Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The design inference
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 121 (7080)
03-17-2002 12:20 AM


"I can’t help but intervene here, how have you recognised design?"
I suppose that I haven't recognized or confirmed design or anything like that. However, the basic idea of ID is that they (the scientists who support ID) believe that there is strong evidence FOR design. Whether or not they are correct is a different matter, but I believe that ID goes beyond providing gaps in evolutionary thought.
"Cobra, that’s the best I can ask for at this stage. Thank you. Make no mistake, I recognise that sentence as a huge step."
In that case, I take it back!
I realize that debating can sometimes seem like beating your head against a brick wall, which is why I try to be as fair as I can when I consider the opponents position.
"Fair point re. evolution. But Behe does reject abiogenesis, making my point that ID means God stands."
Behe rejects abiogenesis on this planet. He is in no position to declare that abiogenesis on other planets is impossible.
"As schraf says, ID Of The Gaps, then. God Of The Gaps is merely a euphemism that describes an argument founded on information we lack, rather than positive evidence supporting an argument. Without any supporting evidence of the ID/God, the argument founders because of this very reason. There is no POSITIVE evidence to support ID."
You're right, whether or not I convince anyone with my ramblings that ID doesn't require God, it does not matter as to whether or not ID has any real evidence. But I hold that ID does have real evidence. The apparent design of living things is evidence for design (whether or not that evidence is very conclusive is up to the individual).

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 121 (7099)
03-17-2002 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Mister Pamboli
02-28-2002 4:02 PM


