The Theory of Design

1,303 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,303
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
415
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide






















  • i.e. design exists only when and where evolution cannot explain it





























































































  • Therefore, specification depends on current state of knowledge. / Something is specified if an ID supporter says it is!/ This is ultimately a “God of the Gaps” type argument



  • Therefore, specification depends on current state of knowledge. / Something is specified if an ID supporter says it is!/ This is ultimately a “God of the Gaps” type argument
  • Therefore, specification depends on current state of knowledge. / Something is specified if an ID supporter says it is!/ This is ultimately a “God of the Gaps” type argument
  • Therefore, specification depends on current state of knowledge. / Something is specified if an ID supporter says it is!/ This is ultimately a “God of the Gaps” type argument

  • Therefore, specification depends on current state of knowledge. / Something is specified if an ID supporter says it is!/ This is ultimately a “God of the Gaps” type argument


























  • Therefore, specification depends on current state of knowledge. / Something is specified if an ID supporter says it is!/ This is ultimately a “God of the Gaps” type argument


  • Books – Behe: 1996 / 2007 ; Carroll 2001 / 2005 [2] / 2006 / 2007 / 2008 / 2009
    Real field - EVODEVO





  • N = 11. None of these are design related - Axe used chinese characters - Gonz in astronomy.






  • The Theory of Design

    1. 1. Is there a Theory of Design?
    2. 2. INTELLIGENT DESIGN } Implications Philosophy Identity Mechanism Detection } Science
    3. 3. CASEY LUSKIN WAYS DESIGNERS ACT WHEN DESIGNING 1. Intelligent agents think with an “end goal” in mind, allowing them to solve complex problems by taking many parts and arranging them in intricate patterns that perform a specific function 2. Intelligent agents can rapidly infuse large amounts of information into systems 3. Intelligent agents ‘re-use’ functional components in different systems 4. Intelligent agents typically create functional things (though we may sometimes think them to be functionless, not realizing the true function)
    4. 4. THE MACGYVER PRINCIPLE “The simpler the solution to a problem, the more intelligence and ingenuity it requires.” (Mark Perakh) Intelligent design will result in simple, optimal, minimal solutions to design problems. Unintelligent design will result in complex, sub-optimal, sprawling, redundant solutions to design problems.
    5. 5. THE MACGYVER PRINCIPLE “The simpler the solution to a problem, the more intelligence and ingenuity it requires.” (Mark Perakh) Intelligent design will result in simple, optimal, minimal solutions to design problems. Unintelligent design will result in complex, sub-optimal, sprawling, redundant solutions to design problems.
    6. 6. CASEY LUSKIN THE POSITIVE CASE FOR DESIGN 1. Natural systems will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform specific functions (e.g. complex and specified information) 2. Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors 3. Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms 4. Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions
    7. 7. CASEY LUSKIN THE POSITIVE CASE FOR DESIGN 1. Bacterial Flagellum 2. Cambrian Explosion 3. “Genes controlling eye or limb growth in different organisms whose alleged common ancestors are not thought to have had such forms of eyes or limbs” (Homeotic genes) 4. Design encourages search for function of “junk,” Darwinism doesn’t
    8. 8. DETECTION
    9. 9. THE DESIGN ARGUMENT Natural mechanisms could not have produced many of the structures in living cells because … these structures possess “Irreducible Complexity” (Behe), or these structures possess “Complex Specified Information” (Dembski)
    10. 10. PAUL NELSON 2004 “Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full- fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a real problem. ... Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’— but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.”
