MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,948
Howdy all,
I returned this afternoon from listening to the Disco Institute's talk by Casey Luskin, titled "Intelligent Design: Dead Science or Future of Biology?" and below I have included the transcript of my notes - I apologize to the Mods in advance for the length, it was a long talk.
It was very interesting, and since I'm not a biologist I would like feedback from the JREF Forum about much of what Luskin said in his talk. I know for a fact that he was wrong on many things, and I challenged him quite strongly in the Q&A section of his talk (sorry, not many notes on that). But seeing as how I made an audio recording of the whole thing, including the Q&A, I can go back and check it to be sure about what was (and wasn't) said. I know for a fact that I caught Luskin in at least one really big falsehood during the Q&A - did I mention I have a recording?
In any case, I'd like some folks a bit more knowledgeable than myself to pick apart the specific biological arguments that he made. I plan on putting together an extensive blog post (at http://skepticalteacher.org) about this later this evening or tomorrow morning, so any feedback would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance!
Cheers - MM
***********************
Here is the transcript (sorry for the crappy format):
Intelligent Design: Dead Science or Future of Biology?
talk by Casey Luskin (M.S., J.D., ESQ) of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture
at the Fellowship of St. James, University Club of Chicago
Started off with a nice luncheon & an invocation, and enjoyed some chit chat with people at our table before Luskin began his speech…
Introductions of various St. James & Salvo Magazine staff, and the introduction of the topic of intelligent design. The speaker is discussing how he met Bill Dembski in the late 1990s and how he got introduced to the entire concept of ID. There is now a brief story of the history of how the University Club of Chicago came about from the Great Chicago Fire. He’s making a joke about how the Club “grew by chance” – har har
Now he’s introducing Luskin…
Luskin is outlining his role as someone who works with teachers to teach about evolution “more objectively”. Luskin…
Depending upon who you ask, there are different interpretations of what ID means. Outline of ID “from the critics”:
1. The End of Civlization?
2. What’s the Dangerous Idea? (The Positive Case for ID)
3. The Question of Academic Freedom
Some, like philosopher Philip Kitcher, argue that ID is science, but a “dead science”.
NCSE President, Kevin Padian: “The credibility of the DI is inextricably linked to ID, and no one with scientific or philosophical integrity is going to take either of them seriously in the future.” Luskin says that this is sending a negative, almost censor-like message to scientists.
Marhsall Berman, former manager at Sandia National Labs: “IDM poses a threat to all of science and perhaps to secular democracy itself…”
Luskin says that the critics of ID have been putting out a lot of misinformation concerning ID.
What’s the Dangerous Idea? The Positive Case for ID
Brief survey: What do you think ID is?
a) Life is so complex that it couldn’t have evolved, therefore it was designed by a supernatural being
b) Many features of nature are best explained by an intelligent cause because in our experience, intelligence is the cause of their informational properties.
Luskin states that the correct answer is b, but that the view of ID has been distorted by the media and that most people think that the answer is a.
He claims that we cannot claim specifically who “the designer” could be, and that would be beyond what the data tell us.
ID Reasoning in Science
ID tries to discriminate between naturally caused objects on the one hand, and intelligently created objects on the other hand. He makes examples of geologists looking at arrowheads and forensic scientists looking at natural deaths vs. mad-made events.
He claims that SETI is using ID reasoning in science when they try to distinguish between naturally caused & intelligently caused radio signals. He says it is significant that they are using this ID reasoning.
Where does new information come from? New information comes from a mind, and intelligent consciousness.
Luskin references Stephen Meyer’s paper “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories” in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.
He says this is significant because all life is coded on a language, which shows that there is ID in our DNA.
Luskin defines complexity as a measure of how unlikely something is. He makes an example of a complex looking mountain, whose shape can be determined by referencing naturally occurring events, such as erosion, etc.
