Some Questions about Intelligent Design
I have to admit to being a bit of an Intelligent Design (ID) addict. I believe it is utterly wrong and should not be taught as science. I believe that there is overwhelming evidence for neo-Darwinism (ND) and that while there are some phenomena that ND finds it difficult to explain, this no more destructive to ND than an inexplicable orbit for a planet would be destructive to Newton’s laws of motion. I am also concerned that the rise of ID may lead to the rise of more sinister movements which may lead to the degradation of the scientific approach which has brought human kind so many benefits (and this is not just a problem for the USA - see http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1714171,00.html). Nevertheless, the questions that ID raises, and forces us to answer, are interesting ones which deserve to be taken seriously. I would certainly approve of discussing the questions in a philosophy class as long as the teacher understood the science and the issues.
However, I have some questions about ID. I expect someone has already asked these questions and that someone else has answered them. But I have never seen the questions or the answers. Obviously I think they pose problems for the ID movement, but I am hoping that an ID proponent will take this in the spirit of enquiry and not as personal attack and respond appropriately. So here goes:
1 What exactly is being designed?
Is it, for example, an individual organism, a species, a mechanism such as blood clotting, or just the process which generates all of this? How much did the designer have in mind and how much did the designer just design the process and then see how it turned out?
2 In the case of biological phenomena what is the specification?
This question requires some explanation. William Dembski uses the concept of complex specified information as proof of design. This can be explained using the Dembski’s own example. Suppose an archer shoots at an arrow at a large wall. The arrow hits the wall and then the archer draws a ring round the arrow and declares he has hit the bullseye. The chances of the arrow hitting that exact point in the wall are tiny (or at least they were tiny before he shot the arrow). However, this tells us nothing about the archer’s skill. Compare this to an archer who draws a target on the wall and then shoots a hundred arrows that all hit the target. Both outcomes are highly improbable but the second is the result of the design of the archer, the first is not. Dembksi says the outcome in the second case is specified because the outcome fits a pattern which is independent of the event itself. The circle was drawn on the wall before a single arrow had been shot.
This is all fair enough. But how does this extend to biological phenomena? Suppose we observe a biological system such as the much discussed flagellum of bacteria, or the system of blood clotting, and we decide that it is indeed highly improbable that such a system could have evolved according to standard Darwinian processes (I don’t accept this – but assume it for the sake of the argument). So far we have the equivalent of an arrow in the wall. For Dembski to use this as evidence of design he needs the equivalent of the circle which has been independently drawn. Most intelligent design proponents would say the independent pattern is that the mechanism fulfils its function in the organism. E.g. how extraordinary that this combination of proteins should combine to allow blood clotting. But this needs defining in more detail. Does this mean a mechanism using this particular combination of proteins? In which case it is equivalent to drawing the circle after the arrow has been shot. Or is it something broader? Perhaps any mechanism that allows for blood to clot? Or any mechanism that prevents excessive bleeding in case of injury? Or any mechanism that fulfils the functions of blood without excessive risk from injury? Each one is a broader target, equivalent to bigger target on the wall, and allows for more possible solutions. Furthermore as soon as the specification moves to something broader than this specific combination of proteins it becomes pretty much impossible to calculate the probability of hitting it.
3 How can you conclude that because a phenomenon appears improbable according to a ND explanation that it is improbable for all chance explanations?
I believe that an ND explanation is by far the best explanation for the evolution of most biological phenomena and those phenomena that appear difficult will either be resolved according to ND or by some slight modification of ND. However, suppose one day an incontrovertible counterexample is found e.g. a large number of new fossils destroying the picture of divergence from a common ancestor (mammalian fossils in the pre-Cambrian etc). Or let us suppose for the sake of argument that systems such as blood clotting are shown to be quite impossible to evolve through ND methods. How, do we jump from this to ID? Remember the design argument requires that an outcome be improbable and specified. It is not sufficient to show that an outcome be improbable according to one chance explanation. It has to be shown to be improbable according to any chance explanation. If evolutionary biologists should come across serious counter-evidence to ND they would seek alternative explanations or modifications of the ND e.g. Larmarckism. These would be proposed processes which could then be tested by inspection of molecular biology, the fossil record, taxonomy etc. Why should they conclude that there is no chance explanation because ND failed?
