JEFFREY WEISS of the Dallas Morning News conducted two interviews, one with Dr. Harris
Speaking for the teaching of intelligent design is William Harris, a professor at the University of Missouri medical school in Kansas City. He’s a researcher in nutritional biochemistry, a Methodist and managing director of the Intelligent Design Network, an online information site supporting intelligent design.
and one with Dr. Miller:
In the other corner is Kenneth Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, Catholic and the author of Finding Darwin’s God.
I found the answers by Dr Harris quite interesting. First he responds with the standard ID response, with a slight but devastating deviation, namely that ID does not demand any particular godhead to be credited.
Q: Dr. Harris, for all the claims your side makes about intelligent design being science, isn’t it also religion?
Harris Wrote:
131 Comments
L.T. Paladin · 12 September 2005
Why do most on this board assume that we are the only intelligent beings that can exist other than God? To me that seems silly.
PvM · 12 September 2005
GT(N)T · 12 September 2005
Well Paladin, who do you have in mind?
Ginger Yellow · 12 September 2005
"Why do most on this board assume that we are the only intelligent beings that can exist other than God? To me that seems silly."
Do you know of any non-Godly intelligent being that "stands outside the limits of time and space with the power to affect the physical world"? Because if you do I'd like to meet them.
L.T. Paladin · 12 September 2005
"What most on this board however realize is that when ID proponents are talking about intelligent design, they are talking about the supernatural."
Some perhaps, but to say that all appeal to the supernatural is an overgeneralization. Not all of those who affirm Intelligent Design even believe in the supernatural.
Ken Willis · 12 September 2005
drtomaso · 12 September 2005
Jim Wynne · 12 September 2005
Joseph O'Donnell · 12 September 2005
JPD · 12 September 2005
LT Paladin wrote: Not all of those who affirm Intelligent Design even believe in the supernatural.
WTF???!!! What else CAN you be referring to?
drtomaso · 12 September 2005
If the "designer" is not supernatural (ie: natural), then we must then ask who/what created that designer? I believe even the IDiots have noticed the circular reasoning in this argument (or maybe they just wanted Tom Cruise to stop calling them) and have decreed (or at least quoted individually) that the designer shalt be supernatural. Someone else with more free time will have to do the leg work and dig up their quotes.
Dan Someone · 12 September 2005
To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke: Any alien being that is sufficiently advanced to have designed and created life on Earth is indistinguishable from a deity.
Timothy Chase · 12 September 2005
Dave Snyder · 12 September 2005
Ginger wrote: "Do you know of any non-Godly intelligent being that "stands outside the limits of time and space with the power to affect the physical world"? Because if you do I'd like to meet them."
According to my wife, the being in question is George Clooney.
L.T. Paladin · 12 September 2005
"then we must then ask who/what created that designer?"
Why must we? Darwinian evolution explains the origins of life as well, yet no one demands to know what natural processes brought about the laws which govern Evolution.
"Here is a passage which explains the central problem with having a natural intelligent designer:
...Any natural being capable of "designing" the complex features of earthly life would, on their premises, require its own "designer."..."
Using this logic our ability to design other complex features would also merit itself as evidence of our design. All life in biology is carbon based and we find it cannot come about naturally... why couldn't other life come about randomly? Perhaps the designer did come about from randomness.
DouglasG · 12 September 2005
Jim Wynne · 12 September 2005
Ved Rocke · 12 September 2005
Timothy Chase · 12 September 2005
lamuella · 12 September 2005
"no one demands to know what natural processes brought about the laws which govern Evolution"
I'm no physicist, but I'm fairly sure that a lot of physicists are very interested in the question of how natural laws arose in their current forms.
Ginger Yellow · 12 September 2005
"Using this logic our ability to design other complex features would also merit itself as evidence of our design."
The point is that this isn't scientific logic. It's ID logic. We (proponents of science) don't think an intelligent designer would need a designer. But we don't think we need a designer either. It's the ID proponents who end up in a logical paradox. Or rather, it's only a logical paradox if they try to claim the designer doesn't have to be supernatural. This is why ID is theology, not science.
drtomaso · 12 September 2005
This statement doesn't really make sense. But I will take a stab at what I think you mean.
First of all, the theory I think you are describing is "abiogenesis", not evolution. While the jury is still out on that particular theory, there appears to be significantly more scientific evidence for that than ID. Second, demanding to know what natural processes brought about the laws which govern evolution is what evolutionary biology is all about. This is where there is *legitimate* scientific debate- scientists (you know, the guys with degrees relevant to their research) arguing over which mechanisms impact the way organisms evolved the most.
The most important point? None of those scientists throw their hands up and declare that the "designer" did it, or that since they're perplexed by a problem it must be evidence of "design." In my field of computer science, such things are called "open problems" and they get shopped around to grad students looking for work. Questions are asked, experiments proposed, and answers obtained. In short, 'progress' which is a very useful byproduct of scientific inquiry, is made. At the most pragmatic level- if ID wins out, progress halts. Or more accurately, progress in the US stops- and progress and its economic benefits moves to China, India, et al.
Frank J · 12 September 2005
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 12 September 2005
Bruce McNeely · 12 September 2005
On Designers
Designers have big designers
O'er their heads to design 'em
And big designers have bigger designers -
And so ad infinitum.
Yeah, I know, it's ripped off, and it doesn't rhyme.
But, dammit, it's designed!
Bruce
Albion · 12 September 2005
I assume that if ID is going to say that any godhead could be responsible, then it's getting around the legal prohibition on promoting a particular religion. Schoolkids will get the information about which godhead is really meant by reading supplementary information and by asking their parents and pastors. I'm sure the ID people have got some plans in mind to ensure that kids get the message somehow that it's gotta be Jesus. Even if they don't, though, the ID stuff has planted in their minds the notion that it has to be a god of some sort and that science has therefore proved that God exists (and we all know which God we really mean, don't we, children? {wink wink}). That's all they need to do, isn't it? Get it into the minds of the young and the uneducated that the scienbtific method shows that God is a nonnegotiable reality, use a bunch of PR stuff to let them know which God we're talking about, and then it's on to demanding that the laws and goodness knows what else be changed accordingly because we now have no choice. This is what God wants, and science has proved that he exists. So abortion, stem cell research, homosexuality, etc etc must be outlawed forthwith, and the country must become a truly Christian state. That is, after all, the long-term goal stated in the Wedge Document.
This is the same sort of thing that's being done in the Dover, Pa, disclaimer, where kids are encouraged to ask their parents or other authority figures (aka their pastors) - NOT their biology teachers - about the implications of the existence of intelligent design in nature. It's the same sort of thing going on in Kansas, where Cathy Martin has said that she doesn't need creationism to be taught but would settle for a "compromise" where neither creationism nor evolution is taught, presumably so that kids can get the creationist message from parents and pastors and the biology teachers are shut out of the process altogether.
I hope the FSM stays the course as a viable alternative to this dishonest attempt to create a Christian theocracy.
