--- "Don J. Colton" <djcolton@piol.com> wrote:
It is critical that all such simulations be set up by mathematicians (utilizing input from genetists etc.)
who carefully avoid target objectives and set it up based strictly on natural selection criteria (i.e. mutations and reproductive survivability).
The same could be said to apply to Intelligent Design mathematicians. The strict criteria set up by the theory's originator Dembski is that intelligent design could be inferred by eliminative induction where all other causes are outside the "universal probability horizon" of 10^-150. In two examples that I am aware of, ID biochemists and geneticists move the "universal probability horizon" when the data they find doesn't meet Dembski's 10^-150 criteria. When the theory doesn't work - that change a critical criteria in ID theory - to make the theory fit the facts. Example 1: Walter Bradley, in advancing that a theory of the origin of life that relies random assembly in a pre-biotic chemical soup on Earth is mathematically impossible - points to Yockey's computation that the odds of a function cyctochrome c molecule self-assembling is on the order of 10^-75. _Debating Design_ at 337. Cytochrome c is a protein that a key component to how a cell's metabolism creates energy. Bradley also points to other new emergent research computing 10^-75 and 10^-63 as the probability quotient for the self-assembly of cytochrome c. The problem with Bradley's conclusion is that 10^-75 or 10^-63 are _within_ Dembski's universal probability boundary of 10^-150. Spontaneous self-assembly of Cytochrome c _is possible_ based on the central mathematical criteria established by ID theorist and creator Dembski. In the case cited by Bradley, ID theory directs the conclusion that an intelligent designer hypothesis is false - not true. But the fix is easy - just fudge Dembski's 10^-150 by a factor of 10^75 and everything works fine. Example 2: In the ongoing three-part New York Times series on ID (referenced by Michael Kwan yesterday in another thread on this listserve), Douglas D. Axe, a molecular biologist and director of the Seattle ID research center the "Biologic Institute," used penicillinase, a molecule that creates resistance to penicillin, has the probability of self-assembly of 10^-77. ID proponents at the Discovery Institute (Dr. Meyers in the NYT story), use Axe's computation to conclude that penicillinase could have only arisen in nature by the intervention of an intelligent designer. The problem with Meyer's conclusion is that 10^-75 is _within_ Dembski's universal probability boundary of 10^-150. Spontaneous self-assembly of penicillinase _is possible_ based on the central mathematical criteria established by ID theorist Dembski. In the case cited by Dr. Meyer, ID theory directs the conclusion that an intelligent designer hypothesis is false - not true. But the fix is easy - just fudge Dembski's 10^-150 by a factor of 10^75 and everything works fine. I'm not educated in biochemistry, but this looks like a case of new provisional theory that is changing to fit the facts. If the biochemical facts that ID researchers find in the human cell don't meet Dembski's universal probability criteria of 10^-150 (the key criteria around which the inference of intelligent design is warranted), they just "move the goalpost" and move the universal probability horizon to 10^-75 [or lower], that is they increase the probability boundary by a factor of 10^75, so the facts seen in the human cell fit intelligent design theory. But maybe there is some other perfectly reasonable biochemical rationale for ID researcher's moving the "universal probability horizon" around. It's not unusual for a new, provisional developing scienctific theory to change the working hypothesis as it develops. In a way, science is supposed to work that way. But the problem created by this kind of moving goal post is because there is no clear criteria to decide when a cause (random self-assembly) so infinitely improbable as to be excluded from the range of known causes in the physical world. ID theory dissolves into a serious of "just-so" stories. I.e. - in this reasearcher's opinion 10^-25 or 10^-50 or 10^-63 or 10^-75 is "too low" to occur by random self-assembly. Without Dembski's clear criteria - that is based on characteristics of the known universe - there is no "bright-line" criteria. For ID to be a useable, testable theory, it has to be - to borrow part of Don's phrase "set it up based strictly" on clear mathematical criteria and not a researcher's subjective moving "goal post" of infinite improbability. - Canopus56 Ref: Chang, Kenneth. Aug. 22, 2005. In Explaining Life's Complexity, Darwinists and Doubters Clash. New York Times (online edition) << http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/national/22design.html?pagewanted=print
Bradley, Walter L. 2004. Information, Entropy, and the Origin of Life. Chap. 18 in Dembski, William A. (ed), Ruse, M. (ed.) 2004. Debating Design : From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge Univ. Press. ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs