Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Emergence as an Explanation for Living Systems

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Yesterday I watched a re-run of a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode.

There. I said it.

I love Star Trek. Notwithstanding the many absurd evolution-based plotlines.

In this specific episode, Data referred to a particular characteristic of a newly-developing lifeform as an “emergent property.”

I’ve looked into the “emergence” ideas in the past, and the related self-organization hypotheses, and have never been too impressed. But it has been a while, so I thought I’d quickly navigate over to the Wikipedia page on the subject to see what it says. Now I’m a big fan of the general concept behind Wikipedia and it is a very useful tool, if used properly. Yet everyone knows that Wikipedia is a questionable source on controversial subjects. Want to know Abraham Lincoln’s birthday or the text of the Gettysburg Address? Wikipedia is great. Want to get an objective description of a controversial subject like — oh just to pick at random, say, evolution or intelligent design — and you will be sorely misled.

Emergence itself is not necessarily controversial, at least not in its simple, observationally-based definition. Wikipedia describes it as “a process whereby larger entities, patterns, and regularities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities that themselves do not exhibit such properties.” Fine. Nothing particularly controversial there. I’m willing to accept that as a reasonable working definition for purposes of discussion.

The problem arises when researchers or theorists imagine that emergence is an explanation for a particular phenomenon. For example, the very next paragraph on Wikipedia states, “the phenomenon life as studied in biology is commonly perceived as an emergent property of interacting molecules . . .” By labeling “life” as an “emergent property of interacting molecules” a researcher can fool herself into thinking that she has understood something foundational about life, that she has provided some kind of explanation for life. Yet she has done nothing of the sort. She has simply applied a label to her ignorance, has simply given a name to something she doesn’t understand.

The word “emerge” is typically defined as “to come forth into view or notice, as from concealment” or “to come up or arise” or “to come into existence” or “to develop”.

This is straightforward enough, and allows us to say that, in its most basic sense, the concept of “emergence” simply means that A + B leads to or develops into C. This can be deterministic or stochastic, but either way, it is quite simple. The following two sentences are substantively equivalent:

A plus B develops into C.
C is an emergent property of A plus B.

Notice that with the first sentence we would immediately ask the follow-up question: “How?” Yet with the second sentence we don’t naturally follow up with that question. Indeed, the wording gives the impression that the “how?” has been answered by the very term “is an emergent property.” But in reality, no explanation at all is offered. No “how” has been given. We don’t know one iota more about the real, underlying processes at work after reading the second sentence than the first. So we should still follow up the second sentence with an emphatic “How?”, yet the very rhetorical stance taken in the second sentence tends to discourage that critical follow-up question.

Calling a living organism an “emergent property” of various molecules, is about as helpful and intellectually vacuous as saying that the Space Shuttle is an “emergent property” of glass, metal and plastic. It isn’t helpful. It hasn’t added anything to our knowledge of what actually brought the system into being. Worse, it all too often gives the false impression that an explanation has been offered.*

Let me be clear. I am not arguing that the word “emergence” be stricken from our language. I am not suggesting that the concept, as commonly defined, might not be a helpful shorthand label that we can use in certain situations.

What I am saying is that we must be scrupulously careful to not allow the label of “emergence” to be treated as more than it is: a label that does not carry with it an actual explanation, a label that does not provide a detailed analysis, a label that (unless we are extremely vigilant) tends to mask ignorance, rather than shed light.

So, for our dear readers, two questions:

1. What, if anything, does the concept of “emergence” add to our understanding of natural phenomena? And how is calling X an “emergent property” any different from simply observing that X occurred?

2. Even if there are some phenomena that can be helpfully thought of as emergent phenomena (Wikipedia cites snowflakes, hurricanes, ripple patterns in a sand dune, etc.), what relevance does that have to the origin and development of living systems?

—–

* Laughably, Wikipedia even tries to suggest that irreducible complexity is nothing more than a case of emergence, as though that label explains the existence of irreducibly complex biological systems. Worse, not capable of seeing the irony, the intellectual pygmies who tyrannically maintain the irreducible complexity page call irreducible complexity “a pseudoscientific theory.”

Comments
Carpathian
Why would God give the job of creating life on Earth to aliens?
Humans have the job of creating certain things.
While I could accept creationism as being a possibility ...
You probably should explain this more since I believe you already said that ID was impossible.Silver Asiatic
July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
Carpathian: Where did the aliens get the immaterial minds/souls to put in our bodies? Where do you get your immaterial data from for the physical layer of your OSI model? You've already confessed to being a dualist, why do you try to pretend like you haven't?Mung
July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
One by one, the arguments of ID proponents disappear if aliens are involved.
Perhaps in your very limited mind. But ID proponents don't care what strawman humpers say. A strawman a day helps keep the facts away.Virgil Cain
July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
Carpathian:
ID has come nowhere close to proving its position.
Science isn't about proof. However science says that living organisms have all of the characteristics of intelligent design. Further science has exposed your position as less than zero.
If it had you would be able to answer my question, “How is it done?”
That doesn't follow and exposes your ignorance. Nice own goal. A strawman a day helps keep the facts away.Virgil Cain
July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
Carpathian,
Box: Well, I don’t understand why ID cannot be performed by lesser beings than God. You will probably say: “but then a catastrophe may happen” and my answer will be: so what? I don’t understand your point.
Carpathian: Then we and our “immaterial minds/souls” are no more important to the universe than a vegetable.
That doesn’t follow. But even so, it’s no problem for ID.
Carpathian: Where did the aliens get the immaterial minds/souls to put in our bodies?
Why do you think that this question concerns ID?
Carpathian: Are the aliens responsible for an absolute moral code?
Why do you think that this question concerns ID? Is there an absolute moral code according to ID?
Carpathian: Did aliens design humans and then Jesus?
Why do you think that this question concerns ID?
Carpathian: Why would God give the job of creating life on Earth to aliens?
Why do you think that this question concerns ID? ID doesn’t posit the existence of God nor Jesus.
Carpathian: Did God fine-tune the laws of physics so that aliens would have an easier time of designing life?
ID doesn’t posit the existence of God. Maybe powerful aliens from another universe created and fine-tuned our universe. Who knows?
Carpathian: Did the aliens design themselves?
We don’t know. Everything we say now would be pure speculation.
Carpathian: If not, why wouldn’t the designers of the aliens simply design us also?
We don’t know. Maybe they didn’t feel like it? Again: why do you think that this question concerns ID?
Carpathian: All of these questions become relevant if aliens are considered to be the designers of life on Earth.
If so, these are mostly no questions for ID.
Carpathian: Consider how close the alien argument comes to Scientology.
So what?
Carpathian: One by one, the arguments of ID proponents disappear if aliens are involved.
Not at all. ID argues that certain features of life and the universe are best explained by design. ID doesn't commit itself to the identity of the designer(s). One of the candidates are 'aliens'.
Carpathian: While I could accept creationism as being a possibility, the alien argument is ridiculous.
Whatever. If you want truly ridiculous, take a look at your “dirt-did-it argument”.
Though intelligent design, like its materialistic evolutionary counterparts, does address questions about the origin of living things and may, therefore, have implications for metaphysical questions about ultimate reality (see Chapter 2), it does not proffer a comprehensive system of belief about that reality. Intelligent design does not answer questions about the nature of God or even make claims about God’s existence. The theory of intelligent design does not promulgate a system of morality or affirm a body of doctrines about the afterlife. It doesn’t require belief in divine revelation or tell adherents how to achieve higher consciousness or how to get right with God. It simply argues that an intelligent cause of some kind played a role in the origin of life. It is a theory about the origin of biological information and other appearances of design in living systems. Moreover, the theory of intelligent design does not involve any of the practices or have any of the institutional structures or features typically associated with religions. It does not involve worship or meditation or recommend a system of spiritual disciplines. It does not have sacred texts, ordained ministers, rabbis, or priests; there are no intelligent-design liturgies, prayer meetings, or intelligent-design holidays. Advocates of intelligent design have formed organizations and research institutes,2 but these resemble other scientific or professional associations rather than churches or religious institutions. Despite this, some critics, such as Robert Pennock and Gerald Skoog, have gone so far as to characterize the theory of intelligent design as narrowly “sectarian.”3 Yet upon examination, this claim evaporates into nothing more than the observation that the theory of intelligent design is popular with some Christians and not others. In any case, the theory of intelligent design does not affirm sectarian doctrines. It has nothing to say about, for example, the virgin birth, the immaculate conception, predestination, infant baptism, the validity of Islamic law, salvation, original sin, or the reality of reincarnation. Moreover, the belief that a designing intelligence played a role in the origin of the living world is hardly unique to Christians or to religious persons in general. Historically, advocates of design have included not only religious theists, but nonreligious ones, pantheists, polytheistic Greeks, Roman Stoics, and deistic Enlightenment philosophers and now include modern scientists and philosophers who describe themselves as religiously agnostic. [Stephen Meyer]
