The Principle of “Methodological Counterintuitiveness”

_{William Dembski

July 29, 2009

Darwinism, Evolution, Global Warming, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I recently posted on op-ed in which I described that the concern in the 1970s was not global warming but global cooling (go here). Critics of that piece are now claiming that I’m misrepresenting the fabulous 70s and that “science” back then was not in fact claiming that the earth was cooling. I recall seeing cited some literature on global cooling from that time, so I wrote the op-ed from memory. I since went to that trusted source — Wikipedia — and looked up the article on “global cooling.” It begins (go here):

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s.

I draw your attention to the last clause: there was “a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s.” One would think that this would constitute “scientific evidence” for global cooling. But no, foolish unwashed masses, that just betrays your lack of understanding about how science works. What allows scientists to line their pockets with our tax dollars is that science must, perforce, tell us things that we can’t figure out on our own. In particular, what makes science science is its counterintuitiveness. Sure, a three decade cooling trend would get naive coke-swilling masses to think that the earth is cooling. But the Principle of Methodological Counterintuitiveness tells us that this just means that the earth is getting warmer.

This principle applies quite widely. The fossil record betrays a huge scarcity of transitional forms (Stephen Jay Gould called this the “trade secret” of paleontology). But does that mean that organisms didn’t evolve gradually in Darwin’s great tree of life. Of course not. Precisely because Darwin’s theory is counterintuitive, it is “good science.” In fact, what makes Darwin the greatest scientist of all time is that he proposed the most counterintuitive theory of all time (a corollary of the Principle of Methodological Counterintuitiveness is that the greatness of a scientist is in direct proportion to the counterintuitiveness of his/her theories). Note that this is a methodological principle — we make it a method of science to look for the most counterintuitive theory and then baptize it as “science.”

Some indicators continue to show the earth cooling (my home town Chicago is having the coldest summer in 65 years). Does that show the earth is cooling? Silly you, of course not. According to the Principle of Methodological Counterintuitiveness, that just shows it’s warming. Cells exhibit nano-engineering of a degree that far surpasses our best technology. Does that mean that they might be designed? Of course not, you naive burger-munching rubes. It means that they are the result of blind material forces. In this year of Darwin, let us dedicate this articulation of the Principle of Methodological Counterintuitiveness to his memory.

Comments

StephenB (138 & 141), OK, truth be told I have better things to do too, so I'll just briefly comment to sign off. I suspect we will end up agreeing to disagree (civily, though, I'm sure!). Thanks for your time, though. "What you describe as the DNA point mutation is part of what is ostensibly a naturalistic evolutionary process. What I had in mind was the explanation for what caused the process. That’s the point. Physical processes don’t occur without a cause." I think the cause here is just the action of forces at molecular level, whuich is entirely natural. "From Wikipedia: “The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or RNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells. The code defines a mapping between tri-nucleotide sequences, called codons, and amino acids.” Agreed, but my point was that it isn't information in the sense that an entity was trying to communicate with another, or the entity was doing coding to build anything. It;s an entirely natural process. In the same way, photons received at a telescope contain information about the emitting body, such as a star, but no-one thinks that the photon has been designed that way - it's entirely natural. "Also, let’s not lose track of my original claim. I am saying that Darwinists prefer the counterintuitive explanation that design is an “illusion” rather than the common sense position that it is real. By denying that coded information is real, and by failing to provide an evolutionary pathway to “information,” even if you don’t want to call it that, suggests that you “prefer” the counterintuitive explanation." Actually, my preference is that it was designed, for reasons given earlier. I just consider the evidence, such as it is, very thin indeed. "Science is based on the proposition that ALL physical events have causes. Quantum mechanics shows that physical events can appear spontaneously and unpredictably; it does NOT show that they are uncaused.” My point is that, actually, quantum mechanics does in fact produce problems of causality. Take two neighbouring atoms with unstable nuclei - one nucleus may decay at any moment whilst the other may never decay during the life of the universe. Yet both are in the same environment and experience the same forces, so why does one decay and the other not? This type of phenomenon is a major problem for those who say every effect has a cause. "Let’s say for the sake of argument that you are right and assume that some of these events are causeless. What then? Why cannot many physical events be causeless? Let’s assume further that 30% of all physical events have a cause and 70% of all physical events do have a cause. How would we know which ones are caused and which ones are not? How could we be sure that any of them are caused? What would science do at that point? It would be an intellectual madhouse. Actually, quantum mechanics does strike me as an intellectual madhouse! But seriously, I don't think the proposition is a 30/70 split between causality and non-causality. Like much of physics, it depends on the physical regime - at the very small scale, causality seems problematical and science has to deal with it as it is (which may mean having to accept probabilistic outcomes as opposed to deterministic ones). Similarly, at a large and high energy scale, relativity comes into effect and the phenomenon there are equally hard to understand (although here, cause and effect aren't a problem). It's only in the middle range where humans are comfortable, where cause and effect are reliable and the effects themselves make sense. That may be because our brains and senses evolved to allow us to be comfortable in this range. "Keep in mind that the rule that all physical events require a cause is not really a scientific rule. It is a philosophical rule about reason itself, just as the law of non-contradiction is a rule about reason. It is part of the metaphysical foundations for science, and science cannot do without them." I think it can. Indeed, where quantum mechanics is concerned, it probably does. My view of philosophy is, if philosophy says one thing and the evidnence another, then the philosophy is wrong and needs to change. "Indeed, I have had Darwinists on this site actually try to argue that a thing CAN be and not be at the same time. Again, if the law of non contradiction can be violated even once, why can it not be violated again and again? Why not anytime we please? We can do science only because we agree with its philosophical underpinning, which assumes that we live in a rational universe that makes sense, and the rules of right reason are the elements that make it rational." I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with it. Science is based on what works. All the evidence suggest that we live in a reliable universe (I refrain from using "rational" because of phenomenon like quantum mechanics, whcih strikes me as irrational but we have to accept it) - phenomena we observe here occur in the same way in other parts of the universe and at other epochs (as observed by looking back in time through the universe). But if it didn't that would just complicate the science - it wouldn't necessarily stop it. "Insofar as a scientist argues that the decay has no cause, and because of their ignorance about metaphysics, some clearly do, then they are undermining their own discipline for reasons indicated above." I disagree - it may mean looking again at the science, maybe even establishing a new branch of it, but it doesn't mean science stops. Indeed, that is what has happened the last century saw the spawning of entirely new types of physics. "It is on thing to say that we don’t know the cause of the decay; it is quite another thing to say that there is no cause. This is the point where we exercise our humility. We say we don’t know the cause, but we don’t presume to say that the event is causeless. We are back to the distinction between something being unpredictable and spontaneous versus something being uncaused. It is not the same thing." My example of neighbouring atoms suggests otherwise. "How did the collection of matter get ordered? How could hydrogen become consciousness? That is synonymous with the argument that something can come from nothing, which, again, violates the standards of right reason." No, it isn't - ordering happens in nature quite frequently (crystals and snowflakes being prime examples, geological strata too). It certainly isn't "something from nothing" (which in any case I don't agree with, as quantum mechanics also suggests something can spontaneoulsy arise, albeit briefly by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). "Granted they are different questions, but they are related questions. If the universe has no purpose then neither does biodiversity have a purpose." Not necessarily true - it depends what you mean by "purpose" and who sets it. As it happens, I believe both are purposeless. "If the universe has a purpose, then life has a purpose, which means that Darwinism, which says that life happened without a purpose, is wrong. I have thought it through many times." It's not necessarily true, I'm afraid. Here's an example: suppose the universe DOES have a purpose, and that purpose is that it's a giant machine, some sort of calculator or simulator. In this machine, the key components and subsystems are clusters, galaxies and stars. Planets are nothing more than the debris left over from the production of the smallest essential component (i.e. stars). In that case, life would just be an inconsequential natural phenomenon that infests some of the debris (and maybe just on our bit). in that case, the universe would have purpose but life wouldn't, and purposeless Darwinism, as you put it, would be the mechanism whereby the purposeless life changed. "If the designer created the universe for a purpose, then its purpose is obviously not artificial." I'm afraid it's not obvious to me at all. It still seems artificial, in that it was made by something (i.e. the creator). "Suppose, for example, that you were made for a purpose. That would mean that you have a destiny that you could either embrace or ignore, and it would matter a great deal whether or not you chose acknowledge that fact." Only as far as the creator was concerned. I would be, in its eyes, an errant creation. But that would be its problem. "On the other hand, if you were not made for a purpose, then it really wouldn’t matter what you do. Poor little creatures that we are, we could not change that reality by getting excited about baseball or science. We would be deluding ourselves by trying to inject meaning when meaning isn’t there. That would indeed be an example of an artificial purpose." I still don't see the difference - sorry.Gaz_{August 2, 2009
August
08
Aug
2
02
2009
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

UB: Prezactly! GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 2, 2009
August
08
Aug
2
02
2009
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

UprightBiped (142), Congratulations, you've shown you can read and comprehend, when you try. I'm not bothering to engage with you because you are clearly a rude person - you're comments about catching up and giving a nickname that's clearly intended to be derogatory demonstrate it, and I've no wish to follow you into it (and I'm sorry I started to). I've also no wish to engage with someone who tosses a reference into a debate, with no discussion. So I'll leave you with this final comment - my comment at 110 was that there was no evidence for intelligent design, which was actually lamenting the lack of physical evidence (hence the comment about exobiology). You, on the other hand provided a reference to a theoretical paper which, whilst interesting, is theoretical and no more evidence for intelligent design (which it doesn't even mention) in nature than Dawkins' "Weasel programme" is evidence for natural selection in nature. You have not addressed my original point in 110, clearly have no intention of doing so politely, and I will therefore disengage and write my final comment to StephenB, who has at least been polite.Gaz_{August 2, 2009
August
08
Aug
2
02
2009
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