Moses · 12 September 2005
Moses · 12 September 2005
Frank J · 12 September 2005
Moses · 12 September 2005
Norman Doering · 12 September 2005
Dan Someone wrote: "Any alien being that is sufficiently advanced to have designed and created life on Earth is indistinguishable from a deity."
Does that make random mutation and natural selection a god?
natural cynic · 12 September 2005
Isn't the idea that "any old godhead" the same as specifying a particular godhead? ... and therefore, should be eliminated from public education. Harris and the interviewer do not try to address this issue.
L.T. Paladin · 12 September 2005
"There is no choice. Either non-supernatural intelligences evolved to create us (because you can only regress so far in time and there must be a first), which means evolution is correct even if we were seeded from some other race, or people were made with supernatural help.
There is no way the Intelligent Designer, as promulgated by ID, can fail to be anything but a supernatural force."
Why does the non-supernatural force have to come about by biological evolution as we know it? Isn't it possible that there still is a number of forces in the universe that we are not aware of? If so, then why is it that any intelligence MUST be brought about in the same way as we were? (According to evolution)
"None of those scientists throw their hands up and declare that the "designer" did it, or that since they're perplexed by a problem it must be evidence of "design." In my field of computer science, such things are called "open problems" and they get shopped around to grad students looking for work. Questions are asked, experiments proposed, and answers obtained. In short, 'progress' which is a very useful byproduct of scientific inquiry, is made. At the most pragmatic level- if ID wins out, progress halts. Or more accurately, progress in the US stops- and progress and its economic benefits moves to China, India, et al."
I think this starts out with a misrepresentation of what ID intends. This paragraph was written under the presupposition that the intent of Intelligent Design is for nothing other than "proving God" or some silly naïve idea like that. Generally when a theory finds a number of particular problems consistently unexplainable, a new one is required. If there are no new natural mechanisms provided (note I mean natural mechanisms only as undersigned) then it should be reasonable to infer design. The design theory, however, does not stop there. From there it makes numerous positive predictions and an entirely different conceptual framework for scientific research.
Here is the most recent example.
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Wells_TOPS_051304.pdf
"The point is that this isn't scientific logic... ...We (proponents of science) don't think an intelligent designer would need a designer."
Good I think we all can live with that.
"It's ID logic."
You would not catch and ID saying that.
"Laws aren't brought about by processes --- laws govern processes. Evolution is a process governed by laws --- such as those of inheritance and natural selection."
Exactly, no one demands to know how these laws came about (although I am sure anyone is open for conjecture) but the issue is if you don't need an endless stream of scientific laws or processes why does ID necessitate an endless stream of designers? By your standards evolution cannot be valid because it necessitates an unending number of natural processes... allow me to demonstrate with an adaption of Bruce's poem.
On Natural Processes
Natural processes have big natural processes
O'er their existences to make them occur
And big Natural processes have bigger natural processes
And so ad infinitum
Bruce Did a better job but I needed to get my point across.
"This statement deserves the PT equivalent of Chez Watt? recognition."
Excuse me?
"So, what you are stating is that evolution is fine for other beings, just not for those of us that live on earth. Why not illiminate the middleman, and go with what the evidence tells us?"
In this sort of discussion (for the sake of argument) the question is begged to say "if this is true then this will happen".
"A complex designer evolved from the same forces that could have created us, but didn't."
Who said they had to be the very same forces? Certainly not I.
Jim Harrison · 12 September 2005
The laws of nature are simply are descriptions of how things behave. They aren't something separate from the phenomena so invoking them does not result in an infinite regress.
Which is the point made ironically by the tee shirt that reads: "Speed limit, 186,000 miles per hour. It's not just a good idea. It's the law!"
joli · 12 September 2005
Shouldn't that be 186,000 miles per second?
Norman Doering · 12 September 2005
L.T. Paladin wrote: "Why do most on this board assume that we are the only intelligent beings that can exist other than God?"
I don't make that assumption. There may indeed be planets where smarter creatures have evolved.
I do tend to assume I haven't met anything smarter than a human, and neither have you even if you think you have (though there are now neural nets that can do things we can't they don't have human flexibility or desire as we know it)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991001064257.htm
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1999/E/199904166.html
However, would I know such a creature if I meet one? Do ants realize that we're smart? Can they recognize our intelligence? Does your dog know that you understand quantum mechanics better than he does? Does the dog associate the fact that you have a house and a car with intelligence?
The assumption I am making about intelligence is not that people are the smartest things around, but that intelligence is necessarily a manifestation of a material phenomena and that it must evolve.
I think the evidence for intelligence is what Minsky suggests in "The Society of Mind."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind_theory
"What magical trick makes us intelligent? The trick is that there is no trick. The power of intelligence stems from our vast diversity, not from any single, perfect principle. - Marvin Minsky, The Society of Mind, page 308
To be a real IDer you must assume that intelligence is something supernatural. You have to believe in that "perfect principle" and if you do, please define intelligence. What is that principal? What is intelligence? All definitions I know are subjective.
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 12 September 2005
[silly]
Any old godhead temporarily assuming human form died on a cross 2000 years ago, won't someone take a stand for him?
[/silly]
Dark Matter · 12 September 2005
Hello Palladin-
If you are a creationist........
Are you not slightly disturbed by the way they keep talking around (the) god (of Abraham) as though He were an elephant
in a middle of a living room? That they seem to use every rhetorical and Public Relations
trick they can think of to get their point across instead of referring directly to the divine as one would think a true believer
would do- like the early Christians did in Rome, like the martyred saints did?
Are you not concerned that this *evasiveness* with their true intentions, this "playing games with words", is sucessful that there will be a change to the worse as how Christanity relates to the world? No longer will it be "A true witness delivereth souls: but a deceitful witness speaketh lies" (Proverbs 14:25, KJV) but "the end justifies the means"?
Norman Doering · 12 September 2005
L.T. Paladin wrote: "Why does the non-supernatural force have to come about by biological evolution as we know it?"
The problem isn't forces, the problem for IDers is the definition of intelligence. A force is not an intelligent designer. Forces are generally not considered smart.
Your problem is we already know too much about intelligence through neurophysiology and artificial intelligence to consider intelligence itself as a "force." Learn more about what we know about intelligence.
"Isn't it possible that there still is a number of forces in the universe that we are not aware of?"
Yes -- what is this dark energy that is accelerating the expansion of the universe? I don't think dark energy is smart though.
"If so, then why is it that any intelligence MUST be brought about in the same way as we were? (According to evolution)"
Because intelligence strongly reflects evolution, because it takes a material brain, William Calvin even thinks our brains incorpoarate darwinian algorithms:
http://williamcalvin.com/bk9/
drtomaso · 12 September 2005
I misrepresent nothing. "Proving God" is not what ID proponents want- their interest is far more insidious. They wish nothing more than the complete overthrow of secular materialism (aka the scientific method). You don't even have to read between the lines- just read the "wedge document." The scientific method is what has allowed the US to grow from a small agrarian society to a full fledged industrial democracy with the largest economy in the world. Undermine that and we are but a few generations from second or third world status. Progress isnt going to wait for us. Now, why do they do this? Please don't have any delusions- all of the major ID "theorists" have come out with statements that reflect their motives as being theological, not scientific. Their version "Science" (meaning scientifically sounding language) is just the gravy on their "sh1t sandwich" designed to fool people into eating it.