Box
July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
Carpathian: If ID is impossible it’s not science. Virgil Cain: The science says the design is real. And the science says yours is the impossible position.
ID has come nowhere close to proving its position. If it had you would be able to answer my question, "How is it done?"Carpathian
July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
Box:
Well, I don’t understand why ID cannot be performed by lesser beings than God. You will probably say: “but then a catastrophe may happen” and my answer will be: so what? I don’t understand your point.
Then we and our "immaterial minds/souls" are no more important to the universe than a vegetable. Where did the aliens get the immaterial minds/souls to put in our bodies? Are the aliens responsible for an absolute moral code? Did aliens design humans and then Jesus? Why would God give the job of creating life on Earth to aliens? Did God fine-tune the laws of physics so that aliens would have an easier time of designing life? Did the aliens design themselves? If not, why wouldn't the designers of the aliens simply design us also? All of these questions become relevant if aliens are considered to be the designers of life on Earth. Consider how close the alien argument comes to Scientology. One by one, the arguments of ID proponents disappear if aliens are involved. While I could accept creationism as being a possibility, the alien argument is ridiculous.Carpathian
July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
Carpathian:
If ID is impossible it’s not science.
The science says the design is real. And the science says yours is the impossible position.
Let’s see what the limitations are with designing life. 1) Find out what every life-form on the planet is doing.
What is like to hump a strawman a day? A strawman a day keeps the facts away. :cool:Virgil Cain
July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
Carpathian:
Let’s see what the limitations are with designing life. 1) Find out what every life-form on the planet is doing.
One would assume that designing life in this case would be just a tad redundant. 1) Find out what every life-form on the planet is doing. This doesn't seem to be holding back the AI people. 1) Find out what every life-form on the planet is doing. I bet people are trying right now to create life in a lab somewhere without worrying one bit about what every life-form on the planet is doing.Mung
July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
Carpathian: Catastrophes can happen and that is why ID cannot be implemented by fallible beings.
Why not? The worst thing that can happen is a catastrophe. Suppose aliens created life on earth and tomorrow some global catastrophe takes place. All dead. Now what's ID's problem with this scenario from a scientific/philosophical standpoint?
Carpathian: The point I have been trying to make all along is that ID cannot be performed by beings simply because they’re intelligent.
Well it certainly helps to be intelligent. Why do you hold that blind forces can do a better job?
Carpathian: If ID cannot be performed by anyone less powerful than God, then ID is creationism.
Well, I don't understand why ID cannot be performed by lesser beings than God. You will probably say: "but then a catastrophe may happen" and my answer will be: so what? I don't understand your point.Box
July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
Mung:
Carpathian: My first question is: “How do you determine what to do?” This is the first problem of an ID designer. Mung: What did you do when you designed your WEASEL+ program.
I designed within my limitations. Let's see what the limitations are with designing life. 1) Find out what every life-form on the planet is doing. 2) Decide whether some need to be modified. 3) Determine a new "representaion" or CSI configuration. 4) Determine how all other life-forms will be affected. 5) Determine new "representations" for all other applicable life-forms to support your change to the first. 6) Determine at what rate the life-forms of all affected populations would have to be changed. 7) Determine how many support staff would be required to make this change. 8) Roll out the changes. 9) Repeat for all eternity.Carpathian
July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
Mung:
Carpathian: If ID is impossible it’s not science. Mung: Scientists do the impossible every day.
LOL! It would be great if they could!Carpathian
July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
Carpathian:
My first question is: “How do you determine what to do?” This is the first problem of an ID designer.
Talk to the customer. Carpathian:
My first question is: “How do you determine what to do?” This is the first problem of an ID designer.
What did you do when you designed your WEASEL+ program.Mung
July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Carpathian: If ID is impossible it’s not science. Scientists do the impossible every day. Carpathian: If ID is impossible it’s not science. ID is science, therefore it is possible. Carpathian: If ID is impossible it’s not science. You designed and implemented a software program. Therefore ID is not impossible.Mung
July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
Carpathian: If ID is impossible to implement then it didn’t happen. Virgil Cain: So we just scrap science for your emotional and irrational pleaing?
If ID is impossible it's not science.Carpathian
July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
Box:
Why do you hold that things are so incredibly (divinely) fine-tuned that catastrophes cannot happen? BTW obviously such a claim is not part of ID.
I don't believe in the fine-tuning argument at all. That is something the ID community has come up with. Catastrophes can happen and that is why ID cannot be implemented by fallible beings. The point I have been trying to make all along is that ID cannot be performed by beings simply because they're intelligent. If ID cannot be performed by anyone less powerful than God, then ID is creationism. No one but you has even made an attempt to answer questions of methodology. If implementing ID is possible, then it may be probable. If however, implementing ID is highly unlikely, then it can't be viewed as an alternative to evolution and certainly should not be taught in schools.Carpathian
July 17, 2015
July
07
Jul
17
17
2015
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
Carpathian: If an ID designer makes a mistake however, Earth could end up being lifeless with just one mistake in a strain of bacteria.
Box: And according to you such a catastrophe cannot happen? And only the God of the Bible can fine-tune things that way? And therefor ID is creationism? Is that your argument?
Carpathian: In a nutshell that is exactly my argument!
Why do you hold that things are so incredibly (divinely) fine-tuned that catastrophes cannot happen? BTW obviously such a claim is not part of ID.Box
July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
If ID is impossible to implement then it didn’t happen.
So we just scrap science for your emotional and irrational pleaing?Virgil Cain
July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
Carpathian:
Regardless of how it appears , if ID is impossible from an implementation point of view, then ID did not happen.
I will go with science. Your emotional and irrational pleas mean nothing.
If something can’t be done then it didn’t happen.
Which is why your position is bogus- NS can't do it and you don't have any other mechanism capable.Virgil Cain
July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
If the darwinain literature had something then ID would be a non-starter as ID claims that natural selection is incapable of producing the diversity of life.
If ID is impossible to implement then it didn't happen. Show me how you would do it.Carpathian
July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
ID claims to have a step-by-step mechanism for determining if intelligent design is present or not. So biology classes would consist of identifying biological systems, sub-systems, structures and sub-structures and use that methodology to determine if what you are discussing/ studying is intelligently designed.
Regardless of how it appears , if ID is impossible from an implementation point of view, then ID did not happen. If something can't be done then it didn't happen.Carpathian
July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
If the darwinain literature had something then ID would be a non-starter as ID claims that natural selection is incapable of producing the diversity of life. Carpathian humps ID strawmen and lies for darwin. How typicalVirgil Cain
July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
Carpathian:
More insults, still zero answers.
Observations are not insults and you ignore the answers. THAT says it allVirgil Cain
July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
Carpathian:
And all of the “Darwinist” literature says that you are wrong.
About what? There isn't any darwinian literature that demonstrates natural selection can build multi-protein structures.
Why don’t you just sit down with a paper and pencil and try to do it?
Obviously it is way above our capabilities, duh. We have trouble doing that with artifacts that people built. Grow up. The SCIENCE of Intelligent Design is in the detection and study of design in nature. ID claims to have a step-by-step mechanism for determining if intelligent design is present or not. So biology classes would consist of identifying biological systems, sub-systems, structures and sub-structures and use that methodology to determine if what you are discussing/ studying is intelligently designed.Virgil Cain
July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
Where does Carpathian live: In a nutshell… That says it all
More insults, still zero answers. That says it all.Carpathian
July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
The SCIENCE of Intelligent Design is in the detection and study of design in nature. ID claims to have a step-by-step mechanism for determining if intelligent design is present or not. So biology classes would consist of identifying biological systems, sub-systems, structures and sub-structures and use that methodology to determine if what you are discussing/ studying is intelligently designed.Virgil Cain
July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
Research shows that I am right. All of the ID literature says that I am right.
And all of the "Darwinist" literature says that you are wrong. Why don't you just sit down with a paper and pencil and try to do it? You'll see the logistics alone of using ID make it impossible.Carpathian
July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
Where does Carpathian live:
In a nutshell...
That says it allVirgil Cain
July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
Box:
And according to you such a catastrophe cannot happen? And only the God of the Bible can fine-tune things that way? And therefor ID is creationism? Is that your argument?
In a nutshell that is exactly my argument! Try being a fallible designer when it comes to introducing changes to inter-connected lifeforms. Imagine that you cannot fine-tune the universe as in the "Privileged Planet". Imagine that you cannot foresee a change occurring until it happens. How fast can a non-god react? Instead of just answering, try to do it first. Carpathian
July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
I can’t believe no one has asked these questions of themselves when thinking of ID.
They don't have anything to do with ID. Once science determines the design exists it is obviously plausible. And science has determined that design exists and there isn't any other plausible explanation.Virgil Cain
July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
1 2 3 9

Leave a Reply