Gaz (at 130 in response to my post at 111),
I think it’s you that needs to catch up – with your reading comprehension, for a start.
Yes, perhaps you are right, so let’s walk through your quote from Abel’s paper together. I am certain we will find the issue of my reading comprehension looming large. I hope you don’t mind if I call you Skippy while we are doing so (forgive me, it’s a remnant of a mentor that use to call me Skippy whenever I definitely knew the answer to a question that he knew I could hardly discern – just as you have here). Ok Skippy, lets first look at the paragraph that has you in a tizzy – and let’s do it piece by piece shall we?
“Selection pressure works only on existing successful messages, and then only at the phenotypic level. Environmental selection does not choose which nucleotide to add next to a forming single-stranded RNA. Environmental selection is always after-the-fact. It could not have programmed primordial RNA genes. Neither could noise. Abel has termed this The GS Principle (Genetic Selection Principle) [137]. Differential molecular stability and happenstantial self- or mutual-replication are all that nature had to work with in a prebiotic environment. The environment had no goal or intent with which to “work.”
“Selection pressure works only on existing successful messages, and then only at the phenotypic level.” There is nothing odd here. Selection works after function is functioning (and can then confer a selective advantage to be selected against the population). “Environmental selection does not choose which nucleotide to add next to a forming single-stranded RNA.” Again, nothing is out of line here. There is no chemical affinity in the linear direction of DNA or RNA -and- environmental selection happens only after a trait is instantiated at the nucleic level (but not before). “Environmental selection is always after-the-fact.” Yep. “It could not have programmed primordial RNA genes. Neither could noise.” Meaning: selection for function at the nucleic level is distinct from environmental selection. The environment did not cause the functional sequences of RNA (unless we rewrite everything that is known about natural selection). And, a mechanism that operates at the level of noise (maximum uncertainty) such as chance, could not have programmed (organized into function) the disparate cellular objects under the subsequent control of RNA. (It also could not have established the encoded language by which that control would be prescribed and translated). Check. “Abel has termed this The GS Principle (Genetic Selection Principle) [137].” Fine with me…after all, this is not a bout David Abel, or Newton, or Polanyi, or Thaxton, or Behe, or Denton, or Dembski, or Durston, or Meyer. This is about the physical evidence - so, any of them can call it whatever they want. It doesn’t matter. The only issue is whether the evidence can be shared between all observers so that anyone (who cares to know) can know by looking at the evidence itself. “Differential molecular stability and happenstantial self- or mutual-replication are all that nature had to work with in a prebiotic environment. The environment had no goal or intent with which to “work.”” This is a comment of intuitive reality (right out of Abiogenesis/Evolution 101) - unless you’d like to ignore the observable facts and argue that the organization of living tissue was predestined by the chemical properties of uracil, thymine, adenine, cytosine, and guanine. If that is the case, then I’d like to know the chemical properties which suggest that thymine, followed by adenine, followed by guanine in a linear fashion should mean “stop and release” in the process of protein synthesis. - - - - - - - - - Seriously, I am wondering why you posted this paragraph at all. It is forever certain that you mis-understood what is being conveyed by the author. The entirety of this paragraph is communicating the rather simple idea that environmental selection is not responsible for the creation of functional sequencing in RNA because functional sequencing precedes environmental selection …you know, the functional sequencing that a) is required for living things to live, and b) cannot be explained by the physical properties of the matter involved. And to this you say I am most obviously wrong about this paper. After all, you say, “it assumes evolution occurred, as evidenced by this paragraph where random mutation and natural selection are invoked” Skippy - they are invoked as being completely incapable of being the source of what is observed in Life at the nucleic level. Did you just not understand that? - - - - - - - - - Given your apparent and substantial misunderstanding of the paper, I would like to be gracious (much like the grace afforded Michael Behe and Bill Dembski). I will only mention once that you also said “have you actually read the paper, because if you had you wouldn’t make that claim. It makes no mention of intelligent design at all.” In response to this rather spurious challenge, I would simply ask a reasonable yet straightforward question. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that when you challenge me (as to whether or not I’ve read the paper) that you yourself have read it prior to making such a challenge. As such, I want to ask: what exactly did you think the author was proposing when he wrote (in this peer-reviewed journal):
The fundamental contention inherent in our three subsets of sequence complexity proposed in this paper is this: without volitional agency assigning meaning to each configurable-switch-position symbol, algorithmic function and language will not occur. The same would be true in assigning meaning to each combinatorial syntax segment (programming module or word). Source and destination on either end of the channel must agree to these assigned meanings in a shared operational context. Chance and necessity cannot establish such a cybernetic coding/decoding scheme [71].
?Upright BiPed_{August 2, 2009
August
08
Aug
2
02
2009
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT}

Gaz: Thanks for your comments. I will give you the last word, because I am getting behind in my work. Have a good weekend---or whatever is left of it.StephenB_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial: Thanks for the dialogue. Duty calls, so I cannot respond to your latest comments. Best wishes!!!StephenB_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

That should read, [let's assume that 30% of all physical events do not have causes and that 70% of them do have causes.]StephenB_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

