Show Me The ID Science
Posted by Cernig at 03:40, 31 Aug 2005Daniel Dennet, one of the smartest people I ever met ( he ties first place with Richard Dawkins) has an essay entitled “Show Me The Science” in which he sets out the failings of the Intelligent Design lobby in graphic terms. If ID is to be a serious competitor to evolution then it must do what scientific theories do and get down in the trenches and offer details that have testable implications.
To see this shortcoming in relief, consider an imaginary hypothesis of intelligent design that could explain the emergence of human beings on this planet:
About six million years ago, intelligent genetic engineers from another galaxy visited Earth and decided that it would be a more interesting planet if there was a language-using, religion-forming species on it, so they sequestered some primates and genetically re-engineered them to give them the language instinct, and enlarged frontal lobes for planning and reflection. It worked.
If some version of this hypothesis were true, it could explain how and why human beings differ from their nearest relatives, and it would disconfirm the competing evolutionary hypotheses that are being pursued.
We'd still have the problem of how these intelligent genetic engineers came to exist on their home planet, but we can safely ignore that complication for the time being, since there is not the slightest shred of evidence in favor of this hypothesis.
But here is something the intelligent design community is reluctant to discuss: no other intelligent-design hypothesis has anything more going for it.
Excellent stuff from a master of real thinking.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
- Cernig's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
30 April 2004
54 min 29 sec
Hi Cernig,
Could you fill me in a little more on what the definition of Intelligent Design covers? In the past year, this has certainly become known as the 'new Creationism' and the controversy has centered on its links to Fundamentalist Christianity. However, previously there have been a number of other 'theories' that - to me at least - fit under exactly the same heading. For example, Frances Crick's "Directed Panspermia". Wouldn't this come under the ID definition? And he certainly wasn't FC.
Thanks for any clarification.
Peace and Respect
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
1 May 2004
4 years 19 weeks
Long ago I worked on the fact that information is inherent within all elementals found in physical existence. Where did that information come from? I invite you to read the August 2003 issue of Scientific American -- Are you a Hologram? Also read The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot. The theory that we are a complex broadcast from some source held within the physical state of existence causes all of the above to settle into fear and uncertain knowing. We are intelligent Broadcast animating this virtual reality that we call life. What a show!
See: David Bohm's Implicate Order; F David Peat, Basil Hiley, Paul Davies and many more who may be smarter than Daniel Dennet...but Richard is smart.
After that, we come full circle back to the source of the unknown data that makes us what we are and there you find something that has always been...God. Just sittling there in Timelessness or Eternity...Laughing at those who try to say there is no Mind here and never was...we just came from nothing. Don't you know.
Show Me the Source of the Science!
9 March 2005
2 years 40 weeks
Would the theory of a broardcasted, holographic existence be precluded or not from ID? Which, as Greg has pointed out very well seems to be 'evolving' into a whole field of theories rather than a singular one.
I have read allsorts on ID - some is very Creationist and Christian, some is far more inclusive of natural selection and very beautiful.
The only book of Dennets I have read is 'Kinds of Minds' about the origins of conciousness. The book is ace, but there is a cynicism and a dogmatic approach that fails to sit well in my little rose-tinted worldview. I think Oscar is right (dont make a habbit of it! ;-)) with the likes of Paul Davis et al - smart and, more importantly, open.
I would still really appreciate a comment from someone on Gregs point about Panspermia?
1 May 2004
4 years 19 weeks
When we think of Holography we are in the model T Ford era. The virtual holographic formula for our reality may include something much more expansive with Mind held onboard every fragment issuing forth and programmed to interact within some framework with everything it comes in contact with during the broadcast.
Additional minds on the Holographic Universe...Read Karl Pribram.
More importantly, read the ancient Vedic Traditions and you will see that we knew this many years prior to our present state and knew it well.
11 May 2004
2 years 14 weeks
First, I didnt say that Dennet was smarter than any of those you name, only that he was one of the two smartest men I had met. I would have thought that someone who is always aware of logical fallacies in others would have guarded more strongly against false universalising themselves.
As to the Hologramm Universe theory, I assume you meant this article as republished by essentia.com.
Note that the article is clear that the term "holograph" is used despcriptively as an analogue, not as an exact label - in other words the author is NOT suggesting IN ANY WAY that the universe is indeed an actual hologram.
