The War on Dembski

He’s got degrees coming out of his nose, an academic background that makes me look like a third grader, probably has an IQ in at least the low 170’s or higher, and has has decided to (shudder) apply mathematics to biology.

Makes me look like a crack baby pre-schooler but it’s been 10 years now and he hasn’t convinced any mathematicians of the validity of his eliminative filter or biologists of its utility. For being the Newton of Information Theory he hasn’t gotten any Information Theorists on board, either. I believe that it is his refusal to verify his ideas in the proper forums that generate the hostility. That and having no alternate mechanism (or even identified events) that begin to explain the available data. Right or wrong he’s going about it the wrong way.

Does “co-option” prove the ability for RMNS (random mutations + natural selection) to build a complex molecular machine such as the bacterial flagellum?

Not just co-option, but scaffolding as well. Co-option alone isn’t good enough, because it involves the merging of multiple systems that are already complex; how did those get complex in the first place? Scaffolding is the answer.

IDists often accuse evolutionists of attacking strawmen. One must keep in mind, however, that in many of these cases the evolutionists in question are addressing claims that are commonly raised by Creationists; many pro-evolution books, articles, speeches, etc., address the claims of Creationists and IDists at the same time. It is unfortunate that they do so, as it leads to confusion, but it does not constitute strawman logic.

First, Behe’s argument is primarily a logical one. Therefore, a logical argument should, if logically correct and correctly applied to the real-world situation, be able to demolish it.
Second, Muller’s hypothesis was that evolution should build structures of ‘interlocking complexity’ (his term for irreducible complexity) by co-option, scaffolding, and change-of-function. The fact that the predicted structures were later found is confirmation of his hypothesis, and serves as evidence for the role of said processes in the evolution of those structures. To claim that IC falsifies evolution is rather like claiming that the cosmic microwave background falsifies the big bang theory.
Third, there are a number of examples of scaffolding and co-option in action, though whether the results constitute the generation of a new IC system is debatable. But you are essentially claiming that without having observed said systems evolving in real-time, we can’t claim that processes that are obviously well within the limits of Darwinian evolution play a significant role.

OK, I think I see what you are saying. Essentially, since IC is a theoretical postulation, it can be falsified by a theoretical postulation.

Exactly. My wording was slightly akward, so I’m glad you got the idea. Do you agree, though?

Again, this is assuming validity of a system you are seeking to prove.

I think you misread me. That was basically a restatement of my initial claim, that, in your words, since IC is a theoretical postulation, it can be falsified by a theoretical postulation. If we agree that these processes have not been observed in action, can we then agree at least that they do follow logically as extrapolations from the observed operation of natural selection? If we agree on that, then we should also agree that testable predictions, predictions about what we should discover in the real world if these extrapolations do resemble reality, have been logically derived, and that these predictions (or at least the central one) have been confirmed. This does not by any means prove anything, even in the scientific sense of ‘proof’. It does however lend substantial weight to the evolutionist claim about the origin of IC, making it considerably more than speculation. If the action of scaffolding, co-option, and change of function were naught but the subject of speculation, IDists might be justified in asserting that IC cannot evolve and is indicative of design. But since we do have non-trivial, if circumstantial, positive evidence for the existence and role of these processes, doesn’t it seem a bit silly to claim they absolutely can’t evolve? At the least, it seems like deciding a verdict while the jury’s still out.
I said this already, but it bears restating: claiming IC falfifies evolution is like claiming the CMB falsifies the Big Bang.

It always entertains me to watch the fight…

Darwinists: “Creationists/IDers don’t have real degrees.”

IDers: get degrees from top universities out the wazoo.

Then the Darwinists claim that no mathematicians have accepted Demski’s work. Only they forget that his epic monologue on CSI was a major peer reviewed project and was accepted by mathematicians, and that he is repeatedly published in peer reviewed math journals.