[Did the evolutionary process need a cause or not?”] ----Gaz: “Only to the extent that the “cause” was the random mutation of a gene – for example, a DNA point mutation such as an adenine molecule being replaced by a guaning molecule. That’s all that is needed to start the process.” What you describe as the DNA point mutation is part of what is ostensibly a naturalistic evolutionary process. What I had in mind was the explanation for what caused the process. That’s the point. Physical processes don’t occur without a cause. ----Here’s the bad news for you – DNA isn’t coded information in the sense that an entity was trying to convey a message to someone, or even to use it to build something. It’s an illusion that there is any “information” in that sense in DNA. From Wikipedia: “The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or RNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells. The code defines a mapping between tri-nucleotide sequences, called codons, and amino acids.” Also, let’s not lose track of my original claim. I am saying that Darwinists prefer the counterintuitive explanation that design is an “illusion” rather than the common sense position that it is real. By denying that coded information is real, and by failing to provide an evolutionary pathway to "information," even if you don’t want to call it that, suggests that you “prefer” the counterintuitive explanation. Science is based on the proposition that ALL physical events have causes. Quantum mechanics shows that physical events can appear spontaneously and unpredictably; it does NOT show that they are uncaused.” ----“Oh okay, I see what you are saying (I think). But I still don’t think I agree with you. For example, take beta decay (involving an electron) -the decay is mediated as a weak interaction, which could be the cause, but what is it that actually triggers an individual neutron to decay at a particulat time?” “At the very least, quantum mechanics poses a very large question mark over causality at that level. If you disagree, perhaps you would tell me what it is that causes a neutron to undergo beta decay?” Let’s say for the sake of argument that you are right and assume that some of these events are causeless. What then? Why cannot many physical events be causeless? Let’s assume further that 30% of all physical events have a cause and 70% of all physical events do have a cause. How would we know which ones are caused and which ones are not? How could we be sure that any of them are caused? What would science do at that point? It would be an intellectual madhouse. Keep in mind that the rule that all physical events require a cause is not really a scientific rule. It is a philosophical rule about reason itself, just as the law of non-contradiction is a rule about reason. It is part of the metaphysical foundations for science, and science cannot do without them. Indeed, I have had Darwinists on this site actually try to argue that a thing CAN be and not be at the same time. Again, if the law of non contradiction can be violated even once, why can it not be violated again and again? Why not anytime we please? We can do science only because we agree with its philosophical underpinning, which assumes that we live in a rational universe that makes sense, and the rules of right reason are the elements that make it rational. ----“Even if causality is a problem at the quantum mechanical level – which it is – that doesn’t mean that ALL physical events are a problem causally.” “Hence science has managed to carry on despite the inability to know when a certain individual atom will decay. Science does this sort of thing all the time.” Insofar as a scientist argues that the decay has no cause, and because of their ignorance about metaphysics, some clearly do, then they are undermining their own discipline for reasons indicated above. -----“I think the atom example demonstrates that it is you that does not understand.” It is on thing to say that we don’t know the cause of the decay; it is quite another thing to say that there is no cause. This is the point where we exercise our humility. We say we don’t know the cause, but we don’t presume to say that the event is causeless. We are back to the distinction between something being unpredictable and spontaneous versus something being uncaused. It is not the same thing. -----No, it isn’t – not if the mind can arise form an ordered collection of matter, which is certainly a possibility. How did the collection of matter get ordered? How could hydrogen become consciousness? That is synonymous with the argument that something can come from nothing, which, again, violates the standards of right reason. How anyone could posit that and dismiss design is a marvel. The only explanation is the one on the table. Such a person would have to want to believe it, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. ----You’ve switched the question – before you were talking about the universe having a purpose, now you change it to Darwinism. So now it’s a different discussion. If you want my answers, they are that Darwinism wasn’t designed and it doesn’t have a purpose (and actually, I have the same view about the universe itself). Granted they are different questions, but they are related questions. If the universe has no purpose then neither does biodiversity have a purpose. -----“But if I am wrong, that doesn’t mean a purposeful universe means abandoning a purposeless Darwinism – you need to think thinks through more.” If the universe has a purpose, then life has a purpose, which means that Darwinism, which says that life happened without a purpose, is wrong. I have thought it through many times. “What does it matter whether purpose was injected by man or someone else such as a creator? Whether by us or a creator, its been injected and one way or the other it’s artificial. If the designer created the universe for a purpose, then its purpose is obviously not artificial. Suppose, for example, that you were made for a purpose. That would mean that you have a destiny that you could either embrace or ignore, and it would matter a great deal whether or not you chose acknowledge that fact. On the other hand, if you were not made for a purpose, then it really wouldn’t matter what you do. Poor little creatures that we are, we could not change that reality by getting excited about baseball or science. We would be deluding ourselves by trying to inject meaning when meaning isn’t there. That would indeed be an example of an artificial purpose.StephenB_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