It is perhaps a testimony to the power of the ND explanation that even ID proponents cannot think of alternative except to invoke an unspecified designer using an unspecified process.
However, I have some questions about ID. I expect someone has already asked these questions and that someone else has answered them. But I have never seen the questions or the answers. Obviously I think they pose problems for the ID movement, but I am hoping that an ID proponent will take this in the spirit of enquiry and not as personal attack and respond appropriately. So here goes:
1 What exactly is being designed?
Is it, for example, an individual organism, a species, a mechanism such as blood clotting, or just the process which generates all of this? How much did the designer have in mind and how much did the designer just design the process and then see how it turned out?
2 In the case of biological phenomena what is the specification?
This question requires some explanation. William Dembski uses the concept of complex specified information as proof of design. This can be explained using the Dembski’s own example. Suppose an archer shoots at an arrow at a large wall. The arrow hits the wall and then the archer draws a ring round the arrow and declares he has hit the bullseye. The chances of the arrow hitting that exact point in the wall are tiny (or at least they were tiny before he shot the arrow). However, this tells us nothing about the archer’s skill. Compare this to an archer who draws a target on the wall and then shoots a hundred arrows that all hit the target. Both outcomes are highly improbable but the second is the result of the design of the archer, the first is not. Dembksi says the outcome in the second case is specified because the outcome fits a pattern which is independent of the event itself. The circle was drawn on the wall before a single arrow had been shot.
This is all fair enough. But how does this extend to biological phenomena? Suppose we observe a biological system such as the much discussed flagellum of bacteria, or the system of blood clotting, and we decide that it is indeed highly improbable that such a system could have evolved according to standard Darwinian processes (I don’t accept this – but assume it for the sake of the argument). So far we have the equivalent of an arrow in the wall. For Dembski to use this as evidence of design he needs the equivalent of the circle which has been independently drawn. Most intelligent design proponents would say the independent pattern is that the mechanism fulfils its function in the organism. E.g. how extraordinary that this combination of proteins should combine to allow blood clotting. But this needs defining in more detail. Does this mean a mechanism using this particular combination of proteins? In which case it is equivalent to drawing the circle after the arrow has been shot. Or is it something broader? Perhaps any mechanism that allows for blood to clot? Or any mechanism that prevents excessive bleeding in case of injury? Or any mechanism that fulfils the functions of blood without excessive risk from injury? Each one is a broader target, equivalent to bigger target on the wall, and allows for more possible solutions. Furthermore as soon as the specification moves to something broader than this specific combination of proteins it becomes pretty much impossible to calculate the probability of hitting it.
3 How can you conclude that because a phenomenon appears improbable according to a ND explanation that it is improbable for all chance explanations?
I believe that an ND explanation is by far the best explanation for the evolution of most biological phenomena and those phenomena that appear difficult will either be resolved according to ND or by some slight modification of ND. However, suppose one day an incontrovertible counterexample is found e.g. a large number of new fossils destroying the picture of divergence from a common ancestor (mammalian fossils in the pre-Cambrian etc). Or let us suppose for the sake of argument that systems such as blood clotting are shown to be quite impossible to evolve through ND methods. How, do we jump from this to ID? Remember the design argument requires that an outcome be improbable and specified. It is not sufficient to show that an outcome be improbable according to one chance explanation. It has to be shown to be improbable according to any chance explanation. If evolutionary biologists should come across serious counter-evidence to ND they would seek alternative explanations or modifications of the ND e.g. Larmarckism. These would be proposed processes which could then be tested by inspection of molecular biology, the fossil record, taxonomy etc. Why should they conclude that there is no chance explanation because ND failed?
It is perhaps a testimony to the power of the ND explanation that even ID proponents cannot think of alternative except to invoke an unspecified designer using an unspecified process.
posted by Mark Frank at 10:25 am
10 Comments:
I have to admit to being a bit of an Intelligent Design (ID) addict.
A man after my own heart! I spend waaaay more time than I should discussing this stuff. I'll be keeping an eye on this blog entry to see if anyone manages to answer your questions.
By the way, you might be interested in this group, aimed at keeping pseudoscience out of UK science classrooms. It's a new group so we're still desperate for new members :P
Hi - thanks. I have joined. It looks very wortwhile.
