Communications and Science

A little more than a week ago, Mike Syvanen posted an article on Panda's Thumb that discussed a real controversy within the field of evolutionary biology: the role of horizontal gene transfer in early evolution. Today, Paul Nelson misinterpreted that article in a post over on ID: The Future.

Well, we should've taken up a pool as to how long it would take for creationists to abuse Syvanen's comments.

Lets remember that for next time. May be we can sell raffles or something..

Well, we should've taken up a pool as to how long it would take for creationists to abuse Syvanen's comments.

Guys, I saw your blog commentaries on my IDtheFuture post about the Mooney & Nisbet CJR piece, and wanted to follow up with a reply. Very much like scientists, science reporters and journalists face real risks in getting too far away from (or ahead of) "the pack" -- i.e., received opinion. But there's a reciprocal risk in always playing it safe. Example: In Sept. 1988, as a grad student, I heard Mike Syvanen talk about problems with molecular phylogenetic reconstruction at the Marine Biological Laboratory-Woods Hole. The occasion was a workshop on molecular evolution organized by Mitchell Sogin. Mike showed several plant phylogenies that made no evolutionary sense. What are these phylogenies telling us? he asked the audience. Is this just noise, or is it possible that other modes of transmission of genetic information (i.e., other than "vertical" inheritance; HGT) are operating? It was a provocative and "risky" talk, insofar as Mike was pushing the audience to think about ideas that they may have -- indeed, did (see below) -- find uncomfortable and heterodox. Mitchell Sogin was very disconcerted by Mike's presentation. After Mike left the MBL to return to California, the workshop went on for a few days, and Sogin disparaged Mike's talk. "That lecture shouldn't have happened," I recall Sogin saying to anyone who would listen. I don't think any science journalists were present when Mike spoke, but let's suppose they had been, and had reported on his talk and Sogin's extremely negative reaction. Developments within evolutionary theory within the past 17 years have pushed HGT from the risky margins into the very center of many discussions. A science journalist who played it safe in September 1988 (along the lines of "Sogin told me Syvanen's talk was a load of horsesh-t that I can ignore") would have missed pursuing a truly promising lead. Mooney & Nisbet advise science journalists to play it safe: "Evolution" means Darwin's picture of universal common ancestry, from LUCA, mainly via the mechanism of natural selection. This theory is as much a part of the permanent furniture of reality, argue Mooney & Nisbet, as the Copernican geometry of the solar system, the germ theory, etc. Gotta get that point into your stories about the ID controversy. But what if LUCA never existed? (Rick Sternberg joked to me recently that the famous line from the movie "The Godfather," viz., "Luca sleeps with the fishes" [after the Corleone family hitman Luca Brassi is bumped off by Salazo] might make a funny title for a review article about the waning fortunes of LUCA as a theoretical construct in deep phylogeny.) Skepticism about LUCA is one area, among many, where ID and heterodox evolutionary theory overlap. So what's an enterprising science reporter to do? Play it safe, or call up Mike Syvanen to chat? It's a genuine dilemma, and I think Mooney & Nisbet's advice may be entirely too cautious for most reporters, who are as competitive as the scientists I know and as willing to try promising risks.

But what if LUCA never existed? (Rick Sternberg joked to me recently that the famous line from the movie "The Godfather," viz., "Luca sleeps with the fishes" [after the Corleone family hitman Luca Brassi is bumped off by Salazo] might make a funny title for a review article about the waning fortunes of LUCA as a theoretical construct in deep phylogeny.)

Skepticism about LUCA is one area, among many, where ID and heterodox evolutionary theory overlap.

Me: Does the ID movement call itself the ID movement simply to bamboozle people into thinking it has an actual alternative theory when it really doesn't? Does the ID movement call itself the ID movement to try and gain all the rhetorical advantages of claiming to have an alternative theory without the disadvantages of actually having to PRODUCE one? You: 'The ID movement' is just a name for a group of people with similar ideas. When I began thinking about design years ago, there was no 'ID movement' denoted by that name, but the ideas were percolating away nonetheless (e.g., in the writings of Charles Thaxton). The name - the label - is largely a matter of convention. It's the ideas themselves that attract, or repel, people. Think about it this way. If I broiled what I said was 'really fine steak' for you, but served you shoe leather, it's the shoe leather, and not what I called it, that would matter. Or, conversely, if you said to me that B.B. King's music was 'sucky Muzak dreck, don't bother with it,' as a fan of blues I'd discount your description or label. (Btw, I only serve USDA choice or prime to guests, if you're ever in Chicago. Shoe leather is strictly for thought experiments.) In short, it doesn't really matter what one calls 'the ID movement,' which explains why pejoratives such as 'IDiots,' 'intelligent decline,' 'creationism-lite,'creationism in designer clothing,' and the like, have had little discernable effect on the growth of the ID community. Me: You, uh, didn't answer my question, Paul. My question was very specific. If there is no such thing as a theory of ID, why does the ID movement call itself the ID movement? You say "it really doesn't matter what one calls the ID movemnet". If so, why name it after something that doesn't exist? Is it, or is it not, to imply that it DOES exist, even though it actually doesn't. I still await your answer to that simple question.

