Darel Rex Finley in 888

Enough Information

2010.10.29   prev     next

HOW much information do we need about a topic before it’s OK to say that this conclusion or that conclusion is warranted? It is with this question in mind that I want to analyze the following quotes from Stephen Barr in his recent debate with Michael Behe:

I’m not here to argue against the Intelligent Design hypothesis. I regard it as a reasonable hypothesis. I’m quite open to the possibility that it may even be the correct explanation of some complex biological structures, though I think it would be extremely difficult ever to prove this. My thesis is that the ID hypothesis, whatever its merits, is not a scientific hypothesis, and therefore should not be taught as such in science classrooms and textbooks. ... If I pay for a science teacher, I expect him to tell me, or my children, how nature works, not his views on ultimate reality or what it all means. The reason that science textbooks and science classes should not talk about God or supernatural causes is very simple: It’s because science textbooks and science classes should stick to their own business.

That’s a convenient way of avoiding the controversy. But you can’t really avoid it, because you still have to decide: If science teachers are not allowed to talk about theories of supernatural intervention, then what should they be saying about the biological structures with which the ID movement concerns itself? Let’s see what Barr has to say about that:

What, then, should be taught in biology classes, according to me, about the kinds of structures that Mike has argued to be irreducibly complex, such as the bacterial flagellum, and so on? The answer, it seems to me, is very simple, and maybe it’s an answer Mike would agree with. If there are structures, such as the bacterial flagellum or the blood clotting system, for which science does not have a satisfactory explanation, it would be entirely proper for a science textbook, or a science teacher, to say exactly that. They could say, for example, “There is much yet to discover about the history of life on Earth, and much that is not fully understood about this history. There does not yet exist a detailed step-by-step of the processes by which certain complex structures evolved, or a full understanding of these processes. Period.” As my favorite new source, FOX News channel says, “We report, you decide.” Let science say, honestly and forthrightly, what it knows and what it doesn’t know.

It would have been really nice if Barr, immediately after advancing the above position, had been asked the following, pointed question: How much information do we have to have about these structures before it will be OK, in your view, for a science teacher or textbook to say: “The evidence strongly indicates that the Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection did not generate these structures.” Barr’s “There is much yet to discover, and much that is not fully understood” statement certainly implies that he would answer that we would need a lot more information than we have now. But how much more would we need?


Imagine a timeline representing human progress in understanding the bacterial flagellum. It starts with our discovery that there is such a thing as a flagellum (a wiggly, tail-like protrusion that bacteria apparently use to swim), and ends when humanity knows virtually everything about the flagellum, all its parts, how they work, how they’re created, controlled, etc., plus everything about the bacteria that produce and use them. If, in the course of making our way to the end of this timeline, we discover an empirically viable Darwinian explanation of the flagellum, then there it is: Darwin wins.

But supposing we don’t. When we reach the end of the timeline, would it then be OK for science textbooks to say that Darwinian evolution didn’t do it? If not, why not? Does Barr think that the very idea that evolution didn’t generate the flagellum is inherently anti-scientific? In that case, his “much yet to discover” statement is extremely disingenuous. Why not instead tell students that “any idea that mutation-selection evolution didn’t generate a biological structure is inherently anti-scientific,” and see what they think of that? Isn’t honesty a crucial part of science, or does science need to employ a measure of deliberate deception in order to ensure that the correct side wins in a culture war?

Let’s not be that pessimistic. Let’s assume that Barr isn’t as unreasonable or politics-driven as that; let’s assume that he “honestly and forthrightly” would allow an evolution-didn’t-do-it statement into a science textbook if we reach the end of the flagellum-exploration timeline without an improved situation for the claim that evolution-did-it. But, of course, that wouldn’t be today, because we’re nowhere near the end of that timeline.

Then the next logical question for Barr would be: Do we have to know every little thing about the flagellum (i.e. be at the very end of the timeline) before such a textbook statement is permissible? Is there any possibility that we could learn enough about the flagellum to be able to make a statement of scientific confidence that it didn’t evolve — well before reaching the end of the timeline? Or to put it another way, what kind of information would we need to observe about the flagellum to justify an anti-Darwinist position in a science textbook?