But then the Darwinists claim that as long as the biologists don’t accept it, it is wrong. But the only biologists whose opinions concern them are those who are sworn Darwinists, and if they do credit Demski with having a correct model they are ostracized.

Please.

-Matthew

I’ve got a substantial break between classes now, so I’ve got the time to back up the assertion that the action of these processes has been demonstrated.

You of course remember the two bacterial species that evolved the ability to digest nylon (as I recall, it was not whether the feature evolved that was in debate, but whether it constituted new information or the building of a new IC system). Whether you grant that this is new information or new IC or not, this is still a clear example of a change in function of a complex biological system. Maybe it is, as AiG claims, a loss of information, not a gain, but it is still a change of function which does not result in a non-functional system.

And AiG’s chief claim in their response is to me demonstrative of my chief reason for disliking them. They have the sheer audacity to say, rougly, “we don’t know the exact mechanism by which these bacteria got this ability, but it seems clear to us, on the basis of absolutely no evidence except that the adaptation happened much faster than WE think mutation and selection could do, that this system was Designed to be adaptable to a wide range of situations.”

Of course. The Designer (aka God, in their view), made it so this group of genes could adapt really quickly to a wide range of situations, with no readily apparent mechanism for them to do so. Doesn’t that strike you as a very neat way of explaining away any adaptation that they think evolution shouldn’t be able to make? Of course the speed with which it happened was quicker than they think RM + NS should be able to manage, because they don’t think evolution should be able to manage this at all.
Talk about interpretative frameworks. >_>

I’m looking for clear, real-world examples of scaffolding in action, but I’ve actually got to go to lunch, then my next class. Scaffolding is arguably the most important of the methods for assembling IC, so I’ll try to find field research demonstrating it. In the meantime, however, can we agree that it does follow logically from the observed workings of evolution?

Darwinists: “Creationists/IDers don’t have real degrees.”

IDers: get degrees from top universities out the wazoo.

Well, the claim IS basically true for Creationists- and worse than that, many Creationists misrepresent their credentials, Kent Hovind being a prime example. And as for IDists, besides Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Denton (well, he’s a former IDist, anyway) and Wells, how many do have significant expertise in relevant fields?
Still, the important thing is to evaluate the arguments.

Then the Darwinists claim that no mathematicians have accepted Demski’s work. Only they forget that his epic monologue on CSI was a major peer reviewed project and was accepted by mathematicians, and that he is repeatedly published in peer reviewed math journals.

I keep hearing this repeated by IDists, and denied by Darwinists. Can you cite the publications of his papers, relevant to ID, in major mathematical journals?

The ONLY respected mathematician I have seen make any comment at all on Demsbki’s work is David Wolpert, and if anyone is qualified to refute Dembski Wolpert is. I welcome any citations showing significant support for Dembski among mathematicians.

Then the Darwinists claim that no mathematicians have accepted Demski’s work. Only they forget that his epic monologue on CSI was a major peer reviewed project and was accepted by mathematicians, and that he is repeatedly published in peer reviewed math journals.

Really? Where? I’m having trouble finding any. All I can find are reviews saying that he’s full of it.

But then the Darwinists claim that as long as the biologists don’t accept it, it is wrong. But the only biologists whose opinions concern them are those who are sworn Darwinists, and if they do credit Demski with having a correct model they are ostracized

Sworn Darwinists? Where do they take the oath? Do they have a clubhouse and a secret handshake, too? Perhaps the fact that Dembski’s eliminative filter lacks any kind of utility makes biologists reluctant to use it.

Here’s some of Dembski’s response to the SMU’s science department’s protesting the university hosting the DI’s dog and pony show (from Uncommon Descent -3/23).

Okay, all together now with feeling: “WE LOVE DARWIN. WE LOVE EVOLUTION. WE LOVE THE STATUS QUO.

Well said, Mr. Dembski.

