"Retraining the Scientific Imagination..."

A simple statement of fact: there is no physics theory that explains the nature of, or even the existence of, football matches, teapots, or jumbo-jet aircraft.

— Ellis

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. It is customary to suppose that, if a belief is widespread, there must be something reasonable about it. I do not think this view can be held by anyone who has studied history. Practically all the beliefs of savages are absurd. In early civilizations there may be as much as one percent for which there is something to be said. In our own day.... But at this point I must be careful. We all know that there are absurd beliefs in Soviet Russia. If we are Protestants, we know that there are absurd beliefs among Catholics. If we are Catholics, we know that there are absurd beliefs among Protestants. If we are Conservatives, we are amazed by the superstitions to be found in the Labour Party. If we are Socialists, we are aghast at the credulity of Conservatives. I do not know, dear reader, what your beliefs may be, but whatever they may be, you must concede that nine-tenths of the beliefs of nine-tenths of mankind are totally irrational. The beliefs in question are, of course, those which you do not hold. I cannot, therefore, think it presumptuous to doubt something which has long been held to be true, especially when this opinion has only prevailed in certain geographical regions, as is the case with all theological opinions.

A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing-747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there?

Biologists, astronomers, geologists, and now, increasingly, physicists: who's next in line for a Discovery Institute-style "retraining"?

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Five Year Goals * To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory. * To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science. * To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda. Twenty Year Goals * To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science. * To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts. * To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

Hey Sean, Saw your post on Preposterous Universe about my IDTF commentary re Ellis. I think you misread me. I didn't attribute irreducible complexity (Behe flavor) to Ellis: that would have been making shit up, as you put it. Rather, I said Ellis was arguing for the reality of irreducible causation --- genuine top-down causation --- and he is. No, he didn't use the word "irreducible," but that's a good shorthand for this: "the higher levels in the hierarchy of complexity have autonomous causal powers that are functionally independent of lower-level processes." Put the entity "Paul Nelson" into a giant blender with really sharp blades, crank it to 10,000 rpm, and that entity's abilities to write emails and drive a Honda Civic disappear. The lower-level (chemical) constituents are largely as before, of course, but the "autonomous causal power" to compose intelligible character strings is gone. In that respect that particular causal power is irreducible. Like the entity "Sean Carroll," "Paul Nelson" produces real physical effects properly explained only by reference to the irreducible entity (agent) consuming his share of oxygen at a computer north of Chicago. Is this the same as current hypotheses of intelligent design, which argue not only for irreducible causation, but irreducible complexity in organisms? No, which is why I said "a day's walk," which by my estimate --- 3 miles per hour, 8 hour day --- is about the distance from Glenview (where I live) to Hyde Park. That's a long way on a hot June day. But, with respect to physicalism, and the causal closedness of the universe (articles of faith for Dawkins, Dennett, and Jerry Coyne, not to mention most philosophers of science), Ellis and Behe are in the same county, and the distance between them isn't occupied by the city of Chicago, it's a pleasant stroll through the English countryside. Ellis's thesis is a lot more radical than you grant. I've watched Jerry Coyne climb the stairs of the U of C zoology building, reading a NY Review of Books article on ID (by Frederick Crews) -- Jerry almost ran into me, he was so consumed by his reading -- and Ellis's arguments, fully grasped, are not the sort of thesis to make him happy. I enjoy Preposterous Universe: visit every day! Best, Paul

Hey Paul, I've never seen any ID theory. All I ever see is "Such and such scientific theory is inadequate." I've never once seen an actual testable theory about how things arose via ID. Why is that?

Perhaps you guys should rename it "ID Evolution Denial"

Mr. Nelson --

On the website of your parent organization, in a section entitled "Top Questions About Intelligent Design", the assertion is made that there exists a theory of ID.

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

And yet, you are on record as admitting that there is no such theory.

In your opinion, would Jesus consider this to be an ethical practice?

I take that back. I just reread the Wedge Document. It outlines the Discovery Institute's goals. It says publish a lot of books, and scientific articles, and then move on to "Publicity & Opinion-making" and then "Cultural Confrontation & Renewal". It never says "Create a viable scientific theory in opposition to evolution." I shouldn't have criticised you for not having a scientific theory--you aren't really trying to create one.

Rather, I said Ellis was arguing for the reality of irreducible causation --- genuine top-down causation --- and he is. No, he didn't use the word "irreducible," but that's a good shorthand for this: "the higher levels in the hierarchy of complexity have autonomous causal powers that are functionally independent of lower-level processes."

Put the entity "Paul Nelson" into a giant blender with really sharp blades, crank it to 10,000 rpm, and that entity's abilities to write emails and drive a Honda Civic disappear. The lower-level (chemical) constituents are largely as before, of course, but the "autonomous causal power" to compose intelligible character strings is gone. In that respect that particular causal power is irreducible. Like the entity "Sean Carroll," "Paul Nelson" produces real physical effects properly explained only by reference to the irreducible entity (agent) consuming his share of oxygen at a computer north of Chicago.

Put water molecules in a fusion reactor, and zap it with a superhot laser until it turns into a plasma of constituent particles. The resulting entities no longer have the ability to form ice, dissolve ions, participate in this planet's meterological systems, or facilitate biochemical reactions in an organism. Does chemistry and physics need ID more desperately than biology?

Ellis disproved Des Cartes. So what? Ellis was dealing with a universe that contained intelligent designers not own created by one.

Nelson failed to note that a number of scientists quoted by the previous Nature news articles were not reductionists either. If Nelson truly wants to build a robust theory of design he needs to go down a different English country path.

Ellis disproved Des Cartes. So what? Ellis was dealing with a universe that contained intelligent designers not own created by one.

Put the entity "Paul Nelson" into a giant blender with really sharp blades, crank it to 10,000 rpm, and that entity's abilities to write emails and drive a Honda Civic disappear.

Greetings fellow Intelligent Design Theorist! Isn't it exhilirating to be leading a scientific revolution? Since it's based on a lie, modern biology hasn't made any progress in 150 years.

Paul, while you're at it, could you get Jay Richards to write more about how "Einstein's argument seems to mistake epistemology for ontology." This ID Physics is every bit as fascinating and valid as ID Biology. Truly amazing, what you DI guys are capable of doing from your armchairs.

George Ellis said: From science to religion, the problem is religion claiming absolute truth. Science can temper these beliefs. The crucial battle is against fundamentalism - or a partial truth proclaimed as a whole truth.

Twenty Year Goals (snip) * To see design theory application in specific fields, including (snip) ... ethics ....

Dominion theologians ... preached ... that it was Christians' job to take over the world and impose biblical rule. Christ would not return, they said, until the church had claimed dominion over all of the world's governments and institutions ...

Is this the same as current hypotheses of intelligent design

I enjoy Preposterous Universe: visit every day!

If your stomach is strong enough, you might want to check out www.theocracywatch.org

Since the ploy of creationists is to obfuscate facts and create doubts in the minds of policy-makers and the general public, maybe we should react by bringing increased clarity to the table; i.e., switch from terms like "fundamentalist" or "religious right", which refer to peoples' beliefs, to the term Dominionist, which clearly reflects their unsavory, anti-domocratic intentions.

Ellis disproved Des Cartes. So what? Ellis was dealing with a universe that contained intelligent designers not own created by one. What language is that? Esperanto?

Method consists entirely in the order and arrangement of those things upon which the power of the mind is to be concentrated in order to discover some truth. And we will follow this method exactly if we reduce complex and obscure propositions step by step to simpler ones and then try to advance by the same gradual process from the intuitive understanding of the very simplest to the knowledge of all the rest.

In the hierarchy of complexity, each level links to the one above: chemistry links to biochemistry, to cell biology, physiology, psychology, to sociology, economics, and politics. Particle physics is the foundational subject underlying --- and so in some sense explaining --- all the others. In a reductionist world view, physics is all there is. The cartesian picture of man as a machine seems to be vindicated. [Emphasis mine] But this view omits important aspects of the world that physics has yet to come to terms with. Our environment is dominated by objects that embody the outcomes of intentional design (buildings, books, computers, teaspoons). Today's physics has nothing to say about the intentionality that has resulted in the existence of such objects, even though this intentionality is clearly causally effective.

Hey, Timmy, do you call youself that because on South Park Timmy is always saying "Livingalie, livingalie, Timmy!"?

OK, so Paul Nelson exhibits proximal causal irreducibility at this point in time. None of this rules out Paul Nelson's ultimate step-by-step buildability.

— JRQ

So, what's the difference, effectively/practically, between saying Paul Nelson was built on a "scaffold" that has now DISAPPEARED and is so beyond our ability to IMAGINE what it might look like as to be unfathomable, and saying, "God made the scaffold"? Effectively, what's the difference?

On Dominionism

The Infidel Guy has an interview with one of the principles of Theocracywatch. She is very on top of this stuff.

Infidel Guy thinks this is important enough to have as a free download - tou don't have to be a paying member for a few, including this, recordings. (Massimo Pigliucci's is another, and fun for the entertainment value of the dead on ignorant opponent - yep, another preacher.)