My apologies to Mr. P. I meant to respond earlier. Stuff happens...
[QUOTE] Originally posted by John Paul:
It's called the [b]design inference, not the materialistic naturalism excludance. [/QUOTE]
Mr. P:
Ok. Let's get one thing clear. Scientists and many others infer design in many ways. What Dembski is claiming is that
: he has identified a technique for inferring design which does not give false positives;
: this technique underlies design inferences that are made in other fields.
John Paul:
I think he is still developing/ refining it. I haven’t read his latest effort, No Free Lunch.
Mr. P:
Let's kick off with an interesting question regarding Dembski's claim to have formulated a logical filter for inferring design that does not give false positives. Is this filter now knowingly applied in any of the fields Dembski refers to as using design inferences? Let's take SETI and Forensic Science: now that Dembski has codified this tool is it actually being used in these fields?
John Paul:
I am not sure. Like I stated above, I am under the impression he was still developing/ refining it. Isn’t that how it goes? You have an idea, document it and then develop and refine it.
But anyway, both of those fields rely on our ability to detect design. The ID proponents are just saying we can apply similar reasoning to living organisms.
Mr. P:
This is not a rhetorical question. I don't know the answer and would genuinely be interested to see practical applications of Dembski's filter in real-world situations where decisions have to be made on the outcome.
John Paul:
I am not saying this to be a smart a$$ but have you considered going to the International Society for Complexity, Information & Design and posting there? I know it costs $45 to become a member, but that is less than 90 cents a week.
When you say or imply that biological ID isn’t a scientific endeavor, you are saying our ignorance is grounds for believing and dogmatically asserting that life arose via purely natural processes and no other avenue can be explored by our narrow vision of science.
quote:
It is evidenced by the CSI and apparent IC of living organisms.
Mr. P:
I can't imagine what you mean here. At the most this sentence can mean:
If FW then (if LC then LD)
LC
Therefore FW.
(Where F = "The Filter Works", LC = "Life is complex and specified", LD = "life is designed".)
This is clearly bunk.
BTW, I presume that having read Dembski, apparently approvingly, you don't mind me using completely superfluous quasi-symbolical forms in his manner?
John Paul:
Behe puts it like this:
Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.
quote:
Mr. P has a point in that Dembski's filter can't detect random looking markings, but it sure could point out any accompanying text.
Mr. P:
Well I wound't want it to detect them - I would want it to help me decide whether they were designed or not.
John Paul:
It may do just that. What it can’t do is to tell you the meaning of the design. For example I could use the EF to determine that a Chinese character was designed but the filter wouldn’t translate that character for me.
The EF is not a mind reading device that can determine what the designer’s intent was. Nor can it decipher any hidden code.
quote:
(Sorry Mr. P but DNA and the cell are hardly random markings that may or may not mean something)
Mr. P:
O don't be sorry, just tell me how DNA is specified in Dembski's sense.
John Paul:
From what we know about DNA not just any ordering of nucleotides will give rise to a living organism. The sequences that do allow for life would then be considered specified. Pretty basic actually.
quote:
All the filter wants you to do is consider the evidence and if you get to the 3rd box, use as much scrutiny of the evidence as technology allows before reaching a conclusion.
Mr. P:
If this is the case then the filter is totally useless, because in the third box you are back to Paley's old argument that this thing looks like it might be designed, and Hume's rejoinder questioning what could be "sufficiently like" to justify the inference.
John Paul:
If something looks designed what would be the criteria for determining it is not? In the case where design is initially assumed a priori you could run the filter in reverse to falsify that premise.
However, I nothing wrong to call a duck a duck. Especially when that organism quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck and gives all the appearances of being a duck. And yes, in order to convince me otherwise you have your work cut out for you.
Mr. P:
Unless the filter can actually get you to the point of saying "this is designed" then it is as much use as the proverbial chocolate teapot.
John Paul:
I see you want the filter to do everything for you. I don’t believe that is how it is supposed to work, but again I am not Dembski. I do know once E gets to the third box decisions must be made. In the boxes before the third box, each required a decision to be made. So it would stand to reason that external input is required. Accurate input would require research.
The EF is a basic process flow chart for inferring design. His book is called The Design Inference.
quote:
ID was shut out when the a priori before the black box was even opened.
Mr. P:
I don't understand. Can you clarify? Thanks.
John Paul:
Paley’s arguments for design in living organisms were dismissed before we had the technology to actually see how complex a living cell really is. Paley hurt his own cause for not fully understanding the magnitude of the specified complexity that resides in living organisms.
quote:
Today we describe biochemical systems analogous with machines.
Mr. P:
Analogy isn't going to do the trick, mate.
John Paul:
Explain why analogies won’t do the trick, mate. Analogies are used in many instances. Why all of a sudden is my use not doing the trick?
Mr. P:
What about the other way round? Let's say I compare the claw on the production line robot to a human hand. I remark how similar they are - how they have "fingers", "joints", how they move, how they grasp, how they have "tendons." I ponder on how they came about ... Does the hand help me accurately guess that the robot claw was made from cast and machined steel parts, that it was wired and soldered? Does the robot claw help me accurately guess that the hand was formed by cell division? Analogy clearly doesn't help in pondering their manufacture - why do you think analogy is going to get you any further when considering if they are "designed"?
John Paul:
Looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck- what do you think it is?
Perhaps we can take the analogy even further and by experimentation we learn we can deal with a biological virus in a similar manner that we deal with a computer virus.
quote:
The way information is transported internal to each cell is analogous to a LAN (local are network- packeted, with header containing destination, source, key, data) with ports to the whole system, itself a myriad of complex pathways, in complex metazoans and other multi-cellular organisms.
Mr. P:
Same thing. The human mind likes analogies because it enables us to reuse existing knowledge - but argument from analogy is illogical.
John Paul:
Maybe to you it is. Just asserting that it is doesn’t make it so. The parallels are uncanny and should not be ignored. But I guess that how you can get around the design inference, ignore it. BTW, mind correlation is part of the process when determining design.
Read this:
http://www.creationequation.com/Archives/TheBiologist.htm> The Biologist
quote:
So if you are telling me that for some unknown reason, science has to exclude the design inference
Mr. P:
Science does not have to exclude the design inference, it is purely that so far no one has come close to showing how it applies to living things in a way that helps scientists to understand them better than other methods.
John Paul:
And just how has theorizing that life isn’t the product of design or Special Creation added anything of value to science?
What is the justification for dogmattically asserting life arose from purely natural processes? There isn't any evidence to support the claim. What gives?
As someone with a relatively strong background in encryption I understand the importance of differentiating between meaningful information and random nonsense. With the understanding the genetic code is from an intelligent source, I strongly believe it would aid us in deciphering it.
Mr. P:
The really sad thing about Demsbki's work is that, rather like Goss's in the 19th century, it is irrelevant to the work being done in the field.(Which brings back to wondering if there are examples of his work being explicitly used in fields where it is of immediate relevance.)
John Paul:
What is really sad is that you won’t take your discussion to the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design discussion board.
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=10> The ISCID
You may have some good arguments that may drive their refinement of the concept of ID in biology. And you just may find the answers you seek.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-28-2002 4:02 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Brachinus, posted 03-17-2002 11:42 AM John Paul has not replied
 Message 65 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-17-2002 4:06 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Brachinus
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 121 (7105)
03-17-2002 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by John Paul
03-17-2002 10:03 AM


