The Triangle

Originally posted by

Mark Lamontia

I am heartened by the weekly string of articles and commentary in The Triangle that followed my two lectures at Drexel. It appears there is enough interest for a debate to be set up. I hope to be invited.

A debate???

All you've seen so far is history majors and other scientifically disconnected people writing about their random opinions. Has any professor from the Drexel Dept of biology written a piece? ever wondered why not? for the same reason the white house doesn't go out of its way to disprove the claim that 9/11 was not organized by israelis.

there's going to be no debate, because there is nothing to be debated about. i mean, you went ahead and said you believe jesus is the intelligent designer. there's a reason we don't have debates between scientists and priests.

If I may add, Tim, a tactic employed by creationists to further their cause is to cry for equal time. They throw out the politically correct notion that many new theories started out as radical, unpopular notions. Therefore, in all fairness, Intelligent Design should be given a fair shake as well. But even in the spirit of fairplay, we need to draw the line someplace. Not every idea ends up as the one embraced by the scientific community. No doubt, hundreds or even thousands of theories are dumped for every one that finds its way into the cannon of science. We need to call a really stupid idea just that: A Really Stupid Idea. Intelligent Design has all the appeal of phrenology. It's just religious politics wrapped in techno-speak.

Originally posted by

Tim Makinson

William Mulgrew?s op-ed piece is pure unscientific and anti-scientific codswallop. Gravity may be invisible, but it most certainly measurable, and scientists deal in what can be measured. Likewise, his citations of archaeology, forensics and the like is completely off-base. These fields routinely hypothesise how, why and by whom the intelligent cause took place, questions that ID won?t even entertain. They likewise deal in purely natural intelligences, unlike the supernatural ?designer? (aka God) of ID.

?Darwinism? as two meanings. The first is historical, Darwin?s original theory of evolution by natural selection, long since superseded by theories that posit additional mechanisms such as mutation, recombination, genetic drift and genetic flow. The second is a pejorative strawman, employed by dishonest Creationists in the place of genuine modern Evolutionary Biology.

Evolutionary Biology has made, and continues to make innumerable predictions, many of which have proved true, but some of which have been falsified, with the falsification of these ideas leading first from Darwin?s original theories, to the New Evolutionary Synthesis, to a number of modern hypotheses including Punctuated Equilibria and ?Evo-Devo? (Evolutionary Developmental Biology). ID on the other hand makes no predictions. Because of this it has failed to spark scientific interest and has failed to evolve.

Walter Bradley is a Mechanical Engineer specialising in Fracture Analysis. In other words he is an expert in cracks. He has no expertise in either Biology or Statistics, as his absurd ?objection? demonstrates. To pretend that evolution involves ?randomly assembling one functional protein molecule? is a ludicrous strawman argument. Natural Selection is quite simply not a random process (as anybody who has sufficient of a grasp of the English language to know the meaning of ?selection? should grasp).

ID brings no ?free exchange of ideas.? Its proponents do not even attempt to publish in the scientific journals that are the appropriate forum for exchange of such ideas. Rather, they attempt to bypass this forum and attempt, through political lobbying and pressure, to have their unsubstantiated, anti-scientific fantasies taught to impressionable children in public school science classes.

Mulgrew parrots, very inaccurately, the ID?s Discovery Institute in claiming that Judge Jones committed plagiarism. Firstly, it was not the entire decision that the DI is claiming was ?90.9% copied,? merely ?section on intelligent design as science,? and by ?copying? they mean don?t actually mean really copying, only ?virtually verbatim? (whatever that might mean).

In any case this is not plagiarism. It is fairly standard practice, for a judge to make considerable use of the winning side?s ?Proposed Finding of Facts? in writing their own findings of fact (that is what such proposed findings are for after all). As long as the judge does not copy their entire decision verbatim from one side?s proposal (and Jones didn?t come even close to this), there is no problem with this jurisprudentially.

It is quite true that ?not a single scientific journal or publication shows how molecular evolution of complex biochemical systems might have occurred.? This is because this evidence is too large to fit into ?a single scientific journal or publication? but is rather distributed among thousands of scientific research articles on the subject.