Me: I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention "god" or "divine will" or any "supernatural" anything, at all. You: Nor have I. But climatologists and atmospheric scientists weigh the effects of intelligent agency all the time. Consider global warming and its possible causes. To be sure, humans aren't "supernatural," at least in the sense that I think you mean, but disentangling atmospheric effects due to intelligent agency (e.g., gas emissions from industrial activity) from so-called "natural" causes is an important area of ongoing research. If agency is suggested by evidence, science takes up the question. ID theorists think biological evidence suggests the role of intelligent agency; most biologists disagree; and so we find ourselves with a vigorous dispute. Me: That wasn't the question, Paul. I'll ask again. IDers are the ones bitching that science, and biology in particular, is "materialistic" and "naturalistic" and rejects any "supernatural" explanations. It seems to me that weather forecasting, accident investigation and medical practice are ALL equally "materialistic" and "naturalistic" and reject "supernatural" explanations (note that NONE of the "intelligent agencies" involved in any of these is in any way NOT "materialistic" or "naturalistic", Paul). So I'll ask again; why, if weather forecasting and accident investigation are every bit as "atheistic" and "materialistic" as evolution, aren't you out there fighting the good fight to get God back into weather forecasting aqnd accident investigation. Why aren't you out there fighting the "materialistic naturalistic biases" of weather forecasting or accident investigation. Why does "atheism" in evolution get your undies all in a bunch, but "atheism" in weather forecasting doesn't. Or does that all come later, as part of, uh, "renewing our culture" ... ?

You: Lastly - your Howard Ahmanson obsession. I've spent a little time with Howard (had a memorable long dinner with him in Irvine, CA, one night), and we talked about movies, wine, and whatnot. I've never heard or read anything from Howard that comes even remotely close to 'extremism,' whatever that is. You are circulating hearsay, Lenny, if it rises even to that. What actual evidence do you have, in Howard Ahmanson's own words, of his positions? Me: And, once again, you've not answered my question. (Gee, I'm shocked.) I'll ask again. Can you point me to any published public statement by Ahmanson wherein he disavows any of the positions he held as cash cow and chief cheerleader for the Chalcedon Foundation nutballs? If you want to tell me that he has repudiated his positions and is no longer as nutty as he HAS been for the past 20 years, then please tell me (1) which of his former positions he has repudiated and why, and (2) which of his former positions he has NOT repudiated, and why NOT? Offhand, Paul, I'd say that placing the US under "Biblical law",to include such things as stoning "sinners",is well, pretty extremist. I find it illuminating that you do not.

You: Lenny - I'm outa this discussion. Me: I don't blame you, Paul. I wouldn't want to defend your positions either. Please be assured that I will repeat my questions next time you come back here. You: Visit my blog when it's up, and we can continue the back-and-forth over there. Me: Thanks, but I've seen what passes for, uh, "back and forth" at ID-run blogs. I prefer to post in places where the iron hand of the ayatollah's censor doesn't rule. So we will continue this discussion next time you come back here.

Quick note --- I'm drafting an omnibus reply (to points raised here and in Shalizi's commentary), with title and epigraph from a Rolling Stones song. I'll post it tomorrow.

Well, Nelson emailed me privately and generously offered to buy me a beer if I met him at his upcoming sermon in Miami.

Alas, I'd prefer that he just answer my damn questions, right here in front of the whole world.

I'm guessing the Stones song was "(I can't get no) Satisfaction", the peak of rock and roll. It's been all downhill ever since.

I'm still a bit ambivilent about the whole no-LUCA thingie. Sure, there may indeed be different ancestors for different genes. But still, it appears that there was only one line that begged, borrowed or stole all those genes from the other lines, and then itself went on (utilizing them) to produce all of life as it exists today. So while there might not be a genetic LUCA, it certainly still looks like there was a geneological LUCA, even if it appeared AFTER the various genes first appeared separately.

How any of this helps the ID/creationists in any way, shape or form, though, baffles me. I guess the ID/creationists just operate on the Wickramasinghe strategy --- anyone who disagrees with mainstream science must, by definition, agree with them ---- even if, like Wickramasinghe, they think ID/creationists are nuts. (shrug)

I'm still a bit ambivilent about the whole no-LUCA thingie.

How any of this helps the ID/creationists in any way, shape or form, though, baffles me.

"But climatologists and atmospheric scientists weigh the effects of intelligent agency all the time. Consider global warming and its possible causes. To be sure, humans aren't "supernatural," at least in the sense that I think you mean, but disentangling atmospheric effects due to intelligent agency (e.g., gas emissions from industrial activity) from so-called "natural" causes is an important area of ongoing research. If agency is suggested by evidence, science takes up the question. "

Hahahahahahaha. I don't think I was around when that was originally, posted, but that's got to be the worst analogy-as-justification-for-ID I've ever seen, and I've seen some pretty terrible ones. If IDiots tried to apply the same techniques as climatologists in the context of their supernaturalistic pseudo-theory, they'd have to come to the conclusion that God has been dead since at least abiogenesis. I doubt they want that.

Mike showed several plant phylogenies that made no evolutionary sense. What are these phylogenies telling us? he asked the audience.

— Paul Nelson

"LUCA?" One of the things that tends to mark those whose reason has been sapped from them is the use of jargon that confuses the hell out of anyone unfamiliar with the stuff, and often confuses the issues as well.

Alas for Dr. Nelson, if the idea of one common ancestor dies, intelligent design is in even worse shape. There are at least two, wholly natural explanations that would merit exploration before resorting to a search for the Wilber Force (the technical name for the "intelligent designer"). One possibility is that all the one-celled critters, separate species that they were, arose from one common ancestor and mutated. A second possibility is that when conditions were ripe for life to spring up, life sprang up in several forms technically unrelated by ancestry, though similar in form and chemistry. In either case, then there was lateral gene transfer, and then branches sprouted in the ancestral bushes.

Intelligent design has more science to deny if "LUCA" is not exactly accurate, not less.

