Meyer claims that specified complex information can only arise from an intelligent source, justifying that claim by citing a series of examples. One of those examples is computer code. In my previous post, I suggested that this was not an adequate example because of fundamental differences between computer code and DNA information. An obvious question is whether there is an example of specified complex information that is not derived from an intelligent source but solely from physical or chemical functionality. In this post I would like to offer just such an example.
The magnificent example of antibodies was presented by Dr. Craig Story in the December 2009 issue of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Vol. 61, No. 4, p.221. (if you aren’t a member or don’t have a subscription, copies are available from the ASA office for $10 plus shipping and handling; contact asa@asa3.org.) In his article, Craig explains how the immune system works, focusing on the importance of the inherent randomness in the process. In this post, I would like to offer a physicist’s interpretation of his paper, with a focus on the information content. Craig has graciously reviewed these comments and corrected my errors in biology.
Stem cells in our bone marrow continuously produce a population of pre-B cells, so called because they are precursors to B cells, which manufacture antibodies when mature. These pre-B cells are all identical and have the same antibody gene DNA. This population therefore has a relatively low information content. All the complexity is within the cell and there is no diversity in the population of cells. As the pre-B cell population prepares to moves into the body, the cells undergo a transition into B cells. In the process, key segments of DNA in each cell are rearranged randomly to form a unique and novel DNA sequence. The process is described in detail in Craig’s paper. It is a constrained process so that the resulting antibody protein is always a particular folded configuration that may have affinity to an antigen, but the gene segments are randomly rearranged and joined to alter the magnitude of the affinity. The result is a population of B cells, each one of which is different in terms of its antibody DNA. This means that we have a transformation of a low information population of pre-B cells to a high information population of B cells, with reference to their antigen-binding abilities. The complexity has increased dramatically but we do not yet have specificity.
As a B cell moves through the body, it may or may not encounter an antigen with which it has affinity. If it does not, the B cell dies and that particular configuration no longer exists in the body. However, if an antigen appears with which a B cell has some degree of affinity, the B cell will attach to the antigen. In this case, that B cell will reproduce through cell division to create clones of itself. This process occurs throughout the population of B cells with the result that only B cells with some affinity to the environment of antigens survive. This is a basic level of specificity.
There is another level of specificity that Craig describes. A first-responder B cell usually will have a relatively small degree of affinity to an antigen. As this cell reproduces itself, an enzyme enhances the mutation rate of only the portion of the antibody genes that determines the affinity. In some cases, mutation rates can reach as much as one nucleotide per cell division. This means that the subpopulation of this particular B cell grows with a dynamic diversity of various degrees of affinity to that antigen. The cells with the strongest degree of affinity will preferentially attach to the antigens, leaving those with weaker affinity without antigens and therefore a death sentence. Over time, this subpopulation will be predominantly one with strong affinity to this particular antigen. This, in a nutshell, is why vaccines work.
In the bigger picture, this example shows how a homogeneous population of pre-B cells is transformed to a dynamically diverse population of B cells, with a tremendous increase in information content. This complex information then becomes highly specified by fine-tuning to match the antigens to which they are presented. The result is a high degree of specificity and complexity with no involvement of an intelligent designer as an immediate cause. This does not, of course, preclude the sustaining involvement of an Intelligent Designer at a metaphysical level.
Craig points out the critical role of randomness as a key characteristic of the cellular processes involved in the immune system. The random process of gene rearrangement is necessary to ensure a sufficiently broad range of binding specificities, such that some of them are almost sure to bind to one part of each pathogen. His example also illustrates clearly how highly complex and highly specified information is derived directly from a population of relatively low-information cells. Hence, the argument that Meyer makes that all complex specified information comes from an intelligent source does not withstand scrutiny.
The antibody example is a beautiful illustration of the basic processes of evolution. It begins with the common ancestry of the stem cells that produce an ancestral population of pre-B cells that are essentially identical. Descent with random variability occurs in the generation of the B cells, which are all unique with respect to their antibody gene DNA. Natural selection describes the way in which B cells that do not bind to an antigen will die while those that do bind to an antigen proceed to reproduce clones. The random variability of the dynamically diverse population of antibodies ensures the formation, within a short period of time, of antibodies with affinity to virtually any antigen. The subsequent way in which those B cells acquire stronger affinity to that antigen is a type of adaptation. Darwin suggested that these basic processes, operating over a long period of time, could account for the origin of species. Little did he suspect that these very processes are active continuously in our bodies on a relatively short time scale to provide a vital line of immunological defense.
Randy:
You say in speaking of antibody creation, “the result is a high degree of specificity and complexity with no involvement of an intelligent designer as an immediate cause.” This is true of almost anything that is designed, is it not?
You say, “Craig’s example also illustrates clearly how highly complex and highly specified information is derived directly from a population of relatively low-information cells. Hence, the argument that Meyer makes that all complex specified information comes from an intelligent source does not withstand scrutiny.”