    11. 11. “Other than updating the list of my children in the Acknowledgements … there is very little of the original text I would change if I wrote it today”
    12. 12. MICHAEL BEHE Claims that Darwinism cannot explain biochemical complexity “Irreducibly complex systems … cannot evolve in a Darwinian fashion” “Purposeful arrangement of parts” implies Design
    13. 13. NEO-PALEYISM We infer design whenever parts appear arranged to accomplish a function The strength of the inference is quantitative and depends on the evidence; the more parts, and the more intricate and sophisticated the function, the stronger is our conclusion of design Aspects of life overpower us with the appearance of design Since we have no other convincing explanation for that strong appearance of design … then we are rationally justified in concluding that parts of life were indeed purposely designed by an intelligent agent 2006, p. 265
    14. 14. MICHAEL BEHE “The result … is a loud, clear, piercing cry of ‘design!’ The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton & Einstein, Lavoisier & Schrödinger, Pasteur & Darwin. The observation of the intelligent design of life is as momentous as the observation that the earth goes round the sun or that disease is caused by bacteria or that radiation is emitted in quanta” (233)
    15. 15. MICHAEL BEHE “[I]f random evolution is true, there must have been a large number of transitional forms between the Mesonychid and the ancient whale. Where are they?” 1994
    16. 16. MICHAEL BEHE “[I]f random evolution is true, there must have been a large number of transitional forms between the Mesonychid and the ancient whale. Where are they?” 1994
    17. 17. BLOOD CLOTTING CASCADE
    18. 18. IMMUNE RESPONSE
    19. 19. CITRIC ACID CYCLE
    20. 20. BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM
    21. 21. le ! ssib po o rd re c ss il o fo N
    22. 22. IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY “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 biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.” (39)
    23. 23. TESTING BEHE IS DIFFICULT He acknowledges the driving forces of evolutionary change: e.g. natural selection, genetic drift, founder effects, gene flow, meiotic drive, gene duplication, transposition … “The production of some biological improvements by mutation and natural selection - by evolution - is quite compatible with intelligent design theory.”
    24. 24. It’s a trap!
    25. 25. INSECTIVOROUS PLANTS 1875 “The[se] six known genera…all capture insects. This is effected by Drosophyllum … solely by the viscid fluid secreted from their glands; by Drosera, through the same means, together with the movements of the tentacles; by Dionaea … through the closing of the blades of the leaf. In [this] last genera rapid movement makes up for the loss of viscid secretion. … The parent form of Dionaea … seems to have been closely allied to Drosera, and to have had rounded leaves, supported on distinct footstalks, and furnished with tentacles all round the circumference, with other tentacles and sessile glands on the upper surface.”
    26. 26. MOLECULAR EVIDENCE
    27. 27. “ODD” DESIGN “Features that strike us as odd in a design might have been placed there by the designer for a reason - for artistic reasons, for variety, to show off, for some as-yet-undetected practical purpose, or for some unguessable reason.”
    28. 28. ARGUMENT Observation: The cell contains biochemical machines in which the loss of a single component may abolish function. Assertion: Any of these machines that are missing a part is, by definition, non- functional and leaves natural selection with nothing to select for. Conclusion: These machines could not have been produced by natural selection.
    29. 29. CLAIM “[T]here is no publication in the scientific literature – in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books – that describes how the molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred.” (p. 185)
    30. 30. ID’S “CLEAR AND DARING PREDICTION” “Darwinists will not begin filling in plausible, testable scenarios for any of the irreducibly complex cellular systems.” Thomas Woodward, Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design (2006), p. 78
    31. 31. FLAGELLUM
    32. 32. propeller universal joint bushing drive shaft stator rotor
    33. 33. THE FLAGELLUM & ID The flagellum “has a machinelike irreducible complexity, which is an empirical marker of design because it rules out step-by-step evolution through selection. Take one part away from the flagellum and its rotary system won’t work … Its forty parts, all of them precisely shaped proteins, are prima facie evidence for an intelligence behind life” Woodward, 2006, p. 11
    34. 34. Creation Science Research Quarterly!