1 What exactly is being designed?
There is no is/isn't list of things. See
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/id-defined/
2 In the case of biological phenomena what is the specification?
Utility or function. Complexity arises constantly by mere happenstance. Take the following:
"iacpwfdihtsifaosolntics"
It's a complex pattern. What function does it have that separates it from any other string of letters? None that I can see.
Therefore it isn't a candidate for a design inference. That does not mean it wasn't designed. For instance, if we knew that it was the first letter from each word in the paragraph above, then it conforms to an independently given pattern.
Specification is anything that separates a given pattern into a subset of all possible patterns. The subset must have already existed i.e. we can't invent a classification to fit the pattern.
In regard to your point about broader targets allowing for more possible solutions... no one said it was easy to make a design inference in every case and there will never be proof as we can never know everything. All science is tentative and design inference is no exception. Some tentative conclusions in science are less tentative than others.
3 How can you conclude that because a phenomenon appears improbable according to a ND explanation that it is improbable for all chance explanations?
One cannot ever rule out all chance explanation because the nature of science is that all answers are tentative. We can't ever know everything. By the same token how can one conclude that all biological complexity is due to some unknown sequence of chance events?
We know that intelligence exists in the universe and we know intelligence can and does cause non-random mutation and unnatural selection. Dogs are a result of unnatural selection and genetically engineered crops are a result of non-random mutation. The question thus becomes not if ID is possible but when in history it can first be identified.
Dave - thanks for replying.
I understand your answer to question 1 - which is basically "anything can be designed". There are some interesting questions around how you then determine if a given phenomenon is designed or if it is just the chance result of a process which has been designed - but I want to concentrate on questions 2 and 3.
I understand the specification is related to utility in the sense of how the system helps the organism to survive. But all the specifications for blood clotting above have utility and it makes an enormous difference to the complexity which one you choose. There has to some logical basis for choosing one rather than another. It may be hard to choose but there has got to be some principle for choosing one specification rather than another - or you don't have a basis for making an inference. One person will choose a specification with a high complexity and another will choose one with a lower complexity.
On question 3. This really comes back to the point that the argument for design is "Darwin is too improbable therefore it must be designed". Remember that the sole evidence for design is the improbability of the result. ID draws a determined line and says the implementation of the design is not its concern. So by definition there is no further investigation you can make. Any other alternative can be investigated in the sense of exploring how it might have happened.
The discussion over question 2 seems to have switched to the Uncommon Descent blog http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/862 - which is fine.
Thanks to Dave Scott for attempting to answer the question -although he hasn't succeeded at the time of writing.
Looking at the discussion, it looks like you've hit on exactly the same problem I raised when I discussed all this with Cordova yonks ago.
My feeling is that, as you say, the only specification that could be considered 'detached' is "that which increases survival chances". Which is exactly the target that evolutionary algorithms are set up to hit, thus undermining Dembski's use of the No Free Lunch theorems.
Lifewish - I didn't know you had already tried this. But I gather you got no further. The thing that has really surprised me is that Dave appears not to understand Dembski's own work. I am not sure about Salvador. It was hard to understand what he was saying.
On the whole I think I will stay clear of posting directly on Uncommon Descent. I suspect the people that respond are not the real experts.
Lifewish - I didn't know you had already tried this. But I gather you got no further.
Well, the discussion I had with Salvador consisted of a long explanation of the fact that many biological structures (or the "specifications" they supposedly conform to) have high Shannon information and some slight shock on his part when my response was "so what?"
FYI: Shannon information is an actual mathematical formulation of information that's created and used by real mathematicians and communications professionals. If you went to work for the NSA, that's the definition you'd need to know. Unfortunately, it's demonstrably easy for random mutation to create a lot of it. As always, more detail available on request.
I must say this has been an eye-opener. I am sure Dembski is a very bright guy and he writes extremely well - even though I am absolutely sure he has got it wrong. But some of his acolytes!
I read the Parakh paper explaining about Shannon information - so I get it. Do you think that Salvador would have read the same paper? Maybe they don't read the critical papers?
The concept of specified complexity basically means, something which a function that we do not understand how it came about. That's all ID has to offer. That in biology specification means function basically means that natural selection can be a 'designer'
Post a Comment
<< Home