By what logic did you come to this conclusion, one that apparently appears obvious to you. The argument appears to presume that the process of antibody creation bears no fingerprint of a designer. You seem to take that since it is a “natural” process that it could not immediately involve a designer. This is entirely opaque to me.
Any designer will employ “natural” processes. A designer might even employ “random” processes, meaning that the outcome is not constrained to a single (or nearly single) outcome. But it is constrained nonetheless.
What if a write a code that does monte carlo integration? Once the code is loaded into the computer, my hands are free. There is no evidence of a designer immediately fiddling with the computer processes. That it is doing integration, as I’ve indicated previously, is something an intelligent agent will have to determine, for surely it matters not at all to the computer.
You apparently think that this is a fine example of something like evolutionary processes. That is interesting. Many months ago when I read Craig’s article I commented that it was a fine example of intelligent design. It still looks that way to me. Craig in his article emphasize the role of “randomness.” But behind all this “randomness” is, as you indicate, a highly complex and specified system, one that can achieve the ends of this functionality by the use of what we call “random” events. To me this appeared “brilliant.” It is by this “randomness” that the level of information required for the proper functioning of the antibody creation could be kept to a minimum. How else could you expect to respond to an unknown antigen?
If you are going to argue that Meyer’s contention that specified complexity is always “designed,” you are going to have to be much more explicit. I simply cannot follow your argument. There are, it seems, too many unspoken assumptions.
Maybe it will be clearer to others and they can help me out.
bill
Bill, it seems you have shifted to what Owen Gingerich calls “lower case “i” lower case “d” intelligent design.” I am in full agreement with you. I definitely see intelligent design not only in the antibody example but in every single aspect of the world around us. That’s what I find exciting about being a scientist. But Meyer’s ID is different. Setting it up as the “best explanation” puts the Intelligent Design agent as a mutually exclusive alternative to natural causal relationships. Hence, it is either a process of descent with variation plus natural selection or it is intelligent design. Oh yes, I know the immediate reaction of many who can quote Dembski and Behe as saying that ID is still valid even if evolution were true. But it’s not clear how they’ve defined evolution in those statement and it also makes no sense that the ID community would be in such strong opposition to the scientific views on evolution.
In his book, Meyer makes it clear that he believes no natural processes can be found to explain the generation of DNA information. The antibody example shows otherwise. Yes, I also believe an intelligent designer uses natural causes to do its bidding, just as it does Newton’s laws of motion, relativistic equations, etc. But that’s not Meyer’s message.
Randy
Randy,
I’m glad you have moved on to the example of antibodies. This is one of the examples I had in mind when I have written earlier on this subject, but I hadn’t gotten into it much yet.
It seems that there are at least three levels of complex information in the example. One is the level at which you have commented — the complexity involved in the process by which a given population of B cells can respond to an unknown antigen. Looking at the process alone, one seems to be able to explain it in terms of random mutations, chemical interactions and biological reproduction of cells. Purely natural, no need for a designer/creator of that particular population of antibodies. (This however presupposes that God is not directly involved in the fine working of otherwise natural processes, which is a theological conclusion, not a scientific one.)
Let’s say for sake of argument that Meyer would grant that your example doesn’t prove an intelligent designer of that particular population of B cells. What might be his response? I think it reasonable that he would say, “Look at what you’re talking about. You’ve got a particular type of cell that is designed not only with a random function generator, but it’s also coupled with the ability to bind to antigens and disable them. This combination of random mutation plus antigen disabling (plus other necessary functional components) has all the marks of being designed for a particular purpose, where we don’t see that same exact set of features in other cells operational in different systems of the body. It is programmed into the DNA of those particular cells to have these functions. And by the way, there must also be some degree of complex specified information (perhaps a level of abstraction?) in these cells to be able to tell the difference between a harmful antigen and a normal healthy cell; otherwise, they would start attacking normal cells. In auto-immune diseases, this complex, apparently designed system becomes broken, and destruction of good healthy cells is exactly what happens.”
In other words, your example of a normal, “natural” cell reproduction system presupposes the existence of a very intelligently designed mechanism that makes the whole system work in the first place. Now I grant that this ID argument suffers from at least a few problems. One, it’s an argument from ignorance of not being able to explain how the immune system could have arisen through stepwise processes. Second, once science begins to unravel potential evolutionary pathways that the system could have arisen, ID has to either retreat from or deny the advances in scientific investigation.
I want to conclude with a suggestion of a third level of complexity to consider. Once you have a large set of antibody populations in the human system, they are prepared and armed to attack and defend the body against future antigen attacks. Looking at this from a systems level, the immune system as a whole seems to be full of complex specified information about how to fight against particular previously-encountered foreign invaders. Yet, where did this set of complex information come from? As your example shows, the growing set of complexity is generated by essentially natural, biological processes.