I would suggest that Behe’s thesis of irreducible complexity describes exactly the kind of information about the flagellum that we need to make such a justification; that Behe demonstrates that we have now crossed that threshold of knowledge. Today we have enough information to say — with as much scientific confidence as we say many other things in science textbooks which Barr seems to find unobjectionable — that random mutation and natural selection did not generate the bacterial flagellum.

If Barr thinks we’re not at that point yet; if he thinks that Behe’s irreducible complexity doesn’t cut it — well, it would be nice to see him provide some sort of definition of what kind of information about the flagellum would have to be found before he would want science textbooks to doubt Darwinism. Something a lot more specific than “more information than we have now” would be very helpful to anyone who, like me, wants to understand Barr’s position and why he takes it.


And there are yet more questions Barr leaves unanswered. Would he be OK with a biology textbook having a chapter or section describing Behe’s thesis of irreducible complexity? They could leave out all speculation of what did produce the flagellum, presenting Behe’s position as an argument just that mutation-selection evolution didn’t do it. And if Barr wants them to, they could conclude that section of the book with a disclaimer to the following effect: “Behe’s IC arguments do not absolutely prove that evolution didn’t create the flagellum, because scientific conclusions are always tentative; future evidence may surprise us and reveal a way that random mutation and natural selection could generate these structures.” That might (or might not) placate Barr. But what would students think of it? Would Barr perhaps prefer that the whole subject of IC be omitted from science textbooks, in the hopes that students will think the only problem with flagellum evolution is that scientists “haven’t yet found” the Darwinian steps that produced it?

Barr is trying very hard to find a way to appear simply to be defending the principles and integrity of science as a category of study, while at the same time ensuring that students are presented with a science curriculum that includes no significant doubts about Darwinian evolution. It would be a plenty sad statement about Barr and others of his mindset if the purpose of this curriculum was merely to ensure that students believe evolution is correct. But with the easy availability of books such as Behe’s, and an internet that virtually guarantees that no student of biology will fail to discover Behe’s books — a situation of which Barr is no doubt aware — one can only come to a very much sadder conclusion: Barr’s intent is that the science curriculum make clear to students not that evolution is true, but rather that suggestions that evolution is not true will not be tolerated.

Of course, I don’t know how Barr would answer the questions I have posed above. But based on what he did say, I think it not unfair to summarize his position as follows:

An argument based on evidence; math applied to that evidence; and logic applied to the results of that math — if that argument challenges the assertion that Darwinian evolution is the generator of all of life’s adaptive complexity — belongs in a philosophy or religion class.

prev     next



Hear, hear

prev     next

Best Recent Articles

Method of Implementing A Secure Backdoor In Mobile Devices

When Starting A Game of Chicken With Apple, Expect To Lose

How I Clip My Cat’s Nails

Seasons By Temperature, Not Solstice

It’s Not A Criticism, It’s A Fact

Features (Regularly Updated)

A Memory of Gateway — news chronology of Apple’s ascendancy to the top of the technology mountain.

iPhone Party-Poopers Redux and Silly iPad Spoilsports — amusing litanies of industry pundits desperately hoping iPhone and iPad will go away and die.

Embittered Anti-Apple Belligerents — general anger at Apple’s gi-normous success.


My books

Now available on the iBookstore!



Daring Fireball

The Loop



Red Meat

Despair, Inc.

Real Solution #9 (Mambo Mania Mix) over stock nuke tests. (OK, somebody made them rip out the music — try this instead.)

Ernie & Bert In Casino

Great Explanation of Star Wars

Best commercials (IMO) from Superbowl 41, 43, 45, 46, and 47

Kirk & Spock get Closer

American football explained.

TV: Better Call Saul; Homeland; Survivor; The Jinx; Breaking Bad; Inside Amy Schumer

God’s kitchen

Celebrity Death Beeper — news you can use.

Making things for the web.

My vote for best commercial ever. (But this one’s a close second, and I love this one too.)

Recent commercials I admire: KFC, Audi

Best reggae song I’ve discovered in quite a while: Virgin Islands Nice

Pinball Arcade: Unbelievably accurate simulation of classic pinball machines from the late ’70s through the ’90s, with new ones added periodically. Like MAME for pinball — maybe better.

d120 dice: You too (like me) can be the ultimate dice nerd.

WiFi problems? I didn’t know just how bad my WiFi was until I got eero.

Favorite local pad thai: Pho Asian Noodle on Lane Ave. Yes, that place; blame Taco Bell for the amenities. Use the lime, chopsticks, and sriracha. Yummm.

