A Definitive Assessment of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution: Part 1
Posted by: | CommentsThis is the first in a five-part series comparing the theory of evolution with the theory of intelligent design. In honor of Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday, EverythingIsHistory.com has invited writer Tomo Albanese to share his experience of discussing the origins of man with a lawyer from the Discovery Institute, a proponent of the theory of intelligent design.
Photo courtesy of alexanderdrachmann on Flickr
The battle of ideas is an often unforgiving one, and it claims the most victims when it is waged outside the walls of academia and inside the impressionable and unsuspecting minds of the lay public. Also, as noted by Shermer and others, intelligent people are often experts at rationalizing ideas which are fundamentally flawed. Such is the case with Evolution and Intelligent design, two opposing ideas bent on explaining the origin of man, and both bringing up far more questions than there are answers. In the end, the average “Joe” is left to wonder – which idea is right?
To answer this you have to know what Intelligent Design is, and what claims it makes. Thanks in large part to a conversation with Casey Luskin, I have had the privilege of getting an insider’s look at what proponents of ID believe, and I’m going to break down most of it this week. I know, ID seems like an odd way to kick-off “Darwin Week”, but when the dust settles and Darwinian ideas are still standing, it will seem only fair that I let ID throw the first punch.
To understand ID, you have to understand what claims are being made, and what claims are NOT being made. ID does not talk about god, aliens, or abiogenises; the origins of life much like with evolution are not covered. What ID DOES cover however is whether or not life has been designed, or did it come from blind-chance.
“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” – Discovery Institute
Like all scientific theories, ID makes predictions which are testable, and these predictions are the foundation of the theory.
Predictions of Intelligent Design
- High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
- Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
- Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
- The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless “junk DNA”.
So far so good, this is the bread and butter of Intelligent Design – manage to falsify even one of these claims and you’ve falsified ID. To contrast, let’s take a look at the theory of evolution.
Photo courtesy of Barabeke on Flickr
Now for our purposes, we are talking about the biological evolution of species, not microevolution, change over time, etc. That change within a species occurs over time isn’t really up for debate, the main debate regarding evolution is how it relates to the advent of new species. The most succinct explanation was given by Douglas Futuyama, “Biological evolution … is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual.“
However there is so much to say about evolution, including predictions that can be made off of the theory, that it is hard to nail-down just a few. Here’s a list borrowed off of Talk origins of just a few of the predictions that can be made.
Predictions of Biological Evolution
- Diseases will become resistant to any new widely used antibiotics.
- Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
- Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
- Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
- Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
- Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella “fit these predictions closely” (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
- Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
- Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).
Now giving ID the benefit of the doubt (Evolution has been around almost 150 years without being falsified), the predictions made by ID could be true. However, to better understand these predictions we must understand the 2 core principles of Intelligent Design: Irreducible Complexity and Specified complexity. I’ll get into those tomorrow, see you then.
A Definitive Assessment of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution: Part 2
Posted by: | CommentsThis is the second in a five-part series comparing the theory of evolution with the theory of intelligent design. In honor of Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday, EverythingIsHistory.com has invited writer Tomo Albanese to share his experience of discussing the origins of man with a lawyer from the Discovery Institute, a proponent of the theory of intelligent design. If you haven’t read the first article, start here: Part 1.
UPDATE: Renamed the title of this post from “Specifically Complex: What You Need To Know to Understand Intelligent Design (Part II)” to “A Definitive Assessment of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution: Part 2″
Photo courtesy of michael.heiss on Flickr
From Expelled to The Selfish Gene, there has been a battle of wits being fought over which theory holds sway – Intelligent Design or Evolution? To make things clear, this battle is more akin to a schoolyard thrashing then it is to an all out war, but surprisingly (or rather disturbingly) ID is holding its own. In part it has to do with the credibility it gets from its scientific approach and the general lack of understanding about science that many folks have.
Yesterday I went over what Intelligent Design (ID) is, and what exactly is meant when we talk about evolution in the context of ID. One of the key features that was mentioned was the focus on Irreducible Complexity.
Michael Behe was the originator of this argument/concept of irreducible complexity, so let’s take a look at what he has to say.