I am really not the kind of person who is going to take the effort to respond to critiques of evolutionary theory. For one I am not a biologist. For two, I am extremely busy (this, for example, is the most posting I have done since I was a student). All I can say is that creationists/IDists *love* to trot out the same rehashed lists of "particular problems consistently unexplainable" by evolutionary theory, and I have seen 0- not one- that has not been instantly ripped to shreds by a trained biologist. If however you have an example, one not already dealt with by the faqs at talk origins, I'd love to hear it. You can be the first.
No, its not reasonable. Its a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. You can make all the assumptions you want. Until you have evidence, they remain just that- assumptions. For example, we can assume that the bacterial flagelum is irriducibly complex. We can state that our assumption leads to a conclusion of "design." But then someone better trained than us is going to come along (and has!) and is going to show how this structure could have evolved- and our argument is now dead. When you argue from ignorace, you risk having your argument shot dead by the ever expanding amount of human knowledge.
You are right about the "entirely different conceptual framework" part and wrong about the "scientific research" part. The entire concept of ID is completely *alien* to science. It involves no less than complete avoidance of the scientific method.
So lets cut to the chase. Is there a scientific theory of intelligent design? If so, please state it, because you will be the first. I don't mean to pick on you, and please accept my apologies if any of this conversation sounds in anyway like a personal attack, but I seriously think someone has tricked you into believing alot of logically inconsistent crud.
PatrickS · 12 September 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 12 September 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 12 September 2005
Albion · 12 September 2005
" Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." - William Dembski
"Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature."
Silly? Naive? Tell that to the people writing this stuff. We're just assuming that they mean it.
Albion · 12 September 2005
Frank J · 12 September 2005
L.T. Paladin · 12 September 2005
"To be a real IDer you must assume that intelligence is something supernatural. You have to believe in that "perfect principle" and if you do, please define intelligence. What is that principal? What is intelligence? All definitions I know are subjective."
Surely the ability to reason isn't something subjective much less magical.
Hello Darkmatter... I don't see them doing any of what you said... You can call me naïve for it if you want, but the attempts to make IDs look as if they were doing this in my experience is the same Kind of Quote mining that they are always criticized for doing themselves... and then some.
"The problem isn't forces, the problem for IDers is the definition of intelligence. A force is not an intelligent designer. Forces are generally not considered smart."
Yet why couldn't a force or group of them create a designer?
"I misrepresent nothing. "Proving God" is not what ID proponents want- their interest is far more insidious. They wish nothing more than the complete overthrow of secular materialism (aka the scientific method)."
So you equate the scientific method with secular materialism? Certainly u can be a little more objective in your dealings.
"You don't even have to read between the lines- just read the "wedge document.""
I also remember reading somewhere that a lot of the other ID proponents were against it. Though I do know what it means, and am familiar with it.
"Their version "Science" (meaning scientifically sounding language) is just the gravy on their "sh1t sandwich" designed to fool people into eating it."
I do not see ID as this sort of thing at all surely one can see the benefit of having such a theory... couldn't this be a personal bias of yours?
"All I can say is that creationists/IDists *love* to trot out the same rehashed lists of "particular problems consistently unexplainable" by evolutionary theory, and I have seen 0- not one- that has not been instantly ripped to shreds by a trained biologist. If however you have an example, one not already dealt with by the faqs at talk origins, I'd love to hear it. You can be the first."
I am not going to be naïve enough to be able to defend anything on this forum considering the odds, and that I am rather limited in my knowledge as well, but don't most ID's argue that Irreducible complexity has accomplished this?
"Its a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance."
I don't think it qualifies as an argument from ignorance whether or not it really has been proven wrong. Irreducible complexity itself is a logical argument thus isn't based on a "lack of" anything. While I disagree as to whether it has been shown to be wrong, I don't think I could successfully defend it considering the company of this forum. If, however, IC is not shown false then it performs this function.
"It involves no less than complete avoidance of the scientific method."
I don't think so, the scientific method is a method of observing nature, formulating a hypothesis, testing it, and making a conclusion. Some say that the goal is to learn about the natural world, and ID is still capable of doing that as well. It, however, does not rule out the supernatural as an explanation for events.
Timothy Chase · 12 September 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 12 September 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 12 September 2005
Norman Doering · 12 September 2005
L.T. Paladin wrote: "Surely the ability to reason isn't something subjective much less magical."
It's not magical, but where you draw the line on what you define as "reason" is subjective. Are Bayesian belief networks intelligent because they can reason? Is a dog intelligent because it can figure out how to get the dog-chow off the top shelf? Is a chatbot intelligent because it can engage in a rational argument?
The "reason" it's subjective is because there are many ways to reason and you have to have a good collection of them to look intelligent.
"Yet why couldn't a force or group of them create a designer?"
You mean like a tornado whipping through a junkyard and creating a 747 airplane? I suppose a force could, but it seems improbable without selectionism, the heart of Darwin's theory.
pough · 12 September 2005
Take God out of the argument and suddenly David Brin's written the new Bible. Perhaps the fabled Progenitors will show up and we can see in their structures that there are no "irreducibly complex," seem-to-have-been-designed parts! They managed to evolve naturally, but for the rest of us, it was intelligent-design Uplift...
H. Humbert · 12 September 2005
L.T. Paladin, the problem with ID is twofold:
1) The "problems" in evolution they point out aren't really problems.
2) "Design" doesn't correct those problems even if they did exist. As of yet they haven't provided a way to detect design and just assuming somthing is designed doesn't actually tell us anything useful anyway.
The ONLY thing ID would do if it were to be adopted is to stop scientific inquiry cold. It isn't science, it's anti-science. (And I don't mean because of some "naturalistic bias" in science, I mean because ID literally says "stop looking for scientific answers and accept an unsupported assertion.)
H. Humbert · 12 September 2005
Ved Rocke · 12 September 2005
drtomaso · 12 September 2005
Yes I do. But I think Lenny Flank makes an even more compelling argument. Assume science doesn't preclude the theological- ID and its proponents offer nothing in the way of predictions that are testable, observable, nor do they offer a theory that could ever be revised on discovery of further evidence to the contrary. The problem with IC is that once an individual structure has been proven evolvable, one just moves on to the next structure for which an evolutionary pathway has not been researched and discovered. And so on, and so on, ad infinitum. If I can't make you see the problem with such an argument from ignorance, I don't know that anyone can.
Well, all I can say is that with time will come knowledge, if you do not close off your mind to objective, logical argument. Further, your chances of defending your position here are much better than my chances of defending my position at a pro-ID blog: posts not toeing the party line are repeatedly and systematically deleted and their authors banned. I haven't seen any cases of banning at PT, but have been told they occurr with the most egregious of cursing. (Though I noticed my '$hit sandwich' comment made it through ;)
You are correct- they argue this position quite incessantly, despite it having been shown lacking. If you want to know why some on this blog get so upset at the anti-evolution movement and its proponents I would say this is the most salient reason- the responses from our side are ignored, wholesale. The response of ID intellectuals is the academic equivalent of what kids do on the play ground- stick their fingers in their ears and loudly repeat their arguments as if volume lends veracity.