Does this say that biological processes themselves can produce complex information inherent in multiple populations of antibody cells? If so, does this make biological processes an “intelligent designer”? If so, then how can ID supporters claim that such information must necessarily come from a non-natural or unspecified designer? Doesn’t this undercut the assetions of ID that complex information (and hence design) must have been imposed from somewhere outside of natural forces? Here I am agreeing with you, Randy, about questioning the conclusion of ID (and I am equally relying on a presupposition of the underlying complexity in individual cellular capabilities).
It seems to me that one lesson here is that design and complexity are in the eye of the beholder, and that any given system can be observed at multiple levels. At some levels, there may seem to be simplicity, while at a higher or lower level it may appear complex (think of quantum events versus the relative stability and simplicity of crystal structure). What seems completely “natural” at one level seems at a different level to be beyond the capacity of nature to self-assemble in the absence of a divine Designer.
I’m going to have to agree with Bill on this one. I read Craig’s fine article – I simply disagree with his conclusions. If you read his argument carefully, you will see that it is invalid due to equivocation of his use of the term randomness.
Bill points out correctly that the random generating function that is programmed into immature lymphocytes serves a non-random goal: creating the widest possible cadre of specific immune cells with the minimum number of genes. This type of system evidences the ingenuity of a master engineer. There is simply no evidence that physico-chemical interactions which are the slaves of enthalpy, entropy and temperature, can contrive such a phenomenon.
Unfortunately, Dr. Story doesn’t go into detail in discussing self tolerance in the immune system, which constrains the “randomness” of the variable generator to non-self antigens. Lest one forget, without the random generator having this constraint, the immune system becomes an agent of death to the organism, not a protective system.
I would prefer to keep the designer of this system as an indeterminate super intelligent agent than to posit that mere physico-chemical interactions were somehow responsible for it. Unless someone builds for me a very good NON-METAPHYSICAL case for thinking that mere physical forces are behind the immune system, I see no reason to think that attributing this system to such forces ought to be considered a scientific conclusion.
Larry
Larry, I would like to get back to one sentence you wrote: “There is simply no evidence that physico-chemical interactions which are the slaves of enthalpy, entropy and temperature, can contrive such a phenomenon.” I’m not sure what you mean by that but you might enjoy pondering the following.
One way to phrase the second law of thermodynamics is this:
“In a closed system, the information content of that system will always tend to increase.”
Usually we recognize that statement with the term “entropy” instead of “information content.” But the two are related, as was expressed by Meyer in the only equation in his book, I = log2 (1/p) where p is the probability. This is the simplest possible formulation of Claude Shannon’s information theory. That probability is related to the configurational entropy of the system. Hence, entropy and information increase together. This is not specified information but the total information capacity.
What this means is that it is thermodynamically favorable for a system to increase in information. The antibody example shows how a population goes from state A to state B with higher information in a thermodynamically driven system. Of course, living cells are not a closed system and there is a lot more going on such as metabolism to provide energy. But there is no thermodynamic constraint that would prevent information from increasing.
Randy
Larry wrote (in part): “Unfortunately, Dr. Story doesn’t go into detail in discussing self tolerance in the immune system, which constrains the “randomness” of the variable generator to non-self antigens. Lest one forget, without the random generator having this constraint, the immune system becomes an agent of death to the organism, not a protective system.”
Genes in T cells which encode anti-self T-cell receptors, and genes in B cells which encode anti-self B-cell receptors and antibodies, are being assembled by RAG-mediated recombination all the time. The constraint Larry mentions does not operate at the level of RAG-mediated recombination, to my knowledge. The constraint operates at levels farther downstream, which determine whether B and T lymphocytes bearing such self-reactive receptors ever become activated.
Some of Jon’s comments also seem to suggest that envisions something similar to what Larry envisions. Jon wrote (in part): “And by the way, there must also be some degree of complex specified information (perhaps a level of abstraction?) in these cells to be able to tell the difference between a harmful antigen and a normal healthy cell; otherwise, they would start attacking normal cells. ”
Perhaps positive selection (in which antigen encounter leads to lymphocyte activation) is better understood by Larry and Jon than is negative selection (in which antigen encounter does not lead to activation, and instead may lead to inactivation or death of the autoreactive lymphocyte).
Another whole topic would be the evolution of the adaptive immune systems found in jawless and jawed vertebrates.
I think Craig Story in PSCF, Richard Colling in his book Random Designer, Randy on this blog, and Darrel Falk on the BioLogos blog (Science and the Sacred) all wisely refer to the adaptive immune system as an example that sheds light on how selection can sculpt random variations into very functional outcomes.
Cheers!