He then shows a picture of Mount Rushmore, and then he says that complexity with a specific pattern infers ID. Specific pattern + Complexity = ID
The Basiic Logic:
a) Mind is the cause of certain kinds of information
b) Scientists look at objects in nature that exhibit greater amounts of information
c) This information was caused by a mind (ID)
One testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all parts to function. He claims that pro-ID microbiologist Scott Minnich at the Univ. of Idaho has tested this out via gene research.
CSI can also be detected through mutational sensitivity tests. He claims that Pro-ID molecular biologist Doug Axe, of the Biologic Institute, has performed mutational sensitibity tests on enzymes and found that swquences that yield functional protein folds may be as rare as 1 in 10^77. This is high CSI. He claims that these sort of things cannot be explained through Darwinian evolution.
CSI can be studied in theoretical calculations and computer simulations of evolution to determine how much CSI can be produced via blind & unguided Darwinian processes.
Thus, high CSI is caused by intelligent design, not through Darwinian processes.
Testable Predictions of ID:
Biology will be full of information-riich structures containing high CSI.
Encoded Information: look at the nucleotide bases, ATGC, in our DNA. There is no chemical or physical law which dictates the ordering of these bases – these bases represent language, such as computer code. He states the DNA bases are like the software which needs other things in the cells that are like the hardware which reads the code.
He then quote mines Richard Dawkins: “The machine code of the genes iis uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.”
Luskin then states that mutations are like “bad lines of code” in our DNA.
He says it is very striking that life is composed of biomolecular machines. He makes an example of the supposedly “irreducibly complex” bacterial flagellum. He states that cells are composed of large numbers of these machines.
What in our experience is the cause of language and machines? He says that it is intelligence, and this is a strong argument for ID.
ID and Genetics Testable Prediction:
The cell will tend to contain less functionless “junk” and biology will tend to not contain functionless parts.
He says that ID-proponents have said for almost 10 years that there could be a use/function of the rest of the 97% of apparently useless DNA.
Junk DNA: What does Darwinism Say?
“The term ‘junk DNA’ for many years repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding DNA. Who, except a small number of genomic clochards, would like to dig through genomic garbage? However, in science as in normal life, there are some clochards who, at the risk of being ridiculed, explore unpopular territories… Noe, more and more biologists regard repetitive elements as a genomic treasure.” Wojciech Makalowski
He states that this represents a big paradigm shift in biology.
Basis of ID:
1. Discovery of Biochemical Language and Irrediucibly Complex Molecular Machines
2. Discovery of Digital Information and Information Processing Systems in the Cell
3. Discovery of the “Fine Tuning” of Physical Laws in the Universe
4. ???
Academic Freedom: shows a picture of Ben Stein’s “Expelled”
Students, teachers, research and faculty around the United States are being persecuted because of their dissent from Darwinism or support for ID.
He makes some examples of this supposed expulsion of academic freedom…
1. The president of the Univ of Idaho instituted a campus-wide classroom speech code, where “evolution” was “the only curriculum that is appropriate” for science classes.
2. A professor of biochemistry and leading biochemistry textbook author at the Univ of Toronto stated that the major public research university “should never have admitted” students who support ID, and should “just flunk the lot of them and make room for smart students.”
3. Three top biology professors at Ohio State Univ derailed a doctoral student’s thesis defense of ID ???
4. A biology 101 lecturer at Weleyan College endorsed teaching students “inaccuracies” that are “wrong” if that enable educators to “gain their trust” and “help them accept evolution.”
5. At Iowa State Univ, over 120 faculty members signed a petition denouncing ID and calling on “all faculty members to… reject efforts to portray ID as science.”
6. In 2007, the Council of Rurope, the leading European “human rights” organization, adopted a resolution calling ID a potential “threat to human rights”!
Q&A Follows:
What is the argument & counter-argument about some scientists claiming that they’ve shown the bacterial flagellum is NOT irreducibly complex?
A: The argument is that part of the flagellum is still useful in another context. They are testing IC in a fallacious manner.
Isn’t it a proof of intelligence that you can use part of one system to make another use out of it? Isn’t that what engineers do?
A: Yes, because these parts are put together in ways they weren’t meant to.
How did all this ID stuff get started?
