Another Computer to Intelligent Design Analogy, as Effective as All the Others

For years the Discovery Institute has been using the analogy of DNA being like a computer code as one of their varied rationalizations for Intelligent Design.  Like any analogy, it only goes so far because DNA isn't a code, but a physical molecule whose structure we analogize (is that even a word?) to make it easier for us to explain and understand.  Today, little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer took it a further step with his post: "Intelligent Design and the Computer Analogy".  I guess I should say Douglas Axe did it, and klingy is doing his usual parroting.  He starts off with this:

"Imagine if computer science allowed researchers to consider the physical components of computers but not the "ideas" that drive them, imparted by their designers. Douglas Axe, author of Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed, poses that instructive question in a brief video conversation."

I'm not totally sure where he is going with this, because the physical design of computers has to be taken into account, by the people who designed the computers.  In fact the programmers who develop the programs rarely have to take the computer hardware into account, or else multiple languages wouldn't work across multiple types of computers.  On the computer I am using at the moment I have programmed BASIC, Visual BASIC, Java, C, C++, SQL, JavaScript, Cold Fusion, Pascal, to name a few.

Computer programs are all about the 'ideas' because very few people write code that directly interacts with the processors themselves.  Computer programs are written in languages that are understandable by humans, but not directly understood by a computer.  What a computer understands is something called binary, which . . . when you boil it down to the basics . . . represents voltages at various points withing the computer processor.  The processor is built in such a way that voltages set a certain way at a specific connection result other voltages set a certain way at other connection points.  The folks who designed the processor set that up so this voltage at this point does this.  Our programs are high-level extensions of that, the designers tells us what it is, and we . . . the programmers . . . assign meaning as we see fit.  So this is a pretty poor analogy to biology, no real surprise there.

If that sounds like a good analogy for the Christian God, oh I'm sorry, I mean the DI's intelligent designer, it misses me completely.  Little klingy's article continues:

"Most of evolutionary biology is limited by just such a stricture: consider the physical aspect of living creatures without probing the ideas -- the purposeful, immaterial design -- that we embody in physical form. In biology, you may not weigh the evidence for design, otherwise you're damned as a creationist!"

I think, as usual, klingy and Axe are putting the cart before the horse.  Where is the evidence for design?  Seriously, I am asking.  What has the DI presented that supports evidence for design?  So far nothing but conjecture and wishful thinking.  And yet the DI wants biologists to weigh the evidence for design?  How can they?  There is nothing to weigh, is there?  Until folks like Axe, klingy, and the entire DI get off their collective asses and do the work to support ID, there isn't anything for a biologist.

You might disagree, but take a look at what the DI purports as evidence.  Religious and philosophical articles and books without a lick of scientific evidence.  They are long on talk and short on work!  What they are doing is demanding biologists do the work they are supposed to be doing.  Suppose a scientist did that, what do you think would happen?  It's called unemployment, as least as a real scientist.  The DI might have an opening, after all several high profile ID'ers have departed in recent years.

It's not that evolutionary biologists get damned for probing design, it's that people like Axe and klingy have yet to support their contention of design.  Without such support, probing it is a waste of time and resources.  College professors who are supposed to be teaching science deserve to be held accountable if they decide to teach pseudoscience in it's place!  That's not being damned for probing design, it's being damned for not carrying out their responsibilities.  If a Math teacher decided to teach Numerology or an Astronomy taught Astrology , no one would question their being held responsible.  But because ID is a form a Creationism, are we supposed to give a special license to teachers who abdicate their responsibilities?  I, and many others, say no!

His final line:

"Yet this in a nutshell is the field of evolutionary biology."

What this is, folks, is a strawman.  Little davey tries to tell us that biology is flat and boring because design isn't part of the curriculum.  I will continue to say design doesn't belong in the curriculum until you folks [the DI] do the work to actually support it.  There is a methodology to performing science, and it doesn't include treating unsupported religious philosophies as if they are science just to justify your personal religious beliefs.

