Attn IDers, what would it take...?

Nuggin: Really, can an IDer please explain to me what sort of evidence would be necessary to invalidate their possition?Warren: This is easy.Donald Ingber writes:"At this time, the late 1970s, biologists generally viewed the cell as a viscous fluid or gel surrounded by a membrane, much like a balloon filled with molasses." [Sci Amer, Jan 1998].Back then I didn't suspect design. But things have changed. In 1998 an issue of the journal Cell was devoted to molecular machines, with articles like "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines" and "Mechanical Devices of the Spliceosome: Motors, Clocks, Springs and Things." Referring to his student days in the 1960's, Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote that "the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered." In fact, Dr. Alberts remarked, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory with an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. He emphasized that the term machine was not some fuzzy analogy; it was meant literally.For me it's very straightforward - the cell as a "factory" full of nanomachines = design; the cell as a "bag of solution" = non-design.If the cell is designed, we will find that they look more and more like Paley's watch. Agutter et al.'s says that "Cells are highly ordered structures- so far as their internal dynamics are concerned. Most physicochemical processes are channeled or 'directed' rather than random and suggests that little occurs in the cell on the basis of chance or as a simple consequence of the law of mass action."On the other hand, my position will be invalidated if this "highly ordered state" is really an illusion. That is, if further examination actually returns us more closely to the "bag of solution" view of the cell, my design inference behind the origin of the cell will be discredited.This message has been edited by Warren, 09-15-2005 04:20 PMThis message has been edited by Warren, 09-15-2005 04:32 PM

Deleted.This message has been edited by Warren, 09-15-2005 04:43 PM

Chiroptera: What does it tell you that a cell looks nothing like Paley's watch?I disagree. Of course it's not an exact fit but to me "a factory with an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines" is closer to Paley's watch than it is to a "balloon filled with molasses". But my point stands without the reference to Paley's watch.The cell as a "factory" full of nanomachines = design; the cell as a "bag of solution" = non-design.That's the way I see it. If you see it differently, so what? I was asked what would invalidate my suspicion of design. Here it is. If the cell turns out be nothing more than a bag of solution I will no longer suspect it to be the product of design.Now, here's a question for you ID critics. What data from the natural world could be discovered that would cause you to merely suspect design?This message has been edited by Warren, 09-15-2005 05:02 PMThis message has been edited by Warren, 09-15-2005 05:03 PM

Chiroptera: Yeah, the choice of language with words like "machines", "assembly lines", and "factory" -- the deliberate use of words that already have connotations of "intelligent design" cannot help but to attach image to the cell due to purely emotional reasons.Warren: These words are coming from the peer-reviewed literature. I doubt they were employed for purely emotional reasons. I assume the terms "machines", "assembly lines", and "factory" were used in these scientific articles because that is the words that best describe what is going on in the cell. I am curious if you consider referring to the cell as a "balloon filled with molasses" as the deliberate use of a phrase because of it's connotation of non-design.Chiroptera: However, the point is what evidence is there that these "machines", "assembly lines", and "factories" actually have been intelligently designed?Warren: And what exactly would you count as evidence that they were designed? Your mistake is in thinking in terms of necessity. I make no necessary claims that anything must be designed. But design is the prima facie interpretation when confronted with a machine. As Polanyi pointed out a long time ago:"If all men were exterminated, this would not affect the laws of inanimate nature. But the production of machines would stop, and not until men arose again could machines be formed once more."Machines work under two distinct principles: the higher one is the machine's design and this harnesses the lower one, the physical-chemical properties upon which the machine relies. Put simply, machines impose boundary conditions on the laws of physics and chemistry. The ultimate origin of those boundary conditions is either chance or intelligence. I see no reason to think chance is the better explanation when confronted by the molecular machines I have surveyed thus far.Of course, in the end, you are free to interpret these machines as
something that began as simpler, sloppier versions thrown together by
chance that were then refined through natural selection. I simply
see no evidence for such a belief. That we don't agree is hardly
important.This message has been edited by Warren, 09-15-2005 05:26 PMThis message has been edited by Warren, 09-15-2005 05:57 PM