You can get this at

http://www.infidelguy.com

The free ones are in the middle of the first page. MP3 at arounf 15 megs.

Comment #34783 Posted by Harq al-Ada on June 11, 2005 07:15 PM (e) (s) Hey, Timmy, do you call youself that because on South Park Timmy is always saying "Livingalie, livingalie, Timmy!"?

Comment #34783 Posted by Harq al-Ada on June 11, 2005 07:15 PM (e) (s) Hey, Timmy, do you call youself that because on South Park Timmy is always saying "Livingalie, livingalie, Timmy!"?

What on earth makes you think that the "scaffold" "is so beyond our ability to IMAGINE what it might look like as to be unfathomable"?

— RDLFlank

And I'm a little puzzled why you are saying things like "God made the scaffold". Isn't ID supposed to be science and not religion? So why are you dragging God into it?

— RDLFlank

But, Lenny, surely you should have figured that out by now: I did it to irritate you!

YOU are the one who wrote: Goldschmidt noted that the total amount of DNA within cells of lower and higher animals is roughly the same, and he speculated that all of the information for all of the proteins that organisms need are to be found in this DNA material---it just simply gets shifted about. I think the implications for ID are rather clear . . . ..but, of course, if I am forced to spell it all out for you, I can. *I* called your loudmouthed bluff by responding: Please do. In as much detail as possible. Dont' skip any steps. I very much prefer it whehn IDers make specific statements that can be tested, rather than waving their arms about vague assertions such as "transpeciation" and "chromosomal changes". Please tell us precisely what you think happens during speciation, and precisely why it indicates that there is a designer at work in any stage of the process. Please be as precise, detailed and complete as possible. What does the designer do, precisely, in your view. What mechanisms does it use to do whatever the heck you think it does. Where can we see these mechanisms in action today. I've been asking for DAYS now to see a scientific theory of ID. here's your chance. Right in front of the whole world. The floor is all yours. Well, Blast, what's the problem here. YOU offered to tell em all about it; *I* took you up on your offer. Wassamatter, is your mouth just bigger than your balls? Any time you are ready to live up to your own words and "spell it out for me", I'm waiting.

Even though I am just an ignorant physicist, I like to post on this site to help to fight the good fight against the myrmidons of creationism. I see biologists as being on the front line of a war against science.

Lenny keeps hitting it on the head when he asks "how, exactly, is evolution any more "materialistic" or "naturalistic" than is weather forecasting or accident investigation or medical practice? Why is "materialism" and "naturalism" acceptable to you in some areas, but not in others?". Here's the nub: creationists wish to subject all of science to their own interpretations of the Bible. (The Young Earthers are the most consistent: whatever goes to suggest an old earth is wrong, and that includes a lot of physics. Other types of creationists have to explain why they accept that the earth is old in violation of a literalist reading of some parts of the Bible, but insist on such a reading of other parts. )

One problem creationists are not asked to face on this site is how to do science at all if they are right. If all science has to be consistent with interpretation of the Bible, and there are multiple such interpretations even on issues directly related to science (e.g. the age of the earth), then we would have what are now purely scientific issues being decided by theologians/believers on purely religious grounds and we would have different groups of theologians/believers disagreeing on scientific questions.

Jeff S: ... maybe we should react by bringing increased clarity to the table; i.e., switch from terms like "fundamentalist" or "religious right", which refer to peoples' beliefs, to the term Dominionist, which clearly reflects their unsavory, anti-domocratic intentions.

From The Dallas Morning News (found on catch.com circa 5/21/05): In Ohio, the Rev. Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church said at a gathering of 1,000 Patriot Pastors last week that the issues underscoring the filibuster fight transcend partisan politics. "We're not Democrats. We're not Republicans. We're Christocrats," he declared. ...

Despite growing up in the Deep South (Baton Rouge) and currently residing in Colorado Springs, last night on PBS I just learned a word I have never in my life heard before : Dominionism.

— Jeff S

Yes, Christocrat's a telling label - though theocrat is still required for the more general case of religious fundamentalist.

Dear Lenny:

Here's my quote:
"Goldschmidt noted that the total amount of DNA within cells of lower and higher animals is roughly the same, and he speculated that all of the information for all of the proteins that organisms need are to be found in this DNA material---it just simply gets shifted about. I think the implications for ID are rather clear . . . ..but, of course, if I am forced to spell it all out for you, I can."

He didn't say DNA. They didn't even know what DNA was back then. He said "genes".

He was really quite prescient, writing what he did more than 10 years before the discovery of DNA.