In any case, if this universe were some kind of hallucinatory "matrix" imposed on us from outside (its unlikely, since the maths suggest you would need a data store the size of a universe itself with commensurate power requirements) it would simply push the question of evolution/ID back onto those creating the hallucination - and since they felt evolution was a grand illusion to give us that would strongly suggest that they themselves evolved.
Thanks for playing though :-)
Regards, C
1 May 2004
4 years 19 weeks
It is apparent you did not read my post or the great intellects found in the clubhouse with me. It is holographic, not hologramic...and indeed much more complex. I can see we will have to continue to work on this theory in regards to other's perceptions.
Not that one is, but that whereby Is, is.
10 August 2004
17 hours 12 min
>Not that one is, but that whereby is, is.
Oscar if you post this ridiculous statement once more my screams will be heard throughout cyberspace.
Try this one - if you put the punctuation marks in the right place it does, at least, make sense.
"That that is is that that is not is not is not that so."
I've given you the first capital letter to get you started just in case you need some help.
Kathrinn.
1 May 2004
4 years 19 weeks
I doubt the ancients care for your screams...They are long gone though.
22 November 2004
2 days 31 min
I doubt that the ancients said it in modern english
5 May 2004
4 years 19 weeks
Evolution is a scientific theory. ID is not a theory, but an 'idea' or 'concept' not based on scientific method. A theory per definition must be able to be falsyfied. ID has only one answer, 'god', and cannot be disproven.
I read an interesting letter about ID in the Economist. The author says that if schools have to make space for ID to be taught alongside evolution, so that the studens can make up their own minds, then surely every sunday school should make some space for evolution to be thaught as an alternative to religion. grin
-------------------------------------
"To die for patriotism is pointless; dead people don't care."
1 May 2004
10 weeks 3 days
Long time since we got you posting,
How are ya?
5 May 2004
4 years 19 weeks
Hi Richard,
Nice to meet someone familiar, other than Oscar ;-)
I see Toxilogic is also still around.
Last year, about June, I changed jobs and kinda fell off the radar for a while. (Partly because I did not have internet access from work for about a year.)
Since then I have enjoyed being an out-of-the-closet atheist, my career has really taken off, I moved to another part of town and changed my nationality. (Ow, watch out for the neo-con diatribe!) Been pretty busy, then.
My son has grown a little older, so I now also have some more free time.
I am looking forward to having some nice chats on this message forum.
-------------------------------------
"To die for patriotism is pointless; dead people don't care."
9 March 2005
2 years 40 weeks
I whole heartedly agree with every point you made there. I am not an ID promoter, yet I am aware of the current limits of modern science. Although, there are some people proposing that natural selection and evolution ,as a theory, can still yet leave a space for Intelligent Design.
From the little I know of the Vedic and Oriental traditions that Oscar is speaking of, they have indeed accessed and exquisitely documented a 'concept' of reality and its origins and evolution that is as deep and rich as any theory of modern science. Not only that, but have sought to live in a way that is in harmony with these processes, something that modern science struggles to do. However, this is based on Realisations - the opposite to modern scientific enquiry. A Taoist would say that they are in essence an 'internal' scientist - constantly experimenting, theorising, dissmissing, quantifying, concluding and proving. That may appear laughable to a modern day reductionist, but perhaps with a little bit of harmony and understanding, silly battles of wills between the IDs and the empirical scientists (i dont mean all thee good people at TDG by the way) can become an insignificant distraction?
22 November 2004
2 days 31 min
We should teach science in science classes, and philosophical approaches in philosophy classes, or comparative religion classes. This way, nobody is left in the dark about these various approaches, and nothing is misrepresented.
Then perhaps, we should require students to take a broad range of classes, so that they don't miss important breadth of knowledge because it is inconvenient.
1 May 2004
16 weeks 2 days
Hi,
Mr Dennett is rather fuzzying the matter here Cernig, that should sent the alarmbells ringing. First, we know from genetic backtracking that modern humans find their origens around 200,000 years ago thats the female line, regarding males there's even more confusion and data that go no further than 50,000. This alone should make one think- how can this be ? Faulty science, not enough data ? So why mr dennett comes up with 6 million i don't know (fuzzying probably). Any ID would certainly move the question as to their origens/beliefs , what an open door- rather unworthy of a deep thinker and hardly an argument, but as with all deep thinkers tunnel vision looms.