Chuck
Hello Chuck,
I’m puzzled as to how you interpreted my comments as somehow inferring positive selection – I used the word “constrains,” and I made no mention of the mechanism of this constraint (which, as you rightly state, the best evidence shows is negative selection). I also did not say that RAG-mediated recombination did not produce anti-self receptors and antibodies – of course it does, that’s why there is a need for a constraining mechanism.
I was addressing the generation of functional lymphocytes by the immune system as a whole. My issue with Dr. Story is that he focused on ONE PART of the process, namely RAG-mediated recombination (admittedly, a random process) leaving the impression, by his conclusion, that the creation of the functional cadre of lymphocytes is strictly a random process when it is not. The lymphocytes that become functional are constrained by virtue of the anti-self lymphocytes being eliminated. Hence, to characterize the whole process as being random is simply unwarranted.
Larry
My apologies, Larry. To be clear: I did not interpret your concept of a constraint on antibody production as positive selection. Rather, I interpreted it as a constraint on RAG-mediated recombination. When I read “without the random generator having this constraint” , combined with the quotation marks around the word “randomness” in your previous sentence, I interpreted your position to be that the RAG-mediated recombinations are not themselves random because they are somehow constrained to avoid the production of anti-self antigen binding proteins.
I now understand that the “constraint” against autoreactive lymphocytes which you were referring to is the same thing as what biologists sometimes call negative selection.
Where we still might disagree is whether the randomness of the RAG-mediated recombinations, combined with the constraints of selection (both positive and negative), serves as a useful example for thinking about evolution. I think Randy is correct that it does, though of course there are important differences between the generation of antibodies and evolutionary changes in populations (of organisms).
You also asked some good questions, to whit: “The recombinase complex which generates the random array of lymphocytes is encoded by DNA – are the genes that code for the random generator randomly assembled? Is the self-tolerance process a random process? Are the creation of class II MHC molecules in APCs random? Is the function of Helper T cell in the activation of Cytotoxic T cells and B cells appear to be a random process? Shall we talk about the complement proteins – do they appear random in their formation of a membrane attack complex? Behind all of this are genes that instruct the machinery of the cell to construct all of these proteins.”
I’m not sure if I understand what you are asking, but perhaps you are asking for evidence-based explanations for how the adaptive immune system, as well as the complement system, plus some other things, evolved.
There are interesting articles and books on the evolution of immune systems and many other things, but as shown by Michael Behe at the Dover trial, such literature does not seem to provide what he is demanding. I’m not sure what literature could or would make “a case for where information came from” that would be relevant to Michael Behe or Stephen Meyer, to be honest, and thus I’m not optimistic that such literature would satisfactorily answer your questions either. But I appreciate the spirit and thought of the dialogue you are having with Randy.
Best wishes.
Chuck
Larry, I think Craig was very clear in his article as to the part of the process that was random and what the constraints were. He did not ”characterize the whole process as being random.” He outlines clearly the nautral processes that take the system from a low-information state to a highly specified information state with specifically targeted antibodies.
It seems that both you and Bill are shifting to a different kind of intelligent agent. When presented with an example of information generation through ” physico-chemical interactions ” you say, well, this couldn’t happen unless an intelligent agent were designing it all. Of course, I do think that an intelligent designer did it all but that’s not a scientific conclusion. It is my faith in God the creator who sustains the natural processes that leads me to that conclusion.
The key message is that we need to stop positing an “intelligent design” explanation as the “best”, or even a “possible”, mutually exclusive explanation to a so-called natural or physico-chemical interaction as you call it. The two are complementary and operate at different levels.
Randy
Randy, Chuck or anyone else,
The recombinase complex which generates the random array of lymphocytes is encoded by DNA – are the genes that code for the random generator randomly assembled? Is the self-tolerance process a random process? Are the creation of class II MHC molecules in APCs random? Is the function of Helper T cell in the activation of Cytotoxic T cells and B cells appear to be a random process? Shall we talk about the complement proteins – do they appear random in their formation of a membrane attack complex? Behind all of this are genes that instruct the machinery of the cell to construct all of these proteins.
These are just a few of the myriad of information-ladened systems that beg an adequate causal explanation (leave God out of this). It is difficult for me to understand how one can reduce information down to chemical-physical interactions. The information came from somewhere, and there is absolutely no good NON-METAPHYSICAL reason to believe that, knowing the laws of physics and chemistry, that these interactions alone are satisfactory as an explanation. Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle saw this – and posited panspermia.
Can anyone out there refer me to an intellectually rigorous book that makes the strongest case for where information came from (a non-ID source – I think I understand that argument).
Thanks for letting me rant.
Larry
Larry, I like it when you “rant”. You force me to think about new ways of saying ideas and that helps me try out new things. So at the risk of doing something new very late at night when I’m tired, let me try some new terminology on you and see if this makes sense.
Consider again a system being transformed by process T from state A to state B. How can we think about “randomness” and “design” in this scenario?
