"But we've published in peer-reviewed journals!"

[shernren]

Here's a pretty interesting set of articles:

Waiting For Two Mutations

Waiting Longer For Two Mutations

and, with a disappointingly unimaginative name, Reply to Michael Behe.

The first article itself is a pretty interesting read, calculating the rate at which a pair of mutations in a single gene will both reach fixation in a given population. The trick is that any given individual with the first mutation should have descendants, thus giving its entire line (and not just the lucky chap alone) a chance to put two mutations together before it goes extinct.

However, Durrett and Schmidt take an easy shot at Behe's "The Edge of Evolution" example on PfCRT evolution of chloroquine resistance in the malaria parasite as they end their discussion, and Michael Behe obviously was none too pleased. He wrote back saying the authors had basically got it wrong: the probability of chloroquine resistance arising de novo was one in 10^20, "an empirical figure" (and therefore clearly impeccable compared to Durrett and Schmidt's "theoretical" conclusion).

Where did that magic number come from? Quoting the first paper:

Arguing that (i) there are 1 trillion parasitic cells in an infected person, (ii) there are 1 billion infected persons on the planet, and (ii) chloroquine resistance has arisen only 10 times in the past 50 years, he concludes that the odds of one parasite developing resistance to chloroquine, an event he calls a chloroquine complexity cluster (CCC), are 1 in ~10^20.​

... this just goes to show that one unwarranted number can sour an otherwise impeccable chain of logic. Assuming that chloroquine resistance has arisen only 10 times in the past 50 years is a pretty good example of "begging the question", or in layman's terms wondering how nice it would be if complex mutation sequences just don't happen and then assuming it to be true.

As for the counter-reply to Behe, I think the final paper lays the smack-down so clearly that I don't need to rehash it.

In summary:

1. Mainstream journals certainly let known ID advocates publish articles. We knew this already, but it's nice to find another example.

2. Mainstream journals, indeed, let known ID advocates publish junk. So not only is the institution tolerant of alternative views, they actually appear to be quite indulgent towards them.

3. ID's biggest problem isn't institutional repression; it's institutional correction. Evolutionists have a field day destroying ID not by making unpopular, but by showing that it's simply wrong.

There's certainly "No Intelligence Allowed" somewhere in this debacle but I highly suspect that it's not the mainstream journals doing the hardheaded censoring ...

 

[lucaspa]

3. ID's biggest problem isn't institutional repression; it's institutional correction. Evolutionists have a field day destroying ID not by making unpopular, but by showing that it's simply wrong.

What's another way of saying "showing it to be wrong"? Falsify. Scientists show ID to be a falsified theory.

So remember this whenever an atheistic evolutionist says that ID is not science because it is not "falsifiable". You have an even stronger claim: ID is wrong. Falsified. It is one of the many falsified theories in science: geocentrism, phlogiston, etc.

 

[lucaspa]

Shernen, a bit of a correction. The article by Durrett and Schmidt was peer-reviewed. However, Behe's letter to the editor was not peer-reviewed. Just as Durett and Schmidt's reply to Behe's letter is a letter to the editor and not peer-reviewed.

The problem is that Behe and others simply do not have any original data to submit for peer-review.

 

[shernren]

Oh ya. Silly me.

I tend to say that ID itself ("life is intelligently designed") is not falsifiable and is therefore not science; however, its auxiliary assumptions ("life could not have evolved", "life is irreducibly complex") are very much scientific and falsifiable. Then again, if someone knew their philosophy of science, would they be an IDer?

 

[lucaspa]

Oh ya. Silly me.

I tend to say that ID itself ("life is intelligently designed") is not falsifiable and is therefore not science;

I suggest you read Gould's essay on this and some of the cases Darwin talks about in Origin. Many of those designs are not "intelligent". Not intelligent by human standards, much less by the standards of deity.

