Just because something looks like a naturally evolved molecular complex . . .
This is cool - a nanocar!
This nanocar was intelligently designed. However, unlike the (oh, no, not again) bacterial flagellum, we know who designed it: a group of humans, who are referenced at the bottom of the page.
Like the B.F., on the other hand, it exploits certain particular properties of the physical world, such as the shape of carbon atoms and the ability of things to spin on axes.
Instead of Mister/Miz Designer (whose name cannot be spoken) emulating Shirai, et al, in advance, isn't it more likely that Shirai, et al, have emulated successful adaptations that occur naturally and take advantage of the laws of nature?
Anyone who studies biology - especially cell biology - can tell you: it's a complete mess. If this shit was designed by a designer, the designer was on acid at the time. And yet, out of this jerry-rigged hodgepodge it is still possible to decipher some interesting fundamental mechanisms, to make incrimental (and the occasional huge) steps toward understanding how things work.
This nanocar was intelligently designed. However, unlike the (oh, no, not again) bacterial flagellum, we know who designed it: a group of humans, who are referenced at the bottom of the page.
Like the B.F., on the other hand, it exploits certain particular properties of the physical world, such as the shape of carbon atoms and the ability of things to spin on axes.
Instead of Mister/Miz Designer (whose name cannot be spoken) emulating Shirai, et al, in advance, isn't it more likely that Shirai, et al, have emulated successful adaptations that occur naturally and take advantage of the laws of nature?
Anyone who studies biology - especially cell biology - can tell you: it's a complete mess. If this shit was designed by a designer, the designer was on acid at the time. And yet, out of this jerry-rigged hodgepodge it is still possible to decipher some interesting fundamental mechanisms, to make incrimental (and the occasional huge) steps toward understanding how things work.
posted by Joolya at
6:15 PM
7 Comments:
Contrary to what the newspapers often say, ID theory is not simply saying that "stuff is too complex to have happened randomly." I think your assertion that "the designer was on acid at the time" of making the cell is more than an ID theorist would say about the designer (if he's talking in strictly ID theoretic terms). Once again, you misunderstand the theory and you immediately do the same thing you accuse us of doing: making statements about the nature of the possible designer. If you want to examine what ID theory actually says, then here's two words and a man for you:
specified complexity, William Dembski
Re designer being on acid: I was being facetious. I'm saying a cell simply doesn't look designed - not to me, anyway. It looks pretty messy, which is what you would predict from evolution by natural selection.
Before you jump to defend or refer to ID's "leading light", you need to check out the other side of the issue as well (This is a good place to start). I've been following this debate for a long stinking time (way too long) and Dembski, rather than respond to criticisms of his work (legitimate ones from professors that do understand the relevant math), resorts immediately to ad hom attacks and hand-waving. The most common response from him that I've seen so far is "they don't understand the relevant math".
He spoke at a conference on information theory in the Netherlands (I think) earlier this year. You should see the comments from the others in attendance. Needless to say, he won't be invited back.
Also, the fact that he's rather quick to delete and ban any comments/commenters that disagree with him is rather telling. Check it out for yourself. Also, I would reccommend Charlie Wagner's blog since you are an IDer.
joolya: What is your reasoning behind the assumption that a designer would not have created a "perfect" system? I understand that to you it looks messy, but that does not entail "it wasn't designed."
iamb: Dembski's personal blog is his area. It is his right to be a moderator there. However, there is such a thing as academic freedom, because the public funding that goes into scientific research is supposedly for the benefit of everyone who helps pay for it. There are many crackpots and scientists whose work will never be very important who get public funding. ID theorists dispute that they should not be allowed to receive the same funding.
My question for you is: Do you understand the relevant math? I don't. And I refuse to make a judgement on the issue until I do. Knowledgeable people talk in a different language than those who are not knowledgeable. And the only way to decide for yourself who's right and who's wrong is to find out for yourself what they are talking about.
The ad hominem and hand-waving stuff is language used by both sides to attack each other. Who's right about the actual issue? Decide for yourself. I suspect you have, and so have I. But I think there's something to be gained by discussion and debate. This "something" is nothing more than scientific progress as it is supposed to work.
uh, I found Panda's Thumb. I can't find Charlie Wagner's blog though. And I doubt that I will find it very interesting. I too am a longtime follower of this debate, and I'm growing tired of the same ol' same ol'.
Whether you choose to visit Charlie or not is up to you. I just thought you might find him interesting (Here is a link, in case you want it).
Yes, like you, I did decide for myself. It seems that we just landed on opposite sides of the issue. I agree that the debate has been useful to spark interest in the life sciences, which in itself is a good thing. Now, on to another topic...
I realize that Dembski's blog is his area to do with as he pleases, but why delete and ban anyone that disagrees? I've seen him ban people who weren't even being rude, simply because they had a well thought-out nitpick of his ideas. Most bloggers that get the same amount of traffic still allow pretty much anyone to be heard in the comments. Most places, including the blogs of Bill's critics, will not ban or delete until the commenter gets really abusive. If I remember correctly, it took Panda's Thumb over a year to decide to finally ban Dave Scot (and they banned GWW about the same time- he was an evolutionist so they at least apply bans fairly). My point is this: why only allow commenters who agree with you? Isn't that kind of boring (and maybe a little cowardly, though that is my personal opinion and not necessarily the way it really is)?
Moving on...
Some of the math, yes. Other parts, no. My main mathematical objection to IDers is the constant abuse of the Universal Probability Bound when making a design inference. You can violate that bound in an obscene manner (by a magnitude of hundreds of zeros) quite easily and it will be nothing special. Calculating the probability of a past occurrence is a waste of time and serves only to impress the credulous. The only time an event occurrs which falls outside the bound that should even raise an eyebrow is if it can be shown to have happened more than once. Remember: it's nothing unexpected when a person wins the lottery (someone, after all, has to win)... it only becomes news in the stats world if they win again the very next week...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home