What makes IC an argument from ignorance is how it is defined. IC is defined, on its face, as "was not evolved." Or more succinctly, any evidence for IC is merely gaps in our knowledge of evolutionary history. ie: We dont know how this evolved, ergo irriducibly complex. Problem is, science doesn't like to just sit around and accept such a proclamation. Some grad student someplace is gonna write a paper and show how that irriducibly complex structure could have evolved. To date, I know of no structures that have been determined to be irriducibly complex. I will let other PTers point you to the critiques of IC because I am lazy, and John Stewart is on in 20 minutes.
You just hit my favorite argument- there is NO benefit to such a theory. The theory of ID (whether one considers IC or not) explains nothing, offers no testable, scientific observations, nor has it been demonstrated in even a single instance. More over, such a theory does quite a bit of harm- undermining the critical thinking skills American scientists, engineers, and indeed, general citizens will need to be competative in the global economic market. Saying ID is a valid theory with lots of benefits to science is demonstrably false and a severe disservice to us as a nation. Why do IDiots hate America? ;) Oh and yes, it's a very personal bias- I believe the technical term for it is "Will-not-suffer-fools-ism".
Michael Geissler · 12 September 2005
To the good Reverend Dr Flank;
Are you keeping a running total of just how many times the fearless ID defenders have run away from your standard response?
Wayne Francis · 12 September 2005
Ginger Yellow · 13 September 2005
"but don't most ID's argue that Irreducible complexity has accomplished this?"
They do but it hasn't. To add to the comments of Wayne Francis and drtomaso, here's what else is wrong with IC.
1) IC demands that evolution do something it has never claimed to do and then goes "Ha!" when it doesn't. Namely: most IC theorists insist that the potentially IC system cannot change in functionality, nor may its parts change in form or function if it is to be evolvable. This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, which actually predicts that form and function of parts will change.
2) Even if something could somehow be proven to be IC, as Behe and others define it, this would not be evidence for ID. It would be evidence against evolution. Without positive evidence for ID, it could just as well fit an infinite number of other hypotheses. ID is fatally flawed as science because of the political necessity of disavowing any knowledge of or interest in the designer. A truly scientific theory of ID would make claims about the design and construction processes and look for evidence of said processes, in the same way that genetic engineering leaves telltale traces. If this scientific ID explained the evidence better than evolution, then people might take it seriously. ID does not make such predictions and politically cannot, hence it is contentless and sterile.
3) Every system that IDists claim to be IC, even the stupid mousetrap analogy, has been disproven. The bacterial flagellum, the eye, the blood clotting cascade - all demonstrably evolvable.
For these reasons, and the ones given by others above, not one evolutionary biologist loses any sleep over irreducible complexity.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 13 September 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 13 September 2005
Timothy Chase · 13 September 2005
Timothy Chase · 13 September 2005
Anyone else who wants to point out a few of their favorite points can certainly do so as well -- but please pay special attention to my brilliant insights... I would have, but humility forbids!
;-)
Moses · 13 September 2005
Norman Doering · 13 September 2005
Timothy Chase wrote: "IDers will always endeavor above all else to steer clear of anything testable which might disprove ID --- only they don't always know exactly where that line is."
Well, their theories, like evolutionary theory, are usually adjusted to account for the facts they know. That's why few of the reputable IDers are young earth creationists -- the earth is too obviously old. When talking about falsifiability we are necessarily talking about things we will discover in the future.
I think IDers and "Darwinists" will make very different long term predictions. Darwinists will tend to see a possibility for real human level artificial intelligence. IDers will generally reject the idea that we will be able to create human level AI because they believe intelligence has some supernatural component. This is because their life creating intelligence has to exist before life and even the material universe.
"... real theorists in empirical science always strive to make their hypotheses testable."
Real theories mean something about how you view the world and what you think is possible. I sometimes hear about experiments that "prove" that prayer can heal. I tend to reject these (they're always based on interpretting slight variations in data which shouldn't have statistical significance). If it were really proven that double blind prayer can heal, I would have to adjust mt view of the universe.
"...the more unlikely their predictions seem to be, the more credit their hypotheses and theories will earn if the predictions turn out to be true --- so this is what they aim for. (You will see a bunch of this ID-"hedging of bets" in the Wells article if you take the time to look at it.)"
I think it's worth talking about what each theory predicts for the future of science. We are going to have genetic engineering, AI, transgenic animals, neural prosthesis and more. Where do ID and Darwinism differ in what is possible for the future? The more we lay that out the more easily it will be able to tell which is right as that future unfolds.
Moses · 13 September 2005
Ginger Yellow · 13 September 2005
"I think IDers and "Darwinists" will make very different long term predictions. Darwinists will tend to see a possibility for real human level artificial intelligence. IDers will generally reject the idea that we will be able to create human level AI because they believe intelligence has some supernatural component. This is because their life creating intelligence has to exist before life and even the material universe."
I presume that John Searle accepts evolution, and yet he vehemently denies that there is a possibility of human-esque artificial intelligence. His arguments, ironically enough, have a touch of ID about them: "I can't possibly imagine that a computer could really understand Chinese, therefore it cannot". Dennett has interesting things to say about this and on how evolutionary theory affects our view of intelligence.
"I sometimes hear about experiments that "prove" that prayer can heal. I tend to reject these (they're always based on interpretting slight variations in data which shouldn't have statistical significance). If it were really proven that double blind prayer can heal, I would have to adjust mt view of the universe."
Funnily enough the guy who did the latest experiment that claims to prove the efficacy of prayer in healing completely "buried the lead", so to speak. If the experiment's results were accurate, they would not only demonstrate the efficacy of prayer, but also backwards causality! The supplicants in the blind experiment prayed after the subjects recovered (or died).
Onespeed · 13 September 2005
Hi, long term lurker here attempting some semblance of a coherent post.
Something that has just struck me about ID proponents and their 'teach the controversy' mantra is the hypocracy therein. These people who are so adamant that alternative views on creation are included in the high school curriculum are the same people who are so vehemently against including anything about alternative views on sexuality in schools.
Surely alternative lifestyles are a genuine controversy? I can't help but feel that the supporters of genuine science are missing a golden opportunity to really make these pseudo-scientific, religious fundamentalists squirm.
Norman Doering · 13 September 2005
Ginger Yellow wrote: "I presume that John Searle accepts evolution, and yet he vehemently denies that there is a possibility of human-esque artificial intelligence."
I think you might be operating on old news. Here's Searle's web page:
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~jsearle/articles.html
Reading his article, "Consciousness," I get the feeling Searle is changing his mind.
Ginger Yellow · 13 September 2005
Thanks for the link. I'll read it over tonight, but this is interesting: " I discovered this when I was debating people in artificial intelligence and found that many of them were in the grip of Descartes, a philosopher many of them had not even read."