Also, the ID itself is not so much about "design" as in blueprints, but manufactured. ID says that species, or parts of them, are directly manufactured by an intelligence. That is falisifiable and falsified.

however, its auxiliary assumptions ("life could not have evolved", "life is irreducibly complex") are very much scientific and falsifiable. Then again, if someone knew their philosophy of science, would they be an IDer?

These are not "auxiliary assumptions". Rather, they are hypotheses. In Lakatos' terms, they might be "auxiliary hypotheses", but I would submit that they are core hypotheses because they are directly derivable from the core hypothesis of "species or parts of them are directly manufactured by an intelligent entity". Falsify those hypotheses and you falsify the core hypothesis.

And yes, if you know about the philosophy of science, you could and IDer, IF the data supported it instead of falsifying it.

I say this because scientists are "IDers" in anthropology, archeology, and forensics. They do state that "some objects or situations are directly manufactured by an intelligent entity (in this case humans)". They then scientifically test this hypothesis and falsify alternative hypotheses that other processes made the object. Examples are: paleolithic stone tools, pottery fragments, and dead bodies (murder scenes).

 

[shernren]

I suggest you read Gould's essay on this and some of the cases Darwin talks about in Origin. Many of those designs are not "intelligent". Not intelligent by human standards, much less by the standards of deity.

The only thing "suboptimal design" proves is that you would do things differently if you designed living things. For all we know, whoever designed giraffes liked having loopy overlong nerves, and to him the giraffe's vagus was the very height of the "scenic route" design paradigm.

More seriously, consider the following set of research starting points:

Hypothesis: Life was intelligently designed.
Auxiliary: The intelligent designer of life wished to make life look as if its origins could be completely explained by evolutionary processes.

This set of assumptions be entirely vindicated by today's evidence, but by definition it would not be able to tell us anything about life that the theory of evolution could not. And yet it would (in the barest sense) be an intelligent design viewpoint. After all, "intelligent" says nothing about the designer's goals or methodology. (Rube Goldberg machines appear designed!)

These are not "auxiliary assumptions". Rather, they are hypotheses. In Lakatos' terms, they might be "auxiliary hypotheses", but I would submit that they are core hypotheses because they are directly derivable from the core hypothesis of "species or parts of them are directly manufactured by an intelligent entity". Falsify those hypotheses and you falsify the core hypothesis.

I would again have to disagree. For example, engineers today do intelligently design systems using evolutionary design protocols, and they also design multiply-redundant systems: the former is an example of ID with evolution, and the latter is an example of ID without irreducible complexity (by some definitions at least, notably the un-squirreled ones), so that intelligent design doesn't in any way entail IC or non-evolved-ness.

I say this because scientists are "IDers" in anthropology, archeology, and forensics. They do state that "some objects or situations are directly manufactured by an intelligent entity (in this case humans)". They then scientifically test this hypothesis and falsify alternative hypotheses that other processes made the object. Examples are: paleolithic stone tools, pottery fragments, and dead bodies (murder scenes).

The last example is a good example of why ID is unfalsifiable. The "best" murders are the ones which leave no traces: no motive and no evidence. In other words, the most intelligent murders are the ones which don't appear to be caused by an intelligent agent at all.

In that case a detective would have to use the following rubric to solve the case:

Hypothesis: The dead person was murdered by an intelligent murderer.
Auxiliary: The intelligent murderer aims to have his/her intelligence not be detected.

And that is not as far-fetched as it seems when applied to life. Suppose that life was really developed by aliens: there would certainly be enormous ethical challenges involved in creating life (as we see mirrored in human society today), and any alien life researcher may well have conducted its research in such a way that it could not be traced back to it by any intelligent observer: namely, by seeding a suitable planet with the right mix of protobiotic elements and then watching passively as life develops, knowing that the only possible evidence of non-naturality (the protobiotic mix) would soon be destroyed by the very life it gave rise to.

So much for ID being detectable, let alone falsifiable!