We seem to be getting off track here. I'm responding to the question of what would invalidate my suspicion of design. We now seem to have changed the subject to what would prove intelligent design. I don't claim to have proof of design. I am telling you why I suspect design and what could change my mind. I suspect design because the scientific literature tells me that the inside of a cell is like a factory with an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of nanomachines. If this view turns out to be wrong and science goes back to the earlier view of the cell as a bag of solution, I will no longer suspect the cell was designed.My inference that life is designed is made only tentatively and as part of an overall investigative approach. Secondly, that molecular systems look like machines is not insignificant. For if they were machines, they would look like machines. And if they are not machines, why do they look like machines? What's more, let's not forget that what is convincing about the data that points to evolution is simply the fact that these data make things look evolved. Thus, to disparage appearances in one instance, yet cling to them in another, seems quite inconsistent. Thirdly, when it comes to these molecular systems, I not only think they look like machines, but in fact are machines - machines of a different technology and with an accumulated history of evolution, but machines nevertheless. And design is the prima facie interpretation when confronted with a machine.We have known for a long time that evolution can provide the appearence of design but conversely the process of design can yield an appearance of evolution.I recognize that in our ambiguous reality, different rational interpretations are possible and freely admit my views may be wrong. But my views have nothing to do with religion, creationism, the supernatural, nor am I anti-evolution. I am not an intelligent design creationist. I am an intelligent design evolutionist.This message has been edited by Warren, 09-15-2005 06:42 PMThis message has been edited by Warren, 09-15-2005 06:46 PM

Nuggin: Not to stray too far, but it seems like you are using the term machine to mean "something which does something very efficiently".So a watch would be a machine which tells time very efficiently, and an enzyme would be a machine which combines two proteins very efficiently.It then seems like you are suggesting that since a watch was obviously created by a creator, it stands to reason that an enzyme would also have been created by a creator.I think that's a rather large leap.Warren: No, that is not my argument. I use the term machine to refer to the entities that are called "molecular machines" in the peer-reviewed literature. Note:"Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines." Do you know who said this? Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences and a leading expert in molecular biology. And there's more:For example, with the bacterial flagellum, "we need to think almost in engineering terms about transmission shafts, mounting plates and bushings." Trend in Genetics, 6/91Perhaps this is because "the flagellum resembles a machine designed by humans." Cell 93, 17-20Then there is the F-ATP synthase, where Science News reported " With parts that resemble pistons and a drive shaft, the enzyme F1-ATPase looks suspiciously like a tiny engine. Indeed, a new study demonstrates that's exactly what it is." Science News vol 151, p173In fact, an expert on this machine observed, "These exciting results led to the conclusion that Fo.F1-ATP synthase is the smallest electrical machine created by Nature and a number of technical terms previously unknown to enzymology such as: rotor, shaft, stator, torque, clutch are now widely used to describe the enzyme operation." See Full ArticleNuggin: Yes, cells are extraordinarily complex. Yes, watches are extraordinarily complex. However, just because more things are complex doesn't mean they are both the product of design.Warren: Again this isn't my argument. For me, ID is simply the best explanation for the origin of machines. Also, I tentatively infer ID behind the origin of machines because there really is no evidence that chance and natural selection were indeed the mechanisms behind their origin.This message has been edited by Warren, 09-16-2005 10:40 AM

Warren: Why do they look like machines?Chiroptera: They don't. Unless you come up with some arbitrary meaning of "machine" designed to prove your point.Warren: Once again, ID proponents didn't coin the term "molecular machine". This terminology is coming from Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences and from articles found in the peer-reviewed literature.Look, these things look like machines to me. And I haven't seen a good argument that they aren't literal machines. If they don't look like machines to you, so what? I'm not here to convince you. I'm simply telling you why I suspect ID and what it would take for me to no longer suspect ID.Warren: Let's not forget that what is convincing about the data that points to evolution is simply the fact that these data make things look evolved. Thus, to disparage appearances in one instance, yet cling to them in another, seems quite inconsistent.Chiroptera: You are not being clear here.Warren: Many find the evidence for common ancestry convincing even though it essentially is nothing more than a "looks evolved" argument. And that's okay with me. As I see it, if something "looks evolved," then those who want to propose it really is designed ought to come up with persuasive evidence to the contrary. But this works both ways. If something "looks designed," those who want to propose it really evolved ought to come up with persuasive evidence to the contrary. And this whole issue is further complicated by the fact that evolution can provide the appearence of design and the process of design can yield an appearance of evolution. I find it a double standard for ID critics to use "looks evolved" arguments to support their position and then turn around and disparage ID proponents for using "looks designed" arguments for their position. My approach is open-minded and is willing to follow the claims supported by evidence.In contrast, the ID critics propose everything evolved and unless one can prove this is impossible and come up with powerful, independent evidence of the designer, all design inferences are to be pooh-poohed. In my opinion, this approach is closed-minded and seeks to force all the data into one proposal.This message has been edited by Warren, 09-16-2005 11:36 AM

Chiroptera: Fine. If all you're saying is that they look like machines to you, then I don't think that there is much more to discuss. What I object to are those people who think that I should see that it is obvious that these things have been intelligently designed, and those people who think that we should teach school children that ID is a reasonable, scientific hypothesis. If that isn't you, then I apologize for wasting your time.Yes, they look like machines to me and they also look like machines to other scientists as my references show. I really don't care if you agree. What I object to are persons telling me I'm irrational for not accepting that these machines are the product of evolution. And for the record I do not advocate that ID be taught in school as a scientific theory.