    35. 35. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
    36. 36. Start with the 50- part bacterial flagellum. . . . And let’s take away 40 of the parts: Leaving just 10. What’s left should be non-functional according to Behe.
    37. 37. Bacterial Flagellum (~50 parts) Type-III Secretory System (10 parts) “Any of these machines that are missing a part is, by definition, non-functional .”
    38. 38. Individual Parts! Biochemical “Machine”! Function Favored by Natural Selection! No function. Therefore, natural selection cannot shape components.!
    39. 39. Individual Parts:" Biochemical! System" New Functions Emerge from Components Originate Combinations of with different Components" functions."
    40. 40. Filament, hook, rod, linkers L-ring and P-ring Outside cell (outer membrane) (cell wall) Motor proteins (inner membrane) Export apparatus Inside (cytoplasm) Chemotaxis sensor
    41. 41. Axial protein family Type II secretion (outer membrane) (cell wall) Ion transport (inner membrane) Type III secretion Signal transduction
    42. 42. 1. Aizawa, S. I. (2001). “Bacterial flagella and type III secretion systems.” FEMS Microbiol Lett 202(2): 157-164. 2. Bitter, W. (2003). “Secretins of Pseudomonas aeruginosa: large holes in the outer membrane.” Arch Microbiology 179(5): 307-314. 3. Blocker, A., Komoriya, K. and Aizawa, S. I. (2003). “Type III secretion systems and bacterial flagella: Insights into their function from structural similarities.” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100(6): 3027-3030. 4. Cordes, F. S., Komoriya, K., Larquet, E., Yang, S., Egelman, E. H., Blocker, A. and Lea, S. M. (2003). “Helical structure of the needle of the type III secretion system of Shigella flexneri.” J Biol Chem 278(19): 17103-17107. 5. Dailey, F. E. and Macnab, R. M. (2002). “Effects of lipoprotein biogenesis mutations on flagellar assembly in Salmonella.” J Bacteriol 184(3): 771-776. 6. Daniell, S. J., Kocsis, E., Morris, E., Knutton, S., Booy, F. P. and Frankel, G. (2003). “3D structure of EspA filaments from enteropathogenic Escherichia coli.” Mol Microbiol 49(2): 301-308. 7. Homma, M., DeRosier, D. J. and Macnab, R. M. (1990a). “Flagellar hook and hook-associated proteins of Salmonella typhimurium and their relationship to other axial components of the flagellum.” J Mol Biol 213(4): 819-832. 8. Homma, M., Kutsukake, K., Hasebe, M., Iino, T. and Macnab, R. M. (1990b). “FlgB, FlgC, FlgF and FlgG. A family of structurally related proteins in the flagellar basal body of Salmonella typhimurium.” J Mol Biol 211(2): 465-477. 9. Hueck, C. J. (1998). “Type III protein secretion systems in bacterial pathogens of animals and plants.” Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 62(2): 379-433. 10. Kirby, J. R., Kristich, C. J., Saulmon, M. M., Zimmer, M. A., Garrity, L. F., Zhulin, I. B. and Ordal, G. W. (2001). “CheC is related to the family of flagellar switch proteins and acts independently from CheD to control chemotaxis in Bacillus subtilis.” Mol Microbiol 42(3): 573-585. 11. Kojima, S. and Blair, D. F. (2001). “Conformational change in the stator of the bacterial flagellar motor.” Biochemistry 40(43): 13041-13050. 12. Koretke, K. K., Lupas, A. N., Warren, P. V., Rosenberg, M. and Brown, J. R. (2000). “Evolution of two-component signal transduction.” Mol Biol Evol 17(12): 1956-1970. 13. Mathews, M. A., Tang, H. L. and Blair, D. F. (1998). “Domain analysis of the FliM protein of Escherichia coli.” J Bacteriol 180(21): 5580-5590. 14. Plano, G. V., Day, J. B. and Ferracci, F. (2001). “Type III export: new uses for an old pathway.” Mol Microbiol 40(2): 284-293. 15. Saijo-Hamano, Y., Uchida, N., Namba, K. and Oosawa, K. (2004). “In Vitro Characterization of FlgB, FlgC, FlgF, FlgG, and FliE, Flagellar Basal Body Proteins of Salmonella.” J Mol Biol 339(2): 423-435. 16. Vogler, A. P., Homma, M., Irikura, V. M. and Macnab, R. M. (1991). “Salmonella typhimurium mutants defective in flagellar filament regrowth and sequence similarity of FliI to F0F1, vacuolar, and archaebacterial ATPase subunits.” J Bacteriol 173(11): 3564-3572. 17. Zhulin, I. B., Nikolskaya, A. N. and Galperin, M. Y. (2003). “Common extracellular sensory domains in transmembrane receptors for diverse signal transduction pathways in bacteria and archaea.” J Bacteriol 185(1): 285-294.