Mulgrew completely misrepresents the Meyer-Sternberg incident. The article was not on ID but an anti-evolution review article on the Cambrian Explosion. Sternberg broke normal editorial procedures to have it published (in his final issue after he had resigned). He ?lost his ... office keys? only because all the keys were being replaced by swipecards. His default sponsor (his original sponsor having died shortly before his appointment as a Research Associate at the Smithsonian) did not even know who he was (he had been at the museum so infrequently, and at such odd hours), so not unsurprisingly was initially quite negative and hostile when the Sternberg controversy was dropped on his lap. There was no ?congressional investigation?, merely an extremely partisan ?Staff Report? written for a Creationist congressman. ?For the record, Sternberg? has presented at an ID-proponent-only conference (RAPID: Research and Progress in Intelligent Design) and is a member of the pro-ID International Society for Complexity, Information and Design that organised it.

William Dembski has described ID as ?just the Logos theology of Johns Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory? making it overtly theological. His ?explanatory filter? has been widely debunked and his work described as ?written in jello? by a prominent Information Theorist.

If you can't attack an argument or position logically, with solid evidence and rationale, then ridicule it with name calling and misinterpret what is stated according to you own biased misguided perspective. Then imply the writer is ignorant by your own lack of effort in trying to understand the actual contents of the position or argument. For example your statement:

"William Mulgrew's op-ed piece is pure unscientific and anti-scientific codswallop. Gravity may be invisible, but it most certainly measurable, and scientists deal in what can be measured."

The term "pure unscientific and anti-scientific codswallop" is nothing more then name calling, discrediting your argument from the very start. This is an attempt to establish yourself as a self-proclaimed but unsubstantiated expert. This is also a tactic of bullying, and like in the "play ground" never accomplished much. You then intentionally and deceptively imply that Mulgrew completely misunderstands gravity. Note Mulgrew's reference to gravity:

"Besides the fact that science deals with unseen forces, like gravity, but nonetheless infers its existence through evidence"

This statement in no way, or manner, implies that gravity is not measurable as implied by your critique. The intention of this false implication that Mulgrew is attributing gravity to the un-measurable, therefore unscientific, may be to imply that Mulgrew is an ignorant non-scientific person who is beyond his league in attempting to provide a scientific logical argument (again more bullying, but hardly intellectually effective).

Your initial statement against Mulgrew is so flawed and so intentionally deceptive that it makes your entire response suspect. Your next statement is:

"Likewise, his citations of archaeology, forensics and the like is completely off-base. These fields routinely hypothesise how, why and by whom the intelligent cause took place, questions that ID won?t even entertain. They likewise deal in purely natural intelligences, unlike the supernatural "designer" (aka God) of ID."

Again, you fail to attempt to understand what Mulgrew states then falsely attribute it to a completely different implication, and completely misrepresent and misconstrue Mulgrew's conclusions. Here's what Mulgrew states concerning this:

"Excluding intelligent causes from the realm of science throws out more than just ID. It gets rid of archaeology, cryptology, criminal and accident forensics, biotechnology and genetic engineering from the category of science - all are scientific disciplines that deal with intelligent causes or both intelligent and natural."

Mulgrew attempts to show a basic idea of the problem with ignoring intelligent causes when doing science, as is done when considering living processes like the macromolecular machines of a living cell. He is essentially stating that if intelligent causes are ignored, then disciplines like archeology, cryptology, etc., etc, must be eliminated because intelligent causes form part of the cornerstone of the investigative activity of these disciplines. You then misrepresent this basic idea in an attempt to de-rail his entire argument. But, attempting to de-rail an argument by misrepresenting it, then make erroneous deductions from the misrepresentation, does nothing more then reinforce the argument you are trying to debunk. Here's how you do it.

You first attempt to discredit his argument by pointing out a truth that part of the purpose of fields like archaeology, forensics and the like is to identify the "designer" or "causer". You then accurately point out that ID leaves out the process of identification of the designer. But surprisingly after this, you completely contradict yourself and attribute ID to dealing in the "supernatural designer". Well which one is it? In or Out? It can't be both. This again exposes serious contradictions to your arguments.