Nuggin: In both your quotes people are using the term machines as a means of description. "entire cell can be viewed as" and "flagellum resembles a machine". They are not saying that they ARE machines, they are saying that they are LIKE machines.Warren: Then there is the F-ATP synthase, where Science News reported "With parts that resemble pistons and a drive shaft, the enzyme F1-ATPase looks suspiciously like a tiny engine. Indeed, a new study demonstrates that's exactly what it is." Science News vol 151, p173Am I reading this wrong or is this saying the F-ATP synthase is exactly a tiny engine?What would it take for you to recognize that that something in nature is an actual machine? And even if you did, you still wouldn't attribute it to design, right?But remember, I'm not claiming anything here as proof of design. I'm just saying that I merely suspect that machines are designed. What is unreasonable about that?This message has been edited by Warren, 09-16-2005 12:25 PM

Chiroptera: What ID critics want is that the IDists present a scientific theory that can be evaluated.Warren: You mean something like Darwin started off with? Consider:Scientific inquiry proceeds in the absence of theoriesDoes a biological theory exist for intelligent design? No. But folks -- let's not get carried away by the obvious.Scientific theories do not come into the world like Athena springing from the head of Zeus, perfectly formed. "The transition from data to theory,"argued the philosopher of science Carl Hempel (1966, p. 15), "requires creative imagination....and great ingenuity, especially if the [new ideas] involve a radical departure from current modes of scientific thinking, as did, for example, the theory of relativity and quantum theory." Hempel might have added that a lot of hard work is also needed, mainly in hypothesis generation and testing -- to start the difficult cycle of reasoning Karl Popper (1962) called "conjectures and refutations."At the moment, we -- that's all the people who care, both design theorists and anti-design theorists -- are in the midst of the first major cycle of proposed refutations. Heck, you the reader may have attempted some of those refutations yourself. Don't get hung up on whether what you're doing is "science" or not. Leave the naming for historians. The dialectical activity of proposing and weighing new ideas is underway. Either a theory of biological design will emerge from all this work or it won't. I say it will, but I worry enough about laziness (my own included) that I've tried to scare the design community into making the next round of design conjectures.Currently, there is no theory of biological intelligent design. There, I said it again. Does that matter? Not really. The fact that you're reading this right now means you care about design, one way or another, and you want to know what can be said for, or against, the idea. You're caught up in the cycle, dear reader.What experimental support did Darwin provide for natural selection in the Origin of Species? None. And therein resides a lesson. In the Origin, under the heading, “Illustrations of the action of Natural Selection” (1859, p. 90), Darwin wrote, “I must beg permission to give one or two imaginary illustrations.” Ooh, naughty Darwin -- making things up like that. Shouldn’t he have waited to publish until he had some hard experimental evidence to back him up? Shouldn’t he have exercised the proper caution, seeking peer review of his ideas by first testing them within the context of a well-defined theory making precise predictions?Maybe, but then the idea of descent with modification by natural selection might well have died with Darwin in 1882. “The credibility of natural selection as a factor in evolution,” writes evolutionary biologist Mary Jane West-Eberhard (2003, p. 508), “is based almost entirely on indirect evidence and abstract reasoning.” West-Eberhard notes that “of all the numerous demonstrations of natural selection in the wild listed by Endler (1986, table 5.1), only five were published prior to 1950.” That is, nearly a century after the publication of the Origin, only five observational studies of natural selection existed in the literature.But science lurches along. Descent with modification by selection was so plainly an idea worth exploring that the science of evolutionary biology began decades before anything resembling a theory was in hand. I’d say that Bill Dembski and Michael Behe have done pretty well in stirring critical discussion of their ideas. No, they and the rest of the design community haven't published as many papers in the gawd-almighty peer-reviewed literature as we would like. So what. Listen closely (shhhh): It doesn't matter. The Popperian cycle is underway.

Nuggin:The whole point of the thread is what it would take to convince IDers that they are incorrect?I have yet to hear an answer..Warren: I already told you. In case you missed it here is how you can convince me I'm wrong. Show me why it's unreasonable to suspect that "a factory full of interlocking assembly lines" is designed. Show me how this is comparable to belief in Santa Claus.Some things in nature are machine-like and scientists have to think like engineers to understand them. Their parts are decribed as transmission shafts, mounting plates and bushings, pistons and drive shafts, rotors, stators, clutches etc. Show me why it's unreasonable to suspect these things are actual machines. Show me how this is comparable to belief in Santa Claus.Show me why it's unreasonable to suspect that machines are designed. Show me how this is comparable to belief in Santa Claus.This message has been edited by Warren, 09-16-2005 03:18 PM