“By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.” (Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution p. 39)
According to this argument, there are biological functions such as the eye, bacterial flagellum, and the immune system that could not have arisen by evolution, because without these components there would have been no way that the organism would be able to live, and if you were to remove just one component from an eye or the immune system then it would have had no reason to evolve in the first place.
This is testable as well; the basic process is as follows as was told to me by Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute:
- Observe intelligent agents for the types of “complexity” they produce.
- Study/test natural objects for these “complexities”.
- If such complexities are present then design is inferred.
Ok, so I know you’re wondering it (or you are already completely lost); what is meant by “complexity”? Well, if you were to follow William Dembski, complexity which is specific and irreducible is any set of characteristics which would be unlikely to arise out of chance (chance is anything which exceeds 1 in 10150). Essentially, Dembski has provided rules for what qualifies as a random occurrence and what qualifies as “designed”.
Photo: "see what you want to see" on Flickr
So there is Specified Complexity and Irreducible complexity in a nutshell. Now I’m sure with this being Darwin week you are wondering when I’m going to tear it all apart, right? Well, there’s always tomorrow, where I am going to cover the problems with Specified and Irreducible complexity in terms of Intelligent Design.
A Definitive Assessment of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution: Part 3
Posted by: | CommentsThis is the third in a five-part series comparing the theory of evolution with the theory of intelligent design. In honor of Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday, EverythingIsHistory.com has invited writer Tomo Albanese to share his experience of discussing the origins of man with a lawyer from the Discovery Institute, a proponent of the theory of intelligent design. If you haven’t read the other articles, here are the links to the first 2 parts: Part 1 & Part 2.
What You Need to Know about the Foundational Flaw in Intelligent Design: Reducing Irreducible Complexity
“By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional.” — Michael Behe
As I have talked about this week, Irreducible and Specified complexity is one of the lynch-pins of Intelligent Design. By studying intelligent organisms and the “complexity” which they generate, proponents of Intelligent Design claim that they can infer design in biological systems. However, taking a closer look at the concepts of specified and irreducible complexity reveal that many of these functions are not irreducible or specific.
Behe starts off with the idea that the process of evolution merely adds a part at a time, and biological structures such as our immune system could not function if so much as one part were removed. While many may recognize this as a rehashing of the “watchmaker” argument, let’s examine a case where this is not the case.
The example given by Dr. Theobald on the site talkorigins is quite impressive. In this example he asks the reader to imagine a bridge made up of 3 stone blocks. This bridge is quite irreducibly complex, because if you were to remove one of the blocks you would not be able to cross to the other side. Now, if you were to add an additional part such as a plank of wood or a slab of rock which extended to the rocks on the other side, you could then remove the middle block and the bridge would still function. However, the new slab is now and irreducibly complex and specific structure which could not function without the three remaining parts.
Bridge Example Illustrated
This 2 step process is an excellent example of how complex systems within an organism can evolve.
The next problem with the idea of irreducible complex systems is the logical fallacies upon which they are constructed. Essentially every example that has been given of an irreducible structure is a structure which proponents of ID cannot imagine an evolutionary process for. This is why examples like bacterial flagellum, the eye, the immune system, and others have been repeatedly debunked by experts in these fields. Behe was also quite fond of his “mouse trap” example, but that was also debunked using the same ideas. This inability or unwillingness to come up with possible explanations is called the argument ad ignorantiam or the argument from ignorance.
Photo courtesy of andyj682 on Flickr
The last problem which I will discuss, but far from the last of the criticisms of the idea of irreducible complexity is that its foundation is based on the fallacy of the “god of the gaps”. When you DO in fact show yet another way to reduce an “irreducibly complex” system, this is often touted as a NEW irreducibly complex system. You can see how this is actually just a great example of infinite regression as opposed to irreducible complexity.
In short, even should you define something as irreducibly complex, it is still an arbitrary label. To say that a natural system is in fact designed because of the probability that it could have arisen out of chance ignores the fact that we cannot account for all those factors. To even make such a statistic we would need a correction for the error that takes into account the unknowns about the inherent designer – and as we have already discussed Intelligent Design makes no inferences about the designer be it supernatural or other-worldly.
Tomorrow I will talk about why Intelligent Design is not a science, and some common counter-arguments that Intelligent Design proponents make.
