Darwin's proof, chapter 10

I'm almost done reviewing Darwin's Proof. It's been slow going, because I have been doing it chapter by chapter and haven't had much time to post. The reading is easy. I should have time to get this done soon. This time, I will review the second to last chapter, chapter 10.

Things are getting repetitive by this point. Hunter relies heavily on having made the case that evolution is a religion, but I have thoroughly refuted that in previous posts. This chapter introduces the intelligent design theory. Kind of. If by introducing a theory you expect to find detailed analysis of data that are explained by it and mechanisms by which it works, you will be disappointed.

Hunter first tries to counter the criticism that ID is not a real theory. He avoids almost all direct criticism and fails to show simple ways that ID is like a theory, like showing its predictions or ways to falsify it. Instead, he brings up two philosophers of science. He mentions Popper's idea of falsifiability. Rather than showing how ID is falsifiable, he simply mentions that the criterion of falsifiability has problems, so we can ignore it. Yes, falsifiability is a slippery idea. It is naive to believe that one observation can falsify a theory, for example. That doesn't mean it is a useless idea. Scientific theories must be capable of refutation by some empirical means, and Hunter makes no attempt to show that ID fits the bill.

Next Hunter brings up Kuhn's concept of paradigm shifts, as a means of refuting the overwhelming consensus for evolution. He points out that consensus have been overturned in the past. While this is true, it is not an argument for ID. If it were, then every fringe idea would be given legitimacy. I agree that we must be careful when we use the scientific consensus as an argument for evolution. It is ultimately an argument from authority. But it is referring to the relevant authority in this matter, and it does mean the burden is on ID to show why this consensus is wrong or to give us reason to believe there might be a paradigm shift.

He counters the claim that ID is just religion by his claim that evolution is a religion as well, which I have already refuted. He also fails to note that ID starts with religious conclusions, and fits the evidence to the already determined conclusions. He uses his usual dismissive tone towards the evidence for evolution, for example claiming that we have little idea how complexity could arise, but we are sure it wasn't by design. There are textbooks written about how it could arise, and detailed studies of how particular structures have arisen. It is not taken on faith.

Next, Hunter veers off on a tangent about the privatization of God. He points out that in modern society, religious belief is considered a private matter, rather than public. He somehow blames this on evolution. He seems completely ignorant of the history of tolerance. The idea that religion should be private arose after hundreds of years of religious wars in Europe, and became popular in the 18th century, 100 years before Darwin. He thinks that in America, this separation of church and state is a new idea, resulting from the secularization of America, rather than one of the most important concepts for the founding fathers.

And again, he claims that we aren't really separating church and state, because evolution is in fact a religion. His entire thesis depends on this poorly supported conclusion.

Now it is time to tell us what ID really is and is not. He introduces the concept of irreducible complexity in a few sentences, without actually using the term, and without even trying to address the criticism of the concept. It is a given for Hunter. He tells us, again, that ID does not require absolutely perfect design (he is sure that evolution depends entirely on countering a perfect designer). Hunter tells us that evolution does account for some things, but we just need a designer for bigger things. In other words he uses the standard micro/macroevolution, god of the gaps argument. Evolution is fine except for the places where there is a bigger gap, then bring in the designer.

And he tells us that the criticism that ID makes no predictions is simply a mischaracterization of ID. Since that has been one of my main criticisms in these posts, I looked forward to being shown some predictions. However, I have just given his entire refutation of this claim. Rather than actually listing a few predictions, he simply says it is a mischaracterization. He also claims, again, that evolution predicts anything and everything, which I have refuted in many of the previous chapters.

Now we get into the ID research program. Hunter points out that design is used in areas such as archeology. However, whenever scientists use the concept of design, it is with knowledge of the designers, or inferences into the nature of the designer. Even when we study adaptations, it is with knowledge of the designer--in this case, evolution. We know that things are designed to maximize offspring. ID doesn't even tell us what things are desinged for. Hunter uses an example of the possible sequences for various hemoglobin molecules, but never bothers to show how it follows from a particular view of design.

Hunter mischaracterizes evolution, claiming that biologists believe that differences between proteins are the result of random changes or neutral evolution. In fact, we recognize many changes are the result of selection, and most importantly have ways to determine if change is neutral or adaptive. This is where Hunter gets dangerously close to making a prediction. Hunter is taking the position that all differences between proteins and all structures will have a function. This is a breakthrough, if they stick with it, and I have seen other ID proponents take this position as well. They claim that ID leads to the hypothesis that all DNA will be functional. The case that some DNA is in fact functionless, such as many pseudogenes, is very strong. It would seem ID has been falsified. You would at least think there would be legions of ID scientists trying to find the functional purpose of silent subsitutions, pseudogenes, and other oddities.

Hunter continues his confusion regarding convergent evolution. He thinks evolution fails to explain the similarities between marsupials and placentals, for example, and that ID explains them as a result of common design. I think Hunter is completely unaware of the vast structural differences between marsupials and placentals that hide beneath the superficially similarity. Evolution can explain why the marsupial mole is so different from the placental mole. If their similarities are the result of common design, then what is Hunter's explanation for their differences?

Hunter admits that evolution dominates the study of designed structures, but claims this is simply because it is the dominant paradigm. He then states: "Where evolution will accept and even look for nonfunction, ID will look for function. Where evolution will explain away the obvious designes in nature as chance products of natural selection, ID will simply model the design as design". There are so many problems in those sentences. First, evolution looks for function as well, as the default hypothesis for anatomical structures. Second, "chance products of natural selection" doesn't make sense, since natural selection is not chance. Third, I have no idea what "model the design as design" means. The simple answer to Hunter's claims is "show me the money." Show some examples of the use of ID as a driving force in research, and how it is more succesful than evolution. Then I will gladly accept your claim. Again, Hunter is claiming that everything has a fucntion. It seems this is the closest Hunter will come to making a prediction, so this would be the way to disprove ID.

Finally, Hunter goes through the different possible interpretations of ID, from creation ex nihilio to front loaded creation to design through natural laws. In other words, everything from young earth creationists to theistic evolution. He counts a theistic evolution that would not offend many active evolutionary biologists as ID. Clearly, if ID works entirely through natural laws, then we should study those laws, which is what biology does. He defines ID so widely that almost anything is ID. What he fails to do is to tell us how to distinguish between these. If ID were a real science, then the YECs, front loaders, theistic evolutionists, and progressive evolutionist would all be debating each other and coming up with observations to support one view over another. In fact, these groups do disagree with each other, but the debate is bassed entirely on scriptural exegesis, and not science. Hunter does tell us at that he supports creation ex nihilio (consistent with other YEC leanings in the book), but doesn't explain why.

Yet again, we get a chapter that promises to provide the substance but fails to deliver. Hunter has again failed to give a single prediction of ID, a single result arising from it, or a framework for a research program. He does occasionally claim that such things exist, but never gives an example. We have further comfirmation that ID is a vaccuous concept, based entirely on negative arguments.