. . . From this it follows that the number of genes in a chromosome is roughly proportional to the length of the chromosome when completely stretched. The chromosome maps and the structure of the salivary chromosomes of Drosophila bear out this conclusion. Now the hardly organized protozoan Monocystis has crhomosomes of the same order of magnitude as those of the highest animals and plants, not to speak of the large and numerous chromosome of Radiolariia, which may not be striclty comparable to other chromosomes. If Roux's analysis is correct--and how can it be otherwise--Monocystis must have apporximately the same number of genes as some higher animals and plants. Let us not deciev ourselves and try to evade the question by an appeal to inert material (see modern textbooks of cytology), for which the cogent argumentation of Roux is just as binding as for the rest of the chromosome. The difficulty vanishes if the pattern replaces the genes. In this case different chemical effects may be produced without a change in the number of loci making up the serial pattern if in the lower organism the constituents of the chromosomal pattern are chemically simple, and if in the higher organism they are complex (model: simple amino acids in a chain moclecule versus highly substituted ones)."

So, if the number of genes stays the same (remember monkeys and humans are "genetically" almost the same--even though the "genetic" DNA is only 3% of the total) then no NEW information is being provided--of, course we know better than that today; but to a large extent this is the case--but simply being used in different ways. Using the analogy of a computer programs with their routines and sub-routines, when the "chromosomal patterns" are re-shuffled, then a "new program" is "compiled" (again, using computer terminology) every once in a while (a "hopeful monster") and out comes a new "macromutational" form of life: all without new information being added--it's just simply "compiled" differently, i.e., certain "sub-sub-routines" are turned off, while others are now turned on.

Plausible, AND, probable. Neo-Darwinism is plausible, but not probable ("marcromutationally").

I hope this really irritates you, Lenny!

" . . . strong support for Goldschmidt's gut feeling that extrapolation of small-scale adaptive change within local populations would not encompass all of evolution." However, they do not accept Goldschmidt's view that macroevolutionary change can occur as the result of the repatterning of the chromosomes, though C. H. Waddington takes this view very much more seriously, considering "genetic recombination" as an important factor in evolutionary change. . . . . With regards to Goldschmidt's notion that systemic mutations are usually directive rather than random, this too has become more acceptable as a result of the experiments carried out by John Cairns and his associates, who found that many mutations are highly functional - which is even more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian thesis. Goldschmidt's idea that the 'corpuscular gene' does not exist, is, on the other hand, difficult to maintain in the light of the deciphering of the genetic code by Francis Crick and James Watson. However, it has now become apparent that individual genes determine only superficial characteristics like eye colour and the wrinkles on a pea - (i.e. the sort of characteristics that Mendel was concerned with). Important characteristics tend to be determined by whole constellations of different genes (polygeny) while each gene is now also seen as contributing to the characteristics of many different traits in the individual. This suggests that evolutionary change cannot be explained in terms of changes occurring to individual genes. Indeed the Harvard biologist, Richard Lewontin, has gone so far as to propose a "geneless" theory of evolution. Of course, theoretical biology is still dominated by hard-line neo-Darwinians and sociobiologists, such as E. O. Wilson, John Maynard-Smith, Michael Ruse, and Richard Dawkins, who have chosen to ignore the obvious flaws in the theory they still defend so ardently. However, it is unlikely that their dominance of this field will last for long. Neo-Darwinism cannot be reconciled with Jim Lovelock's Gaia Theory, which is gaining credibility all the time, nor with the work of the structuralists such as Brian Goodwin at the Open University, and David Lambert at the University of Auckland, or with the work of other young biologists, who see evolution in more holistic terms, such as Mae Wan Ho, also at the Open University. The latter in particular, as she fully admits, has been very much influenced by the work of Richard Goldschmidt. We may, in fact, be on the verge of a general paradigm shift, and in a few years it may well be the defenders of the neo-Darwinian orthodoxy whose turn it will be to be laughed at and derided.

What are you/he calling lower and higher animals though? For example, monkeys are not lower than humans apart from on purely prejudiced human grounds. Is this more a prokaryotes vs eukaryotes thing? As an early branching, the differences are bound to be seen as more significant than recent tweaks on the same branch. Everything around today is just as evolved as everything else in terms of the time it has had though.

Lenny: I thought you might like this...

I wonder if the source of the quote offered by Blast is any more credible than Blast himself?

Lenny: I thought you might like this.

