As everyone knows by now, the Dover ID case has been decided. I think the court was right on the establishment clause issues, partly becasue the existing Supreme Court establishment clause jurisprudence is such a mess. Hopefully I’ll blog about that another time. For now I want to focus on the court’s unecessary, and wrong-headed, discussion of whether ID is “science.”
I should note that I have to go back and read the decision more carefully. On my first quick read, here’s what, from my perspective, is objectionable about the court’s discussion of “science”:
1. The judge went far beyond the case / controversy at hand by giving his primer on whether ID is “science.” There was enough in the record to establish the religious motives and effect of the particular Dover school board policy at issue that the establishment clause decision could easily have been decided without the long explication of ID as “science.” It strikes me that the court in that respect was acting more like a soldier in the culture war than as a neutral arbiter of facts and law.
2. The judge’s criteria for determining what constitutes “science” seem muddled and dangerous to me, for several reasons.
a. He distorts the history of science by stating that science since the Enlightenment has always proceeded under the assumption of absolute methodological naturalism. That just isn’t so. Many giants in the history of science, Netwon not the least among them, started with the assumption of a creator / designer who built intelligible order into the universe. In fact, from an historical perspective, absolute methodoligical naturalism arguably is the anomaly.
b. He distorts the philosophy of science by essentially equating the assumption of naturalism with the definition of science. I have to go back and check carefully, but I don’t recall any serious mention of how the philosophy of science has developed from the Enlightenment to Karl Popper’s falsifiability criterion, and then from there has split into numerous strands including Kuhn’s observations about paradigm shifts, Lakatos’ criteria for a “scientific program,” and Polanyi’s critiques of what constitutes scientific “knowledge.” Given the rich debates that surround serious discussion of the philosophy of science, it’s facile to conclude that absolute naturalism must be the sine qua non.
c. He further distorts the demarcation (“science” or “non-science”) question by focusing the definitional question on whether a theory has gained acceptance within the scientific community. It seems that, in the court’s view, it is “science” only if it has a sustained record of peer reviewed pubications and endorsements by major scientific organizations. That can’t, however, be a test for whether something is categorized as “science.” Almost any new theory initially meets with resistance. Under the court’s “science is what science says it is” test, most theories would start out as “not science” and then only later evolve (pardon the pun) into “science.” We’d have to say, for example, that many of the revolutionary scientific theories of the past centuries were not “science” when first proposed, and that many important theories today, such as string theory and multiverse theory, may not really be “science” yet.
d. He misrepresents key ID arguments by stating that they are only negative arguments against evolution rather than positive evidence for design. Once again, this is flat wrong. The irreducible complexity argument, for example, doesn’t only state that an IC system can’t have evolved and thus must be designed. It states that an inference of design can be drawn if there is a system is irreducibly complex, there is a statistical probability that the system could not have been assembled merely by chance, and there are no reasonable explanations for the system’s development other than design. It is true that this analysis includes negative arguments against other possibilities for the system’s appearance, including evolution, but every scientific claim proceeds by discounting alternative explanations.
e. He misrepresents the merits of key ID arguments, in particular irreducible complexity. As noted above, he simply doesn’t understand the irreducible complexity argument. Moreover, he uncritically credits arguments by Ken Miller and others against certain ID systems, such as the bacterial flagellum, that have been responded to effectively in many cases by ID proponents, and that should remain the subject of vigorous debate in the scientific community.
In short, it seems to me the court is saying that any truth claim not based on absolutist naturalistic materialism cannot be “science,” regardless of the history of science, the philosophy of science, or the nature of the claim. That seems to me a recipe for censorship rather than for free and open scientific inquiry.
David -
I’m not certain that my view of falsifiability should be considered mainstream – to some extent, science is viewed by its practitioners (as opposed to philosophers) in the same way as pornography: we know it when we see it. We don’t tend to have to define it during the day-to-day research, because things like theories don’t get formulated that often, and the models we test and propose are generally extensions based on existing ones.
What i think we’d all agree on is that we do need a mechanism to test models and evaluate the relative merits of them, or something can’t be approached scientifically. As i’ve indicated, i don’t understand how testability/evaluation and falsifiability are significantly different other than in degree, so i’d imagine there’d be general agreement if other scientists thought about it.