    43. 43. NO PUBLICATIONS? Number of peer reviewed articles discussing the homologies: 17 Number cited in DBB: 0
    44. 44. GENE DUPLICATION One of a number of known methods for generating new functions Creation of duplicate allows evolution of new function while maintaining old function.
    45. 45. Mechanism by which an ancestral trypsinogen gene was transformed into an AntiFreeze GlycoProtein gene Chen et al. (1997) “Evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein gene from a trypsinogen gene in Antarctic notothenioid fish” PNAS 94: 3811.
    46. 46. Gene Duplication and the Vertebrate Clotting System Orange: Duplicates of core serine proteases. Light Blue: Duplicates of the ceruloplasmin family. Yellow: Duplicates of the transglutamase family. Dark blue: Duplicates of prekallikrein.
    47. 47. IMMUNE RESPONSE “We can look high or we can look low, in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system.”
    48. 48. Behe was presented with 58 articles and books. His response?
    49. 49. IMMUNE RESPONSE “I am quite skeptical, although I haven't read them, that in fact they present detailed rigorous models for the evolution of the immune system by random mutation and natural selection.”
    50. 50. NO PUBLICATIONS? Number of peer reviewed articles discussing immune system: 357 Number cited in DBB: 6
    51. 51. IMMUNE RESPONSE “We can look high or we can look low, in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system.”
    52. 52. CROSS-EXAM IN KITZMILLER Q. And I'm correct when I asked you, you would need to see a step-by-step description of how the immune system, vertebrate immune system developed? A. Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions. Q. And you haven't undertaken to try and figure out those? A. I am not confident that the immune system arose through Darwinian processes, and so I do not think that such a study would be fruitful.
    53. 53. WILLIAM DEMBSKI “Behe’s challenge was not simply to find a Darwinian explanation for the origin of a biochemical machine, but to find a detailed Darwinian explanation for the origin of an irreducibly complex biochemical machine.” (2002)
    54. 54. WILLIAM DEMBSKI “[I]t’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots.” (2001)
    55. 55. ERIC ROTHSCHILD “Thankfully, there are scientists who do search for answers to the question of the origin of the immune system. ... The scientists who wrote those books and articles toil in obscurity, without book royalties or speaking engagements. Their efforts help us combat and cure serious medical conditions. By contrast, Professor Behe and the entire intelligent design movement are doing nothing to advance scientific or medical knowledge and are telling future generations of scientists, don't bother.”
    56. 56. JUDGE JOHN JONES III “[Behe] was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough” ... We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution.”
    57. 57. H. ALLEN ORR “An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become - because of later changes - essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required.” Boston Review, Dec 1996
    58. 58. A “fossil” pathway “This primitive structure of the pathway still works in several anaerobic bacteria and invertebrates”
    59. 59. IN 65 YEARS OR LESS
    60. 60. CLAIM “[T]here is no publication in the scientific literature – in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books – that describes how the molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred.” (p. 185)
    61. 61. CLAIM “Darwinists will not begin filling in plausible, testable scenarios for any of the irreducibly complex cellular systems.” Thomas Woodward, Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design (2006), p. 78
    62. 62. IMPERVIOUS TO CHANGE “Other than updating the list of my children in the Acknowledgements … there is very little of the original text I would change if I wrote it today” Afterword of the “Tenth Anniversary” edition, 2006.
    63. 63. IMPERVIOUS TO CHANGE “Other than updating the list of my children in the Acknowledgements … there is very little of the original text I would change if I wrote it today” Afterword of the “Tenth Anniversary” edition, 2006.
    64. 64. THE EDGE OF INCOHERENCE 2007
    65. 65. } D E S I G N
    66. 66. Phylum Arthropoda Subphylum Chelicerata Class Merostomata (horseshoe crabs, eurypterids) Class Pycnogonida (sea spiders) Class Arachnida (spiders, ticks, mites) Subphylum Crustacea Class Remipedia Class Cephalocarida Class Branchiopoda (fairy shrimp, water fleas, etc.) Class Maxillopoda (ostracods, copepods, barnacles) Class Malacostraca (isopods, amphipods, krill, crabs, shrimp, etc.) Subphylum Uniramia Class Chilopoda (centipedes) Class Diplopoda (millipedes) Class Insecta
    67. 67. Phylum Chordata At the origin of life: "intelligent design is quite compatible with the view that the universe operates by unbroken natural law, with the design of life perhaps packed into its initial set-up.“ [166] Three billion years later: "Explicit design appears to reach into biology to a certain level, to the level of the vertebrate class, but not necessarily further“ [220]
    68. 68. Phylum Chordata Hyperoartia (Lampreys) Chondrichthyes (Cartilagenous fish) Actinopterygii (Ray-finned fish) Sarcopterygii (Lobe-finned fish) Amphibia (Amphibians) Sauropsida (Reptiles and Birds) Mammalia (Mammals)
    69. 69. ACCEPTS HUMAN ANCESTRY Vitamin C pseudogene: "Both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C.... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans." (71-72) Hemoglobin pseudogene: “[C]ompelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from ... a broken hemoglobin gene." (71)
    70. 70. FRONT LOADING “Suppose that nearly four billion years ago the designer made the first cell, already containing all of the irreducibly complex biochemical systems discussed here and many others. (One can postulate that the designs for systems that were to be used later, such as blood clotting, were present but not ‘turned on)” (DBB 227-8)
    71. 71. Miracles? Continuous miracle?
    72. 72. CATS AND DOGS AND ELEPHANTS, OH MY! Medved: “What you’re talking about really is the leaps, aren’t you. I mean the kind of random mutations, or allegedly random mutations, who [sic] create a new species.” Behe: “Yeah, well I wouldn’t call it species. I’d, I’d go a little higher, maybe genus or something in biology. Biology has a number of levels and you might be able to get, say, from a wolf to a dog using random mutation and natural selection. But I don’t think you can get from a dog to a cat or a precursor organism and get from a dog to a cat or certainly to an elephant.” The Michael Medved Show June 5th 2007.
    73. 73. NEO-PALEYITE LANGUAGE • exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts • enormously complex coherent molecular machinery • astonishingly complex, coherent systems • elegant molecular outboard motors • stupendously complex systems • elegant immune system • enormously complex cellular mechanisms • intricate genetic control programs • startlingly complex pathway of flagellum assembly • stupendously intricate cellular machines • staggering complexity of modern biology • sophisticated living machinery • tremendously complex elegant complexity • highly sophisticated, automated mechanisms • stunning complexity • ultrasophisticated molecular machinery
    74. 74. “Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts.” (237)
    75. 75. Malaria kills between one and three million people a year, most of them children in Sub-Saharan Africa. It “was intentionally designed”.