The last universal common ancestor idea provides a clear explanation for why we have DNA and why it pervades all life with just four little proteins to code. In short, it's a solid explanation, and nothing in intelligent design offers any serious challenge. No matter how the controversy works out that Syvanen noted, it's just one more series of body blows to the rapidly deflating notion of a hypothesis of intelligent design.

Reporters, even those unfamiliar with biology, can report on it and get it right. The sin is still the inaccurate spin put on the reporting by creationists, including IDists.

Skepticism about LUCA is one area, among many, where ID and heterodox evolutionary theory overlap.

— Paul Nelson

But climatologists and atmospheric scientists weigh the effects of intelligent agency all the time. Consider global warming and its possible causes. To be sure, humans aren't "supernatural," at least in the sense that I think you mean, but disentangling atmospheric effects due to intelligent agency (e.g., gas emissions from industrial activity) from so-called "natural" causes is an important area of ongoing research. If agency is suggested by evidence, science takes up the question. ID theorists think biological evidence suggests the role of intelligent agency; most biologists disagree; and so we find ourselves with a vigorous dispute.

— IDiot Paul Nelson

I don't think I was around when that was originally, posted,

Example: In Sept. 1988, as a grad student, I heard Mike Syvanen talk about problems with molecular phylogenetic reconstruction ... A science journalist who played it safe in September 1988 (along the lines of "Sogin told me Syvanen's talk was a load of horsesh-t that I can ignore") would have missed pursuing a truly promising lead.

— Paul Nelson

"My name is LUCA. I live on the second floor..."

Michael Behe, Michael Denton and possibly even, Michael Bolton seem to have no trouble accommodating a LUCA in their ID "theories" for the evolution of life. ID theory "overlaps" with so much that there is no positive theory there in the first place.

"My name is LUCA. I live on the second floor..."

Evilutionists (especially at The Panda's Bum) have a communication problem because informed thinkers like Nelson expose their amoral ontology for the sham that it is. Not even Darwinists themselves can consistently believe such a mountain of lies as evolutionism, so they inevitably commit gaffes in their papers--and small islands of truth emerge from the river of excrement in their tree-hugging literature. When independent critical thinkers like Nelson or myself demonstrate this, they go into a towering rage and accuse their critics of "misrepresentation" or "quote-mining." The analysis offered in the quoted paper is a similar, but much more simplistic version of Dembski's design inference. It chops down the evolutionist tree structure at the root. If even "orthologous" genes not subject to duplication/horizontal transfer don't lead to one "true" tree, then whence chimeric genes? A nice example of circular reasoning guys: if the genes give different trees, it must be due to gene swapping. How do we ascertain gene transfer? The genes give discordant trees!

I am doing more research on this myself. I will use Monfort's algorithm (as a special case of Dembski's CSI) to disprove evolutionism at the protein domain/chemical level. Molecules are no different than the probelm of a bunch of party-goers throwing their hats in the ring and then drawing at random to see if they will pick the correct one. For evolutionism to work, all of the molecules must be matched with all of the other molecules thay are supposed to be attatched to to make the vital force of life function. However, I will go one step more with the evolutionist

Last time you were here, you ran away without finishing our conversation.

If there is no such thing as a theory of ID, why does the ID movement call itself the ID movement? You say "it really doesn't matter what one calls the ID movemnet". If so, why name it after something that doesn't exist? Is it, or is it not, to imply that it DOES exist, even though it actually doesn't.

So I'll ask again; why, if weather forecasting and accident investigation are every bit as "atheistic" and "materialistic" as evolution, aren't you out there fighting the good fight to get God back into weather forecasting aqnd accident investigation. Why aren't you out there fighting the "materialistic naturalistic biases" of weather forecasting or accident investigation. Why does "atheism" in evolution get your undies all in a bunch, but "atheism" in weather forecasting doesn't.

Can you point me to any published public statement by Ahmanson wherein he disavows any of the positions he held as cash cow and chief cheerleader for the Chalcedon Foundation nutballs? If you want to tell me that he has repudiated his positions and is no longer as nutty as he HAS been for the past 20 years, then please tell me (1) which of his former positions he has repudiated and why, and (2) which of his former positions he has NOT repudiated, and why NOT?

I can't understand why anyone would think this has relevance to science, and frankly don't believe you think it really does.

The point of my IDTF blog post was not to discuss the demise of LUCA, except as an illustration of the challenges science journalists face in covering heterodox ideas.

[quote author="Paul Nelson"]Skepticism about LUCA is one area, among many, where ID and heterodox evolutionary theory overlap.[/quote]

But 'heterodox evolutionary theory' actually provides hypotheses, theories and is not based on 'see we have found something evolutionary theory did not yet explain' must have been intelligent design...

You yourself observed that intelligent design is lacking scientifically. I would argue that intelligent design by its own nature has chosen to remain scientifically vacuous.

If all ID is can be described as 'skepticism' then ID has nothing new to offer.

Mooney & Nisbet were writing to journalists about how to Stay Respectable, and I offered another perspective: respectability may be purchased at the price of missing something interesting. I wasn't arguing for ID, and my point could have been illustrated with any number of scientific controversies.

— Paul Nelson

1. If life on Earth were designed by an intelligence, could science discover that?

— Paul Nelson

The main effect of Lenny's Game is to make this blog a nasty and brutish place to visit, characterized by bullying, baiting, and ridicule, rather like a seedy biker's bar where one can expect to be threatened as soon as one sits down.

— Paul Nelson

Yes, by discovering a method of interaction between life and the intelligence.

