Intelligent Design

[jtls1986]

Is anyone familiar with this concept...I was introduced to this recently and I find it to be quite convincing...

Considering that Darwin himself stated that his theory of evolution would completely break down ***IF*** a biological entity was capable of developing complex systems without taking slow steps of slowly evolving similar structures that would eventually lead to the complex systems...

After observing a bacterium, and focusing on a single structure, the flagellum...scientists revealed a very complex biological machine....involving structures similar to a human machine that would run wheels or something like that...

Anyway, the scientists declared that such a complex system could not have been capable of evolving from organisms that originated from a "proto-earth", since the proteins and enzymes must connect in a particular fashion...and cannot connect differently...if the enzymes connect incorrectly....the enzymes will fall apart...and the protein itself would not have been produced...

These enzymes have thousands...if not billions of information that tell the enzyme to connect to a specific enzyme....and after connecting...the enzymes will roll up in a certain fashion to finally produce the protein..

How could primitive cells that originated from amino acids suddenly form such a complex chain of information that would form enzymes...and finally proteins that would together....form a complex bacterial flagellum?

[Ian Parker]

The area of dispute is whether of not Evolution was a random process, whether the mutation of any gene is equally probable.

Why is this in dispute? We know the answers to these questions.

• statistical analysis shows that mutations occur nearly at random
• there are some "hotspots" for mutation, specific DNA sequences that are subject to certain types of mutations more frequently than other sequences. These are things like long runs of A's, for which replication errors can easily insert or delete a base. These types of mutations appear to be random among these types of sequences, which are scattered about the genome.
• different genes exhibit mutations at different frequencies because they are of different sizes. Short genes mutate less frequently than long genes, even at the identical mutation rate per base pair
• selection is not random
• because selection is not random, evolution itself is not random.

So, the answers are known.

The question is about the ability of this to converge to a complex solution algorithmically. GAs provide a model. GAs provide a model for what can ge expected.


In much of the US, and certainly where I live, the economy has changed. Until 10 years ago, manufacturing was the base of the economy. Now that the jobs have all gone overseas, Life Sciences has moved in. Even Good Ol' Bush claims that Life Sciences are among the "growing industries" that we depend upon. Well....if our economic vitality depends on science, and Life Science in particular, we gotta understand science. We can't just memorize things; the employers don't want that. They need people who can think. In the Life Sciences, that also means understanding evolution.

If by this you are implying that it is not good for Science and that if you say that divine intervention does not do Science any good. I would make a number of points here. If you are saying that belief should be based on what is good for Science you are on dodgy ground. I can claim on this basis that between 1981 and 1991 (the 5th generation project) ID was almost certainly true in the sense of being good for Science (and also the Nikkei which dropped dramatically as 5G failed).

[Ian Parker]

I think that if you believe in Evolution as random mutation + natural selection you are more inclined to believe in an easy route to strong AI than if you do not. Hence my remarks about the 5th Generation.

We have a hardwired boot which enables us to soak up information. This boot is contained somewhere within the human genome. If this boot could be found and understood string AI would be the result. I don't think there is any serious question of not having computer resources. Incidentally understanding of the concepts associated with each word is important for the web spiders. With a Grid there would be little difficulty in harnessing the entire Grid, as AI would rank as a system program and consequently be privileged. It is vital for the Grid's file management functions. The human genome is 800MB, how much of that is the boot. Pure conjecture. As we are only 2% different from the chimpanzee probably not that much. Finding this boot is the difficulty, if we have. My belief, which I have stated on a number of occasions is that if this boot were evolvable by random processes + natural selection it would have been found by now.

One is correct to state that Gödel's theorem does not apply to evolving systems. It applies to all hand coded AI though. Thus it is necessary for strong AI to evolve. Whether the boot or an inference engine evolves is not important as far as Gödel is concerned.

From the scientific point of view I feel it would have been better if AI research had been mathematically based from the start. Hence my remarks about Intelligent Design being true between 1981 and 1991. A lot of AI researchers quote Gödel's theorem. This to me is an endorsement of ID and the fact they do not believe in the possibility of evolving systems (Either Boot or Inference Engine).

[Jose]

The question is about the ability of this to converge to a complex solution algorithmically. GAs provide a model. GAs provide a model for what can ge expected.

