Donald Wise’s Pandora’s Box
| October 14, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design |
Donald Wise wants to move beyond the philosophical and religious dimensions of ID to the “unintelligent design” of certain biological systems. But clearly that means we can also focus on the “intelligent design” of biological systems. Let us encourage the scientific community to open that Pandora’s box:
Scientist Urges Colleagues to Focus on “Unintelligent Design”
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/515331The scientific community’s failure to mount effective opposition against the intelligent design movement calls for new tactics, contends a veteran scientist. He will propose that his colleagues abandon religious and philosophical discussions and focus on evidence that he believes shows a clear lack of intelligent design.
Newswise  The scientific community’s failure to mount effective opposition against the intelligent design movement calls for new tactics, contends University of Massachusetts Amherst geologist Donald Wise. He proposes that scientists abandon all religious and philosophical discussions and focus instead on evidence that he believes demonstrates a clear lack of intelligent design.
He will present his approach at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America on Monday, Oct. 17 in Salt Lake City.
Proponents of intelligent design believe the complexities of various anatomical structures cannot be explained by evolution, and are actually evidence of an intelligent designer. Wise and others believe this assertion is another version of creationism, re-cast to avoid being declared a religion by federal courts. He contends this claim of being non-religious provides an opportunity for the scientific community to mount an effective political campaign.
Wise advocates that scientists point to the “incompetent design†in the human skeleton. He asks, “What is so intelligent about our sinus drainage system, so clogged that they would embarrass a plumber?†He says that the human pelvis is tipped forward for convenient knuckle-dragging at such an angle that only by extreme spinal curvature can humans stand erect, a design defect that would flunk any first-year engineering student.
“We have to recognize that the Intelligent Design push is a very well-organized, effective political movement that’s attempting to strike at the heart of science itself,†says Wise. “Science should abandon the traditional methods of polite debate and start using the rules of rough-and-tumble politics.
“Science has operated as a muscle-bound giant,†Wise argues. “That giant should focus his efforts on effective political tactics, resorting to the most effective weapon against those who think ultimate truth is on their sideâ€â€namely undeniable facts served up with a sense of humor.â€Â
38 Responses to Donald Wise’s Pandora’s Box
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
If anyone is interested in further study regarding the “optimal” design issue, please read chapter 6 in Dr. Dembski’s The Design Revolution.
I have to agree that, if some scientists want to take a swim in theological waters, “optimal design” is not the way to go. First, it assumes that the Designer would design things according to some ideal of perfection that the Designer presumably holds- when in fact we can presume (as of yet) next to nothing of the actual mindset of the Designer. Second, that this ideal concept of perfection, if the Designer has one, is the equivalent of human conceptions of perfection is also an unknown. Third, is it even possible for what we term “nature” to meet any criteria of ideal or ultimate perfection, due to the many (but not infinite) ways that the different varieties of matter and energy limit, alter, and interact with each other.
However, I suspect there is an implicit assumption among supernaturalists that death, disease, and decay are “imperfections” in the Design, such that those who are sympathetic to ID tend not to think of these three things as integral to the overall Design of the universe.
However, I dont think the idea should be rejected out of hand, even if it means, in a Christian context and assuming these things do give the appearance of design,leading to the conclusion that the act of humans sinning against God altered nature in such a way that it cannot be distinguished from the Designers own work.
I’m sure there are more possibilities which others here can suggest.
Ta! Christiaan
Intelligent Design of systems imply sacrifice in “perfection” in one dimension to maximize performance in another. There are no perfect refrigerators or extraodinarily efficient cars from a thermodynamic perspective. If we strove for thermodynmic “perfection” there would be no refrigerators or cars, and definitely no airplanes. Rather, we make compromises based on teleological goals.
Another example is that Compact Discs (CD’s) are written with lot’s of “designed errors” in the encoding of bits, and then these “errors” are then read with a Reed-Solomon error correcting mechanism on your CD player. Why not design it to write correctly in the first place? Well, it turns out, based on the Shannon Capacity Theorem, this is the most efficient way to store data if one’s teleological goal is for compactness and maximum data on a physical medium.
Same with Mp3 compression which is “lossy” and in a formal sense “imperfect” as it does not exactly represent the original audio signal, but it makes sense when one realizes the teleological goal is for compactness, not fidelity.