YOU are the one who wrote: Goldschmidt noted that the total amount of DNA within cells of lower and higher animals is roughly the same, and he speculated that all of the information for all of the proteins that organisms need are to be found in this DNA material---it just simply gets shifted about. I think the implications for ID are rather clear . . . ..but, of course, if I am forced to spell it all out for you, I can. *I* called your loudmouthed bluff by responding: Please do. In as much detail as possible. Dont' skip any steps. I very much prefer it whehn IDers make specific statements that can be tested, rather than waving their arms about vague assertions such as "transpeciation" and "chromosomal changes". Please tell us precisely what you think happens during speciation, and precisely why it indicates that there is a designer at work in any stage of the process. Please be as precise, detailed and complete as possible. What does the designer do, precisely, in your view. What mechanisms does it use to do whatever the heck you think it does. Where can we see these mechanisms in action today. I've been asking for DAYS now to see a scientific theory of ID. here's your chance. Right in front of the whole world. The floor is all yours. Well, Blast, what's the problem here. YOU offered to tell em all about it; *I* took you up on your offer. Wassamatter, is your mouth just bigger than your balls? Any time you are ready to live up to your own words and "spell it out for me", I'm waiting.

C. H. Waddington takes this view very much more seriously

We may, in fact, be on the verge of a general paradigm shift

o, if the number of genes stays the same (remember monkeys and humans are "genetically" almost the same---even though the "genetic" DNA is only 3% of the total) then no NEW information is being provided

Goldschmidt's idea that the 'corpuscular gene' does not exist, is, on the other hand, difficult to maintain in the light of the deciphering of the genetic code by Francis Crick and James Watson.

Lenny, I've answered your questions. The second post is from a website that I googled concerning Waddington and "genetic assimilation."

You're a very obnoxious person. If I don't respond to your posts, you'll understand.

SEF: ... theocrat is still required for the more general case of religious fundamentalist.

Lenny, I've answered your questions.

The second post is from a website that I googled concerning Waddington and "genetic assimilation."

You're a very obnoxious person.

If I don't respond to your posts, you'll understand.

Reeaaalllyyyyyyy. Then why aren't the genes all the same. Why don't any animals have a gene for chlorophyll production. Why don't any mammals have a gene for snake venom production. Why don't any amphibians have a gene for mammalian hair production. Where did all those genes come from, Blast. Oh, I forgot ------ you don't have the ping-pongs to answer direct questions, do you . . . . . . . .

Can someone ask Blast to please please pretty please with sugar on it tell us what the scientific theory of ID is and how it explains the appearence of "genetic information"?

Important characteristics tend to be determined by whole constellations of different genes (polygeny) while each gene is now also seen as contributing to the characteristics of many different traits in the individual. This suggests that evolutionary change cannot be explained in terms of changes occurring to individual genes.

The second post is from a website that I googled concerning Waddington and "genetic assimilation."

From a website by someone named Edward Goldsmith

Intelligence is universal in life - a synthesis of chapters 31, 32 and 33 of The Way: an ecological world view. Published in Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum Vol. 93 No. 3, 2000. Goldsmith argues that intelligence is no exclusive preserve of humankind. http://www.edwardgoldsmith.com/key30.html

Evolution, neo-Darwinism and the paradigm of science - "Neo-Darwinism does not provide a satisfactory explanation for evolution and however resilient it may prove to criticism, it must eventually give way to a more realistic theory ..." Published in The Ecologist Vol. 20 No. 2, March / April 1990. http://www.edwardgoldsmith.com/page82.html

Decades ago, Haldane predicted that facts would soon emerge which would show that natural selection was not an adequate explanation of evolution. Waddington had similar thoughts. As he said at the 1969 Beyond Reductionism Anspach Symposium, "I think that we are going to see extraordinary changes in our ideas about evolution quite soon." [1] Yet, although the deficiencies of neo-Darwinism have become increasingly apparent in recent years, and criticism has mounted on almost every front, it remains the official scientific explanation for evolution. There appear to be two reasons for its continued dominance. The first is that it is the only theory of evolution that is, or appears to be fully consistent with the 'paradigm of science'. The second is that the critics have not yet provided a coherent alternative to neo-Darwinism but have rather sought to modify it in different ways so that it might incorporate their various criticisms.

Until recently, it has only been in France, to my knowledge, that we find a few critics who are willing to abandon neo-Darwinism and even to trace the ancestry of their ideas on evolution to Lamarck. In the English-speaking world, few scientists have openly supported Lamarckism for fear of ridicule, or worse still, of being hounded out of the scientific community.

My feeling, indeed my conviction, is that a realistic and coherent theory of evolution will be proposed and accepted only once a clean break is made, not only with neo-Darwinism, but also with the sacrosanct 'paradigm of science', which paints a very distorted view of the world.