does not mean that they find any merit in Behe's thesis.

Behe argues that intelligent design is obvious. Funny, the very same argument was used to support the notions that the Earth is flat and that the Sun orbits the Earth.

By asserting that it is reasonable to accept intelligent design in the absence of evidence, Behe assumes what he's trying to prove. He advocates not engaging in a fruitless search for natural explanations. He suggests that scientific principles should be determined by opinion polls. Real scientists don't do these things.

The Times rules for letters are: "Letters for publication should be no longer than 150 words, must refer to an article that has appeared within the last seven days, and must include the writer's address and phone numbers." My letter has 145 words. I included my name, address and home and office phone numbers, and also my three college degrees.

 

[Major Billy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/opinion/07behe.html?ex=1108530000&en=d66e171e5ece61fa&ei=5070Curious what everyone's take is on this. This piece was written by: Michael J. Behe, a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University and a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute'

I wonder, since so many red states are passing laws mandating that public schools teach "Intelligent Design", does that force schools to also teach Behe's other beliefs, that:

For decades folks in white coats have confidently assured the public that shunning fatty foods – bacon and eggs, butter, steak – would make for longer, healthier lives. Well, guess what? "Precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true,"

My advice is, beware of scientists with stirred souls! If they can go off half-cocked to give you a healthy diet, they surely will do so to give you a healthy soul. The best reaction to such overweening concern might be to enjoy the many beautiful nature scenes in "Evolution" while eating a cheeseburger.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Behe writes:

The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck.

But of course there is compelling evidence to the contrary: i.e. the fossil record, cladistic morphology, metabolism, genetics; we know perfectly well that species evolved. Any claim on Behe's part to win the debate by default is either childish or, indeed, mendacious --- for he must be dimly aware of the evidence which has so convinced scientists working in these areas.

Species, he says look like they were designed. They also look like they evolved. And if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and there is a massive amount of compelling scientific evidence that it's a duck, then it's a duck.

 

[davefoc]

Hi Brown,
We sat around waiting to go to dinner with you at TAM this year. It turns out you weren't going to the dinner we were and I was disappointed I didn't get to meet you.

If I had seen what you wrote about this subject I would have been even more disapointed than I was already at not getting to meet you. I thought your letter to the editor was about as good as could be done in 150 words.

Just a small personal note vaguely related to this issue:
Many years ago I wrote a computer program to play reversi. It just used a simple look ahead algorhthym plus my cut at positional evaluation after it had looked ahead about 8 layers. After I'd programmed the thing and was playing it our of the blue it made a move I would have never thought of. I felt like I was playing a creative human opponent. Of course the computer had no creativity or insight it just used a mindless highly repetetive algorythm to accomplish something that at first glance seemed to require intelligence.

 

[SezMe]

It was the last paragraph that had me running off to the thunder mug:

Still, some critics claim that science by definition can't accept design, while others argue that science should keep looking for another explanation in case one is out there. But we can't settle questions about reality with definitions, nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore. Besides, whatever special restrictions scientists adopt for themselves don't bind the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed. And so do many scientists who see roles for both the messiness of evolution and the elegance of design.

He is implicitly aguing that science ideas can be judged by public polls. This part is also confirming evidence that this piece was written to help at the school board fight level.

Also, note the opprobrium he heaps on evolution by calling it messy while design is said to elegant. IOW, us IDers are fighting for truth AND beauty.

Personally, I think the concept of evolution and the many insights it brings to understanding our world is absolutely beautiful and inspiring. I find ID to be, well, sterile at best.

 

[Ladewig]

I sometimes wonder how all the IDers would react if a science teacher forced to include ID in a public school ciriculum said, "ID is based on the idea that everything is too complex to have arisen from natural methods; if everything really is that complex, then it must be too complex for a single designer, therefore it must have been designed by a group of designers." I cannot imagine IDers reacting well to that concept.

 

[Psi Baba]

One little comment, which you are probably going to dismiss, but anyway, I really hate it when people talk about the scientific method, like there was a unique, precise (simplistic) recipe one must perform in order to do science. Just my 2 cents...

