Can ID be disproven?

[Meadmaker]

Therefore, either Behe's definition is wrong, or else his observation is wrong (or both). Any high school biology student could figure this out .

So give them the chance.

 

[drkitten]

Speaking of which, I've been skimming Behe's Dover testimony. I've seen some links, including on this board, that talk about how he made a fool of himself, but I just can't find the idiotic statements in his testimony.

How about his testimony that astrology is a scientific theory? (Day 11 afternoon testimony, page 38, line 25 et seq.)

How about his proposal about the difficulty of evolving the disulfide bond discussed in his article co-authored with Snoke. He suggested that the disulfide bond will take "a large population a large time" to evolve (Day 12 morning testimony, p. 45, line 4-7), not realizing that his "large population" is in fact only a billion bacteria, fewer bacteria than are found in a gram of soil, and his "long time" is less than 20 thousand years, a mere eyeblink of geological time. (Ibid., p 49.)

How about the point where he dismisses offhand fifty peer-reviewed articles without even having read them? (Day 12 afternoon testimony, p. 18, line 8 et seq. See in particular, p. 23, lines 8-14, where he specifically denies having read them, and continues to pontificate about what they don't have.)

I guess my question is "what's your standard for 'idiotic'?" I mean, I'd fail any of my undergraduates for errors of this magnitude -- but then I teach at a mediocre school. This might be acceptable at a community college or something.

 

[drkitten]

But I can't prove that. A marginally functional organism separated out of its original niche during the process of gradual transformation into another organism would meet your definition of "hopeful monster".

No, it wouldn't. See below for a detailed discussion.

But, if I recall correctly, some individuals are born that never quite develop to normal maturity, and that opens the way for rapid change.

This is correct.

Those juvenilized versions are probably less fit than their parents

I don't know anyone who has suggested that these juvenilized versions are less fit. The whole point of juvenilized forms is that they have a faster and longer reproductive cycle, which in turn allows them to reproduce more -- and thus they are more fit, all else being equal.

So what's going on is a a balance of two contradictory selective pressures; the pressure to reproduce as much as possible (which pushes towards the juvenlized form) and the pressure to survive long/well enough to continue to reduce (which presumably pushed towards the adult form or it wouldn't have originated in the first place). In some species, the mere existence of neoteny is even environmentally controlled, depending upon the environment, individuales will mature or not. (See this researcher's web page for some examples.)

The point, though, is that the environment is not static -- and a population evolves to meet the environment it has right now. An organism "separated out of its original niche" is, by definitinon, no longer in that niche, which means that the idea of a "hopeful monster" has to be evaluated against the niche it finds itself in right now, not some hypothetical niche from a dozen generations back. What drives this selection pressure (and a major cause of speciation) is that an organism bred for one environment suddently finds itself in another environment to which it is not especially well-fit. But that's not because the genes changes, but because the environment did. Conventional evolutionary theory thus predicts that the organism will evolve in steps that will incrementally improve it to match its current environment.

So you're partially right -- you need to keep careful track of which niche an organism is adapted to. But this doesn't really impact the "hopeful monster" question, because a "hopeful monster" would be less fit to the new niche than the parents.... not better fit, as conventional evolutionary theory demands of the children.

I don't know if I've got the memory right, but wouldn't that be an example of a hopeful monster?

Only if the juvenilized forms were in fact less fit, a point I've never seen seriously raised.

 

[drkitten]

So give them the chance.

Why? There's more than enough truth out there to fill the classroom hours. Why waste the time on falsehoods?

There's more than enough genuine debate in science to fill the classroom hours. Why waste time on a politically motivated false one?

I see a number of benefits from excluding falsity from the science classroom. I see no benefits whatsoever from embracing it.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

There are two possibilities that I can think of. First, there is Dembski's insertion of the words "and therefore original". Bad Dembski, Bad. Screws with the definition really badly, because there is nothing about the way a system functions today that you can use to somehow infer an "original" function. It's an editorial comment stuck into the middle of the definition.

He has no choice, does he? There are plenty of examples of biological mechanisms that still do things when components are removed.

But address what these guys are really saying, not what you think they probably mean. If you do otherwise, that is the very definition of a straw man.

Are you on the same planet as I am? The point is that these guys are saying lots of different things. Which definition should I use so you won't accuse me of fabricating a straw man?