So, given that, how does one rate the probability of supernatural intervention? How does one compare the probability of supernatural intervention to something that’s only supported by a limited data set vs. an extensive data set? If a supernatural intervention can include omnipotence, how can you ever gather enough evidence to make it overwhelmingly unlikely? I just don’t understand how to do any of that, and i’m not aware of anyone who does. If the supernatural’s going to be eliminated from consideration as soon as a probable natural explanation comes along, why consider it in the first place? It’s all these problems that have caused science to stop considering the supernatural: not because we know it’s not the cause, but simply because we don’t know how to evaluate it.
In regards to your thoughts on evolution, i think it’s important to emphasize that evolution isn’t a theory of origins, but a theory of diversification. No model for origins of life has generated enough scientific support to rise to the level of theory yet. But that’s not to say that one eventually won’t be developed, and that when it is developed, it will be any less scientific than, say, plate tectonics. That’s why it’s important to emphasize that there are areas where our scientific understanding is currently limited (that should be part of the humility of science), but dangerous to declare them permanently off limits to a scientific understanding or even a limited form of scientific understanding. Science has consistently surprised even its practitioners with the number of areas that have become scientifically accessible due to improving technology.
It’s also important to emphasize that Dawkins is not the be-all and end-all of evolutionary theory, and that he often makes grandiose philosophical claims derived from science in a way that makes a lot of other scientists uncomfortable, many of who have stated so publicly. A distinction between such philosophical claims derived from science, and the claims of science itself was a major point of discussion at the Dover trial.
Much like quantum mechanics, evolution is not a theory of necessary causation, either. When an organism is under selective pressure, there is no single necessary way that the organism will respond to adapt best. Clearly, in some cases they fail to adapt at all, leading to all those extinctions. So, to view it as a chain of clear, causal connections back to the origin of life is an oversimplification.
As for the humility aspect, i don’t know what to say. Everyone will admit that science seeks natural explanations for the natural world. Whether that’s presented and/or perceived as a limitation or a triumph depends on social aspects, and not something intrinsic to science itself.
Anyway, if you’re happy where things now stand here, there’s at least one other thing that was touched on above but not discussed: how ID fails as science in addition to its reliance on the supernatural. The other thing that you might be interested in is why a scientist might have issues with the ruling (there’s two problems that stand out to me).
Jay — I don’t know if I’m completely “happy” yet, but I do think I understand your position better, even if we might not yet fully agree.
I’m not sure why we can’t in principle evaluate the likelihood that an event occured through supernatural intervention. That kind of evaluation might require some assumptions about the sort of supernatural intelligence involved — one that is not only omnipotent, but also consistent and orderly, and one that gave to us the noetic equipment needed to discern its activity. Given these foundational assumptions, we should be able to reasonably conclude that the apparent design of the universe isn’t merely apparent, just as we assume that a structure apparently designed for human habitation is in fact a home built by intelligent people rather than something that just happened to appear through natural causes.
These are the very assumptions that were made about God in discussions of the investigation of the natural world from Plato to Augustine to Newton. And, they are the very assumptions naturalistic science makes, but without reference to God: that the universe operates according to discernible, uniform processes, and that our human perceptive and rational capabilities are sufficient to give us reasonably accurate information about how those processes operate. So, we are back to foundational assumptions: I don’t see why it’s more reasonable to ground these foundational assumptions in a naturalism that ultimately reduces to an infinte regress of causation than to ground them in a first cause (God).
So maybe we’ve gone as far as we can go on that front, if we’re down to unverifiable foundational assumptions again? Or am I still missing it (honest question, not snarky)?
Ok — beyond that I would very much like to hear your thoughts on the other two things you mention — how else ID fails as science and the problems a scientist might have with the ruling. One thing that occurs to me about the ruling, regardless of anything else, is that the scientific community shouldn’t be too sanguine about having district courts pronounce for them what “science” means.
“One thing that occurs to me about the ruling, regardless of anything else, is that the scientific community shouldn’t be too sanguine about having district courts pronounce for them what “science” means. ”
Doesn’t the judge’s decision only apply to one school district?
I would think any scientist out there is still perfectly free to continue on as he always has. After all, there have been many books written about the philosophy of science. I believe most scientists don’t pay them much heed.
Even those scientist’s who believe that ID is a testable theory can still do their reasearch and try to convince the rest of the scientific community of the value of such research.
Ralph
Ralph — technically you are correct. However, this clearly was a “test case,” and the court’s ruling already is reverberating throughout the country. The effect and implications of this ruling will not be limited to one school district. And it will be far worse if other district courts, which aren’t bound by the Kitzmiller ruling, also decide to opine on what constitutes “science.” This is not a road anyone should want to go down.
David,
I think you are correct that any other school district wanting to mandate the teaching of ID will have to seriously consider the ruling from Dover.
I’m sorry, I don’t see how this can have any practical effect on how actual scientist conduct their research. The practicing scientists I’ve talked to or whose writings I’ve read, seem to take a rather dim view of anyone trying to tell them how to practice science.
By the way, I listened to your song Bound for Glory. I thought it was very good. Do you record professionally?
Take care,
Ralph
“In regards to your thoughts on evolution, i think it’s important to emphasize that evolution isn’t a theory of origins, but a theory of diversification. No model for origins of life has generated enough scientific support to rise to the level of theory yet.”
I agree with these statements, but I’m not sure that people who design curricula and textbooks do. My daughter, who happens to be a freshman biology major, says that the primordial soup was discussed in her high school biology class (but not in college, at least not yet.) Primordial soup is purest speculation. If people are presenting this as part of evolutionary theory they shouldn’t be. I think the sticker thing results from the perception that many people have, and it may be a true perception, that evolution is being taught in the classroom as covering life origins. They further suspect that this is done while actively denying God’s role in it. I felt very adequate to help my child understand these things at home – and actually, the way her teacher handled the discussion it wasn’t necessary for me to do anything – but many people are convinced that biology books and biology teachers are trying to turn their kids into atheists. In all the sneering at creationism, I see very little happening to reassure those parents.
I work with a man who is an avowed atheist and a former high school science teacher, and while he is a nice person most of the time, he does like to get his little digs in when he’s around me. I shudder to think what his classroom would have been like for teenagers who might not have had the self-confidence to shrug him off like I do. For people who had teachers like him, or whose kids have teachers like him, I don’t blame them in the least for wanting those stickers.
Ralph — thanks for the compliments on the song — I think it’ll be fun once it’s finished. I don’t record professionally, but I do alot with music at my church. See my music page at http://www.davidopderbeck.com/music.php for more of my original work!
Happy new year, all!
David -
If you’re not done talking about this, that’s fine. Our life expectancies would suggest that we’ve got plenty of time to sort through things. I think you described one of the problems with allowing supernatural intervention well, even if it was not your intent – it requires assumption on top of assumption. First you assume there is something there to intervene, then you have to start assuming various things about the capabilities and motivations of that something. Unsupported assertions like this don’t have a place anywhere else in science; certainly, limiting the number that go into foundational assumptions seems appropriate.
These assumptions are also qualitatively different from the two natural assumptions that you correctly recognize as the foundation of science – that we can accurately perceive the natural world, and that the forces and mechanisms we observe today have operated in the past. These have been confirmed empirically, as testable predictions based on these assumptions have been borne out by observations. Were they not, then i’d imagine that science would have developed differently than it has. In contrast, the pre-scientific theological assumptions you’d like to see reintroduced into the study of the natural world are open for debate. Is an orderly omnipotent being consistent with a reality in which many basic features are best understood via probability curves? Reasonable arguments could be made either way.
Another problem with this is something Ralph’s been pointing to: those assumptions aren’t compatible with the beliefs of a substantial fraction of the world. Should Buddhists, atheists, Hindus, etc., who have all made significant contributions to modern science, be excluded from science or forced to check their theological considerations at the door? Should monotheists be the only true scientists? What about monotheists that prefer to keep their view of god abstracted from the messy effects of biology, meteorology, and plate tectonics, which cause suffering for millions? How do they fit in?
Overall, i think introducing theological considerations is an attempt to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Aside from the whole testability/evaluation problems, they were excluded during the development of modern science because they introduce many problems such as the ones described above. I also don’t think it’s a good idea to make a foundational assumption about the possibility of supernatural intervention for a field where the goal would then be to eliminate the reliance on it by providing natural explanations. But that may just be me.