GAs illustrate that mutation + selection is a way to explore the available space. GAs are modeled on evolution. However, they are irrelevant to the question of whether evolution can produce complex solutions. As has been mentioned before, all of the grains of sand on a beach are one complex solution to the question of where the grains should be. The probability of that particular arrangement occurring is vanishingly low. Therefore, we "prove" that wind and waves and gravity are unable to produce the pattern we see for sand on a beach. This is the exact logic of ID. Does god dictate the position of every grain of sand? Was today's position of the sand grains foretold from the beginning of time? Only if it was foretold does it matter what the math tells us. Otherwise, it is simply what happened.

My belief, which I have stated on a number of occasions is that if this boot were evolvable by random processes + natural selection it would have been found by now.

You overestimate the technical ability of humans, and you underestimate the complexity of neurobiology. It's not easy to build a mimic of a brain if you haven't figured out the brain. Nonetheless, our particular beliefs are irrelevant. What matters is the data. We know how evolution works. Why deny that it does? Why take the current ID stance, and declare that evolution works just fine, except for a small group of structures that a particular group of people don't understand? I would think it would be rather embarrassing to say "I don't understand how the bacterial flagellum arose, so I'll just give up and say god did it."

From the scientific point of view I feel it would have been better if AI research had been mathematically based from the start. Hence my remarks about Intelligent Design being true between 1981 and 1991. A lot of AI researchers quote Gödel's theorem. This to me is an endorsement of ID and the fact they do not believe in the possibility of evolving systems (Either Boot or Inference Engine).

Sorry, I don't exactly follow this bit. Godel's theorem, like the rest of the math surrounding ID, is irrelevant. The basic assumptions of ID are just plain wrong. They are based, as you say, on not believing in the possibility of evolving systems. Since they don't believe it's possible, they change the theory so that they can "prove" that it's wrong.

[nikolayevich]

The question is about the ability of this to converge to a complex solution algorithmically. GAs provide a model. GAs provide a model for what can ge expected.

GAs illustrate that mutation + selection is a way to explore the available space. GAs are modeled on evolution. However, they are irrelevant to the question of whether evolution can produce complex solutions.

Dawkins and others do differ somewhat on this point however. At least, if it is not often said, it is believed that there is relevance to finally answering that question for detractors. I believe the point is valid if only it seeks to foster discussion about what is often claimed of GAs and the "hope" if we can call it that, which scientists see in GAs validating aspects of a complex problem.

As has been mentioned before, all of the grains of sand on a beach are one complex solution to the question of where the grains should be. The probability of that particular arrangement occurring is vanishingly low. Therefore, we "prove" that wind and waves and gravity are unable to produce the pattern we see for sand on a beach. This is the exact logic of ID.

This not even sort of the logic of ID. ID does not predict that all low probability events are so realized by a designer or intelligent agent. ID does not base itself solely on probability, but also on, as the name suggests, design, or in more scientific terms, "high specificity". Thus, an automobile is said to conform to at least these two requirements of ID. The sand in its present form, no.

Nonetheless, our particular beliefs are irrelevant. What matters is the data. We know how evolution works.

Who is the "we"? I say, "we" doubt the ability of chance mutations and selection to account for the diversity of life on this planet. "We" here can't be used universally as in, everyone just "knows". Many who have the skills to understand disbelieve it.

I would think it would be rather embarrassing to say "I don't understand how the bacterial flagellum arose, so I'll just give up and say god did it."

It is not incompetence or lethargy by which everyone doubts ToE. There are legitimate doubts on both sides of the debate and just because we figure we have the right answer, certainly doesn't mean that others are therefore not thinking or trying.

Well....if our economic vitality depends on science, and Life Science in particular, we gotta understand science. We can't just memorize things; the employers don't want that. They need people who can think. In the Life Sciences, that also means understanding evolution.

I agree with this statement, providing evolutionary criticism is welcomed and encouraged, as it is with engineering, or economics. If we are to teach students how to _understand_ science, they will have to be able to generate challenges to theories and even maxims, firmly held or otherwise, as they are equipped to do so. I would add that we need to teach philosophy of science and critical thinking. Not to bias students. On the contrary, to recognize their biases and that of their instructors. One of the most valuable life lessons we can all learn is that we are all biased. None is completely objective. With that understanding we can begin to approach science in new ways and check each other along the way.