Jerry @ 135:
I said I was clear...But you should know this by now since you have been around this site for a few months.
Thanks for your response.Diffaxial_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 134:
I am not saying that they “express” the preference, [if only they would be so honest] I am saying that they “exhibit” the preference at those times when they seek to challenge the rules of reason. Why would you ask me to provide a link to some far away place after I cited an example right here on this thread. Indeed, every Darwinist that visits this site tries to escape the law of causation by referring to counterintuitive nature of quantum mechanics, clinging to the futile hope that some modern theory could invalidate the principle of causation and free them up to make illogical propositions. Do you want me to name names?
The degree to which quantum physics describes events that may be said to be acausal has little bearing upon evolutionary theory, which can be accommodated at a macroscopic level without reference to quantum effects. Because evolutionary biology as it stands can be comfortably accommodated both within a macroscopic world and within a deterministic world, no motivation to advance putatively acausal facets of quantum physics arises within the context of a discussion of biological evolution. (IIRC, discussion of acausality in quantum physics instead earlier arose, at least to the extent to which I have participated, not in the context of a discussion of the particulars of evolution but rather in the context of challenges to your assertion that a collection of self-evident truths culminates in a "proof" of the existence of a personal God, a proof I personally find tautological and defective for many additional reasons that have nothing to do with QM.)
At a broader level, the proposition that undirected naturalistic forces can create information and design life is counterintuitive, yet every Darwinist here prefers it.
Whether one finds the propositions of evolutionary biology intuitive or counterintuitive is quite in the eye of the beholder. For example, my own general intuition is that once replicating organisms emerged on earth, a panoply of complexity and diversity generated by unguided variation and selection, including exquisitely complex adaptions at every level, was not only possible but inevitable. But I am not arguing for the correctness of that position on the basis of that intuition (my intuition is has no more worth than yours for that purpose); rather, I am reporting this because this empties your example of content, at least with respect to this particular "Darwinist," and I would say for many others as well. I embrace a viewpoint that, from where I sit, is both intuitively satisfactory and almost certainly true on the basis of the evidence, and I would argue that most of those who embrace evolutionary biology as a progressing science feel as I do. Therefore an assertion that I and like-minded persons exemplify the embrace of and preference for the counter-intuitive out of other motivations is simply false. Of course, neither you nor I know how the first replicating organisms originated. In that domain as well, neither my intuition that this was also an unguided natural event nor yours that it was the result of a designing agent can be dispositive. However, I would argue that only the first is amenable to scientific investigation, given the constraints of methodological naturalism (insert World War III here). What I was hoping you would provide is an examplar of an argument within evolutionary biology that is defective specifically due to a failure (you claim a motivated failure) to observe the "rules of right reason", as you submit above. I'm not aware of any posit with evolutionary biology that hinges upon necessary violations of causality, nor of the law of non-contradiction, nor of your postulate that both the universe or our minds are rational, etc. Yet you have submitted that greater problems arise within evolutionary theory due to such failures than to deficiencies of evidence. Even were your suggestion correct that Darwinists are motivated to embrace counter-intuitive theories and findings, it fails to provide a specific example of the impact of such a failure of "right reason" within evolutionary theory.Diffaxial_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

"I am wondering if you would disambiguate a bit. You said:" I thought I was very clear and not ambiguous. "But I am unclear on what other additional facts you endorse." I said "But how is a mystery and Darwin’s ideas fail when the tools of science are used to investigate it" I said I was clear. I said it was a mystery. I said Darwin's ideas fail when the tools of science are used to investigate macro evolution. Now that is two clear statements but the second automatically follows from the first. If it is a mystery then Darwin's ideas are a failure or else it wouldn't be a mystery. It also implies that all other known or speculative processes have failed to explain the data. You point to radiations in the fossil record but you cannot point to the rise or complex novel capabilities but they appeared but not gradually and no theory can account for them. Now one can take a broad stance and that is what I do and say that it is either a naturalistic mechanism or it is not. So far other natural mechanisms have also failed so we are left with the possibility of a non naturalistic mechanism as an explanation for parts of the history of life. Your other question - Whether all multi cellular organisms have a unique ancestor is highly speculative and there is no data to support that other than homologies. Nor is there any data to support the rise of multi cellular organisms from single celled organisms. Darwin made it as an assumption and science has been saddled with it ever since. It is the one aspect of Darwin's ideas that cannot be given up. The others, gradualism, natural selection and Malthusian competition for resources have all bitten the dust as major players in the evolution debate but common descent must be held to for dear life because without it more than just a biological theory disappears. It is all a mystery. The best evidence contradicts a natural process for the origin of multi-cellular organisms and for novel complex capabilities. So what are we left to do but speculate on other origins for multi-cellular organisms. But you should know this by now since you have been around this site for a few months.jerry_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: "OK, take out the “solely.” I’d be interested if you would a quote of or link to an evolutionary biologist expressing preference for a counterintuitive theory or finding in part because it is counterintuitive relative to the alternatives." I am not saying that they "express" the preference, [if only they would be so honest] I am saying that they "exhibit" the preference at those times when they seek to challenge the rules of reason. Why would you ask me to provide a link to some far away place after I cited an example right here on this thread. Indeed, every Darwinist that visits this site tries to escape the law of causation by referring to counterintuitive nature of quantum mechanics, clinging to the futile hope that some modern theory could invalidate the principle of causation and free them up to make illogical propositions. Do you want me to name names? At a broader level, the proposition that undirected naturalistic forces can create information and design life is counterintuitive, yet every Darwinist here prefers it. Indeed, that is how Dawkins has described the modern theory of evolution--as the study of those things that APPEAR to be designed. How could one possibly show more preference for the counterintuitive element than that. Our intuition tells us that the DNA molecule was designed, but Darwinists prefer the counterintuitive claim, namely that design is an "illusion." Surely, it is a preference, since no Darwinist has ever made the case that undirected naturalistic forces can produce a new body plan. Indeed, they cannot even provide an imaginary model as to how such a thing might happen, even in the abstract. They simply prefer to believe it.StephenB_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