A Definitive Assessment of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution: Part 4
Posted by: | CommentsThis is the fourth in a five-part series comparing the theory of evolution with the theory of intelligent design. In honor of Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday, EverythingIsHistory.com has invited writer Tomo Albanese to share his experience of discussing the origins of man with a lawyer from the Discovery Institute, a proponent of the theory of intelligent design. If you haven’t read the other articles, here are the links to the first 3 parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.
Intelligent Design Apologetics: 3 Gaping Holes in the foundation of ID
“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” -Charles Darwin
It is with some amusement and yet altogether appropriate that I point out how the method of science is quite Darwinian in its approach to knowledge. The scientific method is a specific yet dynamic process of verifying specific claims. As we have looked at Intelligent Design this week, it has been through the lens of science. Upon close inspection we have discovered that the foundation of Intelligent Design is cracked and shaky, and today we will continue the process of condemning the house of cards known as Intelligent Design.
Intelligent Design is not falsifiable
Let’s start things off right by pointing out why Intelligent Design is NOT science. Scientific claims are testable and falsifiable; however this is not the case with ID. As we discussed yesterday, it is impossible to demonstrate that a particular biological object is “irreducibly complex” for a number of factors.
- The reduced structure will then be touted as “irreducibly complex”
- The term is arbitrary and contingent upon the parameters of the investigator
- Does not account for the possibility that such structures can be created by evolutionary processes.
With it not being possible to falsify this tenet, and this tenet being the “irreducibly complex and specific” structure of Intelligent Design, it’s easy to see why ID is not considered science.
Intelligent design has not been supported by multiple studies in multiple fields
The next notion that is so important is that science progresses through the accumulation of multiple confirming instances obtained under a wide variety of circumstances and conditions. Scientific theories like evolution are supported by multiple lines of independently corroborative data. We’ll get into the details later, but the findings of nearly every field of science for the past 150 years have verified the predictions of evolution.
Intelligent Design on the other hand has NOT been verified by any studies, in fact, according to Time Magazine even Michael Behe admits, “You can’t prove intelligent design by an experiment.” This might be in part due to the nature of the claims. The claims themselves are not very specific, just see the difference. You can figure out which one belongs to ID and which one doesn’t on your own, right?
- Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
- There will be no replication of specific gene patterns in unrelated organisms.
See how number 2 is VERY specific? It only takes on replicated gene pattern in an unrelated organism to falsify this statement. On the other hand, the first statement doesn’t take into account anomalies, outliers, or gaps in our knowledge which could account for such findings.
Arguments against Evolution are NOT arguments for Intelligent Design
This last point isn’t really the last, there are many flaws and holes, but this is the one that bothers most lovers of science and discovery. Intelligent Design has positioned itself as an anti-evolution argument. In any discussion that you have about Intelligent Design, you can be sure that some point against evolution will be made which has nothing to do with Intelligent Design.
It may not seem obvious, but this is an extremely clever tactic for ID proponents to take. Rather than demonstrating why Intelligent Design is true, ID’ers simply attack evolution. Of course, this in no way works as a validation of the claims of Intelligent Design. Why? Even should evolution be proved completely false along with everything else that we know about biology, this would not make Intelligent Design true.
This is a trap that proponents of Intelligent Design set, and it has no place in a discussion about Intelligent Design. If a theory cannot rely on evidence which supports it but must instead rely on the falsification of an unrelated theory, than that claim is unsupported and poorly constructed.
We have gone over a number of the problems with arguments for Intelligent Design, but there are many more. In fact, the concept of Intelligent Design is riddled with so many problems, that no one article is up to the task of addressing them. I’ve included a few bullets below, but this won’t be what we discuss tomorrow. Tomorrow we are going to discuss evolution and why this theory has withstood the test of time while theories like ID can’t begin.
A Definitive Assessment of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution: Part 5
Posted by: | CommentsThis is the final story in a five-part series comparing the theory of evolution with the theory of intelligent design. In honor of Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday, EverythingIsHistory.com has invited writer Tomo Albanese to share his experience of discussing the origins of man with a lawyer from the Discovery Institute, a proponent of the theory of intelligent design. If you haven’t read the other articles, here are the links to the other 4 parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
The Science of the Theory of Evolution or “Why the Theory of Evolution has Withstood the Test of Time”
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
Innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 172, 280)
In the last day of Darwin Week, it is altogether appropriate that we discuss Evolution Theory and why it is the rock-solid foundation of the biological sciences – leaving Intelligent Design as the mere foot-note in history that it surely will occupy.