— One Brow

But climatologists and atmospheric scientists weigh the effects of intelligent agency all the time. Consider global warming and its possible causes. To be sure, humans aren't "supernatural," at least in the sense that I think you mean, but disentangling atmospheric effects due to intelligent agency (e.g., gas emissions from industrial activity) from so-called "natural" causes is an important area of ongoing research.

How about the Great Sphinx?

Who: Who knows?
What: The Great Sphinx.
When: No telling.
Where: Giza.
Why: Your guess is as good as mine.
How: I don't know.

Jim,

Try answering the questions yourself, and you'll see their relevance to what Lenny was asking.

Btw, I do like Peewee Herman movies. He knew how to escape a beating in a biker's bar.

Is it ever scienfifically permissible to conclude that something is the product of intelligence without knowing how the intelligent agent and product interacted?

— Mythos

Paul Nelson wrote: The point of my IDTF blog post was not to discuss the demise of LUCA, except as an illustration of the challenges science journalists face in covering heterodox ideas. ..... Mooney & Nisbet were writing to journalists about how to Stay Respectable, and I offered another perspective: respectability may be purchased at the price of missing something interesting. I wasn't arguing for ID, and my point could have been illustrated with any number of scientific controversies.

However, I'm a registered independent and voted for Obama here in Illinois, so maybe you should start a new list, "Confused and Inconsistent Theocratic Monsters," first entry, "Paul Nelson."

One Brow,

Touch your right index finger to the tip of your nose.

Now, starting with any neuron in your brain, explain how you just did that. Provide the "method of interaction" (i.e., the physical pathway from specific neuron to the observed effect).

Touch your right index finger to the tip of your nose. Now, starting with any neuron in your brain, explain how you just did that. Provide the "method of interaction" (i.e., the physical pathway from specific neuron to the observed effect).

— Paul Nelson

Paul,
A) Methodological Naturalism (or even Ontological Naturalism) does not equal reductionism.

b) Without starting with single neuron in the brain, explain the observed effect. Provide the "method of interaction" (including any non-physical pathway if you wish) from desire to touch nose to touching ones nose.

C) I believe one can offer such a detailed explanation in C. elegans.

Comment #47165 Posted by Mythos on September 9, 2005 11:50 AM (e) (s) How about the Great Sphinx? Who: Who knows? What: The Great Sphinx. When: No telling. Where: Giza. Why: Your guess is as good as mine. How: I don't know.

Well, recent research based on geology (as opposed to Egyptology) has concluded that the Sphinx was built around 10,000 B.C. which calls into question your answers to 'who' and 'when'. And 'carved' is too generic. I want to know what tools, mechanisms, etc. they used.

I want to know what tools, mechanisms, etc. they used.

— Mythos

1. If life on Earth were designed by an intelligence, could science discover that?

2. When Darwin argued against design in the Origin of Species, was he doing science?

Posted by Paley's Ghost on September 9, 2005 09:53 AM (e) (s) Evilutionists (especially at The Panda's Bum) have a communication problem because informed thinkers like Nelson expose their amoral ontology for the sham that it is. Not even Darwinists themselves can consistently believe such a mountain of lies as evolutionism, so they inevitably commit gaffes in their papers---and small islands of truth emerge from the river of excrement in their tree-hugging literature. When independent critical thinkers like Nelson or myself demonstrate this, they go into a towering rage and accuse their critics of "misrepresentation" or "quote-mining." The analysis offered in the quoted paper is a similar, but much more simplistic version of Dembski's design inference. It chops down the evolutionist tree structure at the root. If even "orthologous" genes not subject to duplication/horizontal transfer don't lead to one "true" tree, then whence chimeric genes? A nice example of circular reasoning guys: if the genes give different trees, it must be due to gene swapping. How do we ascertain gene transfer? The genes give discordant trees! I am doing more research on this myself. I will use Monfort's algorithm (as a special case of Dembski's CSI) to disprove evolutionism at the protein domain/chemical level. Molecules are no different than the probelm of a bunch of party-goers throwing their hats in the ring and then drawing at random to see if they will pick the correct one. For evolutionism to work, all of the molecules must be matched with all of the other molecules thay are supposed to be attatched to to make the vital force of life function. However, I will go one step more with the evolutionist

One Brow wrote: Yes, by discovering a method of interaction between life and the intelligence. ------------------------- By 'method of interaction' I suppose you mean 'how, exactly, was it accomplished'. Is this a necessary requirement? Is it ever scienfifically permissible to conclude that something is the product of intelligence without knowing how the intelligent agent and product interacted?

— Mythos

Steve, is this more of your parody? Or is this one of the unhinged?

One Brow, Touch your right index finger to the tip of your nose. Now, starting with any neuron in your brain, explain how you just did that. Provide the "method of interaction" (i.e., the physical pathway from specific neuron to the observed effect).

— Paul Nelson

4) If a designer can make an efficient structure like a bacterial flagellum, why was he so bad at designer an ATPase? The ATPase of humans for example, only manages to convert 66% of the energy it gets from protons being pumped through into ATP. That's pretty good for something that evolved to be 'good enough' but for something that was designed it's pretty pathetic, especially considering the intelligent designers we have to compare it to, namely us wouldn't find such a low efficiency (wasting a full 1/3 of the energy given to it) as satisfactory.

— Joseph O'Donnell

Maybe "Paley's Ghost" is really Pasquale Vuoso. About a year ago, he claimed he was going to "mathematically disprove Darwin." Since Lenny wasn't around then, it fell to me to hound him for a week or so about that, at which point he disappeared.

"Conversation" is something of a misnomer, wouldn't you say? What you're playing is Lenny's Game â„¢. Lenny's Game has no end; indeed it cannot end, because actual learning and exchange of information is not its point.