Personally i'm no holographic universe fan neither, admittedly it points us to an exquisite trick of light, one that's certainly holds more promise for further (practical) development. However to build a theory on a shard seems to exclude any motes in our (human)eyes.
Panspermia, where huge clouds of stellar remnants seed planets with building blocks is a favourite of mine. Earth proved to be a fertile bed, plenty of water to accomodate the need for distribution, subsequently the need to adapt, procure or die. Hotbeds of this can still be observed right now, in the jungle or even more around coral reefs. What richness and diversity to be observed there.
Evolution for sure- not as much the victorian credo of the survival of the fittest, btw humans have dropped this all together, they sent their young men out to die, (currently even in genetically hostile environnments).
Evolution is a race without any morality, caring for the offspring introduced (selfish) morality, not unique to mammelians but there it developped further....(some try to legitimize, sell us back into the idea of the selfish gene- mr dawkins can speak for his selfish self)...
What was lacking and to an extend still is in humans was reflection, retrospect, 'helicopter view', the sense of time beyond the seasonal cycles- our ancestors certainly went much further ( f.i. precession). In many ways humans are currently regressing, religion (specially the RC church) and science, forever trying to cut itself and everything else into ever smaller pieces have reduced the human potential to insignificance, a great depression indeed.
Some read in this an external influence, i do, because to me all this is counterintuitive to evolution as it can be observed. It's allmost schizophrenic the way humans operate, there's selfless love and respect for others, yet there's ruthless exploitation aswell, the fruits of which are not condemned but made to worship.
Having drifted off slightly, mr dennetts attack or demand of scientific proof is disengenous. The scientists themselves hold the keys and display to be in no mood to let anyone else fit them into the holes of their beloved and selfish consensus.
" do unto others as you would have them do unto you "
11 May 2004
2 years 14 weeks
Tox,
The people who tracked back the lineage of all modern humans to those two dates for male and female progenitors didn't make any kind of claim that those individuals were the first humans. In fact, since they were tracking sex-chromosome linked DNA and specifically human DNA on other chromosomes and in mitochondria are provably older (by around 6 million years) they always knew that all they showed was that all modern humans hold two ancestors in common. Thats where the time discrepancy comes from...no fuzzy science, just fuzzy comprehension.
Youyr remarks on morality and the "selfish gene"theories of Dawkins prove you haven't actually read his work on the subject.
Panspermia as a theory is pretty neutral as to the evolution/ID debate. Since it presupposes life elsewhere in the universe before it arrives here you then have your choice as to how to explain how that life arose elsewhere in the first place. (Does that answer your question too, Greg?)
Regards, C
30 April 2004
54 min 29 sec
Hi Cernig,
Well, not really. My point is that you have Dennett here saying that ID has no decent argument going for it - and in terms of his 6-million year ago space visitors, he's probably right...but that could also be described as a straw man argument in terms of my question, as Crick is talking about the origins of life on Earth. Crick - no mean scientist (and materialist) himself - wrote a whole book (I think "Life Itself: It's Origin and Nature") about why he thought life, and in particular DNA, was probably sent here by an ET civilisation.
Now to me, Crick's 'directed panspermia' idea would certainly qualify as an 'Intelligent Design' hypothesis - though certainly not one that would fit the Fundamentalist Christian mold. What I've been trying to get at, is there seems to have been a marginalisation of the idea of ID by associating it with FC crackpots, when there are actually some very respectable scientists who support related ideas.
Add to that ideas like 'conscious evolution' (Charles Muses wrote some interesting thoughts on this), which Darwinians would probably reject outright as the 'new Lamarckianism'. My concern is that science works by questioning the status quo, but proponents of Darwinian evolution are using this generalisation of everything apostate to the status quo to be 'New Creationism' (or 'New Lamarckianism' as the case may be).
Personally, I don't really have a judgement either way. Evolution has certainly got it largely right...but I'm never satisfied in calling a theory complete. And I definitely don't like ideas outside the paradigm not getting a say. On the other hand, I do realise that FC's are using the ID debate to their advantage, and there needs to be some balancing of that.
Peace and Respect
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
9 March 2005
2 years 40 weeks
I think Toxilogic is on the money here. For a truly great book that examines a new path of learning and study, try Consilience: The Unity Of Knowledge by E.O. Wilson. Now that guy really is one smart cookie, though I bet my balls I will never meet him.
