Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)

From: wjp <>
Date: Thu May 21 2009 - 00:57:51 EDT


You appear to argue below that there is no analogy between computers and the human cell. The argument put forward by ID is that there is a measure of design. That measure is constituted by what Dembski calls specified complexity. Whatever we take this to exactly mean, the notion is that such a measure exists. If it exists, it would seem to imply that ID does not rest on an argument by analogy.

Independent of whether specified complexity is a measureable quantity, the question is whether in speaking of the manner in which something arises there is possibly a measure that is more than merely intuitive. It seems to me that Dembski's picture is at least plausable.

The difficulty goes something like this. Someone points to the available natural "probablistic resources" and concludes that it is highly unlikely that a cell arose by purely natural means. Another person says that's nonsense for the cell and similar entities have arisen by purely natural means; hence, you are underestimating the capabilities of natural means.

Can we deduce the probabilities of natural events. We certainly think that we can in certain circumstances, e.g., the roll of a pair of dice. However, in these cases we have sufficient understanding and control of the event to know what the probability space looks like. Clearly, the situation is infinitely more complex when it comes to planets and complex chemistry.

Independent of this, the question is whether there might be a measure of design, or what is the same, a measure of the capabilities of a "system." We informally make these assessments confidentsly all the time regarding people, children, natural events. It seems to me, knowing something of the complexity of a cell, that it could not be judged irrational, indeed, that it could be judged rational, to believe that the cell did not arise by "accident", even by a complex array of somewhat interrelated accidents. This, of course, does not entail that it is true. One could be wrong.

It appears to me that we cling steadfastly to the incredible, one might even say marvelous, belief that the cell did arise by "accident" chiefly because we have no alternative that we will seriously consider.

Here is my last question: in what ways does it matter that the cell arose by a sequence of "accidents"? I believe that it does matter. I hear people saying things like, "since the cell arose by accident, and different species of cells likewise, then we expect blah, blah, blah."

What if we believed the cell did not arise by a sequence of "accidents"? Then we might say, "since the cell did not arise only by accident, and likewise the species of cells, then we expect to find blah, blah, blah."

Your task, should you accept it, is to fill in the "blah, blah, blahs." I suspect, frankly, that the two series of blahs are not going to be especially different. In the one case, because randomness and vast uncertainty can do almost anything if evolution is true, and in the second because we don't really know what this non-accidental aspect can do and would do. Hence, almost all the blah, blah, blahs are ad hoc. That's my guess.