Chiroptera: Have you ever read Origin of Species? That and Descent of Man can get pretty boring at times because both of these books are almost nothing but very detailed observations supporting the theory of evolution.Warren: Yeah, all of it based on it looks evolved so it must have evolved.“The credibility of natural selection as a factor in evolution,” writes evolutionary biologist Mary Jane West-Eberhard (2003, p. 508), “is based almost entirely on indirect evidence and abstract reasoning.” The science of evolutionary biology began decades before anything resembling a theory was in hand.ID is similarly in the early stages of its development. Many of its hypotheses are based on indirect evidence and abstract reasoning just as Darwin's hypotheses were and just as currect origin of life hypotheses are. But the ID critics expect initial ID hypotheses to have the properties of a scientific theory that has matured at the hands of thousands of scientists working over decades. I smell a double standard here.This message has been edited by Warren, 09-16-2005 03:13 PMThis message has been edited by Warren, 09-16-2005 03:14 PM

Chiroptera: At any rate, unlike the theory of evolution, ID has not yet presented anything that can be called a theory; it presents no observations that can be made to distinguish intelligently designed features from non-intelligently designed features.Warren: Well, I can throw this argument right back in your face. Do the ID cricics have a test to distinguish non-intelligently designed features from intelligently designed features. No! So on what basis do they exclude design when explaining the origin of biological features? Also keep in mind that when ID citics say "distinguish," this usually refers to two themes: show me something that couldn't possibly evolve or show me the designer.As I said before we know that evolution can provide the appearence of design but conversely the process of design can yield an appearance of evolution. In his book, Climbing Mount Improbable, Richard Dawkins introduces the term, 'designoid.' He defines designoid objects as things that look designed, but in fact are not. Instead, Dawkins asserts these things are created by variation and selection to provide the illusion of design. Of course, Dawkins fails to provide a way to distinguish between designed objects and designoid objects. I would like to follow in Dawkins' footsteps and introduce another term to the origins lexicon, something I will call evolvoid. An evolvoid phenomena/thing is something that looks like it evolved, but did not. That is, these phenomena/things were designed in such a way that it merely looks like they evolved. The very process of design itself often yields things that are prone to evolutionary interpretations. This would mean only that evolvoid phenomena are a function of the way we impose beliefs upon reality.Now answer this question. Is there a way to differentiate between evolvoid phenomena and real evolution?This message has been edited by Warren, 09-16-2005 06:03 PM

Nuggin: Because they weren't manufactured, they weren't built at one location and brought to another one. They don't contain components which are interchangable. They aren't made of a material different than the entity itself.Warren: This is such nonsense. You are simply making up a strawman definition of machine so that it won't apply to anything in biology. Nice try. Now let's try a common sense definition. A machine is a thing consisting of several well-matched interacting parts that transmit forces, motion, and energy in performing a basic function. No matter how you try to play games in defining a machine you have lost this agument. Why? Because I have the peer-reviewed literature telling me that scientists view certain things in nature as machines - machines of a different technology and with an accumulated history of evolution, but machines nevertheless. Therefore, to say that my viewing them as machines is comparable to believing in Santa Claus is just plain ridiculous.Equally ridiculous is your psychoanalytic judgment of those that disagree with you as being deluded by their emotions. The same could be said of you. Maybe you are opposed to ID for metaphysical reasons. Are you really open-minded about ID or are you blinded by your philosophical presuppositions?This message has been edited by Warren, 09-17-2005 12:12 PM

Chiroptera: The other type seems to accept common descent, but its adherents claim that there are certain features in life that could not have come about through strictly naturalistic processes. Fine, their ideas are consistent with what we know about the natural world; it may very well be that there are a few biological systems that have been "intelligently designed". But they are the ones who are proposing a new (or at least remodelled) theory. But if they are going to propose a theory, then they are the ones who have to show us how to test their ideas to determine whether they warrant further consideration.Warren: A quick point. First of all, the ID camp I reside in constrains their ID investigation to the OOL (origin of life). They accept common descent. The OOL and the ToE are two different things. Evidence for one isn't necessarily evidence for the other.For example, consider the origin of mammals. From the fossil record, we know that organisms did exist prior to the existence of mammals. And we can find groups that are more similar to mammals than others, thus we can infer mammals evolved from precursors. But when we consider the bacterial flagella, we cannot point to precursors. We might try to infer their existence in a speculative fashion, but unlike mammals we don't know precursors pre-existed bacterial flagella. So what then is the evidence supporting the claim that bacterial flagella originated via a non-teleological process? If you are going to propose a theory, then you have to show us how to test your ideas to determine whether they warrant further consideration.This message has been edited by Warren, 09-17-2005 01:40 PM