My point was, as many others have pointed out on UD and other blogs, that Darwinists are many times as devoted, if not more, than the average “religious freak” that you denigrate so much.

I would say that’s a fairly substantial exaggeration. Yes, a lot of people are pretty devoted to the theory, but I think it’s a pretty far cry from the average fundamentalist, much less some of the hardcore nuts. A lot of people were devoted to the steady state cosmological model, and I think you could say that atheist or liberal theist cosmologists had similar philosophical ties to it their counterparts in biology have to evolution today. But once conclusive evidence was in for the Big Bang theory (namely Penzias and Wilson’s discovery of the CMBR) they all converted pretty quickly. I think from that we can agree that the evidence for ID is at least not as blatantly convincing as the CMBR was for the BBT.

Nathan,

(thanks for fixing my posts, by the way, let me try this)

You claim in jest that there is no “oath to Darwinism”, yet you illustrate (as did the SMU professors) your allegiance to it by your calling a conference to discuss ID a “dog and pony show”.

My point was, as many others have pointed out on UD and other blogs, that Darwinists are many times as devoted, if not more, than the average “religious freak” that you denigrate so much.

I think that all too often, on the topic of origins science, the opposition to the majority is silenced. Such is the case at SMU, such is the case in your mind as well, it seems.

OK, I did use the term “dog and pony show” and I suppose that was uncalled for. I did not use the term “religious freak” nor do I think that way.

I have read Dr. Dembski as well as many of his critics and I find the arguements of his critics more compelling. My knowlege is limited and perhaps colored by a materialistic bias but in areas where I have limited knowlege I look for a concensus of experts. I realize that this does not neccessarily speak to the truth of the matter. But I’m not the one Dr. Dembski, Dr. Meyer, Dr. Wells and Dr. Behe need to convince. I see a big legal and PR campaign and little actual effort to use proper protocal to vet the ideas of Irreducible Complexity and Complex Specified Information. I know of no other novel scientific ideas that have tried to get acceptance in the scientific community in quite the same mannner that ID has.

Perhaps my sarcasm is unwarranted but the end around made by the Discovery Institute is pushing ID into the public eye smacks of dishonesty.

I see little difference, other than the degree to which they are ignorantly devoted.

Ok, I see what you’re saying: you’re talking about the average guy on the street who believes in evolution without knowing why, not the biologists who know a little something about it. In that case, I heartily agree.

Anyway, what is your opinion on the proposed methods by which evolution can produce biological complexity, specically irreducible complexity? These mechanisms may not yet possess independent empirical evidence for their operation and role. Yet these can be logically inferred from the way evolution is known to operate. In much the same way, there is no independent empirical evidence for the operation and role of your designer, but you still claim that its existence can be logically inferred. The only difference, as far as I can see, is that while both the designer and these mechanisms are at present inferences and not the direct result of empirical evidence, we do have proposed models of the specific way in which these mechanisms act, models that can and will be tested. As there is no proposed specific model of design, it can’t be tested. Both stand on equally solid (or shaky) ground, but one has the advantage of being able to either move onto more solid ground or be thrown out altogether. So why is it valid to infer the existence of a designer without independent evidence but not valid to infer the existence of these mechanisms without such evidence? Unless you can show that the logic used to infer/extrapolate these mechanisms from the known operation of mutation and selection is not in fact correct, I don’t believe that you can show the inference to said processes to be invalid.

No, I don’t consider genetic drift to be a viable (and certainly not observable) option for the generation of novel genetic information.

I don’t know that anyone has suggested genetic drift as a major player in evolving complexity. A major player in speciation, yes, but not CSI.

No so with Darwinism. The majority of Darwinistic narrative is hypothetical. It’s never been observed generating a net gain in functional information. Certainly not the kind of information necessary for the generation of a BacFlag.