The theory of evolution is a theory often misunderstood and truly underappreciated. Published in 1859, The Origin of the Species while simple has influenced and been supported by nearly every branch of science it’s superficially touched. It has purpose and it is useful, and these are the very basics of why it is such an important scientific theory. For example, understanding the theory of evolution is integral to creating effective antibiotics and vaccines, animal management in areas like wildlife preservation and fish farms, aerospace engineering, architecture, astrophysics, data mining, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, and the list just goes on and one. Many engineers actually use evolutionary models to find things like optimal wing shape and the most effective geometric structures for economy of motion. Still, these are just examples of how we know it works today, getting to this point was an amazing journey in itself.
A common mistake most people make about evolution is the assumption that it is random, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. We know this because Darwin founded his grand idea on more than just simple observation. Darwin founded his theory of evolution on understanding how we can track the passing of unique character combinations via nested hierarchies.
Sounds complicated, right?
Well, all of the advanced mathematics aside (Darwin was a scientist, but we don’t have to be), think of it in this way. When we say that blonde-haired blue-eyed left handed people will pass on their blonde hair, blue eyes, and left handed abilities to their children, this is what is considered a unique character combination – it’s completely unique to this group that we are talking about. Now, the mathematics of nested hierarchies basically explains that there is a specific way these traits will be passed on from generation to generation, and using this math we can predict how that will look – basically if evolution is true, the math will add up. One plus one equals two, and in the case of evolution, its dead-on.
So when someone asks where we get the “Tree of Life” from, you can tell them that the phylogeny is based off of the mathematics of nested hierarchies. Trust me; chicks love it when you say that.
Still, the fact that mathematics confirmed evolution isn’t even the most impressive part for me; it’s that genetics does too. Why is this so impressive? How about because Darwin would have known next to nothing about genetics – Mendel didn’t write his work until about 7 years after Darwin published The Origin of the Species, and that paper wasn’t fully understood until almost 40 years later. In fact, it’s only been within the past decade or so that we’ve truly discovered how accurate Darwin was with his predictions, and every day we find out more and more – in large part thanks to Darwin.
You’ll notice I haven’t brought up the wealth of fossil evidence, geological evidence, or even the genetic markers that we can trace along the genetic branches of the species that thrive around us. I also didn’t mention how mankind has engineered species and has even influenced the evolution of species since we could first farm. The reason I haven’t mentioned this is because it simply isn’t important. The fossil record is completely unimportant, as are “transitional forms” which is often mentioned by creationists. Why are they unimportant? Simple, they are completely unnecessary to support the theory of evolution. We have them to be sure; they are just completely unimportant thanks to genetics and the study of bacteria. We have WATCHED macroevolution happening in a lab, where we have seen bacteria go from eating petroleum to eating specifically rubber, and we watched the same happen in nature. If evolution didn’t happen, then where do these rubber and plastic eating bacteria come from?
Still, if you must see at least one to be satisfied, look in the mirror. You are a transitional form, so are your pets and countless other creatures in the world – all transitioning on evolutions extremely slow time-scale. In Darwin’s time they did not have an accurate idea of how old the earth truly was, so they could not fathom the amount of time that species actually had to evolve from the unicellular organisms that they once were. So in short, it is because Darwin and others back in 1859 believed the earth was much younger than it actually is that Darwin said the quote that I copied above. As it turns out, Darwin’s theory was also confirmed by the geological and astronomical sciences when they adjusted the age of the earth, so once again, Darwin had it right.
While I could go on for pages talking about the rock-solid nature of this theory, there simply isn’t enough time or energy to go into it all. For now, I must simply say, “Thank you Darwin.”One of the most influential minds has given humanity one of the most influential theories, and at one of the most influential times in the history of our planet, I think it’s appropriate that we give credit where credit is due.
Cheers Darwin, and thanks.
Cheers, Darwin