[Jose]

The question is about the ability of this to converge to a complex solution algorithmically. GAs provide a model. GAs provide a model for what can ge expected.

GAs illustrate that mutation + selection is a way to explore the available space. GAs are modeled on evolution. However, they are irrelevant to the question of whether evolution can produce complex solutions.

Dawkins and others do differ somewhat on this point however. At least, if it is not often said, it is believed that there is relevance to finally answering that question for detractors. I believe the point is valid if only it seeks to foster discussion about what is often claimed of GAs and the "hope" if we can call it that, which scientists see in GAs validating aspects of a complex problem.

For the most part--at least in my understanding--GA's are used because they work to solve problems. People have raised them here only because they are based on random mutation and selection, and hence provide a kind of "proof of principle." What the proof of principle shows is that "stuff can happen."

I think I would argue that the critical thing about evolution, which seems to be denied in many quarters, is that "stuff can happen" there, too.

With respect to ID, the question would be: suppose "stuff happens," entirely by the rules of the Theory of Evolution (i.e. the demonstrated mechanism). What would the ID folks say of the outcome?

As has been mentioned before, all of the grains of sand on a beach are one complex solution to the question of where the grains should be. The probability of that particular arrangement occurring is vanishingly low. Therefore, we "prove" that wind and waves and gravity are unable to produce the pattern we see for sand on a beach. This is the exact logic of ID.

This not even sort of the logic of ID. ID does not predict that all low probability events are so realized by a designer or intelligent agent. ID does not base itself solely on probability, but also on, as the name suggests, design, or in more scientific terms, "high specificity". Thus, an automobile is said to conform to at least these two requirements of ID. The sand in its present form, no.

Ah, but the Theory of Evolution, and the mechanism that has been demonstrated, contains no "high specificity." It is like the sand on the beach. Stuff happens. Once it has happened, well, we can see it.

The sand on the beach is, to use ID terms, of extremely high specificity. Each grain is in exactly one location. It couldn't be higher specificity than that.

It's the same with DNA. Each base is in exactly one relationship to the other bases. The only difference is that one of these (presumably, not the sand) contains the information for building a human. The ID premise is that this is because it's designed, and we are special.

But how do ID folks determine whether information has high specificity or not? The stuff I've read always comes out the same: calculate the probability of that information assembling at random. This is why the sand example is a perfect parallel. It, too, has high specificity when we use the same algorithm for detecting it.

Nonetheless, our particular beliefs are irrelevant. What matters is the data. We know how evolution works.

Who is the "we"? I say, "we" doubt the ability of chance mutations and selection to account for the diversity of life on this planet. "We" here can't be used universally as in, everyone just "knows". Many who have the skills to understand disbelieve it.

It is true that many who have the skills do not believe it. It is true that many doubt whether microevolution can achieve what the data say it has. That's fine. Let's discuss the data on its merit.

The ID movement is an effort to derail this discussion, and steer it in a creationist direction. The Discovery Institute has, after all, come out and said that their goal in pushing ID is to have design "theory" replace scientific thought, and to bring us back to reliance on Christian belief. They can't do that by discussing the data supporting evolution on its merits.

I would think it would be rather embarrassing to say "I don't understand how the bacterial flagellum arose, so I'll just give up and say god did it."

It is not incompetence or lethargy by which everyone doubts ToE. There are legitimate doubts on both sides of the debate and just because we figure we have the right answer, certainly doesn't mean that others are therefore not thinking or trying.

You are absolutely right. It is not incompetence or lethargy that results in the ID proponents saying this. It's simple doubt. It really is saying "I just don't see how it could have happened." The doubt is valid. In fact, given the way that we teach evolution, I'd be surprised not to find such doubt.

BUT, the conclusion is not warranted. If I have doubt, I should ask how in the world those beanbrains came up with this evolution stuff. I'll try to figure out their reasoning, and look at the data, and see if their interpretations are warranted. I won't say "eh--they're wrong; it must be creation." Unfortunately, when I do look at the data, I find that they've put together a pretty darned reasonable explanation. That it does not require a god isn't their fault. It's just what the data indicate.