Mr. P:
O don't be sorry, just tell me how DNA is specified in Dembski's sense.
John Paul:
From what we know about DNA not just any ordering of nucleotides will give rise to a living organism. The sequences that do allow for life would then be considered specified. Pretty basic actually.
OK, so Dembski's EF should be able to tell the difference between an actual DNA sequence vs. a randomly-typed batch of A's, T's, C's and G's. Has this been demonstrated?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by John Paul, posted 03-17-2002 10:03 AM John Paul has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 65 of 121 (7125)
03-17-2002 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by John Paul
03-17-2002 10:03 AM


JP, thanks for the answer. It's good to get involved in some debate again.
You are right that Demsbki and some others are still developing his work in ID. No Free Lunch is basically an attempt to use some computer science work on genetic algorithms to suit his ID arguments - it's better written than his previous work, but still has the old Dembski failings: pretentious use of pesudo-formal logic and maths, a rather over-infalted sense of the importance of his own work (especially as he is borrowing ideas from others here) and the same fundamental flaw of never really comparing like with like. My advice? Read it, but don't buy it!
My point about the use of his filter in SETI or forensic work is this: if, as he claims, his filter formalizes the underlying processes these fields already use, and if it does not give false positives, then do people use it? For instance, I design software development tools. Amongst other things, I look at the processes and patterns that programmers use in the real world and then turn those processes into software which helps them apply the techniques they already use, but more efficiently. If Dembksi's filter accurately describes the detection of design with no false positives, I would expect to see it being used to make the existing processes for detecting design more efficient.
quote:
When you say or imply that biological ID isn’t a scientific endeavor ...
I don't say that, but there are some that do. My problem with ID in biological science is the poor logic and the inadequate support for the inferences required to apply it.
quote:
Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components. (Behe)
I like this quote because it sums up both the intuitive comfort that ID provides and also its fatal flaws.
The intuitive comfort comes from the idea that we are simply using our common sense - we are detecting design in the same way as we detect the design of anything. The fatal flaw is this word anything because actually in other cases where we seek design we have contextual reasons to believe a designer is highly possible because we have seen very similar things being designed. Dembski and Behe's problem is to show that we can infer design in any context - and this they fail to do, because all their examples intuitively inferring "the design of anything" are highly contextualised. But organisms are a unique context, so unlike anything else in our experience that we cannot apply these techniques here with any confidence. Our inferences in other contexts are sound only insofar as the context lends weight to the inference.
quote:
What it can’t do is to tell you the meaning of the design. For example I could use the EF to determine that a Chinese character was designed but the filter wouldn’t translate that character for me.
Absolutely. I wonder if that will be Demsbki's next book - the meaning of life?
My argument was that it couldn't identify what may or may not be writing as being designed and thus it couldn't be helpful.
quote:
From what we know about DNA not just any ordering of nucleotides will give rise to a living organism. The sequences that do allow for life would then be considered specified. Pretty basic actually.
There is a bit more to specification than that, is there not? I think Brachinus deals with this in another post. Remember that the filter also has to deal with all the junk DNA, retroviruses etc.
quote:
The EF is a basic process flow chart for inferring design. His book is called The Design Inference.
True. But Dr D does make a big point about the reliability of the inference. He goes to great lengths to explain his "magic number" which, if this is the probability of something occuring, and it passes through the filter, we can say absolutely that something is designed. Dembski is not saying "Hey this looks a bit like a designed thing, thinking of it in that way may lead to some interesting conclusions and lines of thought." He is saying "This is designed and that fact has important implications."
If he was saying the former - that things may "look" designed and this can be a useful way of thinking of them to possibly find more information, then I would wholeheartedly agree. It is the inference that something "is" designed that I take issue with.
Several of our later points dealt with the analogical nature of the design inference and its logical fallacy.
Let's look at a really simple argument from analogy to see the problem, using Fingal, my old dog, as a subject: Fingal is like a cat, therefore Fingal is a cat.
This is clearly wrong, but its premise is correct. Fingal is like a cat in many many ways. Thus the argument is formally a fallacy.