Question: I am intrigued by the posts concerning panspermia. Could this be related to the theories that some comets contain the fundamental building blocks to life - that can find root on appropriate planets? This would then remove (to a degree!) the 'intelliegnt' component?
As for the Holographic universe, it seems clear to me now that I will have to swap my rose-tinted lenses for red and green ones!:-)
30 April 2004
54 min 29 sec
Hi Solar,
Regarding Panspermia. You are correct that just 'panspermia' has no 'intelligent component'. What I have mentioned though is the idea of 'directed panspermia', as promoted by Frances Crick - in which the panspermia is initiated by an alien civilisation (eg. by sending out artificially designed bacterium in spacecraft of some description). This, by necessity, would of course have the 'intelligent component'.
Peace and Respect
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
11 May 2004
2 years 14 weeks
Hi Greg,
I see what you are saying but still say Panspermia-like "seed from beyond" theories (including Hoyle's comet seeeds) essentially leave much of the evolution/ID debate open. Crick certainly thought life had evolved once it was seeded and there's no reason to suspect that he didn't think the ET seeders had evolved either.
Did ET evolve or was ET created, in other words.
Regards, C
9 March 2005
2 years 40 weeks
Thank you for that Greg. I shall certainly get hold of his book and give it a read. An immediate thought of mine whilst reading the post was; perhaps it was not intentional, but accidental? I know we ourselves on this planet go to great lenghs to keep all that we project into space as decontaminated as possible, but one could not rule out discrepancies. Would that seem plausible or am I off it somewhat (having not read the book)?
Either way, I find Cernigs point excellent and rather inpenetrable. It is once again a rewoking of the old paradox - if we were created (essentially), then how was our maker made? I know the Christians have a answer they would love to through my way with glee, but I would rather hear the thoughts of you guys!
30 April 2004
54 min 29 sec
Hi Cernig,
Don't mean to sound like a troublemaker, because I agree with most of what you're saying in this thread. Just wanted to point out that to assume the above is faulty logic, based on circular reasoning.
That is, we have discovered that life on Earth progresses through evolution. However, if life on Earth (and DNA) was a creation of an outside force, then it is by definition artificial and may not be the mechanism that happens elsewhere (eg. the DNA seeding may have been done with evolution 'written in' as the mechanism of change on purpose as an experiment). Just because we can't imagine anything else as resulting in intelligent life, doesn't mean there isn't another mechanism (the inherent fault in the anthropic principle).
In that case, it is unwise to define the debate as being 'did ET evolve or was ET created', because there may be other options above and beyond that simple dichotomy.
Peace and Respect
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
1 May 2004
16 weeks 2 days
Hi Cernig,
Well i was rather mistified by your explanation with regard to our progenitors, i was under the impression that statistically the mitochondria of the female genetic make up were tracked back to around 200,000 years ago as current sapiens 1.0 version. This in contrast to other humonoids likely to have roamed the planet back then. To speculate here, this version 1.0 was used to build upon infusing new genes using male gene codes- this would account for the discrepancy (and for those alienabduction stories throuthout history).
Dawkins dream, use the force richard ! Turn it around, instead of looking at the 'result' go back, reduce until we get at dna's building blocks... genes. Personalize them with just one adjective selfishness.
A delibarate turn, he just aswell could have coined it survivalist but that wouldn't have suited the 'cheating' meme purpose, to reduce all live-specially humans to automatons in varying degrees. He's in many ways a new world order philospher, legitimizing the haves' violence and selfishness at the same time reducing any guilt or occuring altruistic notions.
Well Cernig i havent read his book A-Z / (Un)fortunately, tv interviews with Dawkins allready had given me the impression of a vain and arrogant man proud of his memes achievement. It looks as if Dawkins set out to lead those that have been trying to understand the nature of mankind, the reason for good and evil in the world, and cut them loose. Easy pickings ...
As for panspermia, meanwhile we've found many of the builing blocks, even if astrofysicists havent recognised the instrumental electric stresses, inside giant(lightyears) clouds , roaming around, coalescing and infusing the universe with the evolutionairy potential.
All this doesnt say anything on the origen of the universe- i tried with first vibration- you missed that one i guess, and it doesn't say anything on the origen of our species. We know a large part of our genetic make up orginates from earths pool- but not all- the fact that our genetic make up is so unexpectedly different should alert us. To me it points to external messing about, the fact that so many old 'myths' tell us so needn't even been taken into consideration.
" do unto others as you would have them do unto you "