    76. 76. Eukaryotic cilium Inter-Flagellar Transport (IFT) assembles the cilium
    77. 77. Bioessays (2006)
    78. 78. INTER-FLAGELLAR TRANSPORT “IFT exponentially increases the difficulty of explaining the irreducibly complex cilium. It is clear from careful experimental work with all ciliated cells that have been examined, from alga to mice, that a functioning cilium requires a working IFT. “ [p. 94]
    79. 79. “MORE THAN ONE WAY TO BUILD A CILIUM” Briggs et al (2004) Current Biology 14(15): R611-R612
    80. 80. Plasmodium falciparum
    81. 81. ROB KOONS PHILOSOPHER OF RELIGION “Dembski is the Isaac Newton of information theory, and since this is the Age of Information, that makes Dembski one of the most important thinkers of our time. “
    82. 82. ROB KOONS PHILOSOPHER OF RELIGION “Dembski is the Isaac Newton of information theory, and since this is the Age of Information, that makes Dembski one of the most important thinkers of our time. “
    83. 83. WILLIAM DEMBSKI BA Psychology, U. Illinois, 1981 MS Statistics, U. Illinois, 1983 MS Mathematics, U. Chicago, 1985 PhD Mathematics, U. Chicago, 1988 MA, Philosophy, U. Illinois, 1993 PhD, Philosophy, U. Illinois, 1996 MDiv, Theology, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1996 Fellow of the Discovery Institute, 1996 -
    84. 84. WILLIAM DEMBSKI Associate Research Professor, Baylor University, 1999 - 2005 Director, Charles Polyani Center, 1999 - 2000 Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2005 - 2006 Professor of Philosophy, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2006 -
    85. 85. THE DESIGN INFERENCE
    86. 86. THE DESIGN INFERENCE
    87. 87. Information
    88. 88. Specified Information
    89. 89. Complex Specified Information
    90. 90. REQUIREMENTS FOR CSI Contingency: There is a choice (vs. necessity) Complexity: Not so simple that the object can be explained by chance Specification: Object exhibits a pattern characteristic of intelligence
    91. 91. ARE THESE CSI?
    92. 92. ARE THESE CSI? S
    93. 93. ARE THESE CSI? S SDF
    94. 94. ARE THESE CSI? S SDF SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS
    95. 95. ARE THESE CSI? S SDF SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS SDFDJSLSDGHKHERSKHSGJHDSGK
    96. 96. ARE THESE CSI? S SDF SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS SDFDJSLSDGHKHERSKHSGJHDSGK SDGAHAKAUFAILASJAJSDHAATDQYEQADSD
    97. 97. ARE THESE CSI? S SDF SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS SDFDJSLSDGHKHERSKHSGJHDSGK SDGAHAKAUFAILASJAJSDHAATDQYEQADSD INTHEBEGINNINGWASTHEWORD
    98. 98. ARE THESE CSI? S SDF SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS SDFDJSLSDGHKHERSKHSGJHDSGK SDGAHAKAUFAILASJAJSDHAATDQYEQADSD INTHEBEGINNINGWASTHEWORD SINNEFIANNAFAILATAFAOIGHEALLAGEIREINN
    99. 99. SPECIFICATION “Specification depends on the knowledge of subjects. Is specification therefore subjective? Yes.” “Everything depends on what [one] knows, believes, determines, and provisionally accepts”
    100. 100. The Explanatory Filter Yes Regularity No Yes Chance No Yes Design! HP: High Probability No IP: Intermediate Probability sp.SP: Specified small probability Chance
    101. 101. Defines “design” in purely negative terms. Yes Regularity Where is the cut-off No between HP, IP & sp/ Yes SP? Chance No How do you define “specified” particularly Yes Design! if it is highly sensitive to changes in current No HP: High Probability IP: Intermediate Probability knowledge? sp.SP: Specified small probability Chance
    102. 102. Yes D? Yes Regularity Don’t Know No Don’t Know Yes (Yet). Chance No Yes Design! D: Decidable? No HP: High Probability IP: Intermediate Probability sp.SP: Specified small probability Chance
    103. 103. 2008 “I’ve pretty much dispensed with the EF. It suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not. Straight CSI is clearer as a criterion for design detection.”
    104. 104. CSI CSI is “any specified information whose complexity exceeds 500 bits of information” This is Dembski’s Universal Probability Bound (UPB) as 500 bits has a probability of 10-150.
