The comments to the first post with this title were quite interesting. Rather that respond at length there, I've decided to put my thoughts in a new post so that the conversation stays near the top of the queue.
I think Ben Bateman has done an admirable job, and his eloquent explanation of Intelligent Design is well worth reading. In response to commenters Bernardo and Mauyr, I think there are a couple of points that Mr. Bateman made that got lost in the shuffle.
1) Mutations are in exponential space, information is in linear space. I don't see how this can be overcome, and in fact long periods of time and large populations work against information accumulation. Despite Mauyr's characterization of natural selection as "aggressively favoring" beneficial mutations, that's only true for mutations that accumulate to the point of being useful. So even if Behe isn't convincing to you, you must concede that his arguments drastically weaken the power of natural selection.
2) Mutations don't seem to be randomly distributed. From my limited research there appears to be a rather small set of very common mutations, all harmful, largely cancerous. (Mostly studied in humans, for obvious reasons.) So the information generation through mutation is probably significantly less than linear in an exponential space. Perhaps logarithmic, but that's purely speculation.
Finally, I think Darwin's motivations and beliefs matter more than, e.g., Newton's or Shakespeare's. Plenty of people have used Darwin's theories to support all sorts of evil, from fascism to eugenics to genocide. I'm not aware of any fans of Newton with an aggressive alchemy agenda. Nor, to my knowledge, does Shakespeare's antisemitism provoke many non-fictional villains.
In fact, I believe that the rise of Darwin's dogma and the vehemence of some of its defenders can be traced back to the same philosophy that motivated Darwin. There are a great many people who desperately want to believe that men are no better than apes, that the human race is a cancer on the planet, that a man is worth no more than what he produces, and that the role of government is to protect and coddle a population that is incapable of self-determination. These are all pernicious deceptions, and evolution is the cornerstone of this philosophy.
People who push evolution would have you believe that they approached the question with complete neutrality, performed some intellectually rigorous research, and subsequently concluded that evolution is the most likely explanation for life as we know it. In fact, their journey was more like this: starting with rejection of God as an axiom, man spent thousands of years searching for an explanation for life that could explain existence without him. Darwin proposed an untestable process that cannot be refuted because it cannot be observed, and because of this non-falsifiability the people who were already eager to discard any notion of the divine latched onto it and built their secular humanist religion upon it. They present evolution as the cause and their disbelief in God as the effect, but in reality those roles are reversed.
Questioning the validity of evolution is unacceptable and provokes rage because it threatens the very foundation of secular humanism. Without a godless creation myth secularists would be forced to confront spiritual matters on a personal level rather than with skepticism and detachment, which is a scary prospect for any man.
Michael, it's wise of you to keep prodding evolution defenders. Maybe one day one of them will actually figure it out and explain it to you. Then you can happily lose the argument and make a fortune off the computer science implications.
How come neither of you are concerned about spreading awful lies about Darwin's personality?
The guy had 19th century flaws, but he was no Nazi.
The motivating philosophy you mention was not Darwin's; while he formulated his theory he remained a Christian, though he did loose his faith following his daughter's death.
I think the reason that these debates can be nasty is that neither side can accept that the other is being honest. As you say, you believe that I am scared that there is a God (actually, quite the opposite, when I lost my faith in Christianity I was devastated); and we believe that you are scared that there is no God (from my personal experience, this holds more weight, but I'll accept that it can work the other way around too). Thus we are all paranoid about the other side using propaganda and deception.
I've already asked BB, but I'll ask MW do, what is this research about the small set of common mutations? Links greatly appreciated.
Mauyr: By "limited research" I mean my general survey of medical science. What I've read in the news, blogs, journals, etc. I'm not qualified as a genetic researcher.
Mauyr: I see four groups in the debate. Each side has a largely uninformed rank and file, and then a tiny percentage of experts who really understand the issues. The rank and file aren't debate science; they're debating the marginalization of religion in our culture.
Among the experts, it's a very different argument. The establishment scientists have the most complex motives. Being human, they enjoy the power and influence that their politically favored stance gives them. They also overestimate how much they know, partly because they spend so much time studying the subject, and partly because few of them have any education in the philosophy of science.
Part of what drew me into the debate is that I majored in philosophy, and even took a course specifically on the philosophy of science. So I think I know when scientists are out of their depth trying to do amateur philosophy.
The expert IDers I probably understand the least. There are many like me and Michael who study it as a hobby. With the full-timers like Behe and Dembski I guess they get a feeling of self-importance from being on a crusade.
If you got both sides' experts together and off camera, I doubt that they would disagree much on facts. The debate would be over what the facts mean, and there I think the IDers have a decisive advantage. I doubt that the pro-evolution experts individually really care all that much about the philosophy. I think that there are plenty of Christian pro-evolution scientists (such as Mike S), and plenty of non-religious IDers. Among the experts the debate is intellectual. Only among the masses does it become theological and political.
BB: "I doubt that they would disagree much on facts"
I'm afraid I can't agree with you... Every IDer I've spoken to badly mischaracterises evolution. I don't believe they're stupid, though that might be the case; I'm afraid I think it's often deliberate.
In practicing law, I've learned that it's almost always a mistake to assume stupidity or malice in the other side. Stupidity is usually tractable, while malice is incredibly rare. The other person always makes sense from some perspective. Nearly everyone has an internally consistent worldview. And even if that worldview is terribly flawed, it's still a useful mental exercise to try to see the world as they do.
You say that the IDers you've talked to mischaracterized evolution. What does that mean? Did they describe a view of evolution that no one holds? Or did they merely describe a view of evolution that you don't hold? Or, most likely, did they describe a view of evolution that differed from what you consider to be the majority view among respectable scientists?
There is no single theory of evolution. There are thousands of scientists, and they all have different perspectives and opinions. (If they don't, then they're worthless as scientists.) Anybody who thinks that scientists don't disagree about evolution hasn't asked enough questions.
For example, it is often said that evolution proceeds via random mutations. But what does the word 'random' mean there, exactly? Before I began studying evolution, I was led to believe that these mutations are like spins on a giant slot machine, with each wheel presenting a random base pair. But I doubt that many scientists would agree with that. Are we to imagine that radioactive particles occasionally strike the DNA at some crucial moment, and this somehow randomizes a portion of the strand? Or are we to believe that these mutations arise from copying errors, and if so, in what sense are those copying errors random? As I understand it, we currently know very little about mitosis and meiosis, so how can we claim to know that those copying errors are random in the same sense that dice or random or the result of a chaotic system is random?
Randomness is a very slippery concept, once you start thinking about it. It usually just means that we can't predict a given result. A roll of the dice isn't random. It's controlled by well understood physical laws. We call it random simply because we can't adequately measure the starting conditions, or maybe we could and just don't bother.
So this leads me to ask which side of the debate can properly be described as giving up. One side says that the process is random, which is basically a statement that we don't have the wherewithal to predict outcomes. The other side says that it's not random in any conventional sense, and the process more closely resembles the result of intelligence. (And then we could open up a can of worms on what 'intelligence' means.) This is also giving up in the sense that we don't know how the intelligence works, so we can't predict outcomes.
So if we set aside the debate's cultural and theological implications, I don't see much of an argument. Neither side has any real idea how new information is generated. Neither side can model it, or describe it in any non-circular detail. The only question is how we should describe our ignorance. And in a larger view it doesn't really matter which side we take, because the ignorance will be exactly the same regardless of how we describe it.
I'm not an IDer personally, because I don't think that ID defines intelligence any better than evolution supporters define randomness. As long as we're merely describing ignorance, I can think of dozens of alternate ways to do it.
For example, perhaps the DNA analyzes and changes itself according to an algorithm that randomly arose hundreds of millions or years ago. You already believe that evolution is powerful enough to have created intelligence, because here we are. So why couldn't it also have created a different intelligence at the cellular level? Or if you don't like the word 'intelligence', then just call it some randomly formed DNA that functions like a Turing Machine program that just happens to analyze and improve DNA.
We can spin stories like that all day. But no matter what stories we spin, we're still just like two scientists in the 1800s debating whether the Sun is more like a flaming ball or the tail or a firefly. We don't have any real understanding of the subject, and we won't develop any until we see some major discoveries that radically redefine the field.
I can't resist adding: You say that IDers you've spoken with have mischaracterized evolution. Is it possible that some evolution supporters have mischaracterized ID?
BB: "The other person always makes sense from some perspective. Nearly everyone has an internally consistent worldview. And even if that worldview is terribly flawed, it's still a useful mental exercise to try to see the world as they do."
That's very good advice, but I get the feeling that you don't apply it to your interpretation of evolution. You've claimed that PE demands "fast" evolution, and suggested that a complete new gene or function
must be arrived at in one generation. Is that really how you think evolution is supposed to work? I think you either misunderstand so badly that it is foolish of you to try to criticise it, or you purposefully present a caricature of it.
"Is it possible that some evolution supporters have mischaracterized ID?"
Sure. I try not to. I also make it clear when I'm criticising IDers and when I'm criticising ID.
"There is no single theory of evolution. There are thousands of scientists, and they all have different perspectives and opinions."
It depends how specific the question is. If you bring up PE, we can read Eldredge & Gould 1972 and discuss exactly that hypothesis, and no perspective or opinion can affect what the PE hypothesis is.
Also, no modern evolutionist has much time for Lamarckism (which Darwin had not ruled out) or saltationism. In terms of general theory, the space of reasonable opinions is relatively small, actually. (Opinions may come much more into play when examining specifics eg. certain individual fossils.) What sort of range of opinions did you have in mind?
"But what does the word 'random' mean there, exactly?"
Brilliant question! Although a lengthy essay could barely scratch the surface of it, for biological purposes I think it just means something that happens with no describable pattern to it. The example from
wikipedia is freckles: the density of them is determined by genes and environment (mostly exposure to sunlight), the exact pattern of them is random.
So that fits in with the slot machine analogy, although I have seen papers that suggest certain regions of DNA mutate faster than others -- whether that's due to more mutation events happening in those places, or to less selective pressure allowing more of the same rate
of mutation to be preserved, is unclear.
"Are we to imagine that radioactive particles occasionally strike the DNA at some crucial moment, and this somehow randomizes a portion of the strand?"
Sure, this happens quite a lot, along with crossing over and genetic drift. It's why too much sunlight can cause cancer. It happens in your computer, which is why you need checksums on everything. (I read a story about how they tried to stop memory corruption by protecting the RAM from cosmic rays with concrete and so on, but they eventually realised that the radioactive source was the RAM chip itself -- you literally can't get away from that kind of thing).
"So this leads me to ask which side of the debate can properly be described as giving up. One side says that the process is random, which is basically a statement that we don't have the wherewithal to predict outcomes."
Our explanation of Brownian motion also invokes random action, and it is not completely predictable, yet I think we understand it fairly well.
QM involves probability and randomness at its very core, not just as a result of chaos. And while "understanding" is a difficult word to use for a theory which is so unintuitive, we understand it well enough to perform amazing engineering feats (for example, the computers we're using for this conversation) using it.
So just because randomness is involved, I absolutely wouldn't call that giving up.
I agree with how you describe ID, that there's a big difficulty using the word "intelligence" which most IDer's either ignore or don't treat thoroughly enough. I think the reference to Victorian scientists is a sound one. I love the sentence "The only question is how we should describe our ignorance." I didn't major in philosophy, but philosophy of science has been an interest of mine since I was a teenager. I do think evolution is an attempt to get away from describing our ignorance. Science in general asks small questions, they have to be small to not get bogged down with the vast areas of ignorance but to concentrate on what we can know about. That's why it's useless to study science if you want to know about God or spirituality. I think that's the big difference.
maury: "You've claimed that PE demands "fast" evolution, and suggested that a complete new gene or function must be arrived at in one generation. Is that really how you think evolution is supposed to work? I think you either misunderstand so badly that it is foolish of you to try to criticise it, or you purposefully present a caricature of it."
You've insulated yourself with circular logic: Anyone who understands evolution automatically agrees with it, and anyone who disagrees with it obviously doesn't understand it. You think that I don't understand it because I don't describe it exactly as you would, and your understand of it is apparently the very definition of truth.
On top of that you're insulting me, which discourages further discussion. You're saying I'm either a fool or a liar. If your insults succeed in shutting down the conversation (which they have) then you can tell yourself that you've won the debate! Another triumph for evolution by calling the other guy a poopy-head! (And surely not the first such triumph for evolution.)
The trouble here is that you haven't allowed for any possibility that I might know something that you don't know. So this isn't really a conversation; it's a lecture. And this is what rubs people the wrong way about evolution: Its defenders cannot conceive of the possibility that they could be wrong. Everyone who claims to disagree with them is either stupid or a liar. Those same defenders claim to be champions of science and enlightenment, even as they act to stifle debate and insult those who disagree with them. As long as evolution defenders approach their critics with arrogance and condescension, then I will disagree with them, because they won't be acting as intellectuals, and they won't be searching for the truth.
Well, it's never nice to upset someone, so I'm sorry you feel that way.
However, you've made similar accusations about me ("Anybody who paid attention in algebra class ought to be able to see that..."; "you don't understand my argument"; "that's the deception to which I object").
My intention was to accuse you not of foolishness (you're not a fool, generally) but of ignorance, which is a trait so universal it should hardly be considered an insult imo. Your description of PE was factually wrong: it does not say what you think it does.
On the other hand, I entered this discussion because I was offended by the way the memory of Darwin's person was being treated (baring false witness is a big deal in my culture), so I've been uncharacteristically combative and clumsy with my language.
Anyway, there's no need to fall out over this, so if that's what's going to happen we should drop the subject.
Intelligent Design in large part is the assertion of irreducible complexity rendering evolution impossible. Irreducible complexity, contrary to what evolutionists often loudly proclaim, is testable. Take a simple organism, examine every possible combination of DNA and have them all compete. If the mutation does not win out against its progenitors, it will not be selected for and will be an unlikely path for evolutionary progress. If you get a beneficial or neutral mutation, it possibly could be an intermediate form between the primitive organism and the modern one. Evolution would remain a possible explanation if there is at least one pathway of intermediate forms, one going to another to get to today. If there are zero pathways, evolution would be disproved and some mechanism of intelligent design would become the new default theory.
I think that ID needs to get itself to a lab and try to prove irreducible complexity. It's their most interesting argument. If they can virtualize a petri dish, Moore's law means that within our lifetimes such an experiment could be run in a reasonable amount of time for a reasonable cost. Brute force solutions are neither elegant nor particularly cheap or fast but they do tend to settle the argument.
Research is the cure and it is interesting research. So why isn't anybody doing it?
TML: Unfortunately it's not so easy to virtualise a petri dish, or rather a bacterium. The process of simulating the action of just a single gene is a significant computational computational problem (google "protein folding"). That's just the beginning of our problems, the simulation of protein-protein interactions and various other chemistry, plus interaction with the environment etc. is beyond our current computational capabilities.
Furthermore, the sample space of every small mutation from a given genome is prohibitively large, regardless of computational power. the experiment you have suggested might be NP-complete (can't be bothered to think about it that deeply). If it is, even Moore's law won't help.
Furthermore, the fitness to survive in a petri dish is not really too closely related to the fitness to survive in the wild.
Despite this, versions of such research is being attempted (not with real genomes), even as far back as 2003 (Hoar, Penner & Jacob in Congress on Evolutionary Computation vol 1 issue 8),
So I think a virtual experiment is probably impossible. What about observations of speciation in the wild? I think you'd like to see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Despite that being a faq designed to promote evolution, it acknowledges the lack of good papers summarising the evidence, and points out that although most biologists consider speciation a closed issue, they personally are often unable to site papers to support that.
Ultimately though, it finds that evidence of speciation is there, just not well known.
It's not quite what you're after though: because speciation is thought to take longer than a human lifetime, and DNA was only discovered in the 1950s, observation of speciation at the genome level is not available.