A: ???
I returned this afternoon from listening to the Disco Institute's talk by Casey Luskin, titled "Intelligent Design: Dead Science or Future of Biology?" and below I have included the transcript of my notes - I apologize to the Mods in advance for the length, it was a long talk.
It was very interesting, and since I'm not a biologist I would like feedback from the JREF Forum about much of what Luskin said in his talk. I know for a fact that he was wrong on many things, and I challenged him quite strongly in the Q&A section of his talk (sorry, not many notes on that). But seeing as how I made an audio recording of the whole thing, including the Q&A, I can go back and check it to be sure about what was (and wasn't) said. I know for a fact that I caught Luskin in at least one really big falsehood during the Q&A - did I mention I have a recording?
In any case, I'd like some folks a bit more knowledgeable than myself to pick apart the specific biological arguments that he made. I plan on putting together an extensive blog post (at http://skepticalteacher.org) about this later this evening or tomorrow morning, so any feedback would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance!
Cheers - MM
***********************
Here is the transcript (sorry for the crappy format):
Intelligent Design: Dead Science or Future of Biology?
talk by Casey Luskin (M.S., J.D., ESQ) of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture
at the Fellowship of St. James, University Club of Chicago
Started off with a nice luncheon & an invocation, and enjoyed some chit chat with people at our table before Luskin began his speech…
Introductions of various St. James & Salvo Magazine staff, and the introduction of the topic of intelligent design. The speaker is discussing how he met Bill Dembski in the late 1990s and how he got introduced to the entire concept of ID. There is now a brief story of the history of how the University Club of Chicago came about from the Great Chicago Fire. He’s making a joke about how the Club “grew by chance” – har har
Now he’s introducing Luskin…
Luskin is outlining his role as someone who works with teachers to teach about evolution “more objectively”. Luskin…
Depending upon who you ask, there are different interpretations of what ID means. Outline of ID “from the critics”:
1. The End of Civlization?
2. What’s the Dangerous Idea? (The Positive Case for ID)
3. The Question of Academic Freedom
Some, like philosopher Philip Kitcher, argue that ID is science, but a “dead science”.
NCSE President, Kevin Padian: “The credibility of the DI is inextricably linked to ID, and no one with scientific or philosophical integrity is going to take either of them seriously in the future.” Luskin says that this is sending a negative, almost censor-like message to scientists.
Marhsall Berman, former manager at Sandia National Labs: “IDM poses a threat to all of science and perhaps to secular democracy itself…”
Luskin says that the critics of ID have been putting out a lot of misinformation concerning ID.
What’s the Dangerous Idea? The Positive Case for ID
Brief survey: What do you think ID is?
a) Life is so complex that it couldn’t have evolved, therefore it was designed by a supernatural being
b) Many features of nature are best explained by an intelligent cause because in our experience, intelligence is the cause of their informational properties.
Luskin states that the correct answer is b, but that the view of ID has been distorted by the media and that most people think that the answer is a.
He claims that we cannot claim specifically who “the designer” could be, and that would be beyond what the data tell us.
ID Reasoning in Science
ID tries to discriminate between naturally caused objects on the one hand, and intelligently created objects on the other hand. He makes examples of geologists looking at arrowheads and forensic scientists looking at natural deaths vs. mad-made events.
He claims that SETI is using ID reasoning in science when they try to distinguish between naturally caused & intelligently caused radio signals. He says it is significant that they are using this ID reasoning.
Where does new information come from? New information comes from a mind, and intelligent consciousness.
Luskin references Stephen Meyer’s paper “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories” in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.
He says this is significant because all life is coded on a language, which shows that there is ID in our DNA.
Luskin defines complexity as a measure of how unlikely something is. He makes an example of a complex looking mountain, whose shape can be determined by referencing naturally occurring events, such as erosion, etc.