APPENDIX E: Introduction to the Scientific Method

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

 

[Brown]

Hi Brown,
We sat around waiting to go to dinner with you at TAM this year. It turns out you weren't going to the dinner we were and I was disappointed I didn't get to meet you.

I am sorry I disappointed. My apologies! Were you looking for me on Monday, by any chance? I was very sick that day and spent the entire day in my hotel room.

I note that the New York Times web site today includes eight letters in response to Behe's column. Some highlights:

For me, the telling point is that the proponents of design cannot answer how it was supposed to have happened. Was it from divine intervention, visits by space aliens, magic?

Design will be a real science when we have testable answers for these questions.

But the doctrine of intelligent design does not produce falsifiable (or disprovable) statements that are susceptible to testing. This rigorous testing process is the central element of the modern scientific method.

I must have missed the concept of "if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck" in my studies of the scientific method.

A century ago, the astronomer Percival Lowell described water-filled canals on Mars for the same reason. When confronted with the unknown, we first perceive it in terms of the known. Perception, however, does not make it so.

He hastens to say that intelligent design says nothing about the religious concept of a creator.

But the designer, whoever she may be, must surely be infinitely more complex than the products of her creations.

One then wonders who designed the designer. And that line of questioning never ends.

 

[Jorghnassen]

APPENDIX E: Introduction to the Scientific Method

4 steps? Interesting, the following site says there's 11 major stages:

http://www.scientificmethod.com/b_body.html

Obviously at least one must be wrong...

OK, I won't bother pointing to the wikipedia link on scientific method mentioning the problems of trying to reduce the scientific process to a single recipe, or the paper by William McComas (a pretty interesting read) on misconceptions about science. But I really think it's a shame that so few people, even amongst scientists, ever touch the subject of philosophy of science.

You know, the scientific method I learned in high school had perhaps the most insightful first step which I haven't seen in any other "scientific method" description. I'll let you guess what that first step was...

 

[Psi Baba]

4 steps? Interesting, the following site says there's 11 major stages:

http://www.scientificmethod.com/b_body.html

Obviously at least one must be wrong...

I wouldn't say that either one is wrong, just that they break it down in different ways, but the point is that yes there is a precise process that one can or should follow to acquire knowledge in way that can be labeled science. In fact, the site you linked to basically says so:

The research process is not just a collection of miscellaneous "scientific methods." Scientists and other researchers do not proceed in a haphazard fashion. Centuries of trial and error, research, discussions and debates have led to a realization of the general pattern of the scientific method.

The word "method" in the term, "the scientific method," is a collective term for the stages.

Then there is this (bolding mine):

These are included in the SM-14 formula as ingredients rather than stages to help people understand "the method" and as an aid to teaching it to students and others.

Ingredients? So it really is a recipe after all!

BTW, that's a cool site. I've bookmarked it. Thanks.

 

[Jorghnassen]

Psi Baba, I'm glad you liked that link, here's a few more, I hope you like them too:

(Take a look at myth 4 in particular):

http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/science-edu/Myths of Science.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

From the above, emphasis mine:

Attempts to systematise the scientific method were faced with the Problem of induction, which points out that inductive reasoning is not logically valid. David Hume set the difficulty out in detail. Karl Popper, following others, argued that a hypothesis must be falsifiable: that is, it must be capable of disproof. Difficulties with this have led to the rejection of the very idea that there is a single method that is universally applicable to all the sciences, and that serves to distinguish science from non-science.

http://dharma-haven.org/science/myth-of-scientific-method.htm

I might just be sodomizing flies (yes, I know this isn't an expression in English), but the point is that scientific progress achieved by repeatedly following a simplistic recipe. Anyway, I'll stop nitpicking now.

 

[nelsondogg]

ID is just bizarre. How did stuff get designed in the first place? In a labratory of some sort? Where was this place? Why no physical evidence of this designer(s)? Did they stick around or keep coming back to add things? Are they still designing more stuff? If not why did they design anything in the first place? Are they going to come back and eat us or something? Are we emergency rations of some sort?