I’m not sure if anybody is still following the post, but I missed a comment by Sabre during my responses. Your analogy of rainfall is interesting and has relevance. Rain can fall randomly on a hillside (mutations), but those drops will be channeled by imperfections on the surface of the hill (selective pressures). Thus, rather than each rain drop having the potential to strike the foot of the hill at any point (as would be the case in an entirely random system), there are only a limited number of points which can be predicted from the location of the drop on the hill and the contours of the slope. The process is, therefore, not entirely random.

Chris

Tina,

I agree that there is a random component in evolution. At each genetic locus there is a probability of an error in transcription or translation. That probability can be affect by a variety of factors. The distinction between macroevolution and microevolution is subjective. The same stochastic element is present in each, as is the directed selection on the product of such a random process. I am not sure why you state that the random element is controversial…

The point I was making was that the process as a whole is non-random due to mainly directional selection. The stochastic mutation rate is an assumed background process which is secondary (although essential) to selection. However, I am curious as to where the evidence for a designer’s role in mutations comes from, since it does not seem to me to be either religious or scientific. I am interested to see that you refer to an evolutionary viewpoint as “darwinian”. This kind of idea is certainly not mainstream science (which may be implied by the term “darwinian”), but since Darwin knew nothing of genetics, it is possible that he may have considered this kind of mechanism for the generation of novel phenotypes.

…and now another response…

DS,

Actually, the opinion about the soul was expressed by a friend of mine on the topic of continuity between man and the rest of nature. I don’t personally believe in souls. I think that the observed behaviours which most people equate with the possession of a soul can be explained as an emergent property of cognitive phylogeny. In fact, I am curious as to your reasons for believing that some humans do not have souls. If one were to suppose that the presence of a soul could be determined by observation of an animal’s behaviour (including humans) then one opens oneself up to the same potential pitfall as the author of the elephant emotion article you highlighted. My quote below makes a very relevant point on this subject.

As for the elephants, I’m afraid that, although I find the concept intriguing, there is little evidence beyond the anthropomorphism of a long-term researcher. The memory of elephants is well substantiated and relatively well understood (they have a large neopallium). However, evidence of theory of mind is still very inconclusive (Nissani, (2004) in “Comparative Vertebrate Cognition: Are Primates Superior to Non-Primates?” Edited by Lesley J. Rogers and Gisela Kaplan. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, January 2004). Irwin Bernstein, a primatologist, authored a paper on the study of behaviour in which he was far more realistic than Sheldrick about the limitations of observational deductions. His abstract reads like this:

“Tinbergen defined structure as the momentary condition of an organism. Inference, interpretation, and theory were reserved for answering the “why” questions. Mason, however, observed that the study of behavior is incorrigibly mentalistic. Description seems barren compared to the richness supplied by creative intelligence. Exciting intervening variables such as learning, intention, and selective pressures can only be examined using inference, logic, and powerful deductive theories. For more than 100 years people have argued the two extremes: should science be restricted to the directly observable, or expanded to include what professional judgment could provide? I have devoted my life to the study of aggression and dominance, yet I have directly observed neither. I point to some behavior as an example of aggression, but I cannot provide an operational definition of what I mean. I will never know if another intends harm. I will never know if another is aware of the functions that behavior serves, and the outcomes that I confuse with past selective pressures and motivation. In a world where our subjects face extinction, perhaps it is wise to use computer simulations, to ask colleagues to rate their impressions, and to use logic to deduce behavior. The new “data” may be very useful. Still, I will miss actually watching what animals really do, even if I always describe it in terms of what I infer.” (Bernstein I.S. (1998) The study of things I have never seen, Am J Primatol, 60 (3): 77-84)

My personal view is probably closer to the former extreme that Bernstein mentions: that subjective inferences should be at least a lower class of data, if not entirely disregarded. Perhaps you disagree… However, there is perhaps more use in protraying elephants as being emotional in that human beings are more likely to contribute to the welfare of a creature with whom they have more in common. This is likely the purpose of the publication of the article. It seems less about conveying facts and more about evoking a response,

Best wishes,

Chris

You wrote: “It is not that the IDist believes that if God intervenes in nature, one must be able to scientifically detect his interventions. It is that the IDist (if he interprets the designer in question as God) believes that–in a specific case–God has intervened in nature and moreover we can detect it.”