>> 2. I'm not sure, however, that these conditions are strictly necessary.
>> At least it is debatable whether they are. Some biological systems seem
>> not only so complex, but so integrated with other complex biological
>> systems (in such a way that they all adjust to each other in intricate
> and
>> nuanced ways), that it seems almost beyond imagination that these
>> overlapping systems could have come into existence without the aid of
>> intelligence (the possessor of that intelligence -- aliens, God, etc. --
>> being a side-question). The living cell is a more complex and more
>> integrated set of sub-systems than any man-made computer, and none of us
>> would think of arguing that the integrated complexity of a computer came
>> about by chance and necessity, without the aid of intelligence.
> This is an argument from incredulity which is extremely attractive to all
> of
> us but not as scientists. And no, the analogy of the complexity of a
> computer to a living cell doesn't hold up--certainly not about its origin.
> I
> spent my career designing and building computers and I can easily assert
> that computers are nowhere near the complexity of a living organism. We
> know
> how computers are designed so we know it has a designer. Many of them,
> actually. For living systems, we have no comparable indication of design.
>> You will perhaps respond that this does not amount to a formal proof.
>> Well, I agree. But does science always require formal proofs? Does it
>> not sometimes settle for "the best available explanation"? And isn't
> "the
>> best available explanation" in the case of a cell that some sort of
>> intelligence has been at work? Couldn't design be accepted, not as
> proved
>> by science, but as a provisional explanation, and as the best currently
>> available explanation? This would leave open the possibility that a
>> better explanation for the origin of the cell, couched entirely in terms
>> of chance and necessity, might come along, in which case the design
>> explanation could be abandoned.
> No, this is not an issue of formal proof. It isn't even a "best available
> explanation." The claim that an intelligent agent is "the best available
> explanation" is not accurate on several counts. One, it isn't an
> explanation. With no known agent and no known methodology, there is no
> explanation to provide. Secondly, if that intelligent agent is
> "supernatural" or "non-natural" then there is no plausible reason why such
> "explanations" are in the same category to be compared. It seems that it
> would be a category error to say that it is a better explanation. It may
> be
> complementary but the "best?"
>> 3. I agree with you when you say this:
>>> Yet the argument hangs solely on the inability to find an alternative
>>> (natural) explanation for this so-called "information content."
>> True; and ID people sometimes overstate their case, when they say that
>> Darwinian processes (or other naturalistic processes) *can't possibly
>> have* produced the blood clotting mechanism, or the flagellum, etc. But
>> on the other hand, Darwinians overstate their case when they say that
>> Darwinian processes can explain such things.
> Indeed, all sides of the debate unfortunately overstate their case to make
> the strongest statement possible.
> >The fact is that, to date, Darwinian
>> processes haven't explained (in anything like rigorous detail) any major
>> macroevolutionary change. And if the Darwinian processes haven't been
>> able to do this to date, how do we know that they ever will be able to?
> It doesn't seem to me that this is a "fact." And who is the arbiter of
> what
> level of "rigorous detail" is required to explain "any major
> macroevolutionary change." Are you? Is the ID community? Is Dawkins?
> Scientific methodology is hardly that stringent. The relevant "fact" in
> this
> case is that evolutionary (note I'm replacing your term "Darwinian" with
> "evolutionary" for obvious reasons) processes have explained so many
> things
> and successfully predicted so many discoveries and is so surprisingly
> consistent in so many ways that the scientific community sees it as
> plausible. No, not proven in a rigorous sense. But scientifically
> profound.
> And that is what counts. No other theory has come anywhere close. Hasn't
> even left home plate.
>> Let me put this in another way. It is unwise of anyone to try to prove
> a
>> negative. In trying to say that "Darwinian processes couldn't possibly
>> have ..." ID people put too great a burden on themselves. Instead,
> they
>> should be arguing like this: "OK, we'll grant the possibility that the
>> camera eye could have arisen by Darwinian processes. Now give us a
>> hypothetical account -- *with details*." Now the onus is on the
>> Darwinians, and they are in the hot seat. (Note: this more cautious
>> approach is the one taken in *The Design of Life*, by Dembski and Wells,
>> which does not argue that Darwinian mechanisms *cannot* explain the
>> apparent design of life, but only that they have not come anywhere near
> to
>> explaining it.)
> Here I must object. This is not scientific methodology in the least. And
> who
> is the authority demanding of "evolutionists" to have the "onus" of a
> hypothetical account "*with details*"? There's no hot seat. Indeed, there
> is
> a tremendous amount of detail to be discovered. That is the exciting part
> of
> doing science. In grad school, my thesis advisor used to say that the
> answer
> to a good scientific question gives rise to three more good questions. It
> may be self-satisfying to always be demanding more and more details before
> one is convinced, but the level of explanation is so productive to this
> point that there is no reasonable point in demanding "more details" before
> the big picture is allowed.
>> 4. I think that this approach (#3 above) would lead, in essence, to a
>> stalemate, in which the Darwinians would have to admit that they are
>> nowhere near being able to explain any major macroevolutionary change in
>> an adequate manner, and whereby the ID people would have to admit that
>> they haven't disproved the Darwinian thesis or confirmed intelligent
>> design. So where would that leave the matter? I think your own words
>> capture it: "we don't know". And that's essentially David Berlinski's
>> position. He's a strong critic of Darwinism, but doesn't endorse ID.
> He
>> says that we simply don't know how all these complex systems could have
>> arisen. We don't know for sure that intelligence was involved, but we
>> certainly aren't in the position to say that intelligence couldn't
>> possibly have been involved. The proper position, he says, is
>> agnosticism.
> Agnosticism of what? From a scientific perspective, it's pretty clear that
> no natural intelligence was involved. As for any other metaphysical
> perspectives, that's a different realm.
>> 5. But note that agnosticism regarding the macroevolutionary
> capabilities
>> of Darwinian mechanisms is *not* the official position of the NABT, the
>> AAAS, the NCSE, etc. It is not the position of Dawkins and Coyne. It
> was
>> not the position of past influential popularists like Asimov and Sagan.
>> It is not the position of some theistic evolutionists, who seem sure
> that
>> Darwinian means are God's chosen means for bringing about evolution.
> The
>> very strong impression conveyed to the general public, by people who
> claim
>> to speak in the name of "science", is that Darwinian mechanisms have
> been
>> proved capable, beyond a reasonable doubt, of explaining the incredible
>> complexity we see in life, and that it is only some of the clean-up
> work,
>> the fussy details, that are not yet understood.
> There is indeed much too much arrogance in the way science is often
> portrayed in the media. Perhaps it is a characteristic of scientists who
> write popular books and materials. Indeed, many successful scientists are
> far too arrogant. Maybe that helps them be successful. But I think most
> scientists have a great degree of humility, knowing all too well what we
> don't know. Unfortunately, most scientists don't know how to convey this
> to
> the public.
>> If the official position of "science" were "We cannot explain -- in
>> anything like the rigorous, detailed manner commonly expected in modern
>> sciences such as physics and chemistry -- the origin of complex
> integrated
>> biological systems, and therefore those origins remain a mystery", the
>> creation/evolution debates would lose much of their explosive character.
>> And if the teaching of biology in the schools reflected that healthy
>> agnosticism, many of the constitutional and legal debates would go away
> as
>> well.
> Actually, I think the explanation is indeed comparable to the rigorous and
> detailed manner commonly expected in physics and chemistry. But not as
> detailed as detractors might demand. But we could benefit from more
> humility
> in the presentation.
>> 6. The problem as I see it, Randy, is that people like Eugenie Scott
> and
>> Ken Miller and Francis Ayala and Barbara Forrest and Daniel Dennett and
>> Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins are never going to accept your
>> intellectually modest and cautious position. What would you say to
> these
>> people about the limits of "science" regarding the question of
>> evolutionary mechanisms? Should it not be something roughly equivalent
> to
>> what you have said to the ID people?
> I would hardly put those names together in one sentence. Their views
> differ
> widely. I have far harsher words for Dawkins and Coyne and Dennett than
> any
> brother and sister in Christ striving to understand God's providence in
> our
> world, whether they be ID or YEC or whatever. They inexcusably use science
> as a means to convince people that their metaphysical views are true.
> Scott
> and Miller and Ayala have their own respective issues but they have a more
> credible attempt at building bridges than the other three.
> Randy
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 21 00:58:38 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 21 2009 - 00:58:39 EDT