StephenB (117), "Here is a test: You just described the “process.” Did the process need a cause or not?" Only to the extent that the "cause" was the random mutation of a gene - for example, a DNA point mutation such as an adenine molecule being replaced by a guaning molecule. That's all that is needed to start the process. "My evidence for intelligent design is the coded information contained in the DNA molecule. No one has ever found coded information in any context whatsoever, living things or otherwise, except where intelligence was the cause. That is a powerful argument. What is your evidence for the claim that natural processes can produce information? Evidently, you “prefer” to believe that it is possible because you cannot show me “how” that it is possible." Here's the bad news for you - DNA isn't coded information in the sense that an entity was trying to convey a message to someone, or even to use it to build something. It's an illusion that there is any "information" in that sense in DNA. Claiming that DNA conveys information is abit like claiming that geolocical strata convey information: neither does, it's just the structure of them is dependent on their history. In the case of DNA, it's the successful genes that continue to be utilised and in the case of strata it's the laying of newer sediments on older. Claiming DNA is information is a bit like saying rock strata are equivalent to a kind of barcode, hence they must have been laid by an intelligence. "No, it doesn’t. Science is based on the proposition that ALL physical events have causes. Quantum mechanics shows that physical events can appear spontaneously and unpredictably; it does NOT show that they are uncaused." Oh okay, I see what you are saying (I think). But I still don't think I agree with you. For example, take beta decay (involving an electron) -the decay is mediated as a weak interaction, which could be the cause, but what is it that actually triggers an individual neutron to decay at a particulat time? At the very least, quantum mechanics poses a very large question mark over causality at that level. If you disagree, perhaps you would tell me what it is that causes a neutron to undergo beta decay? "A quantum void is not “nothing.” Well, I agree. But that is because of events happening without a cause - essentially, particles appearing and disappearing sponatneously. "If any physical event can occur without a cause, then science is finished since, under those circumstances, there would be no way of distinguishing those things which have causes and those which do not." No, that simply is not correct. Even if causality is a problem at the quantum mechanical level - which it is - that doesn't mean that ALL physical events are a problem causally. What happens is that science does what it always does, and seek to constrain an intractable problem to one that can be solved. For example: science cannot look at a radioactive atom and predict when (if ever) it will decay. So do scientists throw their hands up wailing and say, we might as well abandin science? No, they don't. What they do is calcualte the probability that it will decay. Then they get a whole load of the atoms - billions on billions - and, because they have the probability figures, use it to say that after a certain amount of time then a certain, quanified proportion will have decayed. Hence science has managed to carry on despite the inability to know when a certain individual atom will decay. Science does this sort of thing all the time. "I am amazed that more people do not understand this." I think the atom example demonstrates that it is you that does not understand. "The point is that it is an immaterial mind that does the reflecting because a material collection of molecules doesn’t reflect on itself. That is the point of saying that the investigator is distinct from the distinction. It is illogical to say that matter can reflect on matter." No, it isn't - not if the mind can arise form an ordered collection of matter, which is certainly a possibility. "Well, let’s find out who has logic on his side. Was Darwinism designed, or was it not designed. If it was designed, it isn’t Darwinism; if it wasn’t designed, it is purposeless. Think about it." You've switched the question - before you were talking about the universe having a purpose, now you change it to Darwinism. So now it's a different discussion. If you want my answers, they are that Darwinism wasn't designed and it doesn't have a purpose (and actually, I have the same view about the universe itself). But if I am wrong, that doesn't mean a purposeful universe means abandoning a purposeless Darwinism - you need to think thinks through more. "No. Please take note of the word “we” in my comment. We can’t inject purpose on the universe if it has no purpose. Religion says that the “creator” designed purpose in the universe; existentialism claims that man can inject his own purpose on the world where there is no creator to do it. The latter claim makes no sense." What does it matter whether purpose was injected by man or someone else such as a creator? Whether by us or a creator, its been injected and one way or the other it's artificial.Gaz_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