Um, could there something wrong with me if I like this? Or this?

This entire site as a zip file — last updated 2018.02.01

Previous articles

Nothing More Angry Than A Cornered Anti-Apple

Let ’Em Glow

The Ultimate, Simple, Fair Tax

Compassion and Vision

When Starting A Game of Chicken With Apple, Expect To Lose

The Caveat

Superb Owl


Basic Reproduction Number

iBook Price-Fixing Lawsuit Redux — Apple Won

Delusion Made By Google

Religion Is A Wall

It’s Not A Criticism, It’s A Fact

Michigan Wolverines 2014 Football Season In Review

Sprinkler Shopping

Why There’s No MagSafe On the New Mac­Book

Sundar Pichai Says Devices Will Fade Away

The Question Every Ap­ple Naysayer Must An­swer

Apple’s Move To TSMC Is Fine For Apple, Bad For Samsung

Method of Implementing A Secure Backdoor In Mobile Devices

How I Clip My Cat’s Nails

Die Trying

Merger Hindsight

Human Life Decades

Fire and the Wheel — Not Good Examples of A Broken Patent System

Nobody Wants Public Transportation

Seasons By Temperature, Not Solstice

Ode To Coffee

Starting Over

FaceBook Messenger — Why I Don’t Use It

Happy Birthday, Anton Leeuwenhoek

Standard Deviation De­fined

Not Hypocrisy

Simple Guide To Pro­gress Bar Correctness

A Secure Backdoor Is Feasible

Don’t Blink

Predictive Value

Answering the Toughest Question About Disruption Theory

SSD TRIM Command In A Nutshell

The Enderle Grope

Aha! A New Way To Screw Apple

Champagne, By Any Other Maker

iOS Jailbreaking — A Perhaps-Biased Assessment

Embittered Anti-Apple Belligerents

Before 2001, After 2001

What A Difference Six Years Doesn’t Make

Stupefying New Year’s Stupidity

The Innovator’s Victory

The Cult of Free

Fitness — The Ultimate Transparency

Millions of Strange Dev­o­tees and Fanatics

Remember the iPod Killers?

Theory As Simulation

Four Analysts

What Was Christensen Thinking?

The Grass Is Always Greener — Viewing An­gle

Is Using Your Own Pat­ent Still Allowed?

The Upside-Down Tech Future

Motive of the Anti-Ap­ple Pundit

Cheating Like A Human

Disremembering Mi­cro­soft

Security-Through-Obscurity Redux — The Best of Both Worlds

iPhone 2013 Score Card

Dominant and Recessive Traits, Demystified

Yes, You Do Have To Be the Best

The United States of Texas

Vertical Disintegration

He’s No Jobs — Fire Him

A Players

McEnroe, Not Borg, Had Class

Conflict Fades Away

Four-Color Theorem A­nal­y­sis — Rules To Limit the Problem

The Unusual Mo­nop­o­list

Reasonable Projection

Five Times What They Paid For It

Bypassable Security Certificates Are Useless

I’d Give My Right Arm To Go To Mars

Free Advice About Apple’s iOS App Store Guidelines

Inciting Violence

One Platform

Understanding IDC’s Tablet Market Share Graph

I Vote Socialist Be­cause...

That Person

Product Naming — Google Is the Other Microsoft

Antecessor Hypotheticum

Apple Paves the Way For Apple

Why — A Poem

App Anger — the Supersized-Mastodon-In-the-Room That Marco Arment Doesn’t See

Apple’s Graphic Failure

Why Microsoft Copies Apple (and Google)

Coders Code, Bosses Boss

Droidfood For Thought

Investment Is Not A Sure Thing

Exercise is Two Thirds of Everything

Dan “Real Enderle” Ly­ons


Ignoring the iPod touch

Manual Intervention Should Never Make A Computer Faster

Predictions ’13


Zeroth — Why the Century Number Is One More Than the Year Number

Longer Than It Seems

Partners: Believe In Ap­ple

Gun Control: Best Ar­gu­ments

John C. Dvorak — Translation To English

Destructive Youth

Wiens’s Whine

Free Will — The Grand Equivocation

What Windows-vs.-Mac Actually Proved

A Tale of Two Logos

Microsoft’s Three Paths

Amazon Won’t Be A Big Winner In the DOJ’s Price-Fixing Suit

Infinite Sets, Infinite Authority

Strategy Analytics and Long Term Ac­count­a­bil­i­ty

The Third Stage of Computing

Why 1 Isn’t Prime, 2 Is Prime, and 2 Is the Only Even Prime

Readability BS

Lie Detection and Psy­chos



Microsoft’s Dim Pros­pects

Humanity — Just Barely

Hanke-Henry Calendar Won’t Be Adopted

Collatz Conjecture A­nal­y­sis (But No Proof; Sorry)