Can the Discovery Institute be Trusted?

You know I don't trust anything the Discovery Institute (DI) has to say. I do also believe that I have amply justified why I do not trust them, over and over again. Just in case you missed any of my other 300+ posts that mention the DI, here is another example.

In a post over on the Evolution 'news' and Views site, a site nearly completely dedicated to the views more than any real discussion of news, one of their friends posted this "Why Should Evolutionary Biology Be So Different?". The author is Grant Sewell, and he opens with this:

"In the current debate between Darwinism and intelligent design, the strongest argument made by Darwinists is this: in every other field of science, naturalism has been spectacularly successful, why should evolutionary biology be so different?"

Really? That's the best argument for evolution?  The DI is telling us what our best 'argument' is, does anyone else see a problem with that?  This is why I think the Discovery Institute has never been, is currently not, nor will ever be considered a reliable source for information on any subject.  Does anyone believe that this argument is the strongest argument made in favor of evolution over the non-scientific intelligent design?  Is it an argument?  Certainly! But the strongest?  Not by a long shot!  But if you put even a smidgen of trust in the DI, you probably get your science news from Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly, so you probably buy into this. Thankfully the majority of the world knows better.

As for this specific argument, you might also think about this.  Biology, like all natural sciences, follows the Scientific Method.  Which is explained well from Wikipedia:

" . . . a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning" (Wikipedia:  Scientific Method) 

So let me get this straight, the methodology that has been  . . . to use Grant's words . . . 'spectacularly successful' for every other natural science is somehow lacking when it comes to Biology?  Does he present any basis for that  claim?  Just look at the description?  It applies just as well to Biology as it does to Physics, Chemistry and a host of others.  If Biology actually used a different methodology, Grant and his pals would be screaming bloody murder, but they can't, so they make unsupported claims in religious publications and expect people to agree.

Didn't the DI miss a few arguments?  How about Biodiversity, Punctuated Equilibrium, Paleontology, Climatology, Physics . . . how about Genetics?  Once claimed to be the death knell of Darwin's theories turned out to be the strongest possible evidence in support of evolution.  I changed words there . . . did you catch it? Instead of calling genetics an argument for evolution, I called it evidence supporting evolution. There is a difference, and one I am sure the marketeers from the DI realize.

Which is another reason I distrust the DI is the way they like to spin things.  Calling something an argument implies what exactly?  A disagreement, two sides battling it out.  They want people to believe there is an actual argument going on about evolution vs creationism, as if the two sides were equivalent.  The reality is the scientific examination of the DI and their pet version of Creationism, aka Intelligent Design (ID), was settled a long time ago.  ID is defined as pseudo-science and nothing the DI has attempted -- not their marketing, their pandering to politicians, their anti-science bill authorship, or their testifying in court has changed that.  Which is why they concentrate their efforts on selling to people who already believe the same set religious beliefs.  

There isn't a scientific argument, there is only scientific evidence. Where is the evidence that negates evolution? Creationists of one stripe or another have been announcing the death of evolution pretty much since it was first postulated. Yet they have not bothered to amass any evidence contradictory to science, let alone build a case for any alternative, religious or non-religious.  The second question is where is the evidence supporting Creationism/intelligent Design?  Real evidence, not wishful thinking and conjecture.

If you read Grant's article, which apparently comes out of one of his books, you might wonder why it wasn't published by the Discovery Institute Press (DIP), the DI's internal publishing group.  You should know that there are many other publishers who have the same 'standard' of evidencial support as DIP does (which is none at all), and the publisher, Resource Publications, is one of them.  In fact here is something from their own About page:

"For the first time, scholars within the churches of Christ are producing a complete book-by-book commentary on the entire Bible. Every church library, every Christian school library, and every Christian home will benefit from this reference set."