Funnily enough, the main criticism of Searle's stance back then was that he was enthralled by the Cartesian theatre, although not actually Cartesian dualism.
L.T. Paladin · 13 September 2005
"What odds? The fact that your self proclaimed limited knowledge in the area you are trying to debate?"
No I did not say that I had limited knowledge of what I was debating only about IC in comparison with the entire community that would utterly close in, mob, and shout down anything I say anyway.
"The arguments you are raising are not new ones. Like others have said they have been debunked a million times before. Including IC."
I beg to differ; I have actually debated about this elsewhere and been rather successful. I know what IC is its not becoming to be so condescending.
"I'd wager that many on this board would even admit to believing that there are other "Intelligent" beings out in the universe and its just that we haven't encountered any credible evidence of them yet."
So now they believe in magic and fairies? If not why could these not be designers?
"So you say carbon based life can't come about naturally but other forms of life could. Why? What is your evidence for this? What is your evidence that "it cannot come about naturally?""
Why not? We know what can't happen... what's wrong with looking for an explanation in what can happen?
"Life else where in the universe could come about via different "forces" but you need to explain why the you feel the "forces" that have been shown to create life as we know it really couldn't have created us."
Then you are not arguing against the validity of ID so much as that it is false?
"Again we are not saying it can't."
YOU may not be, but others tried to argue that Designers must have designers, so I agree with you here.
"Every system that IDists claim to be IC, even the stupid mousetrap analogy, has been disproven. The bacterial flagellum, the eye, the blood clotting cascade - all demonstrably evolvable.
For these reasons, and the ones given by others above, not one evolutionary biologist loses any sleep over irreducible complexity."
Here I would beg to differ again. I believe every attempt to make the IC system's explainable has been adequately addressed. This however isn't the issue I am arguing... my proposition is ID makes predictions, is testable and falsifiable. This has nothing to do if the science is proven right or wrong.
"The problem with IC is that once an individual structure has been proven evolvable, one just moves on to the next structure for which an evolutionary pathway has not been researched and discovered. And so on, and so on, ad infinitum. If I can't make you see the problem with such an argument from ignorance, I don't know that anyone can."
I see a major problem with that sort of logic. I, however think ID has mucho predictions to offer. Like evolution ID has a theory and a meta theory. The theory itself has particular predictions that I am sure everyone has heard before... function for "junk" dna... IC structures... etc. but also the meta theory makes or can make virtually infinite other predictions on specification of certain organs. As I said in a previous post... it's a whole new conceptual framework... in my opinion even if ID is proven false or ID as a theory at least, the concept of Design should be applied to biology anyway. IMHO
"You are the one that is saying that we couldn't be created by natural forces but something else that created us could."
No I am only saying this of Carbon based creatures.
"How did the intelligent designer perform his little magic?"
No evidence of how, only that he did so I couldn't tell you... not like it was relevant anyway.
"Step up to the plate with a theory of how a non-supernatural intelligence could come into existence, fully-formed (as opposed to evolving), come to our planet and design human beings to spring fully formed from the vats of their creative efforts. Please feel free to posit any mystery forces without resorting to a supernatural explanation.
And, FWIW, the "space seed" is an old, old idea. It was old when Star Trek (the original series) used it in 1968 (The Paradise Syndrome). It is even older, and more cliche', now."
If I did that it would not be a theory but only conjecture.
"ID not even a theory from which experiments can be drawn as it predicts nothing."
You say this moses, but we are discussing whether what you just said is true or not... so that really didn't offer much to the discussion... I assume it was merely an oversight though, but thanks for the feedback.
"These people who are so adamant that alternative views on creation are included in the high school curriculum are the same people who are so vehemently against including anything about alternative views on sexuality in schools."
To Onespeed and anyone else reading: these cannot be the same people these religious fundamentalists as the one's who support the ID theory... simply because the ID theory is at odds with their creation stories... so ID is in the same position as evolution is in this sense.
Timothy Chase · 13 September 2005
James Taylor · 13 September 2005
Timothy Chase · 13 September 2005
qetzal · 13 September 2005
Norman Doering · 13 September 2005
Timothy Chase: "Remember that there are correspondence principles relating Newtonian mechanics to Special Relativity, Newtonian Graviational theory to General Relativity, and Classical Physics to Quantum Mechanics. Such is the pattern. New understanding does not wipe-out previous understanding --- it builds on it and corrects it to the extent that it was only an approximation."
I think Dembski knows that and is claiming ID is that. He's wrong of course.
It's fine to say that evolution is "...an observation that has been reinforced over and over again, and only a real nutcase tries to argue with it anymore," but that is a claim from authority and not a good argument. Yes, we are dealing with nut cases, and we have to prove they are nut cases to a larger world that doesn't believe they are. If we don't, then ignorance and democratic politics will undermine science.
One way to do that is to make bold predictions about the future and get it right. If you can't get it right, then there certainly is a gap in your knowledge whether you're right about evoilution or not.
I'll put my knowledge on the line and make my predictions:
1) Human level artificial intelligence by 2045. (by at least 2085.)
2) Genetic algorithms and Margolian algorithms inventing useful and revolutionary computer circuits and code that seem "specifically complex" and "irreducibly complex." (soon if not already).
3) Transgenic animals (already) as distinct improvements in the animal.
3b) Transgenic humans without an appendix, by 2046.
4) Designer babies popular by 2048.
Timothy Chase · 13 September 2005
Moses · 13 September 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 13 September 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 13 September 2005
Moses · 13 September 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 13 September 2005
"Argumentum ad Saddam".
Norman Doering · 13 September 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote: "Evolution is a theory of biology. AI has nothing to do with biology. Apples don't equal oranges."
No. You can't shove evolutionary biology into an air-tight compartment and pretend it doesn't have ramifications for other sciences. That is dishonest. Evolution, by means of any kind of selection, is not just a theory of biology. It's also an algorithm for use in computer science.
Also, if our bodies evolved, then so did our brains and thus our minds are also the product of natural processes and so subjects of study. To believe otherwise is to believe in a "supernatural" mind.
Norman Doering · 13 September 2005
Timothy Chase wrote: "Or if these predictions are not the result of a specific scientific theory, are they your own personal predictions --- so that you are trying to empirically test yourself?"
Yes, I'm putting my own metaphysical and political arguments to the empirical test.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 13 September 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 13 September 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 13 September 2005
Flint · 13 September 2005
Lenny:
While evolution is, technically speaking, a biological phenemenon and theory (as far as I know, anyway), at least part of the proposed mechanisms for evolution (RM+NS) form the foundation for a complex adaptive system. These systems can be (and have been) usefully modeled, in the sense of both accurately describing past events and correctly predicting non-obvious future events. Neural network systems have been trained to do these things as well, and I suppose such models could be considered AI.
I think it's legitimate to regard the mechanisms of evolution as algorithms. I think you may be misreading Norman Doering. He's saying there's nothing supernatural about the mind - it's an epiphenomenon of the organization of the brain, and presumably (hypothetically) the brain evolved because of the functional utility of that very epiphenomenon. The ability to react usefully to a stimulus is surely related to the ability to survive to reproduce.