Randomness can be thought of as the influence of the information in state A on the process T. That is, is there enough information in A so that T is constrained to produce a specific output B? If yes, then the process is not random. If no, then there is randomness in the process, and the degree of randomness is related to the probability of the output. In classical mechanics, this means that if you know the information of the location and momentum of all particles in state A, then the process T will produce a specific predictable outcome B. In quantum systems, the information in A is not sufficient to predict that outcome, just a probability distribution.
Design can be thought of as the influence of state B on the process T. That is, a desired output influences T (or indirectly by influencing A if there is no randomness). Since the arrows of time and causality go forward and not backward, this requires intelligence of the type that can anticipate a desirable state B and, hence, the state A and process T that are required to achieve B. If there is no randomness, it is simply a matter of working backwards to see what state A is needed to generate B and to institute that initial state. If there is a significant degree of randomness, then the design process cannot simply set the intial state since it does not determine what B is. Then design would need to tinker with the process T to achieve the desired output. If that process itself is such that the desired characteristics are not known until the process is complete, then design is rather difficult to achieve.
In this way, randomness and design are inversely related. It’s hard to have one when the other is present.
In the case that Craig presents in his article, the process is so random that every cell in state A becomes a different cell in state B. Of course, the randomness is constrained to occur solely in the DNA sequence of certain segments. Its affinity to an antigen is unknown. In fact, usually the antigen isn’t known ahead of time. Hence, a design is not possible at that level.
Another way to state it is that non-randomness means information in A can determine B while randomness means that information in A is insufficient to determine B. Design means that information from B is used to determine A or perhaps T, while lack of design means that there is no information feedback that influences A or T. Maybe this makes sense only at midnight.
In the antibody example, the design goal is to have an antibody with high affinity to a an unknown antigen that presents itself in the body. There is no feedback possible from the requirements of an antibody to attach to the antigen that can influence the specific DNA sequence necessary to form that antibody. Rather, Craig says that randomness is a necessary–and the most efficient–way to generate a population of antibodies so that at least one will bind to the antigen to some degree and that this one will survive and mutate rapidly to arrive at a high affinity state.
This example does not involve design since there is no knowledge of the end goal that influences the generation of the antibody in the first place. Instead, the system depends critically on randomness, a high degree of variation during formation, selective survival of those who find an antigen, and adaptation or fine-tuning of those that do survive.
What a beautiful system our God has created!
Randy
I should point that the antibody example is NOT one that Meyer or any ID advocate would claim is an example that is best explained by an intelligent agent. The reason for that is that the opportunity space is too large. The random process that Craig describes is such that there is a very reasonable probability that an antibody will be formed which has at least a minimal affinity for any antigen that presents itself. Hence, it does not meet the criteria that Dembski and Meyer and others have set forth.
I would also add that neither Craig nor I have offered this example as a rebuttal to an ID argument. Rather, Craig has put forth this example to show where randomness is a necessary part of a process in our bodies. Without randomness, the system wouldn’t work. In this way, we can learn about how randomness is beneficial.
My use of the example is that it shows how highly complex and highly specified information can be generated through processes of descent with random variation and natural selection. The case may not pass the explanatory filter but nevertheless, it shows how information is generated by natural processes.
Randy
Hold everything, Larry. You’re going way beyond the point of the example. Slow down and take this one step at a time. Here’s the point: This is an example of a system in state A which is transformed to state B through some process. State A is a low information state while B is a highly complex, highly specified information state. The process is one that is reasonably well understood step by step involving DNA replication and rearrangement. Message: natural processes exist in which information is greatly increased.
This conclusion does not depend in any way on how the system came to be in state A or how any of the proteins or enzymes involved in the process came to be. They are there (they can be thought of as part of state A) and are part of the physical process that makes the transformation. That’s it. Pure and simple.
You cannot evade this conclusion by saying that an intelligent agent had to design state A in a particular way or that someone had to design the proteins involved in the transformation. Maybe so, maybe no, but it doesn’t change the conclusion that natural processes transformed a system from state A to state B with a concomitant increase in information.
Randy
It’s hard to tell from this blog format which response of Larry’s you are responding to, but I am going to assume it includes his question from the 19th about recombinase, helper T cells, complement proteins, etc.
I think this is why ID people and others constantly talk past one another. Your example focused on a very limited phenomenon, showing what appears to be a purely random process, physico-chemical reactions, etc., without direct evidence of design. Larry’s questions hint in much more sophisticated detail at something like I had said recently. In a nutshell, “But how did that complex and efficient system come to exist in the first place? And looking at this one system in combination with lots of other complex systems in the body, how can one think it came to exist purely through unguided processes?”