Okay, that makes sense. One difference is that TE is a theological position built upon acceptance of consensus science, while an ID proponent would describe ID as an alternate scientific view. So, ID does not really make any claims about God (or the Designer) outside of the few cases where they argue that the design is detectable. Certainly an ID proponent can have a more robust theological outlook that goes beyond ID. Hopefully they do, because ID in and of itself is quite vacuous as far as what it claims of the Creator (erm, Designer).

As for your Lion King analogy, I think it’s quite useful, but I’m sure I still see it dramatically different than you do. To me, what it demonstrates is that places where the Designer goofs or chooses to “break the fourth wall” — where a seam is showing — is all that ID can detect. Such instances may show up in an animated movie, but I doubt they’re present in the creation of various aspects of our universe. I think the chances are virtually nil that they’re present where the popular ID movement seems focused on looking.

“But we also know (have recorded) that he sometimes directly intervenes, above and beyond those laws, making himself known (like the special effects department).”

But ID does not look for design where God has revealed that he directly intervened. I think that’s a crucial difference.

“The distinguishing characteristic of the theist-ID-ist is that he believes, above and beyond God’s use of the laws, his direct and conspicuous intervention *has* *detectibly* *occured*.”

Yes, and I’d say that the incarnation was one of those events, while the emergence of tails on bacteria was not.

“True, it may be have been the hardest design and most worthy of praise, had God designed the universe to run from scratch. But this is as narrowminded as saying it would have been the hardest design to have created a video game that ran from the get-go to accomplish what I wanted, without my intervention and tinkering.”

I understand your point. As I’ve said consistently in this thread, I don’t rule out God’s intervention anywhere, though I think it’s more likely some places than others. I’m not confident that the ID movement has detected moments of God’s intervention, because if they had, and if God wanted it to be detectable, I think the evidence would be far more compelling to those not already convinced (including to TEs like myself).

“It is therefore entirely reasonable that God would–in some cases–choose revealing his nature to us as a higher priority than designing a system that is merely harder to design.”

I don’t expect that it was a priority for God to reveal his nature in ways that would only be discernable come the 21st century. All those years of requiring faith, and suddenly here’s the proof? Possible, but I doubt it.

Take care, Tina. I enjoyed the conversation.

You said, “For an IDist, it seems that God may work in nature, but if he does so, one must be able to scientifically detect his interventions. For a TE, God does work in nature, and it’s not necessary for him to break the rules he set in place for him to do so. God can work within nature or above nature.”

The first statement is subtly false. It is not that the IDist believes that if God intervenes in nature, one must be able to scientifically detect his interventions. It is that the IDist (if he interprets the designer in question as God) believes that–in a specific case–God has intervened in nature and moreover we can detect it.

Here’s an analogy. Consider the movie The Lion King. The story and the world it takes place in were created by writers, producers, and artists at Disney. It is impossible to separate the design of the characters and the story and the world from each other–is Simba the way he is because of how the story goes, or does the story go how it does because of who Simba is? Neither, really; the whole thing was conceived by some writer, and all of it goes exactly as he wants it to. He created the whole, and it is what it is, and all of the pieces are what he wanted them to be.

But…

There’s this one frame–well known because it caused quite a kerfuffle–in which Simba flops down and some dust flies up, and in the dust, for a single frame, you can make out the word SEX (or maybe SFX…). (See here – http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lionking.htm ). Now, the world of the Lion King is supposed to resemble ours, and it hasn’t been particularly revealed to be one in which clouds of dust form letters. And when we look at that cloud of dust, we say to ourselves, “Someone did that.” What do we mean someone did it? Design **pervades** the film–the whole world was conceived by someone! Yes, but above and beyond that, someone specially inserted that part. The Special Effects team perhaps wanted to declare their existence in the film.

