There was a worthwhile entry yesterday, touching on some facets of the Intelligent Design debate. In particular, tomday addresses the dismissive attitudes of the anti-ID faction. It's a nice write-up, and well worth the read. Although I consider myself an "opponent" of ID, my opposition is born mostly out of lack of quality in pro-ID arguments. tomday's reasoning is sound and interesting and consistent. ID needs more discussions in this vein if it is to be taken seriously.
If I may, I'd like to take two steps back from his article, and point out that ID is no longer a theory. It is patently true. We know for a fact that *some* species are the result of intelligent manipulation. The intelligence is Human intelligence, but since the type of intelligence is never specified in ID, the theory has been proven empirically.
And therein lies the problem with classic ID. As a theory, it is far too vague. What intelligence drives speciation? How does said intelligence interfere with an otherwise stochastic process? When did intelligence interfere? While it may be convenient to say that these are mere details surrounding the theory, they are in fact the definitions that outline what the theory is trying to say.
The "What Intelligence" question I have touched on. Humans have initiated breeding programs for thousands of years. Recently we have begun to dabble in direct genetic manipulation. Absent any restrictions on the identity of the Intelligence in ID, then the theory is true. It's been true for millennia.
Then, of course, there is the question of how did the Interfering Intelligence itself come to be? If the II was not itself evolved through intelligent interference, then we humans are the genetically-engineered corn, and ID is both false (for the II) and true (for Humans). In fact, for ID to be "true" requires an infinite regress of Interfering Intelligences designing intelligences who interfere. Since infinite "generations" can't happen in finite time, ID is false in this physical universe. Q.E.D...
...unless I have misunderstood either the definition of "interference", or the definition of "intelligence". Or perhaps I am unclear about whether the theory proposes every species must be interfered with, or "at least one". Which is entirely likely, since ID won't define any of those terms.
The "How" question is critical. Assuming an Interfering Intelligence exists, what are the general mechanisms of it's interference? Does it affect individuals, populations, species, or ecosystems? Does it have the capacity to redefine physical law? An intelligence with the capacity to affect entire ecosystems should not be a minor inference of ID. If anything, evidence of such an intelligence is *much* more important than the biology of a few species on one planet.
It's as if a theory were put forth about the existence of a footprint, with much discussion about how deep and wide the impression is, and a complete lack of interest in what actually made it.
Finally, the "When" issue. In discussions of this scope, we should always be conscious of the anthropic principle. Is ID a local phenomenon? Is it true for all species, at any point in time? Again, ID is trivially true for engineered bacteria. If we expect the theory to be worth discussing, we need a more rigorous scope definition, along the lines of "ID is true for this class of species", or something. In current ID literature I see nothing of the sort.
My opinion is that ID is, in many cases, a scientific veneer covering a religious message. Posts like tomday's are a reminder that some truly incisive minds are also wrestling with the issue, and remind us not to dismiss it out of hand. Still, the "theory" of ID needs more than smart people behind it.
Most of all it needs, well...an actual theory.
If I may, I'd like to take two steps back from his article, and point out that ID is no longer a theory. It is patently true. We know for a fact that *some* species are the result of intelligent manipulation. The intelligence is Human intelligence, but since the type of intelligence is never specified in ID, the theory has been proven empirically.
And therein lies the problem with classic ID. As a theory, it is far too vague. What intelligence drives speciation? How does said intelligence interfere with an otherwise stochastic process? When did intelligence interfere? While it may be convenient to say that these are mere details surrounding the theory, they are in fact the definitions that outline what the theory is trying to say.
The "What Intelligence" question I have touched on. Humans have initiated breeding programs for thousands of years. Recently we have begun to dabble in direct genetic manipulation. Absent any restrictions on the identity of the Intelligence in ID, then the theory is true. It's been true for millennia.
Then, of course, there is the question of how did the Interfering Intelligence itself come to be? If the II was not itself evolved through intelligent interference, then we humans are the genetically-engineered corn, and ID is both false (for the II) and true (for Humans). In fact, for ID to be "true" requires an infinite regress of Interfering Intelligences designing intelligences who interfere. Since infinite "generations" can't happen in finite time, ID is false in this physical universe. Q.E.D...
...unless I have misunderstood either the definition of "interference", or the definition of "intelligence". Or perhaps I am unclear about whether the theory proposes every species must be interfered with, or "at least one". Which is entirely likely, since ID won't define any of those terms.
The "How" question is critical. Assuming an Interfering Intelligence exists, what are the general mechanisms of it's interference? Does it affect individuals, populations, species, or ecosystems? Does it have the capacity to redefine physical law? An intelligence with the capacity to affect entire ecosystems should not be a minor inference of ID. If anything, evidence of such an intelligence is *much* more important than the biology of a few species on one planet.