When I say "we know how evolution works," I do not mean that we have 100% of the dots in the Great Connect The Dots Game of Life. What I mean is that the genetic mechanism is beyond doubt. Even the ID folks claim that evolution happens, after all. Even the YECs agree that mutation and selection occur. This is the mechanism. The question that exists, and about which you and others are skeptical, is whether this simple mechanism can account for the diversity of life.

There are two important things that one must do to evaluate this issue on its own merit. The first is to suspend disbelief (not skepticism, just disbelief). The second is to get the data and evaluate it. Enough is known about embryonic development, and about limb development in particular, to know that the lobe-finned fish to tetrapod transition is entirely reasonable. The maniraptor to bird transition is equally reasonable. These are a couple of the most resisted evolutionary transitions, but in the last decade, so much has been learned about the genes involved, and so many new transitional fossils have been found that there is very little reason to doubt it. The only reason, it seems, is disbelief. It is from disbelief that the ID movement comes.

Well....if our economic vitality depends on science, and Life Science in particular, we gotta understand science. We can't just memorize things; the employers don't want that. They need people who can think. In the Life Sciences, that also means understanding evolution.

I agree with this statement, providing evolutionary criticism is welcomed and encouraged, as it is with engineering, or economics. If we are to teach students how to _understand_ science, they will have to be able to generate challenges to theories and even maxims, firmly held or otherwise, as they are equipped to do so. I would add that we need to teach philosophy of science and critical thinking. Not to bias students. On the contrary, to recognize their biases and that of their instructors. One of the most valuable life lessons we can all learn is that we are all biased. None is completely objective. With that understanding we can begin to approach science in new ways and check each other along the way.

I agree fully. The trick is to generate valid challenges to the extant theories. The so-called "critical analysis of evolution" lesson that has been foisted onto Ohio students is a case in point. While some parts of it are fine (critical anallysis is to be praised, after all), it promulgates misconceptions and falsehoods in the guise of "explaining" how to answer their questions. If these guys want to challenge evolution, they should do so with legitimate challenges. They shouldn't make up goofy stories and present them as if they are challenges. That just wastes time that could otherwise be spent on learning those things you've listed--critical thinking, philosophy of science, recognition of bias, and actual understanding.

No one is saying that evolutionary theory should not be challenged, or that it is somehow "sacred" and off-limits. Rather, what is being said is that the challenges must be valid. Almost invariably, the challengers, whether ID, YEC, Scientologists, Moonies, or whatever, recycle the same arguments that have been addressed before. In science, once an argument has been ruled out, we stop using it and go on. The YEC/ID challengers don't do that. They use the same things over and over, even after they've been discredited. It's like they don't listen to the discussion (or, more likey, don't care because they believe they are on a crusade that is so important that any tactics are fair). But, that's what the other threads here are designed to discuss.

ID does seem to have invented a couple of new lines of reasoning. The "incredulity" logic isn't new, but "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information" are. Both of these latter ideas depend, for their "proof" on assumptions that are not part of evolutionary theory or mechanism. Thus, all they disprove are those assumptions.

[steen]

This not even sort of the logic of ID. ID does not predict that all low probability events are so realized by a designer or intelligent agent. ID does not base itself solely on probability, but also on, as the name suggests, design, or in more scientific terms, "high specificity". Thus, an automobile is said to conform to at least these two requirements of ID. The sand in its present form, no.

Pr ID arguments, you are wrong. The talk about how one unique pattern is reached is a big deal to ID. As such, reaching that unique "design" of sand is such a low probability that it "must have been designed." That's the very foundation for ID arguments.

Nonetheless, our particular beliefs are irrelevant. What matters is the data. We know how evolution works.

Who is the "we"? I say, "we" doubt the ability of chance mutations and selection to account for the diversity of life on this planet.

The "we" who have actually looked at the data, rather than ignoring it as not Biblical, "we" know the facts of the data.

And, BTW, the very words you are using are showing that you have some miscomprehension about the scientific evidence.

"We" here can't be used universally as in, everyone just "knows". Many who have the skills to understand disbelieve it.

Yes, creationists generally make that claim. How many are "many"? And are you claiming that those "who have the skills" are actually using those skills to understand it? because nearly all creationists and ID proponents end up making claims about evolution that shows that they do NOT understand the science.

I would think it would be rather embarrassing to say "I don't understand how the bacterial flagellum arose, so I'll just give up and say god did it."

It is not incompetence or lethargy by which everyone doubts ToE.

Sorry, but from those who actually understand the SToE, the arguments against it does indicate just that. It shows ignorance and misrepresentation.

There are legitimate doubts on both sides of the debate and just because we figure we have the right answer, certainly doesn't mean that others are therefore not thinking or trying.

But when "others" claims show serious ignorance of what they are arguing against, namely the SToE, then it is an indication that they are NOT thinking or trying. In fact, it shows that they can't even be bothered learning what the Scientific Theory of Evolution is when arguing against it. All they feel they need to know is that it is not creationism. Such a line of argument, of course, is seriously dishonest on any intellectual level.

Well....if our economic vitality depends on science, and Life Science in particular, we gotta understand science. We can't just memorize things; the employers don't want that. They need people who can think. In the Life Sciences, that also means understanding evolution.

I agree with this statement, providing evolutionary criticism is welcomed and encouraged, as it is with engineering, or economics.

It is all the time. SERIOUS, scientifically accurate/factual criticism is welcome and is actually done all the time. But deceptions, misrepresentations, quote-mining etc. does NOT make for appropriate criticism.

If we are to teach students how to _understand_ science, they will have to be able to generate challenges to theories and even maxims, firmly held or otherwise, as they are equipped to do so.

certainly. That is why they need to know what the Scientific Method is and how valid generated data is, based on what step of the Scientific Method each data set has been evaluated under.

Now, criticism outside of a scientific context is, of course, irrelevant and useless in the teaching of science. So for criticisms to be valid and have any meaningful contribution in a science class, it must be founded in science.

Unfortunately, it rules out ID (based on "I can't imagine that nature did it, so it must be designed") and creationism (based on 'goddidit"). So what you are left with are scientific, documented and tested models. So it still doesn't help the ID and creationist crowd, as their claims are anti-science.

You wouldn't want to teach anti-science in a science class, would you? because that surely is not constructive. It opens up for the flat-earth society and all the other loons with personal beliefs misrepresented and camoflagued as "science."

I would add that we need to teach philosophy of science and critical thinking.

Ah, yes. As when we teach science in Science Class.

Not to bias students. On the contrary, to recognize their biases and that of their instructors. One of the most valuable life lessons we can all learn is that we are all biased. None is completely objective. With that understanding we can begin to approach science in new ways and check each other along the way.

Such as portraying as science something that has already been disproven through the Scientific Method? Oh, yeah. "Here kids. learn all this rigorous science,a nd then also this piece of fluff that is wishful thinking with no evidence that is merely CLAIMED to be facts."

Yes, that would do wonders for the students' ability to apply the Scientific Method.

[Curious]

As a theist myself I find the mendacity of the ID movement rather disconcerting. Recycled arguments, previously discredited, are repackaged and rechurned with no loss of conviction in the vain hope the detractors will eventually fall away in this war of attrition. The references to improbability, specificity and irreducible complexity seeks not to win the argument against those with intelligence or education but to confound those who know no better. It's purpose is not to win the argument but to persuade others to take up the banner. I cannot seriously believe that those who promulgate these arguments do not see their basic flaws.

[QED]

As a theist myself I find the mendacity of the ID movement rather disconcerting. Recycled arguments, previously discredited, are repackaged and rechurned with no loss of conviction in the vain hope the detractors will eventually fall away in this war of attrition. The references to improbability, specificity and irreducible complexity seeks not to win the argument against those with intelligence or education but to confound those who know no better. It's purpose is not to win the argument but to persuade others to take up the banner. I cannot seriously believe that those who promulgate these arguments do not see their basic flaws.

It is a pity. From my perspective, if there was a responsible and respectful argument, I might be persuaded away from Abiogenesis which has no satisfactory explanation at the present time. I'm puzzled by the fact that life evidently arose just the once (as if highly improbable), very early on in the Earths history (as if highly probable).

But because the hidden ID agenda seems to be to support the creation story as told in the bible, all the important data that leads to this puzzle has to be denied and hence an opportunity to conduct a proper investigation is lost.

[Ian Parker]

I think that some of the remarks show a lack of understanding about AI. AI researchers do not say that it is impossible for systems to evolve, indeed Genetic Algorithms came from Artificial Intelligence. What is the case in point is that it is difficult to see how a system can be made to evolve to produce strong AI. The last contribution also said something which I find profoundly disturbing and that is the implication that AI would be easy if only its advocates would accept that systems could evolve.

As I have said earlier there are 2 forms of evolution which enter into AI, the first of these is evolving a boot which will enable knowledge acquisition to begin. The second is evolving a sophisticated inference engine starting from a simpler engine. It is the first (evolving a boot) that really concerns us in the debate as to whether or not a boot could have evolved in the wild. I am still stating that if a readily evolvable boot existed it would have been found by now.

The only program to my knowledge which is attempting to evolve an inference engine from a simpler engine is CYC. CYC started off with a million rules (a totally unevolvable boot). Lenat who in charge of CYC is still having to manually help CYC in the evolution of new rules. The entire program is scheduled to last 20 years after which CYC should be able to read sentences and associate the correct concepts to words. A change from barcas going through cerraduras. A cerradura is a lock on a villa door not a lock on a river or canal. CYC already understands that twins must have the same birth dates and CYC has found insurance documents where they do not correspond. You could write C++ to do the same thing. However Gödels Theorem applies to C++. CYC can scan in proposal forms and has achieved this in a non Gödel way. CYC is a really exciting program. However, to repeat, the boot of CYC is totally non evolvable.

If you are asking about the good of Science rather than what is fundamentally true and debate ID on this basis one comes to some interesting results. I said I found some of the last contribution disturbing. What I am saying is that its general tone might lead people to abandon established principles and algorithms for a biological solution of dubious pedigree.

Let me explain what I mean. When I was doing a course on Quantum Theory I came across something called Perturbation Theory. Basically you got a solution to an eigenvalue equation and put perturbations on it. It explains well what happens when weak magnetic or electric fields are placed on an atom. The Bohr theory explains the Zeeman effect because the moments in Perturbation Theory are the same. When I saw the classical Neural Network (good biological pedigree) I thought to myself **** this is Perturbation Theory. The correct way to solve the equation
AB=R
is to use least squares and Householder. Moreover the classical Neural Network used an S curve rather than a linear input. A linear input can be proved to be far better in terms of the use of information and the ability to put in confidence limits.

Does this have anything to do with ID. I think it does. If you postulate that Evolution alone could have given rise to Intelligence, the assumption that AI is easy and if we should copy biological systems even if the result is nonsense in terms of Numerical Analysis. If you do not believe this then you will be more cautious and mathematical in your approach.

Unless you believe that disease is sent as a punishment for sin, the one instance where religion does not improve your outcome, and that AIDS was intelligently designed by the Devil, AI is the one area where a scientific decision is significantly different. ID does not claim that evolution does not take place, only that there was non random help through critical phases where a large number of mutations had to occur at the same time.



The problem with what is to be taught is that students (at school) are of very different standards and will have widely different career expectations.
I must say I think a lot of readers will be ignorant of what precisely the system of education is in Ohio, whether there is a state curriculum of subjects that MUST be taught. Whether the student elects to do modules.

1) Is there a state core syllabus in Ohio and if so what is it in detail?
2) Does everyone take the biology course in question or is it only given to students who elect to take it?
3) What are the requirements in terms of other courses to take evolutionary biology? Do you have to have any knowledge of a) Calculus? or b) Statistics? To me discussion is impossible without some background.
4) What precisely is the point of litigation? If the answers to question 3 are both negative how the hell can either Evolution or ID be taught in any meaningful way.

If one discusses this it will clearly be a good thing. If you are going to do a PhD in AI airing the issues will indeed clarify things.

[QED]

Ian Parker> I've asked people before what right we have to judge nature by our own technological standards. Aren't we just displaying excessive pride if we think that because our finest programmers can't come up with computable algorithms that produce results in human time-scales, then it could never have occurred in the wild? We might be using the wrong technology anyway. Given that we are starting to make quantum computers that solve through entangled states then at the molecular level nature would appear to have an opportunity to explore vast landscapes of possibilities and is in no hurry to reap the rewards.