Norman Doering · 13 September 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote: "no one cares about your, uh, 'metaphysical and political arguments'."
Prove it and stop commenting on them. The fact that you bother proves you care and that you don't like it.
Norman Doering · 13 September 2005
Flint wrote: "I think you may be misreading Norman Doering. He's saying there's nothing supernatural about the mind - it's an epiphenomenon of the organization of the brain,..."
Yes. Epiphenomenon is a good enough way to put it for now.
"... and presumably (hypothetically) the brain evolved because of the functional utility of that very epiphenomenon."
Yes. And eventually speculations in evolutionary psychology should start paying off. However, right now it looks about as much like science as ID does.
"The ability to react usefully to a stimulus is surely related to the ability to survive to reproduce."
I'd go farther. Slugs and fruit-flies react to stimuli, human beings invent computers and cars. I'm saying all of human intelligence, from art, play and religion to science itself serves a survival and breeding purpose.
But there's something odd about our situation on this planet; we are so much better at it than any other close competitor. So, another prediction -- we will find that somewhere and somewhen, about a hundred thousand years ago to as recently as twenty thousand years ago, we had another competitor that forced our intellectual evolution.
Other branches on our primate tree were fighting each other for survival and using their brains as a weapon.
ts (not Tim) · 13 September 2005
Timothy Chase · 13 September 2005
Timothy Chase · 13 September 2005
ts (not Tim) · 13 September 2005
ts (not Tim) · 13 September 2005
ts (not Tim) · 13 September 2005
Timothy Chase · 13 September 2005
Norman Doering · 13 September 2005
Timothy Chase wrote:
"... 'you're just making unsupported claims that will be forgotten in a few days, let alone 40 years.' ...I am going to have to second that. I am interested in testing theories, not oracles."
Just because I didn't support them in a few short posts doesn't mean I can't. And I'm not the only one making the claims. I might be forgotten, but the people who are really tackling the problem won't be.
I'm not the one who matters - nor are you. These claims and promises are part of our culture and they will be remembered -- and if they fail, there will be questions.
According to Lloyd Watts:
http://www.lloydwatts.com/neuroscience.shtml
"In the next 10 years, computers will be capable of performing computations fast enough, and have enough memory, to be able to perform at the level of a mouse, which is pretty darn good -- mice can see and hear in stereo, navigate unknown environments, find food, interact socially, etc. The hard part for us will be figuring out what algorithms to run on these amazing computers of 2010. That's why I'm working on reverse engineering the brain now. In 10 years, the silicon will be ready to do amazing, brain-like things."
And here:
http://www.wcci2002.org/speakers/lloyd.html
"The neuroscience community has advanced our collective knowledge of brain function to the point where it is now possible to build accurate and meaningful computational models of major brain pathways. I have focused on the auditory pathway, aided by direct collaboration with the world's leading auditory neuroscientists. It is now possible to visualize the responses of large ensembles of neurons to complex real-world sounds such as speech, music, and sounds moving through space, for the first time giving us the opportunity to see the computations we are effortlessly performing at a subconscious level. With care, it is possible to verify that our models agree with biological function -- once the principles of operation are known, it is in fact possible to build engineered systems that outperform the human system in quantifiable ways.
I expect advances in computing capability to continue to increase over the next two decades, and our knowledge of brain function to improve, to the point where it will be possible to build a real-time functioning model of the brain, including the sensory systems, motor systems, emotional response and memory systems, and regions responsible for cognitive thought. Silicon performance is no longer a limiting factor.
I believe, however, that an understanding of brain fuction will be necessary but not sufficient to create a "human-like" intelligence - other organs in the body are involved in a vital way in modulating brain function and behavior(the adrenal glands are one obvious example). The next two decades promise an exciting period of advances in our understanding of the nature of human intelligence, and the development of increasingly intelligent assistants and prosthetics that enrich human life in ways we can now only imagine."
---
The questions I didn't address:
"1. Are you taking into account economic trends, political and ideological trends, and shifting populations?"
The trend that matters is investment in the research. I'm assuming it will be steady for a few decades and then accelerate when the prize seems at hand.
"2. What about weather?"
Global warming and increased destruction from hurricanes like Katrina could sap energy and resources from the research and set everything back. I am assuming it won't.
"3. Do you think that the failure or success of Fundies in the intervening years might have any effect upon your predictions?"
In the long term the fundies don't matter. They don't produce good scientific research results and even the most fundamentalist president we've ever had, George W. Bush, is sinking the same kind of funds into supercomputer research that his predecessors did.
"4. If they have in fact succeeded, but somehow your predictions have come true, will there be anyone to celebrate your success?"
The fundies can keep the bulk of the population ignorant, but they always have been ignorant. There've always only been a few people involved in cutting edge research and the fundies can't reach us. Religion after human-level AI will then adapt to AI and evolutionary algorithms in ways Dembski can't.
We'll not get rid of religion that easily. But I suspect it will adapt and somehow see man as a co-creator with God.
"5. Will there be anyone to adjust political trends in light of that success?"
In the long run -- no. According to Vernor Vinge it means the end of the human race:
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix/vinge/vinge-sing.html
Norman Doering · 13 September 2005
ts (not Tim) wrote: "...looks like the worst sort of panadaptationism."
I do not believe all features of organisms are adaptations. Ear lobes are pretty useless. I assume by panadaptationism you mean everything is selected, if not -- I think you got the wrong word. No, I don't believe that.
However, it seems that our brains are adapted -- they're not useless -- they are too useful and too costly. The question is what did they adapt to. We're too good at what we do. We're too far from our closest living relatives, monkeys and apes, and we must have gotten some extra evolutionary pressure they didn't get.
Either that, or we're not really as far from monkeys as we like to think. (98 percent genetic similarity is a lot.)
But there are good reasons to suppose there are more branches on the primate tree, (we've been finding a few and will probably find more) and also good reason to assume we killed them off our cousins considering our war-like behavior these days. We fight over religion. We enslaved each other. There is always some war between humans somewhere on this planet.
"And it's utterly nonsensical. Do artists outbreed scientists AND scientists outbreed football players AND football players outbreed priests AND priests outbreed artists?"
Well, I do recall a news show awhile back where a sports star, I think it was Magic Johnson, admitted he had slept with over 200 women. That's better than I'm doing.
"Do good artists outbreed bad artists? Do classical musicians outbreed rappers?"
They don't have too, the fact that any artist exists at all though is a question -- why do we value it?
"Do you have any grasp of such concepts as differential fitness and natural selection?"
I think so -- maybe I see them differently than you do.
ts (not Tim) · 14 September 2005
ts (not Tim) · 14 September 2005
Norman Doering · 14 September 2005
ts (not Tim) wrote: "Nice bunch of strawmen."
Nope. You're charge of panadaptationism was probably a strawman (or maybe an honest misunderstanding). Saying our brains adapted due to evolutionary pressure is what I originally claimed and what you responded to and what I answered. There is no straw except from you.