Jay,
Our life expectancies would suggest that we’ve got plenty of time to sort through things.
Maybe you do. My three children have sucked most of the life out of me. I’m sure my heart will give out once they reach college age and I see what tuition looks like.
…that we can accurately perceive the natural world, and that the forces and mechanisms we observe today have operated in the past. These have been confirmed empirically,
I think it’s more than a bit too strong to say these assumptions have been “confirmed empirically.” They can’t be confirmed empirically in the sense of being tested against a control, because if the assumptions are correct, there is no way to create a control. They also can’t be confirmed empirically merely by historical observation, because if these assumptions are untrue, we can’t trust our perception of history.
I would agree with you that both assumptions are reasonable — there don’t appear to be any sound reasons to doubt them — but they can’t be tested. Utlimately, they must be taken on faith. I’d also note that at least a billion Buddhists would take issue with us about the reasonableness of these assumptions. I think they are wrong about that, but questioning these basic assumptions isn’t limited to UFO freaks and isolated crackpots.
Should monotheists be the only true scientists?
No, I didn’t mean to suggest that. All I’m suggesting is that that monotheists shouldn’t be required to check their foundational assumption of a creator at the laboratory door. Isn’t there room for both kinds of inquiry? Some seek strictly naturalistic explanations, some seek to determine whether design can be inferred from the data. All should be trying to determine what constitutes reality. Why should some sociological definition of “science” — “science is what scientists call it when they see it” — limit the search for Truth?
Yes, I know, religious people are free to investigate Truth using their own methods and assumptions — but in the popular culture, and very often in the law, that’s correct only so long as religious people don’t make any claims to “objective” knowledge and keep their theories to themselves. I’m really more intested in addressing that problem than in haggling over the somewhat arbitrary meaning of “science.”
Jay — another thing that’s been bugging me — you seem to have described Newton as “pre-science” or “proto-science.” Is that really what you would call Newton?
I think it’s more than a bit too strong to say these assumptions have been “confirmed empirically.”
Well, not entirely. What we observe of distant stars can be very, very old, but indicates that the basics of physics and chemistry were in operation in the distant past.
I’d also note that at least a billion Buddhists would take issue with us about the reasonableness of these assumptions.
My understanding, based on a year of college buddhism, is that they view the world we see around us as impermanent, but this doesn’t necessarily extent to the forces that shape the world being impermanent. It’s easy to see that as being consonant with things like evolution and continental drift, but a practicing buddhist would be able to say more than i could. At least one school of Buddhist thought must be okay with science, given that the Dali Lama’s position is fairly similar to that of the most recent statement out of the Vatican.
Isn’t there room for both kinds of inquiry? Some seek strictly naturalistic explanations, some seek to determine whether design can be inferred from the data.
As stated here, there isn’t a conflict at all. There is room for design detection in science, provided it’s done using the methods of science; if it were successful, then scientists would start looking for explanations, though they’d focus on natural ones since, as discussed earlier, these are the ones we know how to evaluate. But nobody’s even made the first step successfully yet.
If the ID crowd had managed to generate any compelling evidence that design is apparent, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. That is in fact what they should be doing first – come up with an objective, scientific way of detecting design. Scientists would be more than happy to apply such a test if it were developed, and who knows where that would lead. Instead, the people like Behe and Dembski have made a couple of stabs at this, declared victory, stopped responding to scientific criticisms, and tried to claim unsupported extrapolations based on this “success” as valid scientific theory.
Yes, I know, religious people are free to investigate Truth using their own methods and assumptions — but in the popular culture, and very often in the law, that’s correct only so long as religious people don’t make any claims to “objective” knowledge and keep their theories to themselves. I’m really more intested in addressing that problem than in haggling over the somewhat arbitrary meaning of “science.”
Well, this is more of a social issue than one of science per se. I could comment on it, but i’m not sure my thoughts would be in any way helpful or insightful.
you seem to have described Newton as “pre-science” or “proto-science.” Is that really what you would call Newton?
Yeah, that was pretty intentional. Newton was a brilliant mathematician, but his use of math was primarily in confirming the observations of others. He himself wasn’t doing as much of the observing, and he was an even worse experimenter, dabbling in alchemy and other pseudoscience of his day. He was a very significant figure in the development of science, but at the same time, very much a product of his times, times in which science was not very well developed.
What we observe of distant stars can be very, very old, but indicates that the basics of physics and chemistry were in operation in the distant past.
I agree, but you still have to assume that your observations are accurate — what you are perceiving truly reflects reality, both the reality of the photons hitting your eyes now and the reality that existed billions of years ago. Again, a reasonable assumption, but not truly testable.
come up with an objective, scientific way of detecting design.
But now this seems to be getting circular again. What would an “objective, scientific way of detecting design” look like if “design” is excluded at the outset from the definition of “science?” This sounds like “we’ll listen to your scientific explanation if you provide one, but you can’t provide one, because by definition what you’re doing isn’t science.” I’m not trying to be argumentative; maybe I’m just dense at the moment (been a long day). What would you suggest as some objective, scientific ways to detect design? Or is it really correct that no such ways are conceivable? Or are you getting tired of talking with me about this (I really do appreciate your stopping by here)?
very much a product of his times, times in which science was not very well developed.
Aren’t we all? I wonder what scientists two hundred years from now will be saying about us. This sort or historical perspective makes me want to be very cautious about defining what’s “in” and what’s “out.”
No, i’m not tired of talking about this, and i realize you’re not being argumentative in any unpleasant sense. Having written up evolution articles on the web and waded through the resulting discussions, i’ve developed a fair idea of where the boundaries of honest questions lie – this one makes for a welcome change to some of those “discussions.”
What would an “objective, scientific way of detecting design” look like if “design” is excluded at the outset from the definition of “science?
Well, design itself isn’t excluded from consideration – supernatural intervention is. That’s why i said that if solid evidence of design was ever presented, scientists would start looking for a natural explanation. I guess the distinction is between artificial and supernatural. Science can try to identify the artificial (designed things) while still not being able to handle the supernatural (ie – a potential designer).
This will actually probably be a real issue going forward (at least scientifically – i realize it’s a social issue already), since i’d guess that we’re probably within 50 years of being able to design our own proteins, rather than creating variations on natural ones. At that point, there’s a real danger that the artificial and natural will no longer be readily distinguishable, and evolutionary studies will have to exclude known artificial causes.
I wonder what scientists two hundred years from now will be saying about us. This sort or historical perspective makes me want to be very cautious about defining what’s “in” and what’s “out.”
And that’s what’s bothered me most about the decision. The judge did a flawless job of describing the historical process that brought about our current understanding of science, and looked to all the right places to get that understanding. But he should have made it explicit that the process was the important part, not the result. Science has changed historically, and at some point in the future, the legal world may need an updated definition. The judge figured out how to get a very good one, but didn’t clearly state that it’s the process should be followed in the future, rather than simply using the definition of our time.
I feel the same way about the point where he stated that a governmental body pointing out “gaps” and “problems” with evolution is now understood by a reasonable observer to be a creationist argument. That’s certainly true now, but will it still be so 50 or 500 years from now? I’d love to see science education stay out of the courts for longer than it took the creationist movement to reformulate around the Discovery Institute and ID, but at the same time, i realize that accepted theories sometimes have a fall from grace. The decision was the right one for our moment, but would have done better if it included some guidance for recognizing when our moment has passed.
Happy New Year to you both!
“Well, design itself isn’t excluded from consideration – supernatural intervention is. That’s why i said that if solid evidence of design was ever presented, scientists would start looking for a natural explanation. I guess the distinction is between artificial and supernatural. Science can try to identify the artificial (designed things) while still not being able to handle the supernatural (ie – a potential designer).”
So why not assume the source (i.e. designer) is natural, and then focus solely on the mathematics of design detection?
Jeff,
What are the motives of this “natural designer”? What kind of powers does he/she/it have? Where does it come from? How did the desinger accomplish it’s designs?
Don’t we have to know things like that in order to recognize design in already established scientific fields like archeology?
Ralph
“What are the motives of this “natural designer”? What kind of powers does he/she/it have? Where does it come from? How did the desinger accomplish it’s designs?”
All very interesting questions, of course, but none of them scientific according to the view John has presented … other than perhaps the how question.