It's as if a theory were put forth about the existence of a footprint, with much discussion about how deep and wide the impression is, and a complete lack of interest in what actually made it.
Finally, the "When" issue. In discussions of this scope, we should always be conscious of the anthropic principle. Is ID a local phenomenon? Is it true for all species, at any point in time? Again, ID is trivially true for engineered bacteria. If we expect the theory to be worth discussing, we need a more rigorous scope definition, along the lines of "ID is true for this class of species", or something. In current ID literature I see nothing of the sort.
My opinion is that ID is, in many cases, a scientific veneer covering a religious message. Posts like tomday's are a reminder that some truly incisive minds are also wrestling with the issue, and remind us not to dismiss it out of hand. Still, the "theory" of ID needs more than smart people behind it.
Most of all it needs, well...an actual theory.
posted by Whirling Blade at 12:07 PM
8 Comments:
...unless I have misunderstood either the definition of "interference", or the definition of "intelligence".
and design... we are so arrogant to think that any of it can be detatched from the natural process.
Intelligence enables a more efficient means for "fungi" to make "fair-rings", the stuff that humans "design" simply reflects our predispositioning toward satisifying whatever relevant need.
It's "inherent entropic bias"... nothing more... but more importantly, nothing less connected to the natural process.
Take away human arrogance on both sides of the debate and the anthropic principle is a thermodynamic principle... nothing more, but certainly nothing less either.
Now ask yourself why this obviously sensible worldview does not exist in science?
No wonder neither side has a "real" clue.
island:
I think you bring in a very salient point, in that "intelligence" can be strictly defined in entropic terms.
Certainly goal-seeking behaviors can be exhibited by very simple systems, for example a minimization function on an arbitrary error surface.
I would argue, however, that Darwinism lends itself more to a strictly entropic interpretation than ID does.
I would say that this view lends itself more to a strictly entropic interpretation of Darwinism than ID does:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990
Sorry, that got cut-off.
Cross your fingers:
http://www.
taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990
That finger thing never works... ;)
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/
archives/2004/09/30/2003204990
Wow, that's a fascinating read. I can see the merit in the theory...if humanity did not exist (or were less advanced) many forms of potential energy would remain unexploited. Fossil fuel for one.
I wonder if they have thought to address the apparent scarcity of life. On a macroscopic scale, a single race is a vanishingly small entropy generator. You would think that theory implies a very life-dense universe.
Yes, exactly, the anthropic principle as a biocentric principle, although it isn't just about increasing entropy, it's about "efficiently" increasing entropy.
A valid thermodynamic reason for life means that it will be as common common in the universe as the need for it demands.
A valid reason to extend this to "intelligent" life will complete the anthropic principle and *should* shut-up all of the nay-sayers, as well as a lot of hopelessly lost theorists.
Probably the most significant aspect of the "anthropic/cosmic-coincidences is the flatness of the universe, which can be attributed to high-energy physics contributions that only black holes and supernovae can make... besides us little humans, that is, we can isolate the release of enough energy to make particles from the *negative* energy of the vacuum with far greater "energy-efficiency" than the other known or expected sources.
This explains why the anthropic principle as a stability principle, why an expanding universe is just barely expanding, rather than blowing itself apart at a much faster accelerating rate.
The "preferred time and location" aspect of the anthropic principle indicates that life wasn't needed until now and so it will only appear in the unvierse on the same evolutionary "plane" as us, and they will be equally advanced, technologically... which explains a lot about why nobody's talking... YET.
First Contact is going to be one hell of a lot bigger than anybody ever expected...
... is "A" prediction of the Entropic Anthropic Principle.
I have a website about all of this, including a reference to the new book by the authors that the linked article was about, as well as many references to papers that Eric Schneider wrote with James Kay, who died young, unfortunately.
Schneider and Sagan have not put their idea together with the anthropic principle... they don't even like it, thanks to the way that Dorion's father, Carl Sagan felt about creationists.
That last line most certainly should have been qualified; I personally am not a creationist, I'm an agnostic default atheist. I said what I said because the anthropic principle is commonly abused by creationists, so scientists, like Sagan and Schneider, are pre-prejudiced agaist it. "Neo" darwinists are full of a lot of pre-loaded rationale about unguided evolution that doesn't even make sense in context with an entropic interpretation of the anthropic principle.
I believe in purpose in nature, like Einstein did. Higher structuring in nature can be perpetually inherent, per the physics that I gave in "Evoloution Blog".
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home