The flip comment about sports stars was just a humourous aside. But it seems you have no sense of humor.
Norman Doering · 14 September 2005
I wrote: "Yes. Epiphenomenon is a good enough way to put it for now."
I take that comment back. I thought "Epiphenomenon" meant something like "emerging from complexity." I didn't realize it implied the phenomena was useless or accidental.
Epiphenomenon is not a good word to describe the brain.
I stand by this comment which negates the charge that I think the human mind is an Epiphenomenon and appeared in the same post:
"I'd go farther. Slugs and fruit-flies react to stimuli, human beings invent computers and cars. I'm saying all of human intelligence, from art, play and religion to science itself serves a survival and breeding purpose.
But there's something odd about our situation on this planet; we are so much better at it than any other close competitor. So, another prediction --- we will find that somewhere and somewhen, about a hundred thousand years ago to as recently as twenty thousand years ago, we had another competitor that forced our intellectual evolution.
Other branches on our primate tree were fighting each other for survival and using their brains as a weapon."
I can't claim there are no "Epiphenomenon" or accidents -- or appendix-like uselessness to all our mental funtions, but it seems our inventiveness is a huge survival trait and art and sport and other seemingly useless things are probably involved in making us inventive.
Our inventiveness really shows itself off in war. And we've been war-like for a long time, more so than any other primate I'm aware of.
But this isn't my own conclusion, I'm getting it from a book:
The Lucifer Principle:
A Scientific Expedition Into The Forces of History
by Howard Bloom
http://www.bookworld.com/lucifer/about.html
ts (not Tim) · 14 September 2005
Wesley R. Elsberry · 14 September 2005
ts (not Tim) · 14 September 2005
Oops; it seems that some part of my brain -- not a conscious one -- made a pun.
Norman Doering · 14 September 2005
ts (not Tim) wrote: "No, your claim was "I'm saying all of human intelligence, from art, play and religion to science itself serves a survival and breeding purpose", that's what I responded to, and justifying that claim is what you've dodged."
How is it different? Is it the word "all"? The word "all" is a mistake perhaps, I can't support "all" of human intelligence serves a survival and breeding purpose.
Your comment: "And it's utterly nonsensical. Do artists outbreed scientists AND scientists outbreed football players AND football players outbreed priests AND priests outbreed artists?"
I don't know if artists outbreed scientists, I think things are pretty equal when you've got monogomy.
It's just a stupid strawman question you asked me and deserves a flip comment because a scientist might have an artist or a sports star for a son -- there is no necessary or essential genetic difference between scientists, priests, artists or sports stars that I know of. It doesn't matter in the least to what I said. We are all potentially scientists, priests, artists and sports stars (well, some sports stars might be genetic freaks who spreading weird genes, but odds are most of us can do each of those things even if we can't rise to the top).
Your question implies goofy things and has nothing to do with what I claimed. You either have serious misunderstanding of what I wrote that I don't fathom or you're playing a stupid game.
ts (not Tim) · 14 September 2005
What you don't fathom is evolution -- competition among alleles, not between humans and monkeys.
Norman Doering · 14 September 2005
ts (not Tim) wrote: "What you don't fathom is evolution --- competition among alleles, not between humans and monkeys."
Clarify something for me: How is it alleles compete if there is no competition among/within the species?
It's not between man and monkey, but between groups of men, between socities. Civilizations live and die and each of us has to adapt to the civilization we find ourself in. We have to be good enough to find a mate. And that means being a bit of a scientist, a bit of an artist, a bit of a priest and a bit of a sports star. Enough to get by in our culture. Not everyone does.
ts (not Tim) · 14 September 2005
Norman Doering · 14 September 2005
ts (not Tim) wrote: "Ah, so that's why the majority of humans are scientists, artists, priests, and/or sports stars."
No. They're not. Most jobs suck and don't let us be fully human. But almost everyone I know likes music, plays some instrument, even if poorly, thinks a bit like a scientist when they have, thinks a bit like a priest when they have to, and plays some game they enjoy. They just don't do it on the job.
Your question is insulting and is either another strawman or you just don't get it.
Now, you answer my question: How is it alleles compete if there is no competition among/within the species?
Norman Doering · 14 September 2005
I wrote: "Now, you answer my question: How is it alleles compete if there is no competition among/within the species?"
Let me ask that question the way you ask me questions:
So, you think bits of DNA are fighting it out when sperm and egg meet? The male DNA is singing and dancing trying to impress the female DNA?
ts (not Tim) · 14 September 2005
Norman Doering · 14 September 2005
ts (not Tim) wrote: "And this shows that art and sports are survival traits that contribute to breeding, somehow."
I can only speak from my personal experience and it tells me that playing bass in a high school garage band and being good at volley ball can help you get laid. I also know from experience that being an atheist will get you rejected by quite a few religious women.
In answer to my question: How is it alleles compete if there is no competition among/within the species? you wrote:
"It's called fitness. Mate competition is only one factor,..."
But it is a factor. Song birds that don't sing well don't tend to breed either.
"... and you have utterly failed to show that the characteristics you mention have any bearing on mate competition,"
What kind of women are you sleeping with?
"... or the ability to produce, raise, or protect offspring."
I wouldn't think a song birds song or a peacock's plummage would help either. Females can be so weird.
"The fact is that you've made a claim that you can't support and are clueless as to what is involved in supporting that sort of claim."
My original claim, before you side tracked me with your straw men arguments was that our brains are under evolutionary pressure and that pressure is coming from within us: we are killing our evolutionary cousins. This is seen in our tendancy towards war. Winning wars requires inventiveness. Thinking like an artist and scientist is part of being inventive. A society that can not provide that creativity in time of war will loose. Thus, we've got societies that select for it. What women like is part of selecting for it. The other part is lots of your civilization dying in a war.
ts (not Tim) · 14 September 2005
ts (not Tim) · 14 September 2005
P.S. It can hardly be a "straw man" when it was your statement -- that all these cultural traits are directed toward breeding and survival -- that I responded to. And when I point out that we don't observe what we would expect if that were so, namely prevalence of those traits in the human population, you respond with silly anecdotes about getting laid in high school. Tell me, how are those offspring doing?
Norman Doering · 14 September 2005
ts (not Tim) wrote: "...that seems to be your basic problem."
It might be your problem if you can't look at the life going on around you and see things the biology texts don't teach.
ts (not Tim) · 14 September 2005
Yeah, that's what the IDiots say. But the fact is that you seem clueless as to the life going on around you. Who has more children, the rich or the poor? Who has more children, scientists or non-scientists? Artists or non-artists? How about priests -- do they have a lot of children? What about ... people with symmetric faces? I guess you would have to read a book to know about that one.
Norman Doering · 14 September 2005
ts (not Tim) wrote: "It can hardly be a "straw man" when it was your statement --- that all these cultural traits are directed toward breeding and survival."
You don't think being able to invent atom bombs and stealth aircraft are aiding our civilization's survival? Art and science are part of that. Religion seems to be part of war too.
"And when I point out that we don't observe what we would expect if that were so, namely prevalence of those traits in the human population,..."
