Introducing “Sewell’s Law”
| May 22, 2007 | Posted by Granville Sewell under Intelligent Design |
In an April 2, 2007 post, I noted the similarity between my second law argument (“the underlying principle behind the second law is that natural forces do not do macroscopically describable things which are extremely improbable from the microscopic point of view”), and Bill Dembski’s argument (in “The Design Inference”) that only intelligence can account for things that are “specified” (=macroscopically describable) and “complex” (=extremely improbable). I argued that the advantage of my formulation is that it is based on a widely recognized law of science, that physics textbooks practically make the design argument for you, all you have to do is point out that the laws of probability do (contrary to common belief!) still apply in open systems, you just have to take into account the boundary conditions in the case of an open system (see A Second Look at the Second Law ).
However, after making this argument for several years, with very limited success, I have come to realize that the biggest disadvantage of my formulation is: it is based on a widely recognized law of science, one that is very widely misunderstood. Every time I write about the second law, the comments go off on one of several tangents that sometimes have something vaguely to do with the second law, but have in common only that they divert attention away from the question of probability.
So I have decided to switch tactics, I am introducing Sewell’s law: “Natural forces do not do macroscopically describable things which are extremely improbable from the microscopic point of view.” I still insist that this is indeed the underlying principle behind all applications of the second law, the only thing that all applications have in common, in fact. But since even the mention of “second law” draws such “kneejerk reactions” (as Philip Johnson put it), let’s forget about the second law of thermodynamics and focus on the underlying principle, Sewell’s law. My main point is still the same as before, that natural forces cannot rearrange atoms into computers and spaceships and the Internet here, whether the Earth is an open system or not. But now you cannot avoid the question of probability by saying the second law doesn’t really apply to computers and spaceships (although most physics textbooks do apply it to the breaking of glasses and burning of libraries, etc); whether the second law applies or not depends on which formulation you buy. But it seems to violate Sewell’s law. Unless, of course, you believe that it is not really extremely improbable that the four forces of physics would rearrange the basic particles of physics into computers and TV sets and libraries full of novels and science texts; in that case I can’t reach you.
64 Responses to Introducing “Sewell’s Law”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The insults aren’t necessary, thanks all the same. I’ll be leaving the thread after this post.
“the probability of totally random processes finding the correct mutations to modify the gene are fantastic thus the experiment actually demonstrates “front loading†that is preprogramed in the cell”
Here’s a thought experiment for you. What evidence could possibly show that something is not a process of “front loading” but is in fact a random mutation? Answer: nothing. Therefore you get to keep your bias and I get to keep mine.
“your definition of information is divorced from the overall function of the organism”
Your definition of information inexplicably has a nebulous concept of “function” tied up in it which makes it impossible to measure. Once you find out a way to measure it, please get in touch.
Bornagain77:
“….nor did they consider the equally valid presumption of “Front Loading†that presumes a complex feedback control loop in the Genome that “mathematically or logically originated†the duplicated gene.”
“…#1 the (duplicated) gene is a spare tire gene that already had the ability in it.
#2 the probability of totally random processes finding the correct mutations to modify the gene are fantastic thus the experiment actually demonstrates “front loading†that is preprogramed in the cell”
You have made some good arguments for ID in this debate. I might mainly differ only in the preferred subhypothesis of how ID in evolution actually takes place. From the above quotes it appears that you favor the “front loading” hypothesis of ID among all the other versions.
The first quote indicates that you consider that the duplication of the gene was itself a response by the organism to environmental stress, brought about by a complex feedback mechanism in the organism. The “front loading” was apparently in the existence from very early times of the feedback mechanism itself.
The second quote implies that the subsequent exceedingly improbable (from a random standpoint) adaptive mutations to the duplicate gene were “front-loaded” in some way. One form of this would be a very complex built-in system which senses environmental stress, determines what genetic changes are necessary to respond to it, and modifies the appropriate gene(s) accordingly.
Alternately in the front loading concept, the duplicate genes and adaptive mutations could have been stored in the genome in the beginning and somehow intelligently accessed as necessary.