Let the philosophers and theologians tackle the motives question, and scientists focus on the mathematics of eliminating chance and detecting design. In order for the scientists to get involved, they need to play their rules … which is to assume a natural cause. So be it. Assume a natural cause, and then get to work on the math so we can empirically determine design instead of play off hunches.
Jeff,
You’re missing the point of my post, I’m afraid.
One has to be able to provide answers to the questions I asked, if one is going to be able to infer design.
That’s why archeologists and anthropologists can infer design from tools that look like they could have been products of natural processes: they know a great deal about the designers and they are able to figure out how the tools were made.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by using math to empirically determine design. Are you referring to Dembski’s ideas?
Ralph
“That’s why archeologists and anthropologists can infer design from tools that look like they could have been products of natural processes: they know a great deal about the designers and they are able to figure out how the tools were made.”
I disagree. Archaeologists can quite easily determine whether a rock formation was formed naturally or carved just by looking at it. It is not that hard to do actually. We infer design using intuition … knowing nothing about who did it or why they did it.
I drove past Eagle Rock on the 210 freeway on my morning commute when I worked in Burbank. Looking at it, I could see that it kinda sorta resembled an eagle if the morning sun was shining on it just right … but it was pretty obvious to me that it was a natural rock formation versus something formed by human hands. I did not need to know anything about the early inhabitants of Southern California to make that call.
A second example is forensics. Surely you agree that forensic investigators can determine a murder versus a suicide before they know the identity or motive of a putative killer. True?
What we need are scientists to help us perfect the scientific tools to detect design. We need to move away from intuition into empirical detection; like we have in cryptography and various forms of pattern matching and recognition.
If we are stuck in a loop because scientists won’t help unless they assume a non-supernatural cause behind patterns, then go ahead and assume a non-supernatural cause. Check that box and proceed.
Well, there are many examples of people who’ve intuited wrong about natural formations like the Devil’s Causeway and the face on mars. Archeologists can’t always identify things quite as easily as you say – many things in central and north America weren’t identified as human creations for decades, and i’d bet there’s a lot of jungle-covered lumps waiting to reveal themselves as Mayan ruins to this day.
A second example is forensics. Surely you agree that forensic investigators can determine a murder versus a suicide before they know the identity or motive of a putative killer. True?
Yes, but they also base this sort of determination on the known human physical limitations – our “powers”, as Ralph mentioned. And i also would guess it’s not a simple before/after as you portray it – discovering a motivation will influence how the physical data gets interpreted. Absence of anyone with motivation will probably do the same. So, i think Ralph is right to a degree.
But i’m not entirely convinced that there is no possible way to identify artificiality in a motivation-free manner. Which means i roughly agree with this statement:
We need to move away from intuition into empirical detection
But i don’t think anybody now has a good idea on how to do that. The ID crowd is also focusing on the wrong fields for developing this sort of thing – it would be most useful in archeology and anthropology. If people want to see this developed by scientists, then it’s scientists in those fields that are more likely to be convinced to work on it. Focusing on biology is pointless, because there’s already a successful theory that explains pretty much all the data. Nobody much is interested in messing with success – it’s generally not very rewarding on any level.
Anyway, i’m not sure it’s my position to be giving advice to the ID community. Not that they’d take it – as i wrote in one of my articles on this, one of the ironies of the post-Dover fall out is that, in some ways, the decision could be used as a road map to lead ID in the direction of scientific respectability. But the ID crowd is busy attempting to re-fight the battles they lost in the decision, rather than paying attention to the decision itself.
“I drove past Eagle Rock on the 210 freeway on my morning commute when I worked in Burbank. Looking at it, I could see that it kinda sorta resembled an eagle if the morning sun was shining on it just right … but it was pretty obvious to me that it was a natural rock formation versus something formed by human hands.”
Why did it seem obvious to you that it was a natural rock formation? In science you can’t simply say something is pretty obvious, you have to give supporting reasons.
“A second example is forensics. Surely you agree that forensic investigators can determine a murder versus a suicide before they know the identity or motive of a putative killer. True?”
Not really. They can determine the cause of death without knowing who caused it. Murder and suicide are not causes.
To classify that death as a murder or suicide, they are going to have to rely on assumptions and other evidence pointing to possible motives and identity. or identity. Those assumptions can be made because we already know a great deal about human behavior.