So, too, we both know that the world (like the film), with all its laws, all its initial conditions, all of its characters and complex stories were conceived by God to do exactly what he wanted them to do. He created it, and it all serves him. But we also know (have recorded) that he sometimes directly intervenes, above and beyond those laws, making himself known (like the special effects department).

The distinguishing characteristic of the theist-ID-ist is that he believes, above and beyond God’s use of the laws, his direct and conspicuous intervention *has* *detectibly* *occured*. Not that it theologically must, nor that it cannot occur undedectibly, nor that it could not have not occured. Only that it has. This is a scientific, historical position.

Incidentally, the example addresses another of your objections–that of a fish trying to detect wetness in water. The fact that design pervades The Lion King does not prevent us from detecting specific design in part of one frame. Nor does the fact that design pervades the universe prevent us from detecting specific design in parts of it. I once created a video game–its physics, its bad guys, its powerups, all had their origins in my mind. And once, while playing that game, I controlled the avatar in such a way that I made (design!) several of the bad guys line up so I could shoot them all at once. And once I modified a level so that six of the guys showed up in a perfect hexagon. I took delight in designing the system, in designing within the freedom the laws of the system allowed, and in designing miraculously, in spite of the laws I originally designed. All for different reasons. (All, incidentally, modes of design I believe God enjoys with the universe.)

True, it may be have been the hardest design and most worthy of praise, had God designed the universe to run from scratch. But this is as narrowminded as saying it would have been the hardest design to have created a video game that ran from the get-go to accomplish what I wanted, without my intervention and tinkering. I suppose I could have done that, but I wasn’t trying to solve a hard problem. Yes, I was party trying to solve a hard problem and showcase my abilities as a designer, but I also wanted a system I could interact with (a fun game to play!!), and I wanted to interact–as the designer–with those who would eventually play it!

Is the universe made to challenge and demonstrate God’s abilities as a designer, or is it to showcase his nature to mankind? That is, of course, a complex question–it can (and almost certainly does) have many purposes. But undoubtably one of them is to cause us to know and praise him–and to praise what he has done, we must first be able to detect that he has done it. It is therefore entirely reasonable that God would–in some cases–choose revealing his nature to us as a higher priority than designing a system that is merely harder to design.

That’s what miracles are.

Jesus didn’t *have* to turn five loaves and two fishes into enough food to feed five thousand. In fact, that’s a much less demanding solution as a designer than if he had engineered the universe so that the five thousand who followed him all happened to have food on hand (and bring it) when they left to follow him. Doing the math to get that into the fundamental characteristics of the universe at the big bang would have put to *shame* simply creating the bread on the spot. It would have been a much more impressive feat, indicitave of a much greater mind. It would also have gone completely unnoticed by the crowd, and would of course have taught them (and us) nothing about Jesus as the son of God, let alone about Jesus as the giver of bread.

I am convinced–as you are–that God can and does act through the natural laws he has created. The universe’s laws are not things that supercede his power, but things that serve him, and were created by him to accomplish what he intended. I am also convinced–as are you–that God can and does act outside those laws in miraculous, conspicuous ways. I am also convinced–unlike you (I think)–that in creation, God *has* acted in miraculous, conspicuous detectable ways. This last point is scientifically driven, not theologically driven, and what differentiates me as an ID-ist from you as a TE-ist.

Simply put, in certain cases–such as the origin of life–I am convinced that design (and I interpret it to be God’s, but it doesn’t have to be) is conspicuously, rigorously, and demonstrably non-naturally present. That is what it means to make a design inference in such a case.

You asked: “I will never know how a person who views the creation as completely a product of God’s will can make statements like ‘if the best example we have of God’s design of the universe is the bacterial flagellum, then the case is hopelessly poor’ You believe God designed it, don’t you? … So why is it ‘hopelessly poor’ to see intent in such complexity?”

