Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse in Dialogue

If ID had any positive evidence for itself then merely proposing or imagining a natural pathway would not be enough to trump it. But since ID is mostly an argument from impossibility (based on an argument from ignorance) it can be defeated by any plausible (consistent with natural laws and known processes)hypothesized natural pathway. In fact it is an unknown but potentially discoverable natural pathway that is the default.

tresmal said: If ID had any positive evidence for itself then merely proposing or imagining a natural pathway would not be enough to trump it. But since ID is mostly an argument from impossibility (based on an argument from ignorance) it can be defeated by any plausible (consistent with natural laws and known processes)hypothesized natural pathway. In fact it is an unknown but potentially discoverable natural pathway that is the default.

Many evolutionary biologists seem to think that if you can merely imagine a material force or process that could bring about some biological structure, then it’s immediately going to trump intelligent design.

I don’t think the burden on intelligent design is simply to come up with new experiments, new facts. The important thing is to find new ways to make sense of them.

David B. wrote: I wonder if Dembski’s (deliberately?) conflating an argument against irreducible complexity with one against ID. Certainly, if something is claimed to be irreducibly complex, the existence of a plausible natural pathway to its development is a strong argument against that claim.

Q.[Rothschild] You say, Even if a system is irreducibly complex and thus could not have been produced directly, however, one cannot definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route, right? A.[Behe] Yes. Q. And by indirect, you mean evolution from a pre-cursor with a different function than the system being studied? A. Yes, different function, perhaps different number of parts, and so on. Q. And one example of that is what's discussed in, among evolutionary biologists, as the concept of exaptation, correct? A. Yeah -- well, before I say, yes, I'd just like to say, the word exaptation is oftentimes used in loose sense, but, yes, that's generally correct. [Testimony from Day 12, am session]

Historically, the gist of the creationist/ID argument is that it is inconceivable that x could have evolved. Yes, merely coming up with a reasonable hypothesis that x could have evolved does falsify that creationist argument. Of course it does not evidence for mainstream evolutionary biology per se, but then again scientists then go for evidence that x really did evolve that way. And now we have strong evidence showing how many complex things really did evolve.

I'm always wonder why ID'ers are so enthusiastic about believing things that are little more than childish speculation. I wonder more about why rational human beings don't day, fine, God designed everything and he used evolution to do it. Now, go sit in the corner and leave us to the important work.

re Thomas:

Id'ers are so enthusiastic because "it's not about science"! IMO the entire ID/Creationism CAMPAIGN is about winning/corrupting hearts and minds. To do this - they sneed a scapegoat/enemy - intellectuals, athiests, "liberals",catholics whatever/whoever contradicts thier world view fit this category. How many ID'ers actually believe the tripe they call ID/creationism is speculatiion - IMO all the top dogs KNOW its just a scam - to milk funds, cheat the system (allow thier propoganda into public schools), and propogate hatred against those that don't share tyhier world view.

Thomas said: I'm always wonder why ID'ers are so enthusiastic about believing things that are little more than childish speculation. I wonder more about why rational human beings don't day, fine, God designed everything and he used evolution to do it. Now, go sit in the corner and leave us to the important work.

Poor Dembski, reduced to lies, blatant hypocrisy and crying for attention.
Oh...wait...rule 1 of cretonists...nothing new for 2000 years.

Thomas said: I wonder more about why rational human beings don't say, fine, God designed everything and he used evolution to do it.

Many evolutionary biologists seem to think that if you can merely imagine a material force or process that could bring about some biological structure, then it’s immediately going to trump intelligent design. But is there actual evidence for the creative power of these material forces?

1. Evolution is incapable of producing a certain feature, and
2. Evolution did not produce a certain feature.

Two Discovery Institute Authors Named to Texas Science Curriculum Review Board

Read about this here:

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/education/entries/2008/10/15/science_curriculum_reviewers_c.html

Panda's Thumb needs to jump on this. I am going to post this to PZ's blog to see if he can do something about it.

I just checked Pharyngula, and PZ is already on it.

Here is the link to Pharyngula:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/prepare_for_an_ugly_battle_in.php

What I would like to know is how is it that two species in similar environments
can be so completely different in evolution. Scientists tell us that species like the alligator
haven't changed for 200 million years, yet other species went through tremendous evolutionary change.
In that same 200 million years that alligators didn't change, we went from the first mammals to modern man.
That is pretty amazing randomness..

When I read statements like Dembski's I wonder how any ID person explains biogeography, cladistics, the fossil record, comparative genomics, etc. There is constantly no there there in any meaningful descriptive or predictive way at all. When we get rid of all of ID's rhetorical wizardry, we are left with nothing but the YEC monster under the bed.