So in the argument, "x is like a cat therefore x is a cat" the difficulty is clearly in the word "like": it has to have a very special meaning in the argument, referring to some very special attributes, to enable us to infer catness.
Demsbki's design inference is basically "x is like a designed thing, therefore x is a designed thing." And for him, designed things do have some special attributes - complex sepcified information. His explanatory filter is a way of deciding whether something passes the like test. The argument remains formally fallacious, but could still be emprically useful if like can be determined accurately enough - this is what I meant by "Science does not have to exclude the design inference."
THe difficulty remains whether these special attributes that Dembski claims designed things have, are sufficient for us to make this inference. No amount of logic can get round this problem, because the argument remains formally fallacious: the most Dembski can do is narrow the meaning of "like" to a point where we can make the inference with some confidence.
So when you ask "Looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck- what do you think it is?" we have to decide whether those criteria are sufficient for us to infer duckness. After all it could be an Egyptian Goose (Alopochen aegyptiacus). Or by your criteria my son's old electric toy duck (which sure as hell confused our cat!), or a cartoon duck. Your criteria aren't "sufficient" to infer real duckness. My argument is that Dembki's criteria aren't "sufficient" to infer design.
quote:
And just how has theorizing that life isn’t the product of design or Special Creation added anything of value to science?
It is the job of scientists to theorize. Every advance in natural sciences, including medicine is the result of investigating natural causes. Why should this investigation stop at the origins? Looking at the ultimate origins of life and how life has developed is an extension that examination of the processes of nature which has lead to every step of progress in the natural sciences. Can you think of any single tiny step of scientific progress which has been made by assuming the existence of a creator?
quote:
What is the justification for dogmattically asserting life arose from purely natural processes? There isn't any evidence to support the claim. What gives?
I think the case is really the other way round - we cannot empirically "examine" any other route. We can speculate as philosophers on other Ways in which life could come to be, and many a philosopher has done so. But we cannot investigate other possibilities with the tools of science.
I will not speak for others, but I do not dogmatically claim any version of the origin of life. What I do dogmatically claim is that as soon as something is part of the natural world, it is within the sphere of scientific investigation.
quote:
What is really sad is that you won’t take your discussion to the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design discussion board.
I am registered on the board, read it daily, and hope to contribute some "Brainstorms" on the flaws in Dembski's approach to genetic algorithms soon. I am currently speaking to my employer about permission to discuss some computer science issues online in this context. I do find the ISCID board very interesting indeed, but so far I haven't found anything very persuasive! I don't think I'll fork out the $45 dollars until I'm convinced it's worth it. But I hope one day you will see some Pamboli posts there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by John Paul, posted 03-17-2002 10:03 AM John Paul has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 66 of 121 (7215)
03-18-2002 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Cobra_snake
03-16-2002 8:21 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[B]"OK, how about calling it the "Intelligent Designer of the Gaps" argument?"
That would be more appropriate.[/QUOTE]
LOL! Do you really, truly, think that Behe and the other ID proponents are referring to any other designer than God?
quote:
"The important part is the fallacy that a lack of evidence for one theory constitutes positive evidence for another."
If the recognition of design is not evidence for design, then I don't know what is.
Nobody has explained how to recognize the difference between an intelligently designed system and a natural one we don't understand.
Unless thare are falsifiable criterion instead of a "I know it when I see it" kind of explanation, there is no evidence at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-16-2002 8:21 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-18-2002 8:21 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 67 of 121 (7216)
03-18-2002 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by John Paul
03-15-2002 6:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
schrafinator:
First of all, ID isn't a scientific theory. It does not propose any hypothese, it does not provide any positive evidence, and it does not list any potential falsifications.
John Paul:
I just posted the positive evidence for ID (a couple posts up) and according to its proponents it can be falsified. They are listed in an article by Dembski to Eugenie Scott.
Is Intelligent Design Testable?
A Response to Eugenie Scott
It may not be a theory (yet) but it is in the very least a working hypothesis.