~~ Paul

 

[Meadmaker]

How about his testimony that astrology is a scientific theory? (Day 11 afternoon testimony, page 38, line 25 et seq.)

There are lots of disproven scientific theories. Astrology is one of them. He also pointed out the ether theory of propogation of light as a disproven theory.

How about his proposal about the difficulty of evolving the disulfide bond discussed in his article co-authored with Snoke. He suggested that the disulfide bond will take "a large population a large time" to evolve (Day 12 morning testimony, p. 45, line 4-7), not realizing that his "large population" is in fact only a billion bacteria, fewer bacteria than are found in a gram of soil, and his "long time" is less than 20 thousand years, a mere eyeblink of geological time. (Ibid., p 49.)

"not realizing"? He discussed the number, both in his paper and his testimony. Be careful about this one. 20 thousand years is an eyeblink, but a disulfide bond is a pebble on the beach when compared to biological complexity.

I don't agree with his conclusion, but he doesn't look like an idiot to me.

How about the point where he dismisses offhand fifty peer-reviewed articles without even having read them?

He said he assumed they were excellent papers, but they didn't address the topic he was concerned about. And he was right. They don't have it.

 

[Meadmaker]

Are you on the same planet as I am? The point is that these guys are saying lots of different things. Which definition should I use so you won't accuse me of fabricating a straw man?

~~ Paul

The one you linked to?

 

[Meadmaker]

Why? There's more than enough truth out there to fill the classroom hours. Why waste the time on falsehoods?

In order to disprove them, at least to the extent they can be disproved.

You have to ask yourself why the scientific establishment is not winning this battle in a slam dunk. If you want, you can say it is because too many people are too stupid to understand you.

But I think a better explanation is that we, collectively, are doing a lousy job of teaching. Part of that lousy job is forbidding people from letting students make comparisons. If indeed any high school biology student could spot the flaws that Dr. Behe has missed, show them the theory, and point out the flaws while you do it. I predict that if you handle it that way, a smaller percentage of students will come away believing ID than do today.

Furthermore, most of the ones who do believe it will believe a form that is basically theistic evolution, in which case they will believe a theory that is totally compatible with all known scientific data, except they will insist it couldn't have happened without God. Where is the problem?



A note on "hopeful monsters". Your Murray State link didn't work, so I couldn't read it. There are lots of people who believe ID. Some are creationists. They believe God just made creatures pretty much as they are today. For that branch of ID, there are no hopeful monsters. For some ID believers, God fashioned the creatures gradually, growing "half a wing" or something. Those are hopeful monsters, by your definition. However, the use of the word "hopeful" to describe them seems a little inappropriate. However, Dembski raises the possibility that indirect paths toward irreducibly complex creatures exist, but that they are incredibly improbable. His conclusion, a dubious one at best, is that something must have shepherded these creatures along. One way to do that would be to force organisms into new environments, and mutate them to be fit in their new environments. A second way is to separate out the creatures and put them in a less demanding place while tinkering with their DNA. Ridiculous? Tell God that. He doesn't have to obey the rules. (Lest anyone forget, I don't actually believe in Him. I'm just making a point.) In the first case, there are no hopeful monsters. It's just God forcing them to move around. In the second case I suppose you could call them hopeful monsters, but again, is it "hopeful"?

But in either case, does it matter. The reason we reject the concept of hopeful monsters is because it doesn't fit with evolution. Saying that ID depends on hopeful monsters, and therefore is incorrect, is circular reasoning.

 

[Mojo]

There are lots of disproven scientific theories. Astrology is one of them.

No it isn't. A "theory," as far as the use of the word in science is concerned, is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. Astrology is not substantiated by decent evidence, and never was. Behe claims that ID is as much a scientific theory as astrology!

 

[hammegk]

No it isn't. A "theory," as far as the use of the word in science is concerned, is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. Astrology is not substantiated by decent evidence, and never was. Behe claims that ID is as much a scientific theory as astrology!

And one might say that astronomy, and perhaps parts of cosmology, are by use of the scientific method taken from what was, centuries-ago, the Theory of Astrology.

 

[Tricky]

And one might say that astronomy, and perhaps parts of cosmology, are by use of the scientific method taken from what was, centuries-ago, the Theory of Astrology.