“What we need are scientists to help us perfect the scientific tools to detect design. We need to move away from intuition into empirical detection; like we have in cryptography and various forms of pattern matching and recognition.
If we are stuck in a loop because scientists won’t help unless they assume a non-supernatural cause behind patterns, then go ahead and assume a non-supernatural cause. Check that box and proceed.”
If those supporting ID think they can provide evidence, it is up to them to do so.
Ralph
“Well, there are many examples of people who’ve intuited wrong about natural formations like the Devil’s Causeway and the face on mars.”
I’ll go along with that. I think that argues for developing a more objective tool than playing off hunches which can go astray (to refer back to my earlier point). The Face On Mars controversy is a classic example of inferring design where there is none.
To your point re: knowing motivations and powers. I agree that it is helpful information if you have it. What I am disputing is that an investigation is dead in the water without it (which is what I thot Ralph was asserting).
“Which means i roughly agree with this statement: We need to move away from intuition into empirical detection”
Xlant. We have a starting point of agreement.
“But i don’t think anybody now has a good idea on how to do that.”
Well let’s stop standing around and get going!
I think we have the basic framework to proceed. We can borrow from the fields of information science (which I know more about) and cryptography (which I know less about). Identifying patterns requires the use of probabilities and the ability to filter out noise (false positives and false negatives). I think it is possible to quantify when data has a recognizable pattern and the likelihood of that pattern being formed by stochastic processes. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel here.
“The ID crowd is also focusing on the wrong fields for developing this sort of thing – it would be most useful in archeology and anthropology.”
Point taken. Let’s perfect this tool in other areas where it will have an immediate impact. Perhaps archaeology and anthropology, maybe forensics, perhaps encryption, security and cryptography.
I am sure everyone is interested in living in a safer world where terrorist messages can be recognized, intercepted and decrypted with greater precision, as an example.
If people want to use design detection in biology, then they will need to make a pragmatic case for why this would be beneficial. Who knows, maybe they could make a strong case … but for now, I agree that there is not a compelling reason to focus on biology with such a tool.
Just a few thoughts on the issue:
I should point out that it’s not at all clear that any techniques developed that help identify design in non-living systems may not apply to living ones, which self-replicate, undergo mutation, etc. – all sorts of things that the non-living doesn’t. But it’d be at least the starting point for a reasonable debate, instead of all the unreasonable debate that goes on now.
The other thing which may interest you, is that pattern recognition software is heavily used in biology already. With whole genomes now available, its primary use is in recognizing things which are likely to be genes vs. all the junk DNA. Other software actually recognizes the patterns of common descent. For example, flies have 3 versions of a kind of molecule i work on – mammals have somewhere in the area of 30. Given enough species spread out along the evolutionary distance between the two, computer analysis can recognize when the 3 versions in flies got duplicated, which of the duplications are most closely related, etc.
Jay– any links for any of the uses of pattern recognition you describe? I tried Googling but I’m not getting any good info. Thanks.
This is all Google driven, since i don’t use many of these personally (i’m a lowly developmental biologist – i just use the results), but i do have the advantage of knowing what search terms to plug in.
Don’t know if this is really pattern recognition, but the program they use for genome reconstruction is Arachne:
http://www.broad.mit.edu/wga/
It’s big recent success was the dog genome.
There seems to be a number of options for gene prediction programs:
http://opal.biology.gatech.edu/GeneMark/
http://cbcb.umd.edu/software/jigsaw/
http://genes.mit.edu/GENSCAN.html
My favorite genome site is ENSEMBL, which uses this last one for its predicted genes.
I also dug up a reference that compares a number of programs – it’s pretty out of date now, but it may give you names of programs that have been updated in the mean time:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10743555&dopt=Citation
For evolution analysis software, Google suggests:
http://www.megasoftware.net/
http://evolve.zoo.ox.ac.uk/
But i don’t do any of that sort of research, so i don’t know how well these work, or whether they were the ones that were used for the example i gave.
Hope that’s helpful for your interest. I could do some detailed research if you were interested in some specific aspect.
Oh, and it turns out that this sort of DNA data mining’s just been put to interesting use:
http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2006/01/05/catblogging_from_deep_time.php