The metaphor is meant to be descriptive not definitive.

True. Which is why there is no problem over having a metaphor break down – we are aware that it is imperfect.

It serves to dramatize an empirical fact, namely that design can be observed in the way the patterns form and the constituent parts operate in concert.

But the metaphor is used to describe the action of the parts of the cell, not their origination.

I think the same objection can go to Sal’s comments – engineers will analyse biological systems in terms of their function. But you have to establish that the metaphor based on function is appropriate for origination.

The metaphor is meant to be descriptive not definitive. It serves to dramatize an empirical fact, namely that design can be observed in the way the patterns form and the constituent parts operate in concert. For most people, that is a powerful indication of the presence of design. In the case of a DNA molecule, the word “factory” would seem to dramatize the point even better.

The explanation of how it came to be is precisely what all the fuss is about. Intelligent agency is a different kind of cause than is mechanical law. For materialists, only the latter is believable or even conceivable since they assume a mechanistic universe apriori. Whether ID will ever be able to discern “how the actor acts” is an open question. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that the actor can act in only one way, a consideration which would seem to rule out any final explanation.

(How did Mozart conceive and compose?… is a different kind of question than how did he execute and perform?) That we can infer design from the delicate construction involved in the choice of notes and the way they are organized into an unified musical theme is obvious to any rational person.

To elaborate a bit further and to spare you having to slog through every last line of the provided link, the basic idea is that we are all inclined to make post-dicitive projections (like seeing faces in clouds).

What good specifications provide is the ability to measure how much of a postdictive projection we are using and also (to some degree) the applicability of one metaphor over another. When we create models of systems, we are constructing analogies.

When we invite engineers to analyze biological systems, they are coming to the table with lots of metaphors and analogies already pre-packaged ready to project onto biological systems. We might call something a logic gate, but how can we have confidence this is a good metaphor? Usually, it would be overkill to use the formalisms of ID, but the formalisms are there nonetheless. What happens in practices is we keep using the metaphor till it fails to be accurate…

However, the successful use of the metaphor could have statistics associated with it to give a quantitative idea of the applicability. I would presume the metaphor of the 64 codons in the DNA code is so overwhelmingly confirmed, we hardly give it a second thought. In fact, to the degree that a biological system does not concur with our metaphor, we consider the biological system to be dysfunctional, not our metaphor!!!!

Will ID be able to put formal limits on the applicability of metaphors? Now, that’s something that would be useful.

That was the implicity point of the book No Free Lunch and explicitly the point of this paper:
Specification: The Pattern that Signifies Intelligence.

This topic has been discussed before in How does the actor act?

In short, core ID theory (design detection) should be made distinct from ID-compatible hypotheses and/or models.

I’ll just repeat myself:

You are asking for a mechanism for design. Let me be clear that the core of ID theory is not mechanical in nature. There are ID-compatible hypotheses that offer mechanisms for design in biology. Two examples are front-loading and punctuated intervention, which are both compatible with universal common descent. Of course, even in a YEC scenario there can still be partial front-loading and other intelligent mechanisms which can account for rapid evolution. While front-loading has predictions unfortunately the results of punctuated intervention and unintelligent mechanisms might look much the same. The difference is that intelligent mechanisms need not be gradualistic, which of course is more compatible with the fossil record.

Cambrian explosion…

But while we know that intelligence is quite capable of producing specified complexity we are still trying to determine the exact limitations of unguided Darwinian mechanisms. We do have experimental evidence (see Behe’s Edge of Evolution) but most Darwinian mechanisms are untested…they’re just assumed to work as advertised.

Now an intelligent mechanism can self-terminate aka “stop”. Darwinian mechanisms on the other hand have no reason to do so. So, unless unguided, unintelligent Darwinian mechanisms happen to be on vacation they are either not active today at the same level or they were never capable in the first place. It’s always possible we are misunderstanding something about unintelligent mechanisms but so far the outlook is grim for Darwinism. I for one am open to the possibility that intelligence was only involved during OOL and the system was configured in such a fashion to allow unintelligent mechanisms to unfold the rest (like a culmination of lego block pieces). But I do not see any evidence or experiments to validate that scenario.
….
Behe believes that God “used the mechanism of evolution”…the difference is that it is intelligent evolution and not unintelligent, unguided evolution.

Now there are many ID-compatible hypotheses, which are supported by various groups in the “big tent”. For example, there are multiple variants of “front loading”:

1. Design was implemented in the universe itself. Everything is deterministic, and a plan rolled out from the initial implementation.

2. Design is not only in the universe and its laws but in the Origin Of Life (OOL). Darwinian mechanisms are taken into account by the Designer(s) and the architecture of life itself is configured to be modular, so that multi-functionality, gene duplication, cooption, and preadaptation, etc. are able to unmask secondary information. Of course, this presumes that Darwinian mechanisms are capable of this task, for which we have no positive evidence.

3. Same as 2 except there is a specific plan encoded into the original life and Darwinian mechanisms play less of a role, only being capable of producing minor variation.

4. Same as 2 or 3 except that there are multiple instances of Design (multiple Origins Of Life) occurring at the level of kingdom or phylum.

5. Essentially 2 – 4 except with the addition of Designer Intervention for certain information that is/was not modular but specific to a particular organism.

Am I missing any?

Some people might want ID to “officially” incorporate a particular ID-compatible hypothesis in order to be considered “science”. Personally I think that research into all the hypotheses should be encouraged and it’s way too early to be declaring one to BE ID.

Then there’s the confirmed predictions related to junk DNA, the predictions about designer drugs, the predictions specific to ID-compatible hypotheses such as front-loading, etc. People who don’t understand ID also fail to comprehend that the core of ID is limited in scope. The majority of predictions would be made by ID-compatible hypotheses, and they may conflict, although there are some predictions that will be the same with the core of ID and all ID-compatible hypotheses. As evidence is gathered some of these ID-compatible hypotheses will be falsified. But so far there is no positive evidence that falsifies the core of ID.

If you object to this distinction consider that “Darwinism” (and I use that term instead of “evolutionary biology” since aspects of the scientific field may be correct, and are often regarded as correct by ID proponents) at its core is about unguided, unintelligent mechanisms being capable of producing life as we know it. There are multiple hypotheses compatible with this core. The originals hypothesized by Lamarck, Darwin, and others have been falsified. And many would agree that the modern synthesis of the 1930s has been falsified as well. The question is, will there be a replacement hypothesis that explains and fits with reality or will the core be demolished.

And speaking of predictions:

But let’s say we did find such foresighted mechanisms. Darwinists might argue that such mechanisms would be selected for without intelligence being involved. After all, being foresighted would allow proactive responses to a changing environment and thus increase survivability. It’s kind of like how they create a story for modularity.

My prediction has come to pass. Such foresighted mechanisms that modify genes have been empirically identified. And the reaction from Darwinists has been as expected.

Hmmm…instead of diluting this topic I think I’ll post a new story.

Do you think it is legitimate to label a biological feature with a such a teleoogically subjective metaphor like “machine”? Is there no controversy over that?

Of course not, if it helps with explanation. And it is reasonable to say that parts of the cell function like a machine.

But it is still a metaphor, and all metaphors must break down. If the metaphor is abut the functioning of a machine, does it say anything about how the machine came to be?

Will ID be able to put formal limits on the applicability of metaphors? Now, that’s something that would be useful.

If evolution really is scientific then students in relevant fields should be familiar enough with it to defend it against the strongest non-strawman criticisms and opposing views. If evolution is scientific and students can’t defend it against the strongest non – strawman criticisms and opposing views then that suggests that they aren’t really that familiar with evolution and so they should not be allowed to pass. Of course, in order to defend against the strongest non – strawman criticisms and opposing views, students should be familiar with those criticisms and opposing views (ie: ID and creationism).

The Cambrian Explosion contradicts the Darwinian model but ID isn’t really the tool that would be used to explain it.

Sal – your explanation still conflicts with Dave’s.

If so, then you got two answer for the price of one question…

I’m also intrigued – what are the criteria for being designed?

Informally speaking, the same subjective criteria which induce Darwninian biologists to call something designed.

So to add to Bill’s list of non-controversial topics:

Students can explain in detail how evolutionary theory explains the fact that in scientifically peer-reviewed literature it is acceptable to use subjective human projections to describe biology using teleological terms borrwoed from engineering:

machine
encode
decode
regulate
promote
amplify
control
computer
digital to analog
analog to digital
compile
assemble
filter
error correction
monitor
sense
waste

The student can explain why the use of such subjective teleological metaphors is being a good objective scientist.

Do you think it is legitimate to label a biological feature with a such a teleoogically subjective metaphor like “machine”? Is there no controversy over that?