    105. 105. UNIVERSAL PROBABILITY BOUND UPB = No of particles x Planck time x Age of Universe UPB = 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150 “All the probabilistic resources in the known physical universe cannot conspire to render remotely probable an event whose probability is less than this universal probability bound.” (Dembski, The Design Revolution, p. 87)
    106. 106. Ix = - log2 px Information is seen as a removal of possibilities (decrease in uncertainty) 1 bit = probability of 0.5 Ix Probability
    107. 107. 1997 “Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying probabilities really are small enough to yield design.”
    108. 108. “I show that undirected natural processes like the Darwinian mechanism are incapable of generating the specified complexity that exists in biological organisms.” How? By a calculation showing that the probability of spontaneous assembly of the proteins in the flagellum lies beyond the range of the “universal probability bound” (1 x 10 -150)
    109. 109. CYTOCHROME C Weighs in at 233 bits, therefore not CSI, according to Dembski’s criteria Cyt-c could have arisen by chance but it is highly conserved across groups
    110. 110. PROTEIN BINDING SITES Human splice acceptor sites contain on average 9.4 bits of information. Below 500 bit limit, but clearly CSI.
    111. 111. THE BAD STUFF Viruses, oncogenes, and “jumping genes” cause diseases (e.g. ebola, avian flu, AIDS), cancers and genetic disruption All have information content beyond the 500 bit limit of Dembski. According to Dembski they must have been designed.
    112. 112. IN 65 YEARS OR LESS
    113. 113. IN 65 YEARS OR LESS bo ut ea ? ar ica r c nol ne he sig op e r e D chlo th as es on do om hy ing W ph S
    114. 114. Who designed the agent?
    115. 115. A god worth worshiping?
    116. 116. The problem of evil
    117. 117. UNIT OF STUDY? Section of DNA Gene Gene family Functional group of genes Whole genome All genomes on Earth All genomes in Universe?
    118. 118. CAN INFORMATION EVOLVE? http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/ paper/ev/
    119. 119. Using a starting random base sequence of 256 bases, and a population of 64, Schneider’s program generated (using random mutation and natural selection with no human intervention) a “CSI” binding site in 704 generations.
    120. 120. INEFFICIENCY This gain in information required the “death” of 32 organisms in each of 704 generations, i.e. 22,528 deaths. This is very inefficient, yet a site with a probability of 1 in 500,000,000,000,000,000,000 (I=68.76 bits) is generated in ~1000 generations The entire human genome (~4,000,000,000 bits) could evolve in a billion years This does not consider sexual recombination or realistic population size
    121. 121. BEATING THE UPB Schneider looked for the evolution of 512 bits in a small (n=512) asexual population of creatures. He allowed one mutation per generation. He defeated the UPB in 15,000 generations
    122. 122. LISTEN UP, EVERYONE ... Living things create information (“specified complexity”) via environmental selection and random mutations. Living things and their environment are the “intelligent designer”
    123. 123. REACTION TO DEMBSKI Biologists … little time for abstractions, especially as no predictions are made Mathematicians … little notice Philosophers … negative due to problems with Explanatory Filter Number of papers using Dembski’s methodology?
    124. 124. ID AND PEER REVIEW
    125. 125. PONDERING ID “Since its founding in 1996, the [Center for Science and Culture] has spent 39% of its $9.3 million [i.e. ~ $3.6 million] on research, Dr. Meyer said, underwriting books or papers, or often just paying universities to release professors from some teaching responsibilities so that they can ponder intelligent design. New York Times (21 Aug ’05)
    126. 126. BRUCE CHAPMAN “If I were to carry around Discovery fellows' peer-reviewed science journal articles on Darwinian theory and intelligent design I would need a suitcase, not a coat pocket.” http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11929 (2007)
    127. 127. “PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE JOURNAL ARTICLES” Meyer in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington Behe in Protein Science Wells in Rivista di Biologia
    128. 128. “PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE JOURNAL ARTICLES” Meyer in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington Behe in Protein Science Wells in Rivista di Biologia
    129. 129. WELLS A data-free paper whose hypothesis was quickly disproven.