Have to agree with Hammy here. I suspect that the history of astrology is much like the present of chiropractics. There were those who studied evidence and used the best scientific methods they had at their disposal, and there were those who were quacks and hopeless woo-woos. Astrology did indeed predate and lead to astronomy. Somebody must have had a theory there somewhere.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The one you linked to?

I can link to at least four different definitions.

~~ Paul

 

[PatKelley]

In order to disprove them, at least to the extent they can be disproved.

Science and even claims of anything don't work that way. Science "works" by having people provide evidence of their own claims. Turns out there are more than a fair shake of ideas out there, and science would spend no money other than on proving again and again that the sun was a giant ball of gas. Still people argue that it is not. Now, if science had to spend all of its time again and again disabusing every single notion, it really would not do any good at all. Better that we teach the method that led to many of these current scientific ideas: critical thinking.

You have to ask yourself why the scientific establishment is not winning this battle in a slam dunk. If you want, you can say it is because too many people are too stupid to understand you.

But I think a better explanation is that we, collectively, are doing a lousy job of teaching. Part of that lousy job is forbidding people from letting students make comparisons. If indeed any high school biology student could spot the flaws that Dr. Behe has missed, show them the theory, and point out the flaws while you do it. I predict that if you handle it that way, a smaller percentage of students will come away believing ID than do today.

There are more than enough examples of bad science, why should ID be special in that regard? It would be an effort in philosophy, as ID does not provide any positive falsifiable arguments.

Furthermore, most of the ones who do believe it will believe a form that is basically theistic evolution, in which case they will believe a theory that is totally compatible with all known scientific data, except they will insist it couldn't have happened without God. Where is the problem?

The problem is that evolution does not jibe with the bible.

A note on "hopeful monsters". Your Murray State link didn't work, so I couldn't read it. There are lots of people who believe ID. Some are creationists. They believe God just made creatures pretty much as they are today. For that branch of ID, there are no hopeful monsters. For some ID believers, God fashioned the creatures gradually, growing "half a wing" or something. Those are hopeful monsters, by your definition. However, the use of the word "hopeful" to describe them seems a little inappropriate. However, Dembski raises the possibility that indirect paths toward irreducibly complex creatures exist, but that they are incredibly improbable. His conclusion, a dubious one at best, is that something must have shepherded these creatures along. One way to do that would be to force organisms into new environments, and mutate them to be fit in their new environments. A second way is to separate out the creatures and put them in a less demanding place while tinkering with their DNA. Ridiculous? Tell God that. He doesn't have to obey the rules. (Lest anyone forget, I don't actually believe in Him. I'm just making a point.) In the first case, there are no hopeful monsters. It's just God forcing them to move around. In the second case I suppose you could call them hopeful monsters, but again, is it "hopeful"?

Then it becomes an exercise in sophistry, as God, who can do anything, could also have created everything as it is five seconds ago, including all of our memories. This is why ID and its ilk are not in a science class.

But in either case, does it matter. The reason we reject the concept of hopeful monsters is because it doesn't fit with evolution. Saying that ID depends on hopeful monsters, and therefore is incorrect, is circular reasoning.

No, the reason we reject hopeful monsters is because a) we do not observe forms which appear to be "trying" to get to another state and b) Lamarckian evolution was abandoned a while back.

"Hopeful Monsters" is a derogatory term coined to present mutation as an all-or-nothing proposition, with an evolutionary path derided as a single deformed intermediary. But that's not how it works. Just because parts work in a single way now doesn't mean they are useless in other faculties. Take the ear bones: these came from the rear joint of the jaw; originally, they formed part of a flexible joint for the double-hinged jaw. It changed over time, with the bones being next to the ear canal and external tympanum, until first one of the bones then all three became integrated with the auditory system. And considering the whole mess originally grew out of gill arches, this is one counter-example among many against "irreducable complexity."

Hardly a hopeful monster in the lineage, yet it went from jawless bony fishes to us very visibly demonstrated through anatomy alone.

 

[Mojo]

Have to agree with Hammy here. I suspect that the history of astrology is much like the present of chiropractics. There were those who studied evidence and used the best scientific methods they had at their disposal, and there were those who were quacks and hopeless woo-woos. Astrology did indeed predate and lead to astronomy. Somebody must have had a theory there somewhere.