He then shows a picture of Mount Rushmore, and then he says that complexity with a specific pattern infers ID. Specific pattern + Complexity = ID
The Basiic Logic:
a) Mind is the cause of certain kinds of information
b) Scientists look at objects in nature that exhibit greater amounts of information
c) This information was caused by a mind (ID)
One testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all parts to function. He claims that pro-ID microbiologist Scott Minnich at the Univ. of Idaho has tested this out via gene research.
CSI can also be detected through mutational sensitivity tests. He claims that Pro-ID molecular biologist Doug Axe, of the Biologic Institute, has performed mutational sensitibity tests on enzymes and found that swquences that yield functional protein folds may be as rare as 1 in 10^77. This is high CSI. He claims that these sort of things cannot be explained through Darwinian evolution.
CSI can be studied in theoretical calculations and computer simulations of evolution to determine how much CSI can be produced via blind & unguided Darwinian processes.
Thus, high CSI is caused by intelligent design, not through Darwinian processes.
Testable Predictions of ID:
Biology will be full of information-riich structures containing high CSI.
Encoded Information: look at the nucleotide bases, ATGC, in our DNA. There is no chemical or physical law which dictates the ordering of these bases – these bases represent language, such as computer code. He states the DNA bases are like the software which needs other things in the cells that are like the hardware which reads the code.
He then quote mines Richard Dawkins: “The machine code of the genes iis uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.”
Luskin then states that mutations are like “bad lines of code” in our DNA.
He says it is very striking that life is composed of biomolecular machines. He makes an example of the supposedly “irreducibly complex” bacterial flagellum. He states that cells are composed of large numbers of these machines.
What in our experience is the cause of language and machines? He says that it is intelligence, and this is a strong argument for ID.
ID and Genetics Testable Prediction:
The cell will tend to contain less functionless “junk” and biology will tend to not contain functionless parts.
He says that ID-proponents have said for almost 10 years that there could be a use/function of the rest of the 97% of apparently useless DNA.
Junk DNA: What does Darwinism Say?
“The term ‘junk DNA’ for many years repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding DNA. Who, except a small number of genomic clochards, would like to dig through genomic garbage? However, in science as in normal life, there are some clochards who, at the risk of being ridiculed, explore unpopular territories… Noe, more and more biologists regard repetitive elements as a genomic treasure.” Wojciech Makalowski
He states that this represents a big paradigm shift in biology.
Basis of ID:
1. Discovery of Biochemical Language and Irrediucibly Complex Molecular Machines
2. Discovery of Digital Information and Information Processing Systems in the Cell
3. Discovery of the “Fine Tuning” of Physical Laws in the Universe
4. ???
Academic Freedom: shows a picture of Ben Stein’s “Expelled”
Students, teachers, research and faculty around the United States are being persecuted because of their dissent from Darwinism or support for ID.
He makes some examples of this supposed expulsion of academic freedom…
1. The president of the Univ of Idaho instituted a campus-wide classroom speech code, where “evolution” was “the only curriculum that is appropriate” for science classes.
2. A professor of biochemistry and leading biochemistry textbook author at the Univ of Toronto stated that the major public research university “should never have admitted” students who support ID, and should “just flunk the lot of them and make room for smart students.”
3. Three top biology professors at Ohio State Univ derailed a doctoral student’s thesis defense of ID ???
4. A biology 101 lecturer at Weleyan College endorsed teaching students “inaccuracies” that are “wrong” if that enable educators to “gain their trust” and “help them accept evolution.”
5. At Iowa State Univ, over 120 faculty members signed a petition denouncing ID and calling on “all faculty members to… reject efforts to portray ID as science.”
6. In 2007, the Council of Rurope, the leading European “human rights” organization, adopted a resolution calling ID a potential “threat to human rights”!
Q&A Follows:
What is the argument & counter-argument about some scientists claiming that they’ve shown the bacterial flagellum is NOT irreducibly complex?
A: The argument is that part of the flagellum is still useful in another context. They are testing IC in a fallacious manner.
Isn’t it a proof of intelligence that you can use part of one system to make another use out of it? Isn’t that what engineers do?
A: Yes, because these parts are put together in ways they weren’t meant to.
How did all this ID stuff get started?
A: ???