Cembski: Many evolutionary biologists seem to think that if you can merely imagine a material force or process that could bring about some biological structure, then it’s immediately going to trump intelligent design.

Alligators and the predecessors of man weren't in similar environments. Also their ancestors of 200 million years ago were already quite different at that time, and changes can only build on what the species already has.

Henry

[quote]... then it’s immediately going to trump intelligent design.[/quote]

What trumps "intelligent design" is simply that it doesn't [i]explain[/i] anything in the first place. That by itself puts "I.D." out of the competition without the other side even having to do anything with regard to the alleged competition.

Henry

Oops, wrong quote tags...

The whole game is like this: "Your JUST-SO stories aren't
very scientific."

"Possibly so, but since we're talking purely rhetorical
arguments they blow the doors off your
JUST-MAGICALLY-HAPPENED stories."

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

When I read statements like Dembski’s I wonder how any ID person explains biogeography, cladistics, the fossil record, comparative genomics, etc.

That's easy, the same way they explain everything else: God did it.

wamba said: When I read statements like Dembski’s I wonder how any ID person explains biogeography, cladistics, the fossil record, comparative genomics, etc. That's easy, the same way they explain everything else: God did it.

That’s easy, the same way they explain everything else: God did it.

Padme said: What I would like to know is how is it that two species in similar environments can be so completely different in evolution. Scientists tell us that species like the alligator haven't changed for 200 million years, yet other species went through tremendous evolutionary change. In that same 200 million years that alligators didn't change, we went from the first mammals to modern man. That is pretty amazing randomness..

Dear Dale,

Thanks for your excellent reply to Padme. But as for me, I decided some time ago to "borrow" lyrics from an old Elton John/Bernie Taupin song to describe my "buddy" Bill Dembski's delusional state of mind:

Kept reading about Intelligent Design till my eyes were paralyzed.
Thought Bill Dembski's comments were most strange.
Recognizing that his defense of explanatory filter and
specified complexity were so queer.
Gratified to be reading the real truth from Nick Matzke.
Reading the science truth from Wes Elsberry too.

So, where to now, Bill Dembski?
If it's true, I'm in your hands.
I may not be a Christian,
but I've done all one man can.
I understand I am on a road
where all that was is gone...
So where to now, Bill Dembski?
Show me which road I am on.

Recognize that Intelligent Design is
pathetic Klingon Cosmology
Recognize why it's just queer
mendacious intellectual pornography.
Understanding why you're so wrong Bill Dembski
Your mind paralyzed by your Christian God.

Specified Complexity, Irreducible Complexity,
Just all the same to me.
Mendacious religious nonsense,
Pretending to be scientific theory.

So, where to now, Bill Dembski?
If it's true, I'm in your hands.
I may not be a Christian,
but I've done all one man can.
I understand I am on a road
where all that was is gone...
So where to now, Bill Dembski?
Show me which road I am on.

Regards,

John

P. S. 'Tis my Amazon.com review of their "dialogue"

Dembski: Many evolutionary biologists seem to think that if you can merely imagine a material force or process that could bring about some biological structure, then it’s immediately going to trump intelligent design.

Dale Husband said:

Padme said: What I would like to know is how is it that two species in similar environments can be so completely different in evolution. Scientists tell us that species like the alligator haven't changed for 200 million years, yet other species went through tremendous evolutionary change. In that same 200 million years that alligators didn't change, we went from the first mammals to modern man. That is pretty amazing randomness..

Mammals evolved from reptiles and then proceeded to diversify into numerous species, including man, because changes happened to occur to them that made them different from reptiles and then from each other, while taking over ecological niches vacated by the dinosaurs and other animals that because extinct at the end of Cretaceous period. But crocodilians already occupied their niches throughout the age of dinosaurs, so they didn't need to change. Get it?

Padme -
there are several common mis-conceptions about evolution

you are assuming that evolution is "directional" or leads to "optimal solutions" - it doesn't, it leads to marginally better adapted (solutions) to the environment/niche than competitors are - there are MANY differences between crocs alive today and those from 200 million years ago - crocs occupy many fewer niches than previously - see any 40 foot long marine crocs around?

another common mis-conception is about "living fossils" crocs today may be much more like thier ancestors that lived 200 million years ago vs. US but THEY have evolved over those 200 Million years - they BECAME the crocs you see today. And because something has relicual traits (traits that are the same as thier ancestrors) does not mean the derived (traits that are different) are "better" or "MORE evolved" just that they have changed. If I were able to pluck a population of T-Rex out of the past (like Jurrasic Park) I suspect that population might be able to survive on the African Savannah - just fine - even though the T-rex is more "primitive" or "less evolved" that modern leopards.