What positive evidence, not a lack of evidence found in another theory, supports ID?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by John Paul, posted 03-15-2002 6:26 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by John Paul, posted 03-18-2002 10:58 AM nator has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 121 (7220)
03-18-2002 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by nator
03-18-2002 9:04 AM


[QUOTE] Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[b]"OK, how about calling it the "Intelligent Designer of the Gaps" argument?"
That would be more appropriate. [/QUOTE]
schrafinator:
LOL! Do you really, truly, think that Behe and the other ID proponents are referring to any other designer than God?
John Paul:
That is irrelevant. ID is not concerned with the designer only the design.
quote:
"The important part is the fallacy that a lack of evidence for one theory constitutes positive evidence for another."
If the recognition of design is not evidence for design, then I don't know what is.
schrafinator:
Nobody has explained how to recognize the difference between an intelligently designed system and a natural one we don't understand.
John Paul:
That is why it is call it is called the design inference. Inference is how science is conducted.
Why would infer purely natural processes when there isn’t any evidence to substantiate that claim? Actually it is not inferred. It is dogmatically asserted.
Then we have this from Behe:
quote:
Might there be an as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nontheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers. Concluding that no such process exists is as scientifically sound as concluding mental telepathy is not possible, or that the Loch Ness monster doesn’t exist. In the face of the massive evidence we do have for biochemical design, ignoring that evidence in the name of a phantom process would be to play the role of the detectives who ignore an elephant.
Why is OK to attribute something to an alleged natural process we don’t understand and not OK to follow everything we know about design and how to detect it?
schrafinator:
Unless thare are falsifiable criterion instead of a "I know it when I see it" kind of explanation, there is no evidence at all.
John Paul:
Been there, done that.
This message is a reply to:
[QUOTE] Originally posted by John Paul:
schrafinator:
First of all, ID isn't a scientific theory. It does not propose any hypothese, it does not provide any positive evidence, and it does not list any potential falsifications.
John Paul:
I just posted the positive evidence for ID (a couple posts up) and according to its proponents it can be falsified. They are listed in an article by Dembski to Eugenie Scott.
[b]Is Intelligent Design Testable?
A Response to Eugenie Scott
It may not be a theory (yet) but it is in the very least a working hypothesis. [/QUOTE]
schrafinator:
What positive evidence, not a lack of evidence found in another theory, supports ID?
John Paul:
Again from Behe:
quote:
Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by nator, posted 03-18-2002 9:04 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by edge, posted 03-18-2002 11:18 AM John Paul has replied
 Message 78 by nator, posted 03-18-2002 5:52 PM John Paul has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 69 of 121 (7222)
03-18-2002 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by John Paul
03-18-2002 10:58 AM


Hey, JP, did you ever get around to telling us who designed the designer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by John Paul, posted 03-18-2002 10:58 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Brachinus, posted 03-18-2002 11:27 AM edge has not replied
 Message 72 by John Paul, posted 03-18-2002 12:58 PM edge has replied

  
Brachinus
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 121 (7223)
03-18-2002 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by edge
03-18-2002 11:18 AM


quote:
Originally posted by edge:
Hey, JP, did you ever get around to telling us who designed the designer?
No Edge, you're missing JP's point. Using his logic, we don't have to know who designed the designer, it's enough to know that the designer was designed -- presumably by a being whose intelligence is even greater than the intelligence of our designer. ;-)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by edge, posted 03-18-2002 11:18 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by John Paul, posted 03-18-2002 1:01 PM Brachinus has replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 71 of 121 (7225)
03-18-2002 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by John Paul
03-15-2002 6:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
I just posted the positive evidence for ID (a couple posts up) and according to its proponents it can be falsified. They are listed in an article by Dembski to Eugenie Scott.
Is Intelligent Design Testable?
A Response to Eugenie Scott