So you see, we aren't talking about a scientific journal, we are talking about a religious publishing house.  No wonder the DI is referencing Grant's book and giving him space on EnV, it's all about religion . . . again.

I did find it interesting that Grant had to go back to 1888 to find information that he quotes, like this:

"Joseph LeConte, professor of geology and natural history at the University of California, and (later) president of the Geological Society of America, provides an insight into the way most scientists think about evolution, in his 1888 book Evolution."

Aside from Professor LeConte's primary contributions to science were in Geology, not Biology, I have to wonder why Grant couldn't find something more recent.  He goes on to make a pseudo-valid point:

"That's the way science works, if one theory fails, we look for another one; why should evolution be so different?" 

First of all, has evolutionary theory failed?  Has Darwin's contributions been found to be lacking? Has the 150+ years of scientific work supporting and expanding biological knowledge failed?  Grant is making a massive assumption.  In modern times, how many current theories have been replaced wholesale?  None that I can think of.  What happens is the current state of knowledge gets expanded and increased.  It's not like current knowledge lacks support, it's just as we learn more, we can add to it.  That's what's been happening since Darwin first published.  Even if by some miracle Evolution was disproven, that doesn't mean intelligent design would step into it's place.  Any new scientific theory would  scale the same level of evidence that ID has so far failed to address.  Grant also makes another point:

"Many people believe that intelligent design advocates just don't understand how science works, and are motivated entirely by religious beliefs."

Finally he said something I can sort of agree too .  Not completely.  I believe ID advocates do understand science and scientific methodology.  How else do they avoid it so conspicuously?  You do know Grant can't just leave it at that, he goes on a diatribe, including pictures, and makes a restatement of Hoyle's Fallacy, the tornado argument.

"The original context of Hoyle's argument was against abiogenesis, not evolution. Nevertheless, opponents of evolution occasionally use it when discussing aspects of evolutionary biology. The analogy is exceptionally poor when compared to the process of evolution, as one of the main mechanisms of evolution is natural selection which is non-random." (Rational Wiki: Hoyle's Fallacy)

After that, it's strawman time.  Look at this line:

"Anyone who claims to have a scientific explanation for how unintelligent agents like tornados might be able to turn rubble into houses and cars would be expected to produce some powerful evidence, if they want their theory to be taken seriously. "

Since science in no way claims that an unintelligent 'agent' like a tornado can turn rubble into houses, all Grant has done is built a little strawman and then uses it to justify his opposition to evolutionary theory.  I've asked this question before, but if a tornado is such a great analogy of evolution, where is the mechanism for selecting results?  Evolution has such a mechanism, it's called 'Natural Selection'.  When it comes to plant and animal breeding programs, we call it 'Artificial Selection'.  So where is the selection mechanism for a tornado?  Without it, the analogy breaks immediately.  Of course Grant's strawman doesn't go toward supporting any alternative explanation, but that tends to be a constant oversight from ID proponents.

So, in summary, Grant tries to tell us what our strongest argument is -- using a religious publication, then he uses an exceptionally poor analogy to question evolution and finally build an inexplicable strawman rationalization.  Anyone get anything worthwhile from this?

Professor Michael Behe, Famous or Infamous? You be the Judge!

A new post over on the Discovery Institute's (DI) Evolution 'news' and Views (EnV) blog announcing the 12th anniversary of Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box".  Here's the link "In Time for Michael Behe's Book Anniversary, Here's a Real Mousetrap in the Cell".  Something the folks at the DI take an inordinate amount of pride, for some reason.  If you aren't familiar with Behe, here's a nutshell biography:

"Michael J. Behe is an American biochemist, author, and intelligent design (ID) advocate. He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Behe is best known for his argument for his pseudoscientific stance on irreducible complexity (IC), which argues that some biochemical structures are too complex to be explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore probably the result of intelligent design. Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that resulted in a ruling that intelligent design was religious in nature.
Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community,and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe's views and intelligent design" (Wikipedia: Michael Behe)