I still don’t see a difference between evolution and the Big Bang (I apologize for continual usage of cosmological analogies, but cosmology and biology are the two fields primarily involved in origins research so I think drawing analogies between the two is legitimate). The Big Bang doesn’t explain why galaxies look the way they do. At the moment it appears the shape of galaxies is contingent- we haven’t been able to formulate theories that make their basic shape a necessity. With a pure chance approach, the improbability of galaxies looking the way they do surely exceeds Dembski’s universal probability bound. It might even be possible to argue that they exhibit specificity as well; if they formed differently, they wouldn’t hold together. Should we be inferring design here? Or are cosmologists right to hold out for a new theory that will make galaxy shapes necessary rather than contingent?
Of course the situation in biology is different. Evolutionists don’t need specific aspects of biology to be necessary. They can be contingent, to a degree. All that is required is to show that CSI in general is not contingent; the specific form that CSI takes can be completely contingent, as there is no reason life had to take any specific evolutionary pathway. But I think my point stands.

But why do you add the caveat “Certainly not the kind of information necessary for the generation of a BacFlag”? If it could be shown that evolution had produced CSI at all and that said production wasn’t contingent, but flowed from a non-arbitrary consequence of the theory, what more would be required? You aren’t seriously suggesting we have to witness the generation de novo of a similar amount of CSI to that exhibited by BacFlag?

I’m more of the opinion that if science would readily admit the obvious shortcomings of Darwinism (not the easy stuff like missing links, I’m talking the big stuff like the potential of RMNS), then science can more objectively study other alternative explanations like ID.

I think the major problem with that happening is that, as Dembski says, evolution and ID are the only games in town. In cosmology, there’s a little more wiggle room. Yes, it could be said that the Big Bang is the only game in town, but there’s a lot of room for debate on what happened after. If one theory doesn’t work, there are plenty of others ready to be tested, whereas only relatively limited parts of neo-Darwinism can be modified. Sure, we can bring in theories like punctuated equilibrium, but that doesn’t represent as drastic a modification as, say, Guth’s inflationary cosmology. So biologists realize that if they don’t get evolution to work in basically the form it’s in now, it’s pretty much going to go to ID. Cosmologists can admit shortcomings to current theories because A, they have a reasonable expectation that better theories will come along (they also, like evolutionists, expect modifications or new evidence to support current theories), and B, they don’t have ID breathing down their necks.

Keep in mind that it is NEVER the responsibility for someone to prove something invalid. It should be thought of as invalid by default until shown to be valid.

I agree, and that isn’t at all what I was saying. I meant that biologists have demonstrated how, logically (as opposed to empirically), the formation of IC by scaffolding and change of function follows from the way that mutation and selection are known to operate. The fact that the existence of IC was predicted from evolution before the BacFlag or any other of Behe’s examples were even discovered should show that this extrapolation is not an arbitrary, post-hoc rationalization. As all the positive evidence for ID is also logical, not empirical, I contend that it is not reasonable to withhold provisional assent from the ability of evolution to produce IC.

I suppose that if you are saying that both Darwinism and ID are equally non-empirically testable, I’d have to agree for the most part.

Well no, that isn’t what I’m saying. As far as the ability of evolution to produce IC being non-testable, it’s already passed its first test. Namely, Muller’s prediction of ‘interlocking complexity’ was borne out. More tests have not been performed, but though models of the actual pathways by which IC systems evolved may not be specific enough to satisfy your requirement for empirical evidence, you must admit that said models can be tested. Not only will those tests either confirm or deny evolution’s ability to build IC, but these tests will also allow far more specific models of pathways by which the BacFlag and other such systems evolved. None of the currently existing models, with the possible exception of Matzke’s (which is certainly the most detailed) were ever intended as real demonstrations of the way the system actually evolved. Rather, they were intended to provide fodder for testing; that testing could tell us more about how the system actually did evolve, and eventually we can use that information to construct real, detailed models that we can be confident describe what actually happened. If ID bears no other fruit, it will at least have given biologists a kick in the pants on this track.