I believe God designed all natural processes, including evolution. ID only sees design in the flagellum or other entities if they cannot be explained by natural processes, such as natural selection. It is “hopelessly poor” to limit God’s design to aspects of God’s design that defy God’s design.

“Also, you seem to imply that the majority of scientists would be convinced if the evidence were strong enough.”

Yes, and if not that, at least a majority of the Christian scientists would be. Neither has happened. Your Dawkins red herring doesn’t explain why most Christian scientists continue to stay away from ID.

I think the reason is obvious, and this gets back to the opening post. There’s already a far more satisfying alternative for theists. Even Michael Behe admitted as much when he took the stand at Dover. During his testimony, he was presented with this quote from the National Academy of Sciences:

“Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving the physical and biological evolution, and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed ‘theistic evolution,’ is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.”

Dr. Behe contrasted this view with his own view. “As a matter of fact I’m claiming quite less than what the National Academy says is consistent with scientific explanations of evolution, that is that God created, the universe, and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution. In this section I’m actually contrasting my view to those who argue for design saying that they think that the universe and its laws were designed. I’m saying that in fact a design that I’m proposing actually is a, is something that would require perhaps less of an ability of a designer.”

It’s page 82 of his October 19 PM testimony, if you want to check it out.

Anyway, on this I agree with him wholeheartedly. Intelligent design, as Dr. Behe sees it, requires quite a bit less of the unnamed designer than theistic evolution attributes to God. It’s “quite less than what the National Academy says is consistent with scientific explanations”. ID looks for a very modest designer, while TE affirms that God made the whole universe, endowing it with the properties necessary to bring forth what God desires. As a Christian, choosing between the two views is no contest.

I think we’ve established that I view the randomness of mutations the same way you view the randomness of coin tosses. Random to us, but without precluding God’s activity. If nothing else, that’s been some progress.

Your points from two to five seem to be an extended rant: an attempt to conflate the theory of evolution with every evil in existence, and to argue that it’s impossible to accept a scientist’s science without also accepting their philosophy, which may include materialism. I don’t think it would be productive for me to respond to that in detail.

“I think that you make a mistake if you think that the goal of ID is to argue ‘Here, look, this thing was designed. Here, look, here is another one’ No.”

I’ll be surprised if I am mistaken on that.

“THey are simply picking out individual examples like the bacterial flagellum, or the eye, or whatever, because these individual examples most clearly meet the criteria for design detection based on probability and irreducible complexity.”

And yet even those examples fail to convince most scientists — it isn’t even convincing to most Christian scientists. If the best example we have of God’s design of the universe is the bacterial flagellum, then the case is hopelessly poor. That’s the trouble with looking for evidence of God in the wrong way and in the wrong places. Mainstream ID misses the forest for the trees — or the universe for the flagella. For Christians at least, it’s predicated on buying into scientism which says that natural science is the only way to discern truth, flatly contradicting what we read in Hebrews 11:1-3.

“you must feel some inner need to have the science you ascribe to and contribute to not fundamentally violate or contradict what you believe(?)”

It doesn’t. You’ve mistaken my acceptance of consensus science with my acceptance of some scientists’ philosophical views. It is those views that would contradict, not the science.

“However, one of the things our brains are capable of is noticing patterns, calculating probabilities, etc. Why can’t those capabilities be assigned to life? You surely do not object to design detection in every field, right? Archaeology, etc. where it is commonly used?”

As I said, “I believe the whole universe is designed, so isolating a component of it and attempting to show how it is more designed than the rest seems to me to miss the point. At best, it can detect proximate causes of design, such as natural forces or intelligent beings like humans.” So yes, I do think we can detect the patterns caused by natural forces and natural agents, such as humans. Trying to detect something that works within the whole is different than trying to detect the work of the One who made the whole. I believe that creation is cohesive enough that there’s no seams showing.