The Darwinist, if applying the same considerations, would have ample reason to call cars, aiplanes, refrigerators, Mp3′s and compact disks as being un-intelligently designed.
We can determine design, but unless we have the teleological goals from the Designer, we have little reason to judge His designs as somehow un-inteligent.
And to the larger issue of imperfect and often “painful-to-ponder” designs such as the design of life, sickness, and death I have some thoughts from a philosophical and theological perspective (not a scientific one). Like a great novel, the design of the universe and life, with all it’s distress and sorrow are only the middle chapters in a Divine drama. The genius of the design of this drama is judged by how the story ends, not soley on the middle chapters of the story (which we are in now). The genius we see expressed in living organisms gives hope that the Designer is wise. Like the Reed-Solomon codes in CD’s, there may be a greater purpose behind “designed errors” if one is willing to be open-minded.
Salvador
How would a successful ID academy environmental policy?
Endangered species?
Is ID a purely ‘moral’ issue?
How would the evidence of design effect the way we co=exist with other species?
Would the acceptance of ‘design’ and the subsequent replacing of ‘evolution’ as scientific theory, fact, truth, however it is defined, change the research now pursed by the present bioscience community? If so, how?
I have gleaned the writings of both the ID proponents and the Darwinists for the past decade. In this forum’s opinion, what elements of evolutiona theory should be ‘junked’?
What is salvageable?
I would appreciate your indulgence.
How would a successful ID academy address environmental policy?
missed the verb… oops
If one changes the word evolution to descent with modification a truer line of thought can be followed. For one thing evolution, by its self, has no meaning that pertains to how we have arrived at where we are today. Survival of the fittest is how we (and everything else that has life) got here. No design required until serious greed kicks in. Then we need intelligent design to be the fittest or at least get what we require to make us the fittest.
From single cells to multibillion celled organisms in a couple of billion years is not bad going, but when you consider that greed is the driving force, it’s a wonder it didn’t happen in a couple of million years:-) If only the human race could figure out that greed is behind everything, we could put it to great use and really get things done. The purist form of greed is the need to pass on our genes, without it nothing would survive, from the simplest of single celled beings to ourselves. Once achieved nothing else matters and, in a lot of cases, death follows quickly.
Humans are only different in that we have found ways to prolong our lives, again greed being the driving force. If, for instance, a crane fly could discover a way to live a little longer, then it would, a little more time to fly around and mate again.
It doesn’t matter what you wish to believe, God, Allah, Buddah, Shiva, Bullshit, whatever, greed is behind it. You want to go to heaven, be reborn again, live in paradise, all are unwilling to give up life or spirit or soul. This belief of ID or of any other belief system has to stop, we have to concentrate on what is important – our greed to survive. It will not be long before we discover what makes us age and finally die. When we have cracked that, then the Cosmos will be our pearl. There will be no more need to pass our genes on as we will never pass on, then we will have plenty of time to ponder whether there are higher beings than ourselves, no doubt we will meet them in time and probably be surprised to find that we know more than them. We will be the ones worshipped as gods as we go travel far and wide and spread our seed amongst the universes.
If you don’t believe me, try living for as long as you can and maybe, just maybe, you’ll have access to the knowledge that will allow eternal life.
Every human has a small amount of god in them. If all six billion of us pulled together, what a mighty god we would have.:-))))
Sorry about the grammar and any spelling errors, bit tired need to go to bed and dream some more.
Both evolution theory and ID can EXPLAIN perfect design features. Evolution theory can EXPLAIN imperfect adaptions namely as a consequence of a historical process which balances advantages of some features against less important disavantages of some other features. However, ID cannot EXPLAIN imperfect design. But as long as ID wants to use perfect adaptions as an argument it must admit imperfections as a possible counterargument. The drainage system of the sinus is a very good example because it is so simple. In the upright posture of humans the maxillary sinus must pump mucous UPHILL to reach the sinus opening. That’s the root cause why this very narrow opening obstructs easily and hence why sinusitis is so common with humans. What kind of designer would have abstained from reengineering his design for upright posture by simply changing the direction of the openings of the maxillary sinus by 90 degrees? http://www.sinuses.com/ctscan.htm
eternal
“Survival of the fittest is how we (and everything else that has life) got here.”
Survival of the luckiest is probably more true. The role of fitness is one of the factors in standard evolutionary theory that’s been overplayed. Fitness is a factor but it’s swamped by other factors.