Padme - it's not necessarily the strongest animals that survive and produce the most offspring. It could be the sneakiest, the best camouflaged or the ones that can go longest without food during a dry season. I don't think longer legs would benefit crocs as they would get in the way when going through dense waterside vegetation and when the croc rolls, one of its methods for ripping off a chunk of meat. We cannot tell if its eyesight has improved but its requirements seem not to be very onerous, as long as it can see and identify its prey from a reasonable distance.

It may have evolved physiologically to have faster reactions but I do not know how close it is to the limits in this respect. It might also benefit from a larger jaw and more powerful muscles but there is a trade-off. More muscle and jaw means more inertia and less agility. The balance between strength, size and speed will be affected by their prey. If crocs started feeding on elephants I would guess that there would be fairly quick evolution to a more powerful, but possibly slower, croc.

I mean after 200 million years of evolution where mammals became man, you would think the crocks would have at least grown longer legs, or better eyesight, or longer tails.

Organisms, including crocodilians, are limited by their history. Once crocs adapted to their aquatic niche, the easiest and simplest changes were those that made them better adapted to that niche, not to those that would enable crocs to suddenly live in deserts without bodies of water. If crocs had started to evolve in that direction, they would have found themselves in competition with dinosaurs already adapted to desert life and they would have been driven to extinction.

Those organisms that are known as "living fossils" are of two basic types:
1. They are very unspecialized, living in a wide variety of environments and having a varied diet. These species could split off groups that could evolve into more specialized forms.
2. They are so well adapted to one particular niche that no other species can complete with them, and their niche is one that lasts for hundreds of millions of years.
Both are true of the crocs. Bodies of water are everywhere, so there are plenty of places for crocs to live and feed on animals. At the same time, there are few other species that are as well adapted to live as aquatic predators that are also able to prey on land animals.

Crocs are currently adapted to be the perfect survivors and the perfect predators. Aside from roaches, I can imagine few other creatures besides crocs that may be around long after even most of today's mammal lines have become extinct.

Dale Husband said: Organisms, including crocodilians, are limited by their history. Once crocs adapted to their aquatic niche, the easiest and simplest changes were those that made them better adapted to that niche, not to those that would enable crocs to suddenly live in deserts without bodies of water. If crocs had started to evolve in that direction, they would have found themselves in competition with dinosaurs already adapted to desert life and they would have been driven to extinction. Those organisms that are known as "living fossils" are of two basic types: 1. They are very unspecialized, living in a wide variety of environments and having a varied diet. These species could split off groups that could evolve into more specialized forms. 2. They are so well adapted to one particular niche that no other species can complete with them, and their niche is one that lasts for hundreds of millions of years. Both are true of the crocs. Bodies of water are everywhere, so there are plenty of places for crocs to live and feed on animals. At the same time, there are few other species that are as well adapted to live as aquatic predators that are also able to prey on land animals. Crocs are currently adapted to be the perfect survivors and the perfect predators. Aside from roaches, I can imagine few other creatures besides crocs that may be around long after even most of today's mammal lines have become extinct.

Stanton said: The modern-day crocodilian groups, the true crocodiles, the alligators, and the gharials, arose relatively late, either right before or right after the K/T Extinction event.

Kevin B said:

Stanton said: The modern-day crocodilian groups, the true crocodiles, the alligators, and the gharials, arose relatively late, either right before or right after the K/T Extinction event.

Didn't Kitzmiller demonstrate conclusively that the Intelligent Designers proliferated to fill the niche left by the disappearance of the Creation Scientists at the 1986 (Edwards?) Extinction Event? Which of course explains why the two groups appear to be quite so similar, even on close inspection. :)

Of course, the Intelligent Design proponents don’t fool anyone but the gullible, as well as their own fans, and most are slowly but surely reverting back to their original Creation Scientist forms.

Stanton said: ... and most are slowly but surely reverting back to their original Creation Scientist forms.

Thanks for the Croc explanation, Stanton. This is fascinating stuff for me, a non-scientist nontheless interested in natural sciences. I was about to ask "But what about alligators?" =0)

Vive la Panda's Thumb

I was about to ask “But what about alligators?”

Henry J said: Yeah, do [alligators] taste like chicken?

Scott S. said: Thanks for the Croc explanation, Stanton. This is fascinating stuff for me, a non-scientist nontheless interested in natural sciences. I was about to ask "But what about alligators?" =0)