Just for fun. here is another nutshell bio from the Discovery Institute:

"Michael J. Behe is Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. He received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. Behe's current research involves delineation of design and natural selection in protein structures. " (Discovery Institute: Michael Behe)

Funny how the Discovery Institute fails to mention that he testified in the Dover Trial where the ruling called him out specifically stating:

"We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design." (Kitzmiller v. Dover Ruling: Page 79)

I wonder why the DI fails to mention that?  Could it be because his testimony didn't help their cause any?  While they are proud to remind everyone that Behe is a Professor at Lehigh University, they also tend to forget to mention that Lehigh has this linked from the home page of the Biology Department:

"The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific." (Lehigh Biology Department:  Statement on Evolution)

So based on this, what are the chances that Behe actually teaches Intelligent Design in his biochemistry classes?  Yea, I agree!  However, as opposed to people like Guillermo Gonzalez and Catherine Croker, he doesn't let his ID hobby get in the way of doing his job.  The schools position is pretty clear, ID is an opinion of Behe, and not certainly not science.  OK, enough about Behe, let's see what EnV says about the 12th anniversary of his book.   They want to start quoting his book, including this delight:

"It's especially delightful because it brings to life an analogy Behe made famous: the mousetrap as an example of irreducible complexity."

Yes, the famous mousetrap, which proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that intelligence can design stuff.  It doesn't automatically support that a mousetrap is an example of irreducible complexity because, as Kenneth R. Miller showed at a number of times, including his own testimony during the Dover Trial and a 2008 book ("Only a Theory"), a mouse trap is not irreducibly complex because even if you remove pieces and parts, they can still have other uses, they are not limited to just a mousetrap, except in the apparently limited imagination of ID proponents.  But the DI is so proud of a very limited and failed analogy.

The article goes on to repeat some of the other examples from his book.  Remember those?  Those that when faced with actual peer-reviewed research, over 50 examples, that refuted his examples, Behe said that it was not enough.  Even though he hadn't read them!

The article also quotes a 'new' claim of something called serpin antithrombin III (ATIII), being irreducibly complex and the unnamed author justifies is with this:

"But can you be sure ATIII is itself irreducibly complex? First, note that the seven authors of the PNAS paper, all from the University of Massachusetts, never explain how this protein might have evolved. Quite the contrary; their only mention of "evolution" deals with how the protein folds, not with Darwinian evolution. There's no mention of selection, phylogeny, or ancestors. Instead, they seem fascinated by the precise way this machine must be assembled and "cocked" for action. Watch for "mousetrap" again:"

Really?  They didn't go into possible evolutionary paths, so that is the number one reason why it must be irreducibly complex?  Wait just a minute?  Didn't another recent EnV post complain about tracing hypothetical evolutionary paths?  Yes, here it is:

"Biological systems not only need to exist but to function properly. It's no use tracing a hypothetical path of evolutionary descent unless every living thing along that path was fully functional in the real world."

So . . . if you do suggest how something may have evolved, you are wrong because the very limited thinking of the DI says that if it's not in its final functioning form, it can't exist in the real world.  But if you don't suggest an evolutionary path, you are supporting irreducible complexity?  What we seem to have here is another Marie Antoinette moment.  Cake anyone?

OK, I think I've just about had enough.  One last thing.  In the closing paragraph, the author says:

"That gives a modest sense of the overarching lesson here: multiple factors are working together to make ATIII work."

Yes, multiple factors are working together to make ATIII work -- as ATIII . . . but at no point does anyone from the DI show that those same multiple factors could not have another function if configured in a different way.  Where did the pieces and parts come from?  Do they offer any support for ID?  No!  All they do it put a box around ATIII and demand that the conversation is over.  Boxes like this are great for limiting the conversation . . . which seems to along well with the very limited thinking we seem to see all the time from the DI.