ID can easily retreat from any purely natural example (assuming such a thing truly exists) by pointing to other examples and at the big picture, to ask “How in the world could that come into being purely by chance?” So to truly answer ID, one would have to go through an infinite regress of showing how every piece in the puzzle could have arisen through some prior natural phenomenon. Science is currently unable to retrace all the steps (and may always be); but even if it could, ID would still step back 3 (or 30,000) paces, and say “But look at all the millions of ‘just-so’ steps that you have assumed *might* have occurred purely by probability, add up all the probabilities, and how can you say that it could come about without design?” I think the question is not necessarily unscientific, but it’s trying to approach the whole subject with a goal and a point of view different from what science is trying to achieve – an understanding of how the natural world works.
It’s an elusive game, and one that misses a number of points along the way, including the questions, “If God designed, how did He implement that design? If He implemented various designs through natural processes, can science actually detect a point where a supernatural cause must necessarily be invoked? And if so, what does that add to our scientific understanding, since ID claims to be all about science?”
Returning to Randy’s specific example, if I understand it well enough (which is not likely), Randy’s use of this example is simply to prove the point that complex specified information does not NECESSARILY have to arise from non-natural design inserted into natural processes. It might, or it might not. Not knowing much about Shannon’s theory or other related subjects, it’s hard for me as an engineer (how much less the average Christian in the pew without much science background) to truly evaluate whether Randy has made that limited point, but it seems reasonable to me. I’m curious how someone from an ID background would reply to this limited point being made about this limited counter-example, without drifting into other examples and claims. If they would say (backed up by clear evidence) that “No, this example doesn’t truly show natural generation of complex specified information in the way we have defined it,” then are they defining it consistently?
Hello Jon,
Meyer answers your questions on page 429 and 430 of his book.
Also, as soon as you ask: “If God designed, how did he implement design…”, you have stepped outside the arena of ID (though it seems like all of the ID detractors want to drag ID proponents there!). ID says nothing about “God” – ID simply states that artifacts bear objective features whose best causal explanation is intelligence – that’s it, nothing more. Meyer specifically argues that DNA bears these same features and hence it must be the product of intelligence. I’ve not found any ID literature that says one iota about how the intelligent agent(s) carried out this project of creating life.
In fact, the basic message the ID guys say seems to be, “Hey, will you guys quit talking about “God” – quit injecting religion into this argument. There is this feature called information, that is just as real as matter and energy in living organisms, and we only know of one source for this feature: intelligence. You guys call yourselves scientists – but keep wanting to talk about religion – you either deny that information is different that energy and matter or that matter and energy alone account for the “emergent property” of information. The problem is, you haven’t made a strong case for your assertion scientifically or philosophically (that “large amounts of functionally specified information arise from purely chemical and physical antecedents”). We have a causally adequate entity that me know can create “large amounts of functionally specified antecedents,” called intelligence; Hence, by inference to the best explanation, ID is the best causal agent for life.
Meyer gives several reasons why this approach is “scientific” on pages 403 – 415.
Also, you will note that ID is not an infinite regress argument – I think Meyer is directing his argument at the source of DNA, which essentially had to be around at the very start of life .
Larry
Larry
Larry,
Several points here. I don’t believe my comments to which you responded were trying to make ID drag religion into the question. I did state that the question that ID is trying to ask is “not necessarily unscientific” but it is starting with a different goal than what science is trying to achieve – understanding how the natural world works. You might say, “No ID *is* trying to understand how the natural world works, by showing that some natural things *must* have come into existence from a non-natural designer rather than through natural processes.”
Okay, then what if ID is successful? Let’s assume one conclusion for argument’s sake: human DNA was placed into our bodies by an intelligent designer, and did not arise by purely natural cause and effect. What then? If it’s a purely scientific pursuit, as they claim, that’s not the end of the game. One still has to ask, “When did the designer first create the first strand of DNA?” and “How (i.e. what were the functional steps, if any) did the designer implement the design physically into the first human?” Or, if it’s appropriate, how did the designer implant the first DNA into the first living being, which eventually adapted and changed to become the human DNA? This is a different question that presumes adaptation over time, but just pushes the question back to the first instance of DNA. And, “Were there any functional precursors to the first example of designed DNA? (i.e., Did the designer create de novo the first DNA, or did he/she/it create an RNA world, where the RNA came together spontaneously to form the DNA?)” And “What/who was that designer, or designers? Where did it/they come from, and when did it/they come into existence? Did the designer exist at the time necessary to create the DNA in question?”
I don’t say that ID must answer these questions. But would you agree that these are valid scientific questions, assuming the ID question in the first place was a scientific pursuit? (Note that I have not capitalized designer, he, she, it, or they in the above reference to the designer. I’m granting the ID claim here that they aren’t talking about God.)