Now reading closely Mulgrew'S comments on this you fail to address what he basically stated, and that was the problem of ignoring intelligent causes. You stated nothing about this in rebuttal other then stating that it was unfounded with absolutely no proof text of your claim.

Never the less to address your misplaced statements against ID, note that just because ID leaves out identification of the designer (for good scientific reasons of which I will elaborate) does not negate the discipline of detection of intelligent causes or processes (the root or core concept Mulgrew utilizes in addressing the problem of ignoring intelligent causes).

True, archeology, forensics, and the like utilize this discipline of intelligence detection for the reason of making conclusions of root intelligent causes, but those causes fall within the realm of what is detectable within science. They are not attempting to determine the root cause of the universe. ID leaves this out because identification of the designer of the universe is it is not a scientific question. In order to logically, reasonably, and therefore scientifically, determine whom the designer of the universe is, you would have to extend beyond the universe, which is not possible within the realm of science.

This goes back to Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, which states that the truth or falsity of any axiom, or postulate within any framework of reasoning can only be proved by the logical contents of a meta-framework. Well the meta-framework of the universe is beyond the realm of science (but not philosophy, mathematics, theoretical physics, theology, and other non-materialists or meta-materialists disciplines).

Materialistic evolution violates this logical principle by illogically assuming no initial intelligence, or designer without proof (it is an assumed axiom or postulate with no meta-framework to establish its truth). It then constructs an entire framework of scientific thought on an unsubstantiated and unproven axiom or postulate.

I could go on and on about many of the problems in your response (like the stab at Dr. Bradley, for "only knowing about cracks"), but I don't have the time. But I will address one point you bring out that I feel is important. This is the point that ID has failed to make important predictions for science, because it has "failed to evolve".

First off and again, ID is not warmed over debunked "Creationism", which is essentially a "God of Gaps" theory. It includes the science of detecting design (in addition to law and chance) in the complex natural processes of the universe (which includes life processes). Materialistic evolution is the science of detecting only law and chance in the complex natural processes of the universe. ID does not eliminate law and chance from consideration but adds design.

Now within the context of this definition, to address predictions of both ID and Materialistic Evolution, note the following. It is claimed that Materialistic Evolution predicted such astounding discoveries as DNA, but it is interesting that Crick or Watson and even Dawkins stated that as biologists study life processes they must keep reminding themselves that what they are looking at is not designed but happened by random accident. Does this imply that one cannot eliminate the idea of design when researching life processes and therefore have to enforce the idea of random chance and law only? In other words is the idea of design is so obvious and prevalent, that it permeates the entire thinking processes of biological research, such that scientists have to force a framework of only law and chance? Now what would be the result if scientists had the ability of completely turning off the idea of design (and not have to keep reminding themselves)? What paths of reasoning would occur then?

From this common characteristic of biological research (design naturally occurring in the thinking process), it is my speculation that much of the so called evolutionary predictions are actually design predictions in an evolutionary disguise. But this is only speculation and I'll give materialistic evolutionists the benefit of the doubt that things like DNA discovery were their predictions, granted.

But what about today? As the molecular machinery of cells and the dizzyingly complexity of life processes is becoming more and more known, it is more and more difficult to fit within a framework of law and chance only for explanation. Will considering only law and chance create a boundary by which it will be impossible to further progress science? Here is an example; Crick towards the end of his life was attempting to research the soul and consciousness to bring it within the context of a materialistic evolutionary perspective. He failed. From his book "Astonishing Hypothesis", he states:

"A person's mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make them up and influence them"

Now if his statement above left out the last two words "influence them" then he would have been convinced of the materialist perspective of only non-metaphysical characteristics of the soul (not really a soul but simply an aggregate behavioral result of the biochemical activity of the brain of which there is no free-will or real consciousness). But the term "influence them" suggests other meta-physical influences, that science must investigate.