All the different hypotheses of ID of course have various pros and cons. It seems to me that this is less plausible than simply positing that (most of) the genomic changes including gene duplications and simpler mutations have somehow been induced directly at many times in evolution, by some unknown intelligent agent.
phevans
What evidence could possibly show that something is not a process of “front loading†but is in fact a random mutation? Answer: nothing.
If you are willing to say that rm+ns is pseudo-science which can never be shown to be true, even in principle, then I guess you’re right that nothing can falsify design. Personally I’m willing to give the NeoDarwinian theory of macroevolution more time to prove itself keeping in mind that if it’s false it will never be proven. ID has nothing to prove. We aleady know that intelligent agency can alter the course of evolution through purposeful changes to genomic information i.e. genetic engineering.
Re PE, no 55:
1] Now, of course, long since, the fact that someone made an error was conceded and corrected. So at best this is like one who is sent to take down a mountain, turning aside to a molehill, then scraping it down with a shovel and saying that he has dealt with the mountain. In other words, we here can see the fallacy in the easy slide we are being “invited†to make: from “random mutations can add information [in trivial cases of a few bits of change, most often by disabling existing functions . . . e.g. in antibiotic resistance or the like]†to RM accounts for generating the scope of information relative to biofunction across the biological world.
–> Here I add that natural selection is simply a filter, unless we can FIRST generate the biofunctional DNA and express it in life systems, there can be no competition on differential reproduction. And such information is contingent, so the only credible dominant mechanisms are chance and purposeful agency.
–> In every directly observed case of generation of complex specified information beyond the Dembski bound, this has only happened by agent action.
–> The same holds for actual observed cases of irreducibly complex systems, i.e multicomponent systems that break down in function if one or more core-functional parts fail to work. (I have not found alleged counterexamples to this particularly impressive once we go beyond the gleeful headlines and summary statements, BTW. If just one case in point hoods form say Bebe’s 1996 presentation, the evolutionary materialist account for biodiversity collapses. Cf Loennig’s excellent work onthis, accessibel through my always linked, as usual.)
2] In short, we are here gliding by the problem highlighted by Sewell, in a rush off to a strawman. Namely, Sewell pointed out that: “Natural forces do not do macroscopically [i.e “simplyâ€Â] describable things which are extremely improbable from the microscopic point of view.†(Nor, am I overly impressed by the idea that the post that is being discussed is simply a springboard for us to debate and draw attention to our own ideas and agendas. That notion may hold for those who want to capture a discussion and divert it from a direction dangerous to their agenda, but such diversions have names in logic: red herrings, strawmen, and the like. If you have a substantial point or correction, that is different from distracting attention.)
3] Now, too, in that phrase “ extremely improbable from the microscopic point of view†lurks all the substantial issues at stake. So to glide by it by substituting “add information†— one bit of information is not at all in the same ball park as 500 bits, or the millions to billions of bits that are expressed in DNA molecules in life forms [not to mention in the underlying coding system and algorithms that lurk in the DNA's object code] — is to tilt at a handy strawman set up by someone’s sloppy phrasing. (Onlookers observe how PE latched on to the single phrase, whilst insistently ignoring the substantial point. ID onlookers – here is a lesson on how important it is to be careful in how we speak, as we are dealing with people who will use any such error to get away from addressing the real problem on the merits. Of course, we will then be accused of being complex or long-winded, but there is never an end to possible rhetorical objections to ANY statement.)
4] The substitution of a strawman again crops up in the cases being cited from the literature: mutations that are based on one or a few base pairs, or on gene duplication accidents etc or even from the re-emergence of deleted code through redundancy mechanisms. All of these have NOTHING to do with the origination of hundreds of kilobits to megabits to gigabits of novel biofuncional information at novel body-plan level (or the like) in the relevant beyond merely astronomical configuration spaces.
We can therefore draw our own conclusions that Sewell’s major point stands, if the best that can be done by those who oppose his main point is to major on minors, or to otherwise divert attention.
GEM of TKI