We're back to the IDers' "evolution is just a theory" malarkey then. A scientific theory has to be supported by decent evidence, which astrology isn't. In his testimony in the Dover trial, Behe, in order to present ID as a scientific theory, was forced to redefine the term "scientific theory" to the extent that it fitted astrology. Astronomy, to some extent, developed from the observations used by astrologers, but this doesn't mean that astrology is a science.

 

[Tricky]

We're back to the IDers' "evolution is just a theory" malarkey then. A scientific theory has to be supported by decent evidence, which astrology isn't. In his testimony in the Dover trial, Behe, in order to present ID as a scientific theory, was forced to redefine the term "scientific theory" to the extent that it fitted astrology. Astronomy, to some extent, developed from the observations used by astrologers, but this doesn't mean that astrology is a science.

That is true, but we must remember that the definition of a thing changes through time. At one time, "star study" probably had many aspects. Perhaps some star studiers focussed more on mechanics and others on "effects", but probably most did some of each. As experience and equipment became better, the more rational-minded began to realize that predictions based on mechanics worked (and they were able to predict eclipses, etc.) while the branch that dealt with effects on human lives was, at best, inconsistant. Eventualy, they parted ways (sort of like alchemy and chemistry) but the good solid work done by astrologers laid the groundwork for the "new" science of astronomy. It is sad that the stupid stuff remained around too, but woos will be woos.

 

[Meadmaker]

No it isn't. A "theory," as far as the use of the word in science is concerned, is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. Astrology is not substantiated by decent evidence, and never was. Behe claims that ID is as much a scientific theory as astrology!

When I was in physics back in college, my physics prof discussed the michelson-morley experiment, and how Einstein formulated his theory of relativity starting from that experiment. The prof said that prior to the M-M experiment, the prevailing theory, and he used that word, was that there was something called ether through which light propogated.

Presumably my physics prof is an ignorant doofus who should be ignored. He doesn't even understand how to use the word "theory".

 

[Meadmaker]

I can link to at least four different definitions.

~~ Paul

I would be curious if any of them are truly contradictory. It wouldn't totally surprise me, but having read a little bit of Behe and Dembski, I would be a bit surprised if there were any significant differences. If you are interested in that little experiment, lead on.

 

[Meadmaker]

There are more than enough examples of bad science, why should ID be special in that regard?

Because people get elected to school boards by promoting it. At least in Kansas. And even in Dover, it was close.

The problem is that evolution does not jibe with the bible.

Tell that to the Pope. He thinks it does.

No, the reason we reject hopeful monsters is because a) we do not observe forms which appear to be "trying" to get to another state and b) Lamarckian evolution was abandoned a while back.

In other words, because it doesn't fit with evolution.

And considering the whole mess originally grew out of gill arches, this is one counter-example among many against "irreducable complexity."

It doesn't counter anything at all in Dembski's paper. I can't speak for the rest of the ID "community", but Dembski said nothing that had any problem with your description. What Dembski said was that an irreducibly complex system, which would include the ear bones, could not form via a direct Darwinian path. (He didn't use the term, but if it did so, the partially formed system would be a hopeful monster.)

He did, however, say that such systems could form via an indirect Darwinian path, which is what you described. So far, you and Dembski agree.

Now comes the controversial part. Dembski says that the indirect Darwinian path is so improbable that it could only have occurred with help from God, who Dembski calls "a designer", but we know what he means. He specifically allowed the possibility that evolution such as you described could occur if there was an intelligent force directing the evolution.

So what's the probability? Is Dembski wrong?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I would be curious if any of them are truly contradictory. It wouldn't totally surprise me, but having read a little bit of Behe and Dembski, I would be a bit surprised if there were any significant differences. If you are interested in that little experiment, lead on.

Sorry, but this is too much repeat theatre. We've been through all the definitions already. They are contradictory. Saying that removing a part means the system can't perform any function is different from saying that it can't perform its original function.

Anyway, what difference does it make? Until IDers can point to an irreducibly complex system, we could have 40 different definitions.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So what's the probability? Is Dembski wrong?

I swear this is one of the most surreal conversations I have ever had.

Dembski has(a) never provided empirical evidence of an IC system; and (b) never proved a system to be IC. So why do we need to give a damn about IC at all?

~~ Paul