If ID isn’t concerned about these questions, only about identifying the possible presence of design, then I think the answer is easy — science should just acknowledge, “Yes, there are things in nature that appear to have evidence of design.” Then ID can pack it up and go home, having gained their point. Then science can continue on about their business of trying to answer the questions about how the natural world works. Including the question, “Are there cases where there appears to be non-natural design, but which can be explained through functional steps of cause and effect?” (Apparently this happened with the bacterial flagellum; Behe couldn’t answer the stack of scientific papers on the development of the flagellum, that he claimed at the Dover trial was without natural explanation.) ID won’t have actually contributed anything to the scientific enterprise, except to provide one hypothesis that science can investigate by scientific methods.
I want to comment further on that the statement “ID isn’t talking about God, only a designer”. Randy asks some specific questions about a specific phenomenon in his attempt to demonstrate how one of Meyer’s assumptions isn’t justified. Immediately he is questioned way beyond his example, with “But where did the DNA come from?” It’s a valid question, but not one that he was speaking to. But when ID raises questions about a designer, they complain that others press the questions “But who is the designer?” That is also a valid scientific question, if the designer is a valid scientific inference.
You wrote, “We have a causally adequate entity that we know can create ‘large amounts of functionally specified antecedents,’ called intelligence; Hence, by inference to the best explanation, ID is the best causal agent for life.” How do you *know* that you have a causally adequate entity, if you can’t identify the entity? If you are referring to natural designers, we don’t know of any who can yet create DNA. If you are talking about God who is known to be a “causally adequate entity”, then you are talking about God. (And you are talking about faith, because you don’t *know* about God’s capabilities in the ordinary sense, but only through a spiritual knowledge that comes by faith.)
If ID wants to claim a scientific conclusion that DNA was designed by intelligence, then they need to abide by a scientific investigation of who/when/how that intelligent entity acted. I see several possible hypotheses.
1. DNA was created by a known natural entity. It’s not enough for ID to claim that intelligent designers are known exist today. They must also demonstrate that one or more intelligent designers existed at the time that DNA came into existence. But all known natural entities with intelligence also possess DNA, so they can’t be the source of DNA — this is circular reasoning.
2. DNA was created by an unknown natural entity. In this case, how can you say that we *know* that this unknown natural entity possessed the adequate capability? The proof is absent, and it’s just a matter of faith that such an entity might exist. If ID’s intelligent designer is an unknown natural entity (or unknown non-natural entity, for that matter), then Meyer’s requirements of “causal existence” and “causal adequacy” are not met, and his argument fails on its own terms.
3. DNA was created by a native intelligence possessed by the universe itself, not a specific intelligent entity. This gives away the ID game, because ID tries to claim that nature is incapable of producing the observed complexity. But how does ID prove that there are not unknown natural laws that can give rise to such complexity? It can never be proven as long as we have incomplete knowledge of how the universe works (which goes along with the “infinite regress” I wrote earlier).
4. DNA was created by a non-natural intelligent being. Leaving humans out of the picture (it has been argued that humans are non-natural, non-supernatural agents), what is a non-natural intelligent being? If it is beyond nature, then it is most logically supernatural. It might turn out that Zeus, or the God of the Bible, or Krishna or some other unknown non-natural designer is responsible for the design of DNA. But ID says it’s not talking about God.
If ID could point to a particular place in the genome, for instance, where design was the only logical inference, then what? The design could only have come from a natural source, a non-natural source, or a supernatural source. If it came from a natural source, then ID fails because they are trying to prove that natural sources can’t account for the complexity in nature. If from a supernatural source, then it’s a miracle and ID turns out to be about religion after all. And if from some non-natural but non-supernatural source (yet to be identified), ID needs to show what that entity is and whether it was actually present and capable of producing the complexity; otherwise, the assertion is empty and non-scientific. It seems to me, that even if ID proves its point, it immediately undermines the very arguments that it claimed to be making.
The only logical inference that I can come to is that it must be supernatural (i.e. God); but that’s not what ID is about, right? And that still doesn’t answer the question about what natural, secondary causes did God use to implement the design.
Well said, Jon. You captured my point and explained it eloquently. Thank you.
Randy
Jon,
It is still a mystery to me why you and Randy think you must know everything about a cause before you can conclude that an effect has a causal source. Could you explain that to me? For example, if you find a beautiful painting in your office, you need to know everything about the painter before you can infer intelligence? Isn’t the effect (the painting) sufficient to infer intelligence agency (the cause)?
Second, you’re still missing the point of ID – why can’t intelligence be inferred without having to determine if the causal agent is “supernatural” or “natural”? Can’t one simply look at an artifact and draw a simple conclusion: intelligent source or not? You need to cross that bridge first. It seems to me. however, that you want to go ahead of the bridge and use possible implications on the other side to somehow make an excuse not to have to cross the bridge. Why is that?
Third, you seem to think that since ID won’t (or can’t) identify the intelligence responsible for DNA, that the whole ID program is a waste or illegitimate – But Darwinists can’t explain where matter and energy came from, their Ersatz creator, and yet their endeavor is legitimate? Isn’t that a double standard?