I find it interesting that the human design is so imperfect, that normal physiological processes can be altered/hacked by various drugs, natural and synthetic. If we are the product of an intelligent agency, wouldn't that agency attempt to make the design secure enough to not allow the process to be altered into an undesirable/unfavorable/undesigned configuration?

— Paul Taylor

Paley's Ghost is Cerutti.
He got me once recently.
I felt dumb.

Paley's Ghost claims I am doing more research on this myself. I will use Monfort's algorithm (as a special case of Dembski's CSI) to disprove evolutionism at the protein domain/chemical level.

Paul,

Yes, please do consider global warming. Can ID offer anything to determine what human effects are? If not, why do you bring it up?

In answer to your other two questions: Sure, science could discover God, if God were not supernatural. Certainly evolution theory and the methods used in studying evolution would get much closer to identifying supernatural influence than intelligent design hypotheses, which seem to run to, "if it's awesome, somebody must have intended that it be awesome." (In fact, brain researchers have made more progress in determining why our brains regard things with awe than ID has made in any field.) There is no hope intelligent design can do better, or as well.

Yes, Darwin was doing science when he noted his observations that tend to refute the Paleyesque ideas of what a designer would do. If nothing else, it was a methodical (and therefore scientific) Fisking of Paley's work. Among other results of Darwin's writing was the understanding that merely being awestruck is not science. That latter point appears to be lost on everyone affiliated with intelligent design. Darwin was pointing out that there were many more questions to be asked, and that we'd have a better chance of finding the questions if we actually observed nature. Actually observing creation must be frustrating for intelligent design advocates, since nothing in creation does what ID advocates claim it must.

In law we discovered Potter Stewart's standard, "I can't tell you what obscenity is, but I know it when I see it," was inadequate to telling what obscenity is. The same standard, given a gloss of respectability by inserting "design" in place of the word "obscenity," works no better in science, for exactly the same reasons it doesn't work in law.

In law it turned out, among other things, that too often, decision makers called "obscene" anything that was sexually arousing. I am unconvinced that this is not exactly the same error ID advocates make when they claim to know something is "designed" when there is not a whit of evidence that any intelligence ever intervened in any way after the fertilization of the egg, and sometimes even not then.

Touch your right index finger to the tip of your nose. Now, starting with any neuron in your brain, explain how you just did that. Provide the "method of interaction" (i.e., the physical pathway from specific neuron to the observed effect).

— Paul Nelson

Paley's Ghost is Cerutti.

Paul Nelson: 1. If life on Earth were designed by an intelligence, could science discover that?

(Nelson:) 2. When Darwin argued against design in the Origin of Species, was he doing science?

And any non-idiot can see that this same sort of bogus argument is presented against evolution, and that one can no more conclude that there's an intelligent designer than that pixies cause our hands to move.

1. If life on Earth were designed by an intelligence, could science discover that?

— IDiot Paul Nelson

2. When Darwin argued against design in the Origin of Species, was he doing science?

the id, or the ego?

Design inferences do not need to give a physical mechanism to be justified.

P.S. And, of course, if you have grounds for inferring intelligence in the design of biodiversity, then you have grounds for positing pixies as agents of your motor actions. This argument by analogy to touching your nose is utterly nonsensical and idiotic.

Maybe I'm just getting confused, but I cant follow Paul nelson's post above. (Its probably just because its past my bed time.)

What if I went to sleep with a dirty hand, and woke up to find a smudge of dirt on my nose? How did it get there? Can it be demonstrated that unequivocally that I touched my nose when I was asleep, or what if someone else came along and moved my hand to touch my nose? How can you distinguish between these occurences and one where I rolled over in my sleep and touched my nose?

Quite true now that I consider it, although in some respects I suppose you could consider the human immune system perhaps as such a mechanism. In general though, there really isn't anything of the sort, especially considering how successful we've been lately in altering genomes with our own DNA (Transgenic crops for example).

— Joseph O'Donnell

But also no need for providing the causal pathway, whether molecule-by-molecule or at a more general level, to infer that you, an agent or intelligence (and not some other kind of cause) moved your hand.

— Paul Nelson

But to have a scientific theory of that design, you need need a method of interaction.

I'm sorry you won't be taking me up on my offer of unlimited beer at the University of Miami.

Lenny wrote: Last time you were here, you ran away without finishing our conversation. "Conversation" is something of a misnomer, wouldn't you say? What you're playing is Lenny's Game â„¢. Lenny's Game has no end; indeed it cannot end, because actual learning and exchange of information is not its point.

Here's how Lenny's Game is played: 1. You ask a question. 2. I answer it. 3. You reject my answer as inadequate, and ask another question. 4. This goes on until I tire of the game and find better things to do. 5. You then say that I've run away.

The main effect of Lenny's Game is to make this blog a nasty and brutish place to visit, characterized by bullying, baiting, and ridicule, rather like a seedy biker's bar where one can expect to be threatened as soon as one sits down.

To illustrate, let's show once more how Lenny's Game is played. I'll answer your questions, and steps 3, 4, and 5 will follow, like night the day. Lenny: If there is no such thing as a theory of ID, why does the ID movement call itself the ID movement? You say "it really doesn't matter what one calls the ID movemnet". If so, why name it after something that doesn't exist? Is it, or is it not, to imply that it DOES exist, even though it actually doesn't. Well, let's pick a name that you might like, such as "The Fundamentally Religious and Scientifically Misbegotten Objections to Evolution Movement" (FRASMOTEM for short). FRASMOTEM is unwieldy, but if you can persuade others to use it, instead of "intelligent design movement," go for it. As I said earlier, however, the name won't really matter. Fred Hoyle coined "The Big Bang" originally as a cheeky jab (insult) towards a theory he never liked. Didn't matter: the name was widely adopted, because it was vivid and handy, and the scientific idea itself chugged right along. If the "intelligent design movement," however named, didn't exist --- meaning Behe, Dembski, Nelson, Meyer, Gonzalez, et. al, and their ideas --- this blog wouldn't exist. As I explain here, the study of evolution and a group of investigators one could call "evolutionists" existed long before a formally-articulated theory of evolution. There is more than enough content to the idea of intelligent design, even absent a theory, to make the conventions "intelligent design" and "ID" useful and accurate. But who knows? FRASMOTEM may have a promising future!

Lenny: So I'll ask again; why, if weather forecasting and accident investigation are every bit as "atheistic" and "materialistic" as evolution, aren't you out there fighting the good fight to get God back into weather forecasting aqnd accident investigation. Why aren't you out there fighting the "materialistic naturalistic biases" of weather forecasting or accident investigation. Why does "atheism" in evolution get your undies all in a bunch, but "atheism" in weather forecasting doesn't. Two questions for you (to help me answer this one, and to throw a little variation into Lenny's Game): 1. If life on Earth were designed by an intelligence, could science discover that? 2. When Darwin argued against design in the Origin of Species, was he doing science?

Lenny: Can you point me to any published public statement by Ahmanson wherein he disavows any of the positions he held as cash cow and chief cheerleader for the Chalcedon Foundation nutballs? If you want to tell me that he has repudiated his positions and is no longer as nutty as he HAS been for the past 20 years, then please tell me (1) which of his former positions he has repudiated and why, and (2) which of his former positions he has NOT repudiated, and why NOT? Again with the Howard Ahmanson obsession. What to say? I'm happy to be supported by Howard's money. I guess you'd better put me on your list of unspeakable theocratic monsters. However, I'm a registered independent and voted for Obama here in Illinois, so maybe you should start a new list, "Confused and Inconsistent Theocratic Monsters," first entry, "Paul Nelson." I don't know what Howard's view were before; I don't know what they are now; frankly, I just don't care. The republic is in no danger from Howard Ahmanson.

I've spent a little time with Howard (had a memorable long dinner with him in Irvine, CA, one night), and we talked about movies, wine, and whatnot. I've never heard or read anything from Howard that comes even remotely close to 'extremism,' whatever that is.

Here are my questions again:

I don't know what Howard's view were before; I don't know what they are now; frankly, I just don't care. The republic is in no danger from Howard Ahmanson.

So start with your brain, and show me the exact causal pathway --- "method of interaction" --- by which you touch your nose. Or compose and type your posts here.

Any "intelligence" capable of designing life is so far removed from anything we recognize by that word, that making predictions about what evidence it might or might not leave is absurd. (Sort of like the alleged "God" that way, isn't it? Unless the alleged "God" is actually more finite and thus predictable than His mainstream fan clubs pretend that they like to believe.)

— Russel

It's not that I disagree with this, it's just that it's barely relevant to the study of evolution today.

By the way, I doubt if Darwin would have approved of a bunch of political hacks, whose interest in science was secondary at best, organizing a "think tank" to promote the wedging of his theory into general education before it had undergone thorough scrutiny by the scientific community.

o start with your brain, and show me the exact causal pathway --- "method of interaction" --- by which you touch your nose. Or compose and type your posts here.

Paul, quit changing the subject, and just answer my damn questions, please.

Well, let's pick a name that you might like, such as "The Fundamentally Religious and Scientifically Misbegotten Objections to Evolution Movement" (FRASMOTEM for short).

I'm happy to be supported by Howard's money.

I would like Paul to explain what work ID theorists are doing that explains the above observations.

Philosophers like Paul Nelson can sit around and complain that scientific theories would be better if they included supernatural explanations. They have done this for years. What they have never done, is produce a single useful result of their expanded notion of science. So scientists correctly ignore them.

(JO'D:) For example, we could find that genes are interspaced neatly by enzymatic sites that allow individual genes to be 'pasted' together readily. Such an unusual conformation could indeed suggest design and in fact, if this sounds absurd, we already do use this to determine if a biological agent was manipulated by human beings. However, note that the 'design' here isn't being inferred due to any (non-existant) work any ID advocate has done, it's logical deduction based on understanding of the designer in question, namely us.

I don't know what Howard's view were before; I don't know what they are now; frankly, I just don't care. The republic is in no danger from Howard Ahmanson.

paul, why do you conflate naturalism and reductionism?

The main effect of Lenny's Game is to make this blog a nasty and brutish place to visit, characterized by bullying, baiting, and ridicule, rather like a seedy biker's bar where one can expect to be threatened as soon as one sits down.

— Paul

There is more than enough content to the idea of intelligent design, even absent a theory, to make the conventions "intelligent design" and "ID" useful and accurate. --- Paul Nelson

Intelligent design itself does not have any content. -- George Gilder

Paul, consider it a rehearsal for the time when you decide to present what there is of ID at real professional meetings.

The main effect of Lenny's Game is to make this blog a nasty and brutish place to visit, characterized by bullying, baiting, and ridicule, rather like a seedy biker's bar where one can expect to be threatened as soon as one sits down.

Paul writes "But climatologists and atmospheric scientists weigh the effects of intelligent agency all the time. Consider global warming and its possible causes. To be sure, humans aren't "supernatural," at least in the sense that I think you mean, but disentangling atmospheric effects due to intelligent agency (e.g., gas emissions from industrial activity) from so-called "natural" causes is an important area of ongoing research.

They also have ways to test this, for example how does sea-level rise track estimates of Human greenhouse gas production over the last 150 years. While correlation doesn't mean causation, its a place to start.

Furthermore, the "intelligent" part of intelligent agency is incidental in this case. Human "intelligence" has nothing to do with it. With repect to greenhouse gas production we are no more using "intelligence" than flatulating bovines, which also contribute to global warming.

Your example fails on several levels, not the least of which, neither "intelligence" nor "design" have anything to do with it. It is as incidental to human activity, as it would be to flatulating bovines.

Or are you claiming that humans are warming the planet by design?

Given the nutters and nincompoops runing Washington right now, you might actually have a case there.

But then you'd have to call it "SD" Stupid Design.

"If agency is suggested by evidence, science takes up the question.

Well, that is subtle.. now we go from "intelligent agency" to just plain old "agency". Isn't that special?

The "intelligence" of this agency in your example has nothing to do with it, nor is there any "design" involved.

"ID theorists think biological evidence suggests the role of intelligent agency;"

What biological evidence?

"most biologists disagree; and so we find ourselves with a vigorous dispute."

The only reason it is "vigorous" is because poor thinkers like yourself have a lot of money and time to waste polluting newspapers and blogs with quater-baked nonsensical gibberish.

Not to mention your immortal soul may be at stake.

So start with your brain, and show me the exact causal pathway

A "method of interaction" is not a map of a molecule-by-molecule causal pathway --- the categories aren't even close.

"All right" said Linsky, "let's have it! Tell me how I just did that."

Agency is real, and irreducible to physics. There's nothing spooky about it, but then one must recognize it as a real (ontologically distinct) mode of causation.

Linksy's illustration of agency being irreducible to physics, or rather Paul's anectode of Linksy providing the example, is a flawed intuition pump. Here's why:

Look up in the sky. Observe a cloud move across the sky. Now exclaim, "Let's have it. Tell me how the cloud did that." The implicit argument is that if one cannot provide a complete causal history of the cloud moving itself across the sky, then one must accept the argument of a substantive agency in the cloud.

But is that reasonable? Do we actually have a complete causal history of the cloud moving across the sky? For instance, given the known complexities of the meteorological system of Earth, do we know what that particular cloud was doing, say a day before it appeared to the naked eye? What was the individual water molecules or other particulates composing the cloud doing 24 hours before?

Now, return to Linsky's example. First order of business is to figure out whether it makes any more sense to ask how Linksy moved himself around the room than to ask how the cloud in the sky moves itself around the room. If you think that the latter is a poorly phrased, leading question (does the cloud move itself as an active agent?), then I think you are in the majority. But if you reject the notion of clouds moving themselves, under what logical pleading should you accept it for Linsky?

Theories of mental causation are weak... so much more for the substantive dualist that it is absurd to hear Paul declare it necessarily true with such confidence.

But, let's be charitable. Suppose dualism is true. Paul still has not answered Lenny Flank's question. How do we explore mental causation? For instance, suppose it is true that there is a Mind behind the moving clouds. How does one understand it? Forget exploring it empirically or even scientifically, for the sake of argument. I want Paul to show us a consistent epistemology that reveals the properties of Minds and their roles in causation.

"ID theorists think biological evidence suggests the role of intelligent agency;"

Look up in the sky. Observe a cloud move across the sky. Now exclaim, "Let's have it. Tell me how the cloud did that." The implicit argument is that if one cannot provide a complete causal history of the cloud moving itself across the sky, then one must accept the argument of a substantive agency in the cloud.

But climatologists and atmospheric scientists weigh the effects of intelligent agency all the time. Consider global warming and its possible causes.

solipsism n : (philosophy) the philosophical theory that the self is all that you know to exist

Paul,

Your example with Linsky confuses "how" with "why." The late Bill Hanley had a brilliant introduction for his live lectures to freshmen in Biology 101 at the University of Utah, in which he spent nearly ten minutes in excruciating detail of the how of things such as you proposed -- in Hanley's case, describing how a sound wave came to be inscribed on a piece of paper. He described the chemical and biological processes of a student taking notes at a lecture. In 1970, that was no mystery, so I've been puzzled for a couple of days about why you think it's a mystery now.

But you confessed it was a set up. Hanley's lecture in 1971 still meets your challenge -- he described the how of the action exactly. He could do it for Linsky, too.

What he can't describe is why the lump of grey matter that thinks itself Linsky wished to walk around the room. [At this point the smart alecky red-head kid in the back row puts his hand up -- "Linsky wanted to make a point, that's why." The red-head kid sees through your philosophical ploy, and she doesn't buy it.]

Science deals with proximate causes, understanding that proximate causes often lead to a penultimate cause originally unnoticed. The study of proximate causes can very ably explain the processes by which Linsky got up out of the chair and walked about the room, but it doesn't touch what motivated Linsky to get up and do it.

For another example, consider that studying proximate causes revealed that "common colds" are caused by viruses, not by cold air. Intelligent design might (does?) argue that the cold researcher should never dismiss cold air as a causative agent, because that's what seems to be the cause -- after all, aren't colds much more common in winter? Science doesn't want to know what seems to be the cause; it seeks what is the cause. It's unfair to argue that biology doesn't answer the question of why God created anthrax; the "how" of anthrax is what we need to know to fight it. (Intelligent design cannot explain anything about anthrax, including why we should fight against it, by the way.)