Adel: I took time to clip and pass the page to a word processor: 108 pp. Abel cross-references by topic across dozens of themes, so keystone papers will appear many times. (In short, the comment is strawmannish and a red herring.) I find it interesting that this is what you chose to first focus on than the substance in the particular linked paper. A paper that discusses issues that have been batted back and forth in this blog for years. And, which brings out just how through methodological naturalism as an imposition, a counterintuitive claim -- that functional complex codes, algorithms, informational networks of what Abel calls "dynamically inert switches" wrote themselves out of in effect lucky noise -- has been preferred over the empirically well supported "intuition" that such things are normally produced by agents. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

Trolls! Save the cudgels for another day. Bill is simply pointing out the obvious: grand unifying theories like Darwinism and AGW are counterintuitive by their very nature. Theory obtains power through resistance to the varieties of experience (intuition). Read what Einstein said about common sense and go back under the bridge and sit down in a cool puddle and think about it for a while. Relativity obtained its apparent unifying power by negating the difference between space and time—that is, by negating quantitative method and ratiocination. Physical observations in the real world diminish that unifying power. The same is true of Darwinism. The late, lamented century of supermen and unspeakable butchery was the “age of science,” and the science that predominated was theoretical. Relativity, Natural Selection, Dialectical Materialism, the “Theory of Sex”—all obtained transcendent status by using the force of resistance found in theory to produce simple, clear, uncluttered descriptions of being. This simple clarity made them seem like beacons of a new and more liberated age—until reality intruded. Two are dead and gone with the foul stench of low tide and disillusionment. Any wagers on the others?allanius_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

UprightBiped (111), "The evidence is already part of the scientific record, as in here: http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29" No, it isn't - have you actually read the paper, because if you had you wouldn't make that claim. It makes no mention of intelligent design at all. In fact, it assumes evolution occurred, as evidenced by this paragraph where random mutation and natural selection are invoked: "Selection pressure works only on existing successful messages, and then only at the phenotypic level. Environmental selection does not choose which nucleotide to add next to a forming single-stranded RNA. Environmental selection is always after-the-fact. It could not have programmed primordial RNA genes. Neither could noise. Abel has termed this The GS Principle (Genetic Selection Principle) [137]. Differential molecular stability and happenstantial self- or mutual-replication are all that nature had to work with in a prebiotic environment. The environment had no goal or intent with which to "work." " "Please, do try and catch up." I think it's you that needs to catch up - with your reading comprehension, for a start.Gaz_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 124:
I, for one, am not claiming that they do so solely on the grounds that such theories are counterintuitive (that’s someone else’s gig) but rather that they prefer such theories to others.
OK, take out the "solely." I'd be interested if you would a quote of or link to an evolutionary biologist expressing preference for a counterintuitive theory or finding in part because it is counterintuitive relative to the alternatives.
In my experience, Darwinists love to provide evidence that, in their mind, will invalidate the principles of right reason...I submit that these lapses in logic are more significant than the disputes over the evidence since evidence cannot interpret itself.
Would you please provide an example of a facet of contemporary evolutionary theory that is defective due to the failure of the scientists involved to respect the principles of right reason?Diffaxial_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

Jerry @ 125:
My position is very clear.
I am wondering if you would disambiguate a bit. You said: When you say "evolution happened...new complex capabilities have appeared over time," does this encompass, for example, the notion that human beings and chimpanzees share a common ancestor that lived some millions of years ago, and that, more remotely, all multicelled organisms share a common ancestor, that multicelled organisms evolved from single celled organisms hundreds of millions (or more) years in the past, etc.? I understand that you reject the orthodox mechanisms. But I am unclear on what other additional facts you endorse.
But how is a mystery and Darwin’s ideas fail when the tools of science are used to investigate it
Of course I disagree with this characterization. However, I don't seen any logical difficulty in a position that accepts that the fossil record depicts the branching radiation of species over hundreds of millions of years, as described by our contemporary understanding of the phylogenies of modern organisms, while rejecting the notion that current mechanisms are inadequate to account for that history. And I wondered if this describes your position.Diffaxial_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

GEM at 104, thanks.StephenB_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

Holy smokes, that is one weird list of publications by David Abel: http://davidlabel.blogspot.com/ He lists "The capabilities of chaos and complexity" 77 times on the page! "Self-Organization vs. Self-Ordering events" 38 times! And on and on it goes... I have not seen anything like that before. Thanks, kf.Adel DiBagno_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

"I’m a little confused about your position, Jerry. You just said: Evolution happened. That is not the issue. Life changes due to micro evolutionary processes. That is not the debate. That new complex capabilities have appeared over time is not under debate." Why did you leave t he next sentence off "But how is a mystery and Darwin’s ideas fail when the tools of science are used to investigate it." Do I understand that you then agree with this sentence too in my post. Or maybe you do not understand the debate. Otherwise why would say you are a little confused. My position is very clear.jerry_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: "Since no one has provided a shred of evidence, even by intertubes standards (links, quotes), that scientists generally and evolutionary biologists specifically DO refer counterintuitive theories and findings solely because they are counterintuitive, your efforts seem premature." I, for one, am not claiming that they do so solely on the grounds that such theories are counterintuitive (that's someone else's gig) but rather that they prefer such theories to others. Indeed, it happened on this very thread. Someone claimed that quantum mechanics, which is in many ways counterintuitive, shows that physical events can occur without causes, which of course would violate the very principle of causation, which underlies all scientific methodology. In my experience, Darwinists love to provide evidence that, in their mind, will invalidate the principles of right reason. Thus, they prefer counterintuitive arguments to others because they mistakenly believe that it will liberate them from the rules of logic and justify their practice of rejecting reasoned arguments. I submit that these lapses in logic are more significant than the disputes over the evidence since evidence cannot interpret itself. The point at issue, then, is this: Which side in this debate interprets evidence in the light of reason's principles. Obviously, it can only be that side that acknowledges reason's principles.StephenB_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Apologies for the partial double post.Diffaxial_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