Rock-Solid iOS App Stability

Microsoft’s Uncreative Character

Microsoft’s Alternate Reality Bubble

Microsoft’s Three Ruts

Society’s Fascination With Mass Murder

PlaysForSure and Wikipedia — Revisionism At Its Finest


Patent Reform?

How Many Licks

Microsoft’s Incredible Run

Voting Socialist

Darwin Saves

The Size of Things In the Universe

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy That Wasn’t


Nobody Was In Love With Windows

Apples To Apples — How Anti-Apple Pundits Shoot Themselves In the Foot

No Holds Barred

Betting Against Hu­man­i­ty

Apple’s Premium Features Are Free

Why So Many Computer Guys Hate Apple

3D TV With No Glasses and No Parallax/Focus Issues

Waves With Particle-Like Properties

Gridlock Is Just Fine

Sex Is A Fantasy

Major Player

Why the iPad Wannabes Will Definitely Flop

Predators and Parasites

Prison Is For Lotto Losers

The False Dichotomy

Wait and See — Windows-vs-Mac Will Repeat Itself

Dishonesty For the Greater Good

Barr Part 2

Enough Information

Zune Is For Apple Haters

Good Open, Bad Open

Beach Bodies — Who’s Really Shallow?

Upgrade? Maybe Not

Eliminating the Im­pos­si­ble

Selfish Desires

Farewell, Pirate Cachet

The Two Risk-Takers

Number of Companies — the Idiocy That Never Dies

Holding On To the Solution

Apple Religion

Long-Term Planning

What You Have To Give Up

The End of Elitism

Good and Evil


How Religion Distorts Science

Laziness and Creativity

Sideloading and the Supersized-Mastodon-In-the-Room That Snell Doesn’t See

Long-Term Self-De­lu­sion

App Store Success Won’t Translate To Books, Movies, and Shows

Silly iPad Spoilsports

I Disagree

Five Rational Coun­ter­ar­gu­ments

Majority Report

Simply Unjust

Zooman Science

Reaganomics — Like A Diet — Works

Free R&D?

Apple’s On the Right Track

Mountains of Evidence

What We Do

Hope Conquers All

Humans Are Special — Just Not That Special

Life = Survival of the Fittest

Excuse Me, We’re Going To Build On Your Property

No Trademark iWorries


Twisted Excuses

The Fall of Google

Real Painters

The Meaning of Kicking Ass

How To Really Stop Casual Movie Disc Ripping

The Solitary Path of the High-Talent Pro­gram­mer

Fixing, Not Preaching

Why Blackmail Is Still Illegal

Designers Cannot Do Anything Imaginable

Wise Dr. Drew

Rats In A Too-Small Cage

Coming To Reason

Everything Isn’t Moving To the Web

Pragmatics, Not Rights

Grey Zone

Methodologically Dogmatic

The Purpose of Lan­guage

The Punishment Defines the Crime

Two Many Cooks


One Last Splurge

Making Money

What Heaven and Hell Are Really About

America — The Last Suburb


What the Cloud Isn’t For

Diminishing Returns

What You’re Seeing

What My Life Needs To Be

Taking An Early Re­tire­ment

Office Buildings

A, B, C, D, Pointless Relativity

Stephen Meyer and Michael Medved — Where Is ID Going?

If You Didn’t Vote — Complain Away

iPhone Party-Poopers Redux

What Free Will Is Really About

Spectacularly Well

Pointless Wrappers

PTED — The P Is Silent

Out of Sync

Stupid Stickers

Security Through Nor­mal­cy

The Case For Corporate Bonuses

Movie Copyrights Are Forever

Permitted By Whom?

Quantum Cognition and Other Hogwash

The Problem With Message Theory

Bell’s Boring Inequality and the Insanity of the Gaps

Paying the Rent At the 6 Park Avenue A­part­ments

Primary + Reviewer — An Alternative IT Plan For Corporations

Yes Yes Yes


Hey Hey Whine Whine

Microsoft About Microsoft Visual Microsoft Studio Microsoft

Hidden Purple Tiger

Forest Fair Mall and the Second Lamborghini

Intelligent Design — The Straight Dope

Maxwell’s Demon — Three Real-World Ex­am­ples


Entitlement BS



Einstein’s Error — The Confusion of Laws With Their Effects

The Museum Is the Art

Polly Sooth the Air Rage

The Truth

The Darkness

Morality = STDs?

Fulfilling the Moral Du­ty To Disdain



Real Design

The Two Rules of Great Programming


The End of the Nerds

Poverty — Humanity’s Damage Control

Berners-Lee’s Rating System = Google

The Secret Anti-MP3 Trick In “Independent Women” and “You Sang To Me”

ID and the Large Had­ron Collider Scare

Not A Bluff

The Fall of Microsoft

Life Sucks When You’re Not Winning


The Old-Fashioned Way

The Old People Who Pop Into Existence

Theodicy — A Big Stack of Papers

The Designed, Cause-and-Effect Brain


IC Counterarguments

The Capitalist’s Imaginary Line

Education Isn’t Eve­ry­thing

I Don’t Know

Funny iPhone Party-Poopers

Avoiding Conflict At All Costs

Behavior and Free Will, Unconfused

“Reduced To” Ab­sur­dum

Suzie and Bubba Redneck — the Carriers of Intelligence

Everything You Need To Know About Haldane’s Dilemma

Darwin + Hitler = Ba­lo­ney


Designed For Combat

Speed Racer R Us

Bold — Uh-huh

Conscious of Con­scious­ness

Future Perfect

Where Real and Yahoo Went Wrong

The Purpose of Surface

Eradicating Religion Won’t Eradicate War

Documentation Overkill

A Tale of Two Movies

The Changing Face of Sam Adams

Dinesh D’Souza On ID

Why Quintic (and Higher) Polynomials Have No Algebraic Solution

Translation of Paul Graham’s Footnote To Plain English

What Happened To Moore’s Law?

Goldston On ID

The End of Martial Law

The Two Faces of Ev­o­lu­tion

A Fine Rec­om­men­da­tion

Free Will and Population Statistics

Dennett/D’Souza Debate — D’Souza

Dennett/D’Souza Debate — Dennett

The Non-Euclidean Ge­om­e­try That Wasn’t There

Defective Attitude Towards Suburbia

The Twin Deficit Phan­toms

Sleep Sync and Vertical Hold

More FUD In Your Eye

The Myth of Rub­ber­neck­ing

Keeping Intelligent Design Honest

Failure of the Amiga — Not Just Mis­man­age­ment

Maxwell’s Silver Hammer = Be My Honey Do?

End Unsecured Debt

The Digits of Pi Cannot Be Sequentially Generated By A Computer Program

Faster Is Better

Goals Can’t Be Avoided

Propped-Up Products

Ignoring ID Won’t Work

The Crabs and the Bucket

Communism As A Side Effect of the Transition To Capitalism

Google and Wikipedia, Revisited

National Geographic’s Obesity BS


Theodicy Is For Losers

Seattle Redux


Living Well

A Memory of Gateway

Is Apple’s Font Rendering Really Non-Pixel-Aware?

Humans Are Complexity, Not Choice

A Subtle Shift

Moralism — The Emperor’s New Success

Code Is Our Friend

The Edge of Religion

The Dark Side of Pixel-Aware Font Rendering

The Futility of DVD En­cryp­tion

ID Isn’t About Size or Speed

Blood-Curdling Screams

ID Venn Diagram

Rich and Good-Looking? Why Libertarianism Goes Nowhere

FUV — Fear, Uncertainty, and Vista

Malware Isn’t About Total Control

Howard = Second Com­ing?

Doomsday? Or Just Another Sunday

The Real Function of Wikipedia In A Google World

Objective-C Philosophy

Clarity From Cisco

2007 Macworld Keynote Prediction

FUZ — Fear, Uncertainty, and Zune

No Fear — The Most Important Thing About Intelligent Design

How About A Rational Theodicy

Napster and the Subscription Model

Intelligent Design — Introduction

The One Feature I Want To See In Apple’s Safari.