The chain of proximate causes discovered by science is good enough that it may get close to the "why" as well, in your hypothetical. I think that, deep down, that is what really troubles most ID advocates with advanced degrees, that science may indeed come across a few answers to the "why" questions.

Scientists are not unhappy with the ambiguity at the end of Linsky's challenge. It means there is more area for research, a clear manifestation of the science maxim that the more we know, the more we know that we don't know. In science, one is always wise to be wary of the guy who claims to have an answer when the question is either unclear or the answer already well understood otherwise. One may be rather certain that the guy who claims to have the answer probably missed the asking of many important questions.

And that's where you guys are with ID. It is my opinion that you've closed your minds to questions in science, not to mention social policy. (You might begin to ask, for example, "What is the moral value of ID advocates' approval of academically dishonest publications?")

Behe came close when he noted the concept of irreducible complexity -- a very good restatement or refinement (take your pick) of Darwin's noting what would disprove evolution (Darwin posed something that benefited a second, unrelated species, and which could not have benefited an ancestor in any form). The next question should have been, "What do we know that is irreducibly complex?" Behe didn't seek answers far, and he described some things in his book that turn out not to be irreducible nor inexplainable by evolution. At that point, ID's science path would be to return to nature and the lab and try to find structures that are, in fact, irreducibly complex.

Instead, as with your Linsky example, ID has insisted that evolution cannot tell us why the non-irreducibly complex systems arose (but then you disclaim any such knowledge when we pose reasonable hypotheses, and YOU claim the questions are then unfair!).

But do you see the chief problem with your Linsky example, Paul? Intelligent design can't explain the proximate causes of any of the actions, AND it also cannot explain the "why" of Linsky's stroll. So not only is ID just as helpless to answer your question, it is also helpless in answering those questions that science can probe.

You don't believe me? Ah, then by all means, lay out for us here the "causal pathways" that ID research has determined for Linsky's stroll. Be sure not to leave any gaps in the links . . .

"But climatologists and atmospheric scientists weigh the effects of intelligent agency all the time. Consider global warming and its possible causes. To be sure, humans aren't "supernatural," at least in the sense that I think you mean, but disentangling atmospheric effects due to intelligent agency (e.g., gas emissions from industrial activity) from so-called "natural" causes is an important area of ongoing research."

Now, this is an interesting illustration of "agency". Is Paul ready to argue that global warming and its possible causes were intended results of men? Or could effects of agency refer to accidental, unintended outcomes. Consider a comparison between evidence of human beings manufacturing atomspheric pollutants and evidence of primordial microorganisms releasing toxic oxygen into the early atmosphere. What makes one more unnatural or more intelligent than the other?

I think Paul has swung a large double-sided sword here. If ID detects global warming as an example of an unintended, unplanned effect of intelligent agency, then there is nothing to stop ID from detecting life as an unintended, unplanned effect of an intelligent agent. Once again, we are then back to asking how ID increases our understanding of purported design phenomena. Apparently, intent is not something that ID can reliably explore.

Agency is real, and irreducible to physics. There's nothing spooky about it, but then one must recognize it as a real (ontologically distinct) mode of causation.

The next question should have been, "What do we know that is irreducibly complex?"

The next question should have been, "What do we know that is irreducibly complex?"

I think the next question should have been "What makes Behe think irreducible complexity is inconsistent with evolution?" If it isn't, then there is no need to find or pay special attention to systems that are irreducibly complex. Behe says that an irreducibly complex system is one in which nothing can be removed without destroying function --- but that's about the future of the system, whereas evolution is about its past. So rather than looking at what might happen next --- removal of a component leading to loss of function --- we should consider what might have happened last. And an obvious answer is that a non-essential component was removed from a redundant system, resulting in the "irreducibly complex" system --- nothing there is inconsistent with evolution. If Behe were an honest scientist, he would say "oops, sorry" and resolve to get more sleep and more peer review.

The distinction between past and future is largely irrelevant.

Behe speaks about the removal of parts destroying the function because he is essentially assuming that evolution builds simply by adding parts, but failed to realize that evolution can also build by removing parts, or by combining two mechanisms which both have a number of parts.

Tim: The distinction between past and future is largely irrelevant.

Not Tim: No, it absolutely is not...

I'm going with Not Tim on this one. Behe's "irreducible complexity" is based on the notion that disassembling a system is retracing the steps of its evolution. This idea is so... (I'm trying to think of a diplomatic euphemism for dumb, but it's late, and I can't) that it's hard for me to believe that Behe sincerely entertains it.

This has been pointed out to Behe, and yet he persists in pointing out that an irreducibly complex system will fail to function if parts are removed --- which is true, but irrelevant, because it refers to what might happen in the future, rather than what happened in the past. An irreducibly complex system not only doesn't contradict evolution, but is particularly evolutionarily stable, since any mutation disabled the function of any of the parts wouldn't be viable.

Simply considering truly, not just so-called, irreducibly complex systems in the abstract, an IC system could have had a component removed from a functional predecessor, but cannot have a component removed to produce a functional successor. And it can have a component added to it resulting in a functional successor, but it cannot result from adding a component to a predecessor. The time sequence is essential to whether IC is relevant to evolution. This is true regardless of whether Behe is honest, regardless of what he is counting on, and regardless of whether Behe's examples are really IC or whether any system is really IC.

As for "other approaches beside the removal of parts" ... a puff of smoke?

As for "other approaches beside the removal of parts" ... a puff of smoke?

Your past and future approach ignores other possibilities

Something may be "irreducibly complex" in his approach when the removal of any one of thirty proteins results in the destruction of the system's functionality --- but what of the removal of say ten?

When critiquing him, it is helpful to point each out.