Dear Mr. Luskin,
Thank you again for your reply. Let me first clear up the confusion over whether I think there is NO or SOME evidence for ID. Having read the link you sent me in your original email that you described as containing…
“…peer-reviewed research supporting ID, presenting much data that represents research done by ID proponents supporting ID's claims”
…I did not find any data that provides positive evidence for ID, thus I worded my response that this link ‘DOES NOT present much data’ because this is what YOU claimed (see the bold letters in your original sentence). My position is that there is definitely NO evidence. You may disagree, but in my opinion, review-type articles which discuss others work and make new arguments are NOT evidence of the arguments in their own right. These arguments need to be validated by experimentation. Otherwise they are simply interesting ideas and hypotheses.
You wrote…
“I pointed you to much research supporting ID and it seems clear to me that it exists, thus satisfying your original request for information. Now, will the goal-posts shift?”
Please explain to me in your own words (without linking or quoting) all of the direct experiments that have been performed by pro-ID scientists which provide the much evidence that you continually claim exists…..I ask this because I’m not sure if you realise how little supposed direct experimental evidence there actually is (although I don’t consider any of it to be evidence of ID)
You use this quote from Meyer – “Agents can arrange matter with distant goals in mind. In their use of language, they routinely ‘find’ highly isolated and improbable functional sequences amid vast spaces of combinatorial possibilities.”……..
The appearance of design or improbable functional sequences are not empirical evidence of ID, they are what you might call philosophical evidence. Furthermore, they are improbable sequences when you predict the probability of the entire sequence assembling spontaneously, but this is actually what ID proposes, not neo-Darwinism. ID is simply an easy answer which does not attempt to explain these things scientifically. There may be sub-sections of ID theory that can claim to be scientific, but the whole idea is based on an unscientific premise, an intelligent designer who is beyond scientific testing.
As Douglas Theobald writes on http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
“Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.”
In this same article, Theobald explains 30 different predictions based on evolution and common descent that have been upheld by experimentation. He states that…
“No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.”
I believe point 4 in the above quote applies to ID.
You wrote…
“While Meyer's work here are admittedly review papers, he does discuss experimental evidence, and he explains why it supports ID using the positive arguments given above.”
Just because Meyer discusses experimental evidence performed by others that he claims supports ID, this does not provide evidence for ID. This can only be provided by direct experimentation using a testable hypothesis, not retrospectively reinterpreting another’s results.
When I suggested you need to test the mutated flagella for other functions, you wrote…
“This expects people to do an impossible experiment because you can’t prove an absolute negative, so you’ve set up an impossibly high standard. And this is why it’s clear that this kind of neo-Darwinism is based upon “evolution-of-the-gaps” reasoning—it’s based upon the fundamental presumption that intermediate states DO EXIST, even if they are not found.”
I agree that it is impossible to test for every possible function, but for the same reason it is equally as impossible to thus term something irreducibly complex, because you are claiming to know that it has no other function through which it could have evolved. You seem to agree that subparts of an apparently irreducibley complex structure can have other functions, but you still strangely claim that the initial structure is irreducibly complex. Incidentally, you refer to my “evolution-of -the-gaps” reasoning, which is fair enough, but at least scientists are trying to fill in those gaps using proper experimental methods. ID proponents, on the other hand, use “God-of-the-gaps” reasoning, cleverly disguised as “designer-of-the-gaps” reasoning, which is also based on a fundamental presumption which cannot be tested and so will NEVER be found, hence NEVER proved wrong. How convenient!
Perhaps, as you say, I don’t understand the concept of irreducible complexity, so I will take Behe’s definition. If irreducible complexity is to be defined as Behe states…
“By irreducible complexity I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning”
…then of course irreducible complexity DOES exist. It fact, it exists everywhere. It has been shown in labs many times that removing “parts” of “systems” results in loss of function. But, crucially, this does not strengthen the ID argument, because these ‘irreducibly complex’ systems CAN evolve through step-by-step neo-Darwinian evolution. Herman Muller described the process back in 1918. For example, take a relatively complex system that performs a function. Next, gradually make that system more efficient and sophisticated by step-by-step addition of new “parts”. Then, remove some of the earlier redundant “parts” (as happens in evolution) thus increasing efficiency. You now have a more complex system than the previous one, however, if you were to artificially remove a “part” of this new system, it would cease to function. As you should be able to see, this does not mean that it couldn’t have evolved.
I may not have explained that very well. Here is a well known analogy that you may be familiar with. Imagine a river with three stepping stones forming a rudimentary bridge. The stones constitute a system with a function. If you add a long piece of wood across all three stones it is now a slightly more complex system, still with the same function. The middle stone can now be removed without loss of function, and this newer (slightly) more complex system is more efficient in that you can walk across it rather than hopping from stone to stone. If you now remove any of the other parts of this system, ie the wood or the two outer stones, it will lose its function, and thus the bridge can be termed irreducibly complex. However, it came about in a step-by-step fashion (which includes removal of redundant parts) without loss of function.
You wrote…
“…the flagellar machine itself indicates that it did not arise by a random and unguided process like Darwinian evolution, but rather arose by a non-random and intelligently directed process such as intelligent design.”
This is wrong as I have explained. You assume that the “flagellar machine” is an example of ID because it is irreducibly complex, but irreducible complexity is everywhere in nature and does not have any bearing on neo-Darwinism. Behe is fundamentally wrong because he assumes that evolution is only an additive process.
Behe and the ID community ignore the fact that there is more than one way for a complex structure to evolve. The actual precursor may have had more parts, not fewer. Or, if the individual parts evolve, the precursor may have had the same number of parts, not yet codependent. Take the common mouse-trap analogy. I am sure that prior to the common-day mousetrap, there were other less efficient systems, which used many more parts in order to catch a mouse. These systems may have been refined over time, with unnecessary parts removed until we arrived at the mouse-trap as we know it today. This does not mean it didn’t undergo slight modifications during its ‘evolution’.
Now, based on this, it seems obvious to me that irreducible complexity is a real thing, but it does not debunk neo-Darwinian evolution, in fact it is an effect of neo-Darwinian evolution. More to the point, it says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about ID. If you understand science at all, the presence of irreducibly complex structures DOES NOT indicate design no matter how much you want it to, so should not be used as positive evidence of ID.
When I described my research on antimicrobial peptides, in which a mutated protein still has secondary functions, you wrote…
“I’ve seen other papers that slightly tweak fully-functional proteins to perform a highly similar function and then over-extrapolate from the results. Such studies never address how any function is acquired in the first place, and they represent trivial changes in function. To give an analogy, these kinds of studies don’t show how evolution scales mountains, it simply shows that neo-Darwinism can get you the last 10 yards after you’ve already spent 10 hours hiking.”
On the contrary, using irreducible complexity as evidence for ID is most certainly “over-extrapolating from the results”. ID does not address how any function is acquired, it just assumes that a designer did it all, but conveniently shies away from explaining it in any more detail. To give the same analogy, ID simply states that we arrived on the top of the mountain but does not explain how we got there scientifically. If, as you implied, neo-Darwinism has shown how we arrived from 10 yards away, then this is 10 yards better than ID is doing. By simple inductive thought, if we know how we arrived from 10 yards away, then it is logical to think that in the past we arrived in that spot from 20 yards away, and so on…
If you accept the 10 yards of Neo-Darwinism, why are you unable to suppose that it might go further than that? Excuse the crude analogy, but 1,000,000 – 10 = 999,990, therefore 1,000,000 – 10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10, etc……= an ancestral species. Given many millions of years to act, I think this is a reasonable hypothesis. Much more likely than just appearing out of thin air due to the handiwork of a designer, of whom we know nothing about and there is no evidence of at all.
Also, neo-Darwinism does not suggest that any individuals climbed a mountain. Just that a population of individuals made a “10-yard” journey, and that those better equipped to successfully make the journey are the ones who successfully completed it. The population then reproduced and a new population with slightly better “mountain-climbing” properties engaged on the next “10-yard” journey, before reproducing again. And so on, until we arrive at the modern day and we look to the base of the mountain and see that our distant relatives look nothing at all like us. Then we wonder how we made the journey?? You presume that a designer had to intervene at some stage or at many stages, with no evidence, and expect biologists to explain the full journey step-by-step…
No one expects to do one set of experiments to show exactly step-by-step how we got from a single-celled organism to a human being. This is akin to me asking you to describe in a step-by-step way how a designer made every living thing and what exact mechanisms were used to do so. We have to start by describing one step at a time. Neo-Darwinism is doing this, as you admitted yourself, but ID jumps straight to the whole answer at once without considering the steps at all.
In terms of my research I described, the work is still ongoing and not yet published, however I can direct you to several other papers which discuss how antimicrobial peptides (called peptides but are really short proteins, generally over 40-50 amino acids), which directly kill pathogens, also have other functions, including acting as chemokines, wound healing and immunomodulatory. These ‘secondary’ functions were discovered long after the ‘primary’ antimicrobial function was established.
Immunomodulatory properties of defensins and cathelicidins. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2006;306:27-66
A re-evaluation of the role of host defence peptides in mammalian immunity Curr Protein Pept Sci. 2005 Feb;6(1):35-51.
Mammalian defensins in immunity: more than just microbicidal. Trends Immunol. 2002 Jun;23(6):291-6
It may be the case that many proteins have other functions we don’t know about yet, thus filling up the intermediate evolutionary stages that ID proponents claim are non-functional. The answer to this question should be lets do the research and find out, NOT lets assume a designer made it because we haven’t yet shown how it happened. That is unscientific.
Concerning the identity of the designer, you wrote…
“ ID does not address religious questions about the identity of the designer”
and
“But right now, absent a time-machine, we don’t know how.”
By saying that ID is not concerned with finding out who the designer is simply renders the whole hypothesis as unscientific. It would be like the pro-Darwin community claiming that it is not concerned with the origin of life because it is “absent a time-machine”. It is an easy way out and constitutes BAD scientific morals as it just stunts progress. Thankfully, for the majority this is not the case and many groups are doing actual experiments to try and determine how life arose on this planet, unlike the ID community, who strangely claim that they are not concerned with the answer, as if this is a scientifically valid position. In fact, I believe that the only reason ID distances itself from the identity of the designer is because, as God is the obvious candidate, this would diminish their much sought-after scientific credentials.
You wrote…
“ Whether traditional theists or not, ID proponents are entirely open about their views on the identity of the designer”
If so, then what are your personal views on this question? I assume you believe the designer is God. Are there other possibilities apart from God? If so, what are they and who believes in them? This must mean that there are some possible designers that are not part of the supernatural realm. Therefore, there might be physical evidence out there. Why not look for it?
“…I don’t know how to use that DNA evidence to determine whether the designer is natural or supernatural. If you have any ideas how to do that, I’m all ears.”
I’m not talking about only biochemical evidence. Why doesn’t ID branch out into archaeology and look for any signs of greater than normal intelligence in the past. Surely someone intelligent enough to create flagella and eyes and immune systems would have left some non-biological signs of their presence.
I think this is a reasonable request of the ID community, go and look for non-biological evidence of the designer, there simply must be some out there. An archaeologist doesn’t just find an ancient relic and then declare ‘I have no interest in researching who made this’. If IDists are unwilling to do this, then they are essentially admitting that the designer is in the supernatural realm, which has the knock-on effect on the whole hypothesis as being unscientific. If ID wants to be respected by the scientific community, it cannot make a claim, and then stick its head in the sand when asked about a direct prerequisite for that claim.
To summarise there are two positions you can take:
1. The designer is God or some other supernatural being
2. The designer is not supernatural and is a physical being
If you believe #1 then your whole hypothesis is not scientific and will never be accepted as such. In fact, it is becoming a form of creationism, irrespective of the fact that you claim ID is about the design and not the designer.
If you believe #2 then branch into archaeology and look for some non-biological evidence to back up your claim. At least make an effort to do so. Your apparent lack of interest makes it look as though you already know there is no evidence out there.
What happens though is that IDists adopt an ambiguous stance where either #1 or #2 is possible. Thus, this means that option #1 is possible and by default this means that ID is based on an unscientific premise.
To conclude, if a person who was scientifically minded but knew nothing much about evolution or ID and was impartial to religion was to hear the arguments for both and see
the evidence for both, I strongly believe that person would deduce that evolution was the only plausible explanation for complex life. In fact, that is what happened at Dover. Both sides had their expert witnesses and both sides had a fair chance to argue their case. I have read the court transcripts and Behe was on the stand for a few days backing up his claims but still didn’t make a convincing argument and even had to admit that technically ID was akin to astrology. The fact that Judge Jones may have plagiarised sections of his decision is not acceptable, I agree with you there, but I am quite sure this was a simple case of laziness. Do you think he had a differing opinion on the case and at the last minute decided against it and instead opted to just copy someone else’s opinion? No, of course not. He was quite sure of his ruling but stupidly plagiarised some of it.
I think Mr Rothschild summed it up nicely in his closing comments…
“The board's behaviour mimics the intelligent design movement at large. The Dover board discussed teaching creationism, switched to the term "intelligent design" to carry out the same objective, and then pretended they had never talked about creationism. As we learned from Dr. Forrest's testimony, the intelligent design movement used the same sleight of hand in creating the Pandas textbook. They wrote it as a creationist book and then, after the Edwards decision outlawed teaching creationism, simply inserted the term "intelligent design" where "creationism" had been before.”
You may say that ID has nothing to do with creationism, but creationists don’t agree with you and love to use ID as a central piece of their ‘evidence’. ID supposes the presence of an intelligent designer, the most obvious candidate being God, a fact that I’m sure you yourself believe, thus ID and creationism are not mutually exclusive.
Anyway, that’s enough for now. I look forward to your comments,
Kind Regards
Rhiggs