I say those traits are prevalent, they just don't manifest themselves as top of the line sport or art or science without effort.
I wonder how many high school drop outs manage to breed?
"... you respond with silly anecdotes about getting laid in high school. Tell me, how are those offspring doing?"
There were no offspring, but I do assume a wife that will have my children will be at least as selective as the ladies who are willing to sleep with me for other reasons.
And where is your dancing and singing DNA?
ts (not Tim) · 14 September 2005
Norman Doering · 14 September 2005
ts (not Tim) "Who has more children, the rich or the poor?"
It doesn't matter. You're thinking top-of-the-line artists and sports stars, but those are only a manifestation of far more common traits even the poor need to breed. It's not about rich and poor. It's about functioning well enough in the culture to find a mate.
"Who has more children, scientists or non-scientists?"
It doesn't matter, non-scientists are enough of a scientist to pass the cultural tests.
"Artists or non-artists?"
If you have no interest in art at all, I think you'll find yourself a cultural failure and have little chance of breeding.
"How about priests --- do they have a lot of children?"
Some Catholic priests have had a lot of children, but not in the way you mean. You still have to have some priestly traits to get by in this culture even if you're not a priest.
"What about ... people with symmetric faces? I guess you would have to read a book to know about that one."
There is an ordinariness to most people -- but that ordinariness would be an incredibly high standard for monkeys to meet. I don't think you'll find many human women who want to mate with monkeys.
Norman Doering · 14 September 2005
ts (not Tim) wrote: "Do you have any idea how many girls drop out of school because they're pregnant?"
Actually no, I don't. Do you? And if so, how significant are the numbers? There only has to be a tendency -- and the tendency is toward the ordinary and our ordinary is a pretty high standard for any other primate species. I don't think it's many girls who drop out because they're pregnant. I think we do instill values. If there are -- then we've got problems that will cost us down the line. And if given a choice I think a lot of those girls do choose abortions.
Norman Doering · 14 September 2005
I wrote: You don't think being able to invent atom bombs and stealth aircraft are aiding our civilization's survival? Art and science are part of that. Religion seems to be part of war too.
ts (not Tim) wrote: "Well now you seem to be arguing against yourself, but these aren't operating on the level of evolutionary selection."
I'm not arguing against myself - you don't understand the argument.
Those processes do operate at an evolutionary level is what I claim. Before we had atom bombs our ancestors had to first organise into bigger and bigger armies thus making civilizations. Then they invented stone tipped spears and axes for those armies. Then they came up with bows and arrows. Along the way we killed off the ones who could only organise into small tribes, who couldn't chip a spear point, who couldn't invent better weapons.
They're all dead because we killed them.
Norman Doering · 14 September 2005
Speaking of Catholic priests -- there are questions I have no answer for, such as why does pedophelia and homosexuality survive. Those seem like traits that would get wiped out. There are theories, but I'm not impressed by them.
But looking at the human race from my little corner of the world it does look like our tendency to war with other humans probably did create a selective pressure that made us scientists and inventors like no other species. I think it helped create civilization and culture -- and yet it could now destroy us. So things do have to change -- I'm not advocating war. I'm just seeing what's there.
Someone would have to explain how it couldn't have been such evolutionary pressure.
Alan · 14 September 2005
Norman Doering · 14 September 2005
Alan wrote: "The ancient Greeks seemed to regard homosexuality as normal, a phase one passed through to manhood, involving fixation on young boys."
That's weird. I've always been basically heterosexual and I don't think I had such a stage. However, there is an old joke by George Carlin, I think, where he's talking about how we are conditioned into rejecting homosexuality -- you turn off the lights and you think you're making out with a beautiful woman -- then the lights come on and you react, Yuk!, because it's a guy -- but while the lights were out you enjoyed it. Why can't you continue to enjoy it when your knowledge changes?
Then there is a scene in the movie "Hair" where one of the long haired hippies is questioned about whether his long hair is a sign of homosexuality. He says no, "but I'm not sure I'd throw Mick Jagger out of bed." That's a paraphrase. My memory is fuzzy on it. So, it seems possible for a normally heterosexual male to engage in homosexual behavior.
"There are I recall similar 'rites of passage' in New Guinea cultures."
Does "cultural homosexuality/bisexuality" count in the same way that "natural homosexuality" does? -- I'm not even sure what I mean by those terms. But it seems the kind of homosexuality that people like Andrew Sullivan write about isn't a mere posture as you suggest here:
"Maybe there was a survival advantage in adopting a homosexual posture in the adolescent period of development to avoid threatening the alpha-male, and being able to fight for his position on achieving full size and maturity."
Sullivan is at full size and maturity. It doesn't really explain to me why he would desire males over females. Why does that continue through our history when homosexuals wouldn't be breeding as often (but it does seem our culture has pushed homosexuals into marriage with females for its cultural value -- until recently -- it is possible that if we change our culture so homosexuals don't feel inclined to marry women but accept them as men that will be decreasing the number of gays).
But is that the way it works? Do gay men have gay children? I don't think so.
The only explanation that seems to make sense to me is that the mental software that fuels our sexual desire is very fragile and buggy and that the same mistake (whether nature or nuture or a combination of both -- I have no idea) keeps cropping up so you get -- what 13%? -- homosexuality in all cultures because that error is so easy and common.
Does anyone know for sure if there is a gay gene?
And I have heard there are gay penguins.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 14 September 2005
Norman Doering · 14 September 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank : "...none of Norman's 'predictions' comes from any biological theory of evolution."
Not completely. Evolution's algorithms are proven to have power in their use in AI and other fields. That power is part of demonstrating evolution. Also, neurophysiology is biology and even evolutionary biology and knowing the brain is the product of natural selective forces gives us some of the necessary insights needed to make such predictions.
"They are, as he correctly points out, "metaphysical and political" predictions."
In part, yes. A lot more than the known science has to work out. But only in part.
"So I am wondering what they have to do with biology. Or why 'evolution' makes these 'predictions' and ID doesn't."
I think ID necessarily makes negative predictions about AI. In essence, if ID is true we shouldn't be able to do the things we are in fact doing.
If the intelligence in ID and in us is somehow supernatural, then why can we make material neural nets do this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991001064257.htm
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1999/E/199904166.html
"Machine demonstrates superhuman speech recognition abilities. University of Southern California biomedical engineers have created the world's first machine system that can recognize spoken words better than humans can. A fundamental rethinking of a long-underperforming computer architecture led to their achievement."
Why should we believe in a supernatural/non-material intelligence when we can make a natural/material intelligence?
And what is Intelligence if that neural net doesn't qualify?
The reason more intelligence like that neural net is coming is because, in part, we know what made us intelligent -- evolution.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 14 September 2005
Norman Doering · 14 September 2005
I said "They're all dead because we killed them."
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote: "OK, so you don't know the difference between "biological evolution" and "cultural development"."
When you kill off your evolutionary cousins it's not just "cultural" anymore. The cultural has become a form of selectionism and is at least as deadly as anything in natural selection.
Wayne Francis · 15 September 2005