    130. 130. BEHE Actually shows complex systems can arise through natural selection even when the study is “fixed”.
    131. 131. MEYER A review article that was demonstrated to be erroneous in fact and interpretation and has been found to have misused the peer-review process.
    132. 132. BARAMINOLOGY 1999 Richard Sternberg / Jonathan Wells / Charles Thaxton / Kurt Wise / Paul Nelson / Todd Wood
    133. 133. 2002 “I’ve gotten kind of blasé about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print. And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the materials gets read more.”
    134. 134. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Behe 2006 Carroll 2007 2008
    135. 135. OUTPUT IN FIELD SINCE ’96 Behe (biochemistry) – 4 (2004) Wells (cell & molecular biology) – 3 (2005) Nelson (philosophy of biology) – 1 (1996) Meyer (history & philosophy of science) – 0 Dembski (mathematics) – 0
    136. 136. RECENT PUBLICATIONS Winston Ewert, George Montañez, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II, “Efficient Per Query Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle,” Proceedings of the the 42nd Meeting of the Southeastern Symposium on System Theory, 2010, pp. 290-297. Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, "Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism," Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 2009, pp. 3047-3053. William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Bernoulli’s Principle of Insufficient Reason and Conservation of Information in Computer Search,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 2009, pp. 2647-2652.
    137. 137. BIOLOGIC INSTITUTE Douglas Axe (Chemical engineering) Lisanne D’Andrea-Winslow (Invertebrate immunology) Ann Gauger (Developmental biology) Guillermo Gonzalez (Astronomy) David Keller (Chemistry) Robert J Marks II (Electrical engineering) Richard von Sternberg (Molecular evolution) Brendan Dixon (Programmer, ex-Microsoft)
    138. 138. BIOLOGIC INSTITUTE Douglas Axe (Chemical engineering) Lisanne D’Andrea-Winslow (Invertebrate immunology) Ann Gauger (Developmental biology) Guillermo Gonzalez (Astronomy) David Keller (Chemistry) Robert J Marks II (Electrical engineering) $700,000 donation to the Richard von Sternberg (Molecular evolution) Center for Science and Culture Brendan Dixon (Programmer, ex-Microsoft) $30,000 donation to Marks to employ Dembski as a post-doc at Baylor.
    139. 139. PUBLICATIONS SINCE 2006 Gonzalez Marks Axe Sternberg D'Andrea
    140. 140. BOSTON MEETING 2007 Meyer, Behe, Dembski, Minnich, Nelson, Wells Doug Axe - "The Language of Proteins - Revisiting a Classic Metaphor with the Benefit of New Technology.” Richard von Sternberg - "Genomes, Formal Causes and Taxa.” Robert Marks - "The Need for Active Information in Evolutionary Search.” Ann Gauger - "Assessing the difficulty of pathway evolution: an experimental test.”
    141. 141. DAN BROOKS “[Gauger] was then prompted by one of her colleagues to regale us with some new experimental finds. She gave what amounted to a second presentation, during which she discussed ‘leaky growth’ in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, ‘So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?’ at which point the moderator halted questioning. We shuffled off for a coffee break with the admission hanging in the air that natural processes could not only produce new information, they could produce beneficial new information.”
    142. 142. Rule by scientific experts over democracy Utopianism •  Creation of “heaven on earth” Dehumanization •  Nazism / Stalinism / Communism Relativism •  “evolving standards in politics and morality” Censorship
    143. 143. JONATHAN WELLS “[Critics] articles are rejected by mainstream journals whose editorial boards are dominated by the dogmatists; the critics are denied funding by government agencies, who send grant proposals to the dogmatists for ‘peer’ review; and eventually the critics are hounded out of the scientific community” [Icons, 235]
    144. 144. EVIDENCE? Unfairly rejected papers? Unfairly rejected grant applications? Denial of tenure because of support for ID?

    ×