Jerry @ 117:
Would the admission by a prominent evolutionary biologist that he needs faith to accept naturalistic evolution count? In other words he knows there is no evidence for it but believes over deep time that it had happened. Namely, the whole microbes to man scenario.
I'm a little confused about your position, Jerry. You just said:
Evolution happened. That is not the issue. Life changes due to micro evolutionary processes. That is not the debate. That new complex capabilities have appeared over time is not under debate.
I took you to be reporting that you accept the basic picture of life's history understood by evolutionary biology (e.g. a ramifying family of life progressing over billions of years from one or a few initial forms to present day complexity and diversity - "the whole microbes to man scenario"), but dispute that the mechanism involved (e.g. mutation and selection, etc.) can account for the marcroevolutionary transitions that occurred during that history. That said, to answer your question: No, as what you describe doesn't portray a scientist preferring a counterintuitive theory or finding because it is counterintuitive. But go ahead, give us a link, and we'll evaluate.Diffaxial_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

Jerry @
Would the admission by a prominent evolutionary biologist that he needs faith to accept naturalistic evolution count? In other words he knows there is no evidence for it but believes over deep time that it had happened. Namely, the whole microbes to man scenario.
I'm a little confused about your position, Jerry. You just said:
Evolution happened. That is not the issue. Life changes due to micro evolutionary processes. That is not the debate. That new complex capabilities have appeared over time is not under debate.
I took you to be reporting that you accept the basic picture life's history understood by evolutionary biology (e.g. a ramifying family of life progressing over billions of years from simple initial forms to present day complexity and diversity - "the whole microbes to man scenario"), but dispute the mechanisms involved (e.g. mutation and selection, etc.). That said, to answer your question: No, as I don't see yDiffaxial_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

PS: David Abel's online list of papers -- UD Moderators, could there be a link?kairosfocus_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Sigh: Working LINK to The Cybernetic Cut.kairosfocus_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

Folks: I think the exchanges need a breath of fresh air from David Abel, on The Cybernetic Cut. 11 pages, so simply pause and read. (And, those who read it will find a very familiar pattern of thought, though of course developed on different terms and with just under 100 references in the peer reviewed literature; BTW, the just linked is also peer reviewed.) And, in that general context, SB is dead right: it is but a short rhetorical step from the counter-intuitive to the irrational, and onward to stoutly arguing for the latter in the name of the former. Rhetorical bait and switch, in short; only to end up in self-refuting absurdity. For, that which is irrational falls of its own illogic. And, one of these points, very clearly is that the very act of communicating a distinct message presupposes that there is distinction between A and NOT-A so that A is not to be equated to NOT_A. Similarly, wholes and parts have a well-known distinction and relationship such that the finite whole is made up form its integrated, interacting parts. So, when we see objectors reduced to arguing against such self-evidently true things, that is telling us a lot about the underlying, inescapable irrationality of the evolutionary materialist case. GEM of TKI PS: I am already tire of the new ad hominem laced evolutionary materialist rhetorical partyline nonsense that people who in many cases have advanced degrees in sciences and have lectured at college levels in relevant areas have no understanding of basic science. [Onlookers, cf my remarks here, to see if I really do not understand what science is about and how it works, for instance. And as for David Abel publishing as linked already in a peer reviewed journal . . . ]kairosfocus_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

"Since no one has provided a shred of evidence, even by intertubes standards (links, quotes), that scientists generally and evolutionary biologists specifically DO refer counterintuitive theories and findings solely because they are counterintuitive, your efforts seem premature." Would the admission by a prominent evolutionary biologist that he needs faith to accept naturalistic evolution count? In other words he knows there is no evidence for it but believes over deep time that it had happened. Namely, the whole microbes to man scenario.jerry_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Gaz said "I accept the theory of evolution because of the overwhelming evidence for it," This is the debate. No one in the history of the world has presented any evidence for a mechanism of macro evolution. It is not overwhelming because there isn't any. We have asked for it here for several years and have read most things given to us to read. Evolution happened. That is not the issue. Life changes due to micro evolutionary processes. That is not the debate. That new complex capabilities have appeared over time is not under debate. But how is a mystery and Darwin's ideas fail when the tools of science are used to investigate it. The debate is simple when focused on the basic problem. The mechanism for the origin of novel complex capabilities.jerry_{August 1, 2009
August
08
Aug
1
01
2009
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply