Deinonychus antirrhopus

Lost Baggage

Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost has a post answering some of the philosophical objections to Intelligent Design (ID). He has a pretty big list, but in the end I think it amounts to pretty much nothing.

The first Objection-Answer is over whether or not ID is science. Joe falls back on the notion of falsifiability that originated with Karl Popper.

In the area of philosophy of science, the attempt to distinguish science (e.g., astronomy) from pseudo-science (e.g., astrology) is known as the demarcation problem. As a means of solving the problem British philosopher Karl Popper proposed the principle of falsifiability -- if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific; if it is not falsifiable, then it is not science. Popper’s criterion of falsifiability was used by Judge William Overton to determine that 'creation science' was not scientific and should not be taught in Arkansas public schools.

This is a what many people like to use when discussing science. Fine, but lets establish a one ground rule first. One of the main arguments of ID theorists is that evolution cannot produce complex specified information (see Dembski's writings on this). Hence, the argument that aliens created life on earth really can't work. For this to hold, it means that non-complex life forms had to eventually create complex life forms. That is aliens who do not have structures such like the bacterial flagellum, the type three secretory system, and so forth. Blood clotting cascade? Gone. So the idea that life forms could evolve and not have these kinds of structures strikes me as violating one of Dembski's own ideas (that complex specified information does not happen by chance--and non-complex life evolving to the point to being able to create complex life, on another planet no less, strikes me as being complex specified information). So buh-bye aliens created us theory for the ID proponents.

Now, given this the only thing we have left is a supreme being. This supreme being has the ability to do a great many things if he can create life on different planets. In fact, if this supreme being is the same Christian God that all of the proponents of ID believe in, then this God is all powerful. Hence, there is no way to falsify this view save by possessing complete information about how the diversity of life came about--i.e., the complete history of the evolution of every life form on the planet. Since we cannot have this, there is no way to falsify the ID view. For example, showing that the bacterial flagellum is (crudely put) a more sophisticated version of the Type Three Secretory System (TTSS) can be evaded by using Dembski's notion of irreducible core.¹ The irreducible core is that part of a biochemical "machine" that is irreducibly complex which makes the entire machine irreducible complex. So as soon as one finds the TTSS the IDist can simply say, that it is the TTSS that is irreducibly complex. So, in a sense the discovery of the close relationship between the bacterial flagellum and the TTSS is actually a bad thing. Where there was initially one irreducibly complex system, now there are two. This is a neat trick when one can work it. It is the trick of turning evidence falsifiying your pet hypothesis into evidence supporting your pet hypothesis. It is also dishonest. The creator didn't create the flagellum, no...he created the TTSS (and maybe the creator did create the flagellum and simply used his previous work the TTSS as a basis for the flagellum...gee how do we disprove this). There is no way out of this save by having perfect knowledge of how life evolved on earth. Since we'll never get to that we can't falsify ID.

Further, there more to the criterion of falsifiability than seeing if the theory is true. There are predictions. What predictions has ID made? None that I'm aware of (if anybody knows of a prediction please leave put it in the comments--preferably with a link). No, the notion that "God did it," is not a prediction. A prediction rules out other outcomes, and when you have God doing the heavy lifting nothing is ruled out. Hell, God could even make it look like purely naturalistic processes are responsible for the diversity of life we see. Now, if we accept that evolutionary processes can create complex specified information, then it is possible some biological structures are designed. But then if evolutionary processes can create complex specified information...why do we need to invoke aliens to explain the existence these biological structures? You know...Ockham's Razor and all that.

Regarding the falsifiability of ID here is what Joe writes,

One of the most significant differences between ID theory and “creation science” is that ID is falsifiable. In fact, this is one of the ways in which it can be distinguished from Darwinian theories of evolution. Proponents of Darwinism have made if effectively impossible for the theory to be falsified, making its inclusion in the pantheon of adequate scientific explanations rather suspect.

Really? What more than the TTSS was necessary to falsify the claim that the bacterial flagellum is designed? Seems to me a sufficient condition has been met for falsification, but IDist still trot out the flagellum. As for Dembski's work, none of it is falsifiable. It is math/logic (and bad math/logic at that). How do we prove Dembski's filter is false? How about something easier? Prove that ordinary least squares (OLS) if "false". Dembski's filter is a procedure, an algorithm, very much like OLS is in statistics. Now OLS can be used erroneously, but it isn't "false".

The next Objection-Answer looks at the natural vs. super-natural.

This claim is often made by critics who have a limited understanding of both science and ID. A number of scientific hypotheses that are considered respectable invoke non-naturalistic phenomena. The multiverse theory, for example, appeals to the existence of a “multiplicity of universes” which may have completely different laws of physics. Another related hypothesis is string theory, which requires extra dimensions be invoked to explain features of the physical universe. Like Darwinism, though, the multiverse and string theories are not falsifiable.

Falsifiable? I thought this section was on the natural vs. super-natural? Sheesh. No matter. What would falsify Darwinian evolution? How about a rabbit fossil in found in rock from the pre-Cambrian era? I think that'd pretty much do it. As for the arguments about the multi-verse "theory" and string "theory" I don't see how things like additional dimensions are "super-natural".

While ID theory does require the existence of an intelligent designer, there is nothing inherent in the theory to suggest that the being has a supernatural existence.

As previously noted, the current ID theory is that complex specified information cannot arise naturally ( therefore it must arise supernaturally--but lets not get picky just yet). Hence the designer has to be about as complex as an amoeba. Does that sound plausible? No? Gee.

The next Objection-Answer is that ID is a form of stealth creationism. Joe calls this a red herring, but lets point out that all of the proponents of intelligent design (Dembski, Behe, Wells, et. al.) all believe in God and that God is the designer. Further, we can point to the Wedge Strategy Document that shows the ultimate goal of these IDists is to replace Darwinian theory with a religious based view of the origins of species and life.

Moving on, we come to the Objection-Answer dealing with the argument from ignorance. ID is most definitely an argument from ignorance, or at least some of the proponents have used this line of fallacious reasoning. For example, Michael Behe used this line of argumentation with the bacterial flagellum. What did Behe use to partially justify his claim that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex? A lack of research into the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. He pointed to a lack of peer reviewed literature (which is of course amusing at this date given the paltry showing of ID in the peer review literature). Further, his entire argument was that he couldn't see how a biological machine with less parts could provide anything useful activity. Enter the type three seceretory system and the falsification of Behe's claim (not that the ID proponents will admit this). Or in other words, Behe could not see any advantage to having a "partial" flagellum hence the flagellum is irreducibly complex. If instead Behe had rolled up his sleeves and headed off to the laboratory and done research he might have debunked his own theory...and at least looked a little less foolish.

Next up on the Objection-Answer hit parade is the rather boring "its a God-of-the-Gaps" argument. The defense, "God is not invoked by ID proponents." Well okay, technically true, but given that all the major guns in the ID movement believe in God and see God as the designer this is a bit misleading. But, I'll be gracious here and well call it a "Designer-of-the-Gaps" argument. There, I think we can consider that one put to bed.

Just as some claim that atheism is implied by naturalistic explanations, it could be argued that the existence of God is what ID advocates believe is ultimately implied by their theory. But even if this were the understanding of ID advocates it does not affect the theory’s adequacy as a research program.

Is Joe Carter really this naive in this discussion or is this some dishonesty? The whole point behind ID was outlined with the Wedge Strategy Document to bring religion back into public schools. Fire up google man, search on 'Wedge' 'Strategy' 'Document'.

Moving right along we'll skip the "God-of-the-Gaps" part II and go with, "ID hasn't been published in peer reviewed literature." First, of there is that embarrassing review article an ID proponent did get published, but was later disowned by the entire editorial staff (the article was shepherded through to publication by the editor who is...shall we say a bit eccentric). Anyhow, what makes this so funny is that it was an early ID argument against evolution. As already noted, Behe claimed that there was no peer reviewed science on the evolution of the flagellum, and that this was support for his view of the flagellum as being irreducibly complex. So back then it was good enough for the ID proponents, but know well its just a poppycock argument.

Still, there is something to the argument. While it isn't an ironclad argument that ID is not science, it certainly doesn't speak well of IDs scientific merits if after nearly a decade the set of peer reviewed ID publications is of measure zero. A good theory should make predictions, there should be experiments, there should be evidence. So far, ID has failed on all three fronts. There are no experiments, no predictions, and no evidence. And for this reason there are virtually no peer reviewed publications using ID. In other words, the lack of peer reviewed publications is evidence for the lack of scientific merit to ID.

The final part of Joe Carter's post contains an appeal to the critics of ID to fess up and present their objections. I already have, but I'm a nice guy so I'll present them again.

1. ID has no experiments based on it.
2. ID makes no predictions (remember there is quite a constraint with the claim that complex specified information does not occur naturally).
3. There is no evidence supporting ID.
4. ID to date has been a movement that has relied on (fallacious and often dishonest) negative argumentation.
5. Id proponents want to short circuit the scientific process and instead of doing work in the lab want the courts to mandate the teaching of ID in introductory public school course.

The first four objections have been discussed above (and elsewhere...often to the point of tediousness and exhaustion). However, the last point is one that the ID proponents use somewhat dishonestly. The battle cry is: Teach the controversy! The problem is you don't teach the controversies of the dominant theory in introductory courses. You especially don't do this in introductory high school courses. Here is an example, I challenge anyone in the entire world to find an introductory (i.e. freshman level) economics course that has as one of its topics the Sonnenschein-Debreu-Mantel theorem. Remember this must be an introductory microeconomics course for freshmen. Not an advanced micro theory course on general equilibrium theory. If economics does not teach the "controversies" in its introductory courses why should biology?

So this argument of "teaching the controversy" is in my view hugely dishonest. The proponents of this view know quite well that one does not teach the controversies prior to teaching and where the students understand the basic theory. Further, the ID arguments, despite being faulty, are quite sophisticated. Dembski's arguments are a good example. What high school anywhere in the world teaches Bayesian statistics? After all if we are going to teach the controversies, Dembski's proclamation that Bayesian/Likelihood methods are insufficient is itself controversial. If you are lost at this point in all the jargon and terms like Bayesian and Likelihood then my point should, hopefully, be crystal clear. Students first encountering a theory should not be blind-sided by the controversies of the more esoteric parts of the theory. Teaching this way is quite plainly foolish.
_____
¹If you are thinking that the goal posts just made a huge jump, you are completely right.

Posted by Steve at January 6, 2005 01:20 PM