Fourth, the ID endeavor is trying to find an adequate causal agent for DNA – they are searching for the truth (even if it doesn’t square with methodological naturalism) – even if this truth doesn’t further “science” as you understand it, isn’t finding the truth worthwhile anyway? Should one ignore the truth so as not to hinder “science.”?
Larry
Larry, neither of us said that one “must know everything about a cause before you can conclude that an effect has a causal source ” or anything that implied the same. To repeat as often as needed to help you understand, let me say that a causal agent must be “observable” or amenable to study before it is a scientific proposition. Whether it is a true proposition or not depends on, as Meyer points out based on Lyell, Darwin, and Scriven, the extent to which causal existence, causal adequacy, and causal uniqueness have been demonstrated. If this still is not clear, I’ll be happy to provide examples.
Your second point: Why can’t intelligence be inferred apart from whether it is supernatural or natural? The real issue is, can the inferred intelligence be studied? Intelligence does not exist in and of itself. It is a manifestation of an embodied entity, and the real issue is how we can study that intelligence independently. Are we talking about an intelligent hobbit? an intelligent chimpanzee? an intelligent orc? an “indeterminate” intelligent agent? Just tell me how we can observe and independently study the existence and methodology of such an intelligence. It seems very reasonable to consider that such an intelligence is either natural or supernatural. That pretty well covers all possibilities. Natural intelligent agents can be ruled out upon reflexion. Supernatural intelligent agents cannot be studied. How does one proceed?
Third point. One fair comparison in science is string theory. A few years ago, many eminent physicists were sniping that string theory was not science since it was not observable. Now that some potentially observable implications appear to coming forth, those complaints are more muted. But the point is that the common criterion is that it must be observable in some way, indirect or otherwise.
Fourth. Yes, Larry, we are all seeking the truth. Please do not infer that anyone is not. As Christians, we do not believe that science offers us all truth. That is scientism. Our “two book model” is based on the dual revelation of God through his creation and through his incarnation as revealed in his Word. We do not and cannot stretch science to discover all truth. Perhaps it would be advisable to keep an open mind about methodological naturalism leading to an important subset of the truth, even if it might involve evolutionary processes. In any case, let us continue to dialog in a context of Christian love as we all jointly seek His truth.
Randy
Larry,
I sense from your questions that you are bothered philosophically by those who are questioning the “Intelligent Design hypothesis”, as it were.
If this is the case, let me try to clear the air. I believe in God. I believe that He possesses intelligence, that He imparted not only design but creative power to bring about the natural order. No one here is questioning that belief. Do you feel that they are?
I believe that God’s intelligence is manifest, not only in areas containing complex specified information, but in all things. I believe that the only “intelligent” conclusion is that there is a God, and that He does exist and cares about His creation. I personally will go further than some here and hold open the possibility that God acted, and does still continue to act, in (maybe a few or maybe very many) miraculous “interventions” in the created order, in order to direct creation according to His purposes and plan.
I do NOT make these assertions as if they were necessary logical or scientific conclusions, but as evidence-based faith statements. It might be that they are, and that ID is right that such assertions can be made with conclusive logical deduction — I just don’t think they have made that scientific or logical case yet.
I also don’t believe that scientists have come anywhere close to proving that physical/chemical forces could have produced life and the universe in the absence of God, or in fact that they ever can. That conclusion of the absence of God would ultimately be philosophical, not scientific. Even if I’m wrong in proposing specific miracles to be the only reasonable explanation, that doesn’t undermine the basic belief in God’s providence.
ID on the other hand, makes what it claims to be a limited scientific assertion: “Sometime, somewhere, there must have been some intelligence imparted to the natural order. We can’t say that this designer is God; it might have been an intelligent alien or some other unknown intelligent source that we don’t even know existed. If there is not complex specified information present, we can’t say whether intelligence was involved.” Philosophically, I don’t find this to be a very satisfying position, and not even in as much agreement with Christian theology as the position outlined above.
One more comment: you wrote, quoting Meyer, ”Also, as soon as you ask: ‘If God designed, how did he implement design…’, you have stepped outside the arena of ID…” Many who don’t accept ID believe that one CAN accept the proposition that God designed, and also that we can investigate how He designed. This is science — the investigation of the natural world that God created, in order to discover how it works and learn about its natural history.
I’m not sure which one either, Jon – maybe Randy was answering my post section by section. It’ll take me some time to read and digest all of this. My goal is to understand why anyone who understands the principles of how matter interacts – the forces as well as the thermodynamic and kinetic considerations – would ever even consider a darwinian scenario of origins in the first place, unless it were for metaphysical reasons. Perhaps you and Randy addressed this above – Again, I’m swamped right now, but am looking forward to reading and digesting what you all have said.
Have a good Sabbath,
Larry