KBD

Keith Devens .com

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 Flag waving
A Lisp programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of nothing. – Alan Perlis
← Great tax-cut analogySEXP (S-expressions) →

Daily link icon Friday, December 31, 2004

Donald Sensing on evolution and Intelligent Design

Donald Sensing has a post covering evolution and intelligent design. I thought this section has the issue fairly well-phrased:

Rand Simberg has an excellent post [which I have yet to read] about this. However, Rand errs slightly when he says that ID may be taught in schools, but not in a science class. Evolution (and the debate always come down to evolution) is science only up to its own limiting point - which is when evolutionists claim randomness explains complexity and species generation. That is as much an ideological or philosophical claim as ID.

There cannot be a science of randomness, for science depends on repeatability. The conclusion that randomness explains the beginning and history of life is not really a scientific conclusion. It is one thing, and a properly scientific thing, to say that here are processes that seem to explain the evolution of species. But it is not science to say with finality that no intentionality was involved. The exclusion of intentionality is not a scientific conclusion, but an ideological one.

(spelling error corrected). I'd like to further go through some of the post, especially the section towards the end on science and falsifiability. He quotes David Mobley:

I'd like to know why Simberg and Lindgren think the theory of evolution itself is falsifiable, while intelligent design is not. ... Let's consider the idea that we've evolved over time as the result of gradual changes which can eventually take something like a fish to become something like a human. How is that falsifiable? Particularly, what experiment could one do that would indicate that this is NOT true? ...

When it comes to the idea that all the species we see around us evolved from something like a bacteria, or many of the species or genera we see around us were designed by an intelligent creator, the theory of evolution and Intelligent Design are at least equally unfalsifiable. Certainly, microevolution is much more falsifiable -- and has indeed been confirmed in some cases -- but that's not what Intelligent Design is dealing with.

Though, I think we'd all be better off if we'd all get our terms straight.

← Great tax-cut analogySEXP (S-expressions) →

Comments XML gif

Mike Altarriba wrote:

What is the "Theory of Intelligent Design"? Is there more to it than "God Some Intelligence did it."? If we assert that "Some Intelligence did it", what have we learned? How does this assertion help us to understand how life changes over time? What does it tell us about dealing with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, or the risks associated with the introduction of genetically modified plants into the environment?

I'd like to see the lesson plan a Science teacher would use to teach Intelligent Design... I really would.

∴ Mike Altarriba | 2-Jan-2005 12:40pm est | #6750

David Chen (http://fallenearth.org/blogs/caiuschen/) wrote:

There is a science to "randomness". It's called chaos theory and explains how seemingly complex and random results can come from very simple systems. The smallest of variations in the inputs can yield extremely different outputs over time. It's already been shown that some natural systems are chaotic. Fractals are examples of very complex forms being created from very simple equations. I do agree that it does not exclude the possibility of intelligent design, however.

∴ David Chen | 2-Jan-2005 7:01pm est | http://fallenearth.org/blogs/caiuschen/ | #6752

Keith (http://keithdevens.com/) wrote:

Mike:

You just completely missed the point of the above. The belief that life arose from nothing, through random processes, with no intentionality, is a religious belief. (Sensing calls it a "philosophical" or "ideological" one). IDers decide, based on the wonderous complexity of life, that it's more likely that there was intentionality involved in the creation of life, and that it's unlikely or impossible for life to have arisen through random processes. It gives you a different ideological starting point[1], but it doesn't affect any of the examples you bring up.

David:

There is a science to "randomness". It's called chaos theory and explains how seemingly complex and random results can come from very simple systems.

Wrong. Chaos theory doesn't apply to randomness. It applies to deterministic systems in which, like you say, small variations in inputs can lead to large variations in outputs. The randomness is only apparent randonmess, completely unlike the actual randomness integral to all areas of the theory of evolution.

I think this introduction to Chaos theory is excellent (first result for "chaos theory" on Google). It begins this way:

The name "chaos theory" comes from the fact that the systems that the theory describes are apparently disordered, but chaos theory is really about finding the underlying order in apparently random data.

Invoking chaos theory doesn't do anything to address Sensing's points.

Wikipedia has a more technical definition of chaos theory:

Chaos theory, in mathematics and physics, deals with the behaviour of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that (under certain conditions) exhibit the phenomenon known as chaos, most famously characterised by sensitivity to initial conditions (see butterfly effect). Examples of such systems include the atmosphere, the solar system, plate tectonics, turbulent fluids, economies, and population growth.

Incidentally, I've never heard anyone try to apply chaos theory to evolution before. Though, Wolfram thinks his experiments with finite automata might have some bearing on the subject (and I disagree).

Footnotes:
[1]: though, ID scientists may do more, as if Behe is right he's proved it impossible that certain irreducibly complex systems could have evolved piecemeal, and if Spetner is right he's proved the chance of (creative) evolution is so statistically infinitesimal that it's not even worth talking about

Keith | 4-Jan-2005 4:05am est | http://keithdevens.com/ | #6761

Feel free to post a comment below. Please see my comment policy.

Formatting Rules (No HTML):

  • **bold**, *italic*, _underlined_, --strikeout--
  • "text"="url" creates a link, and URLs are auto-highlighted
  • Blockquote: Like e-mail, begin paragraph with > (greater-than sign)
  • Lists: begin paragraph with *,-, or + (unordered), or # (ordered)
  • Code block: ?!code:language=perl|php|sql|javascript|etc.{\n}...{\n}?!/code

:
(will be your IP address if blank)
: (optional)
(Will not be shown on site)

: (optional)
:

December 2008
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031 



RSS feed RSS feed for Keith's Weblog
Atom feed Atom feed for Keith's Weblog
Weblog archive
Recent comments
  on 6 posts

Recent comments XML

new⇒Perl 6 1.0 in March?

Doh, my mistake. I'm aware of the​relation between Parrot and Rakudo​but I'...

Keith: Dec 2, 1:03am

Free image hosting sites

Well, TinyPic has this in its​FAQ:

> Images and videos is in​your accoun...

Keith: Dec 1, 1:13am

Join a NameValueCollection into a querystring in C#

Well with a lamba expression, this​is what I came up​with:

?!code:csharp...

Gustaf Lindqvist: Nov 30, 4:38pm

Why no generic OrderedDictionary?

Check​http://www.codeproject.com/KB/recip​es/GenericOrderedDictionary.aspx?d...

Gabrielk: Nov 27, 6:57am

WhatIsMyIP.com

http://www.thesysteminfo.com is​another good alternate to​whatismp.com... I...

Kripz: Nov 26, 8:51pm

Girls, please don't get breast implants

Actually I think it's sweet when a​man loves a woman whether she's big​or n...

218.186.12.228: Nov 26, 9:40am

Generated in about 0.175s.

(Used 8 db queries)

mobile phone