How then does science investigate meta-physical entities like free-will, the soul, and consciousness, love, hate, thinking, and non-physical information? Certainly not by law and chance only, which has done nothing more then produce the insufficient philosophy of scientific reductionism. And certainly not by unreasonable and unpredictable fields of study like magic, the occult, astrology, etc. etc. This is where a logical, reasonable, and predictable discipline like design can enter into the picture. Design suggests reasonable and predictable information under-grids processes that are non-randomly complex, and more then law. Therefore if they are reasonable and predictable then they are discoverable.

Here is another potential for prediction that falls under design and is insufficient from a law and chance only framework. Knowing that human consciousness involves the thinking process, which involves many, many complexities, it can be assumed as true that thinking exists within a physical framework. Now a simple part of a thinking process can involve following instructions. From these two suppositions, what if the behavior of living molecular machines in cells followed a simple thinking process which was simply following instructions. In other words like the aggregate thinking process of a human being, what if a cell's molecular machinery were also thinking on a very primitive level of only following instructions of it's mechanistic behavior. Dysfunctional cells like cancer cells could be considered as part of an abnormal behavior due to incorrect cellular thinking. Now keeping this in mind what if through research from a design perspective we discovered out how to focus thoughts via some mechanism on the cellular level to stop the dysfunctional thinking and reprogram the cell to think correctly. Cancer cells could be cured. Also think of the possibilities in terms of tissue, and organ regeneration. Also tissue, organ, and organism transformation would be possible.

Predictions like this would not be possible if law and chance were only taken into account. There is other research not as advanced as this that is now taking place from a design perspective: Here are some examples:

• A Third Approach to Gene Prediction Suggests Thousands of Additional Human Transcribed Regions This research suggests an operators manual within the gene transcription of junk DNA, a very design friendly idea.
• Genomic Disorders: Molecular Mechanisms for Rearrangements and Conveyed Phenotypes This research speaks of structural features of the genome that can predispose a particular region to rearrangement which is contrary to the previous assumption that genetic mutation only occurred in random point mutations. This suggests that random point mutations are not the only factor in mutational activity, and the predisposal feature of a particular genetic region can suggest a design feature for future mutational adaptation, and demise. In other words it was designed to adapt to a future condition or become extinct to a future condition.
• Evolution of Movement Design is Deterministic. Researchers at Duke University have proposed that a unified theory of physics will ultimately enable apparent common design features in the movement systems of diverse organisms and species to be a consequence of biological systems responding to environmental demands according to the same spatio-temporal dynamical rules. Although this first appears to be evolution friendly, it flies in the face of the un-deterministic characteristics of evolution.
• Rice genome research ascribes new functions to adaptive mutation-duplication process. Central to evolution is the development of new functions through mutation of existing genes. But when mutations occur in functional genes, the result is rarely beneficial, so it is thought that evolution is more likely to proceed first by duplicating existing genes and then experimenting on the "backup" copy of the gene. Of course evolution described in this manner more closely aligns with a definition of design as an engineer would not prototype on a production system.
• Genome Sequencing: Using Models to Predict Who's Next. In an attempt to converge results for computational genomic analysis on Darwinian macro-evolutionary assumptions, a computational biologist has invented a putative standard for genomic analysis which effectively maximizes the likelihood of finding conserved sequences based on chosen constraints and, and in so doing rejects methods with more rigorous constraints that result in lesser correlations. In what reads like a case study in probabilistic informational displacement and NFL, readers may find it an interesting exercise to mentally substitute the term 'complex specified sequences' for 'conserved sequences' where it occurs, and to note the reference to 'detection of a specified feature'. This research highlights the continuing acute misconception among leading scientists that chance mechanisms are adequate to explain complex specified information.
• Reductionism and complexity in molecular biology. The reductionist method of dissecting biological systems into their constituent parts has been effective in explaining the chemical basis of numerous living processes. However, many biologists now realize that this approach has reached its limit. Biological systems are extremely complex and have emergent properties that cannot be explained, or even predicted, by studying their individual parts. The reductionist approach--although successful in the early days of molecular biology underestimates this complexity and therefore has an increasingly detrimental influence on many areas of biomedical research, including drug discovery and vaccine development. The implication of this is that continuing the Darwinistic reductionistic perspective is not giving the necessary insight to the original design characteristics inherent in molecular biology. A new view of reverse engineering from the original design is needed for further progress.