Dembski tackles this initially with a subtle play on words
quote:
it is a hallmark of science that any of its claims be subject to revision or refutation on the basis of new evidence or further theoretical insight. If this is what one means by testability, then design is certainly testable. Indeed, it was in this sense that Darwin tested William Paley’s account of design and found it wanting. It simply won’t wash to say that design isn’t testable and then in the same breath say that Darwin tested design and refuted it.(Dembski)
The implication here is that Darwin in some way scientifically refuted Paley with new evidence or theoretical insight. Darwin, however, did not present evidence against design — he presented a theory which explained the available evidence of variety in the natural world better. Did Darwin therefore provide further theoretical insight? I guess you could say that, but in reality Paley’s argument from design didn’t fail as a theory but as reasoning: it did not stand the test of logic, never mind science.
I don’t know if Dembski is referring to a specific author when he says It simply won’t wash to say that design isn’t testable and then in the same breath say that Darwin tested design and refuted it. In a sense he is right, not because this is a contradiction, but because it is wrong to say that Darwin tested design in a scientific manner.
Demsbki later gets on to the meat of his article: that ID is testable in ways that Darwinism is not. He deals first with falsifiability.
quote:
If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn’t invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. On the other hand, falsifying Darwinism seems effectively impossible. To do so one must show that no conceivable Darwinian pathway could have led to a given biological structure.
This is curious. Darwinism is open to a simple, straightforward and devastating falsification — observing a designer in action. In practice, all we would need is direct, observable, testable evidence of a designer with means, motive and opportunity (as they say in the old detective novels.)
In truth, ID and Darwinism can play the same game: retreating into ignorance. Darwinism can always defend itself by saying that developmental pathways have not yet been discovered, ID similarly can say that whenever a pathway is discovered that the object in question was not irreducibly complex and then look around for another one.
What I find curious is that ID theorists do not explicitly explore this area — indeed they emphasis that the nature of the designer is not important, even discounting whether the designer is embodied or unembodied. It is as if they have reason to think that the designer may be unknowable, which is a puzzling attitude for a scientist. If Demsbki, et al, have identified an effect, one would expect a serious scientific explorer to look next for the nature of the cause. In all other cases, especially those quoted by Dembski, where we infer design we are also primarily interested in the designer. What kind of forensic science is interested in identifying murder, but is uninterested in the murderer? Can you imagine SETI finding a signal outer space and then saying the nature of the sender is irrelevant? Yet this is exactly what Demsbki does again and again — even though evidence of the designer would be the most overwhelming evidence of design!
When discussing the confirmability of ID, Demsbki has taken on the old, but still lively, issue of extrapolation from small-scale to large-scale evolution. This is much discussed elsewhere and I don’t think I need go over the ground again here. Dembski does have this say Yes, there is positive evidence for Darwinism, but the strength and relevance of that evidence on behalf of large-scale evolution is very much under dispute, if not within the Darwinian community then certainly outside of it. This, I think, starts as a very fair comment, but again there is a vagueness of words here to suit his purpose. The phrase very much under dispute refers to the Darwinian community — he is careful I think not to say the scientific community. In other words, I think he is trying to sneak in a sense that Darwinism is far more controversial in its context than it really is. Of course, it is a hugely controversial subject within a certain milieu of North Americans, but I think he is trying to cast his net a little wider than he properly can.
Next, bizarrely, he cites SETI as positive evidence for intelligent design! His argument — correct me if I’m wrong, please — seems to be: if we came across a broadcast sequence of prime numbers, we would regard that as designed. And this is positive evidence??? What he seems to be doing is saying that the concept of specified complexity is in itself evidence for design! An interesting concept of evidence — the ontological argument applied to scientific evidence. I can imagine design, therefore design exists!
It is frankly astonishing to me that someone who normally takes such care to appear scientific and practical in their approach should be so hopelessly weak when discussing the confirmability of his theory.
On predictability, I find myself almost completely in agreement with Demsbki! For me, Darwinism and ID both are descriptive theories — theories of how things are, not how they should be. I agree that Darwinism cannot predict or retrodict specific mutations. In a stressed environment we could certainly predict that certain mutations would be beneficial and that others would lead to extinction, but it seems to me no part of natural selection that beneficial mutations must occur — only that if they do occur they will be selected for survival. Thus, I regard Darwinism as an entirely descriptive theory — and none the worse for that. Predictability just isn’t a big issue for me.
Demsbki’s final point is trivial; though he dresses it up a bit, as is his wont. It can be summarized as follows: a capable enough designer could design anything; therefore the explanatory power of ID is at least equal to Darwinian processes. However, if something was designed, then ID could explain that and Darwinism couldn’t, therefore ID has a greater explanatory power than Darwinism.
I wish I had thought of this when I was a kid. The Mr Nobody did it argument has far greater explanatory power than the my sister did it argument I used so unsuccessfully for all those years!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by John Paul, posted 03-15-2002 6:26 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 121 (7226)
03-18-2002 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by edge
03-18-2002 11:18 AM


quote:
Originally posted by edge:
Hey, JP, did you ever get around to telling us who designed the designer?
John Paul:
I didn't know I was supposed to. The designer is irrelevant to ID. But you would have known that had you researched the issue.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by edge, posted 03-18-2002 11:18 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by edge, posted 03-18-2002 2:10 PM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 121 (7227)
03-18-2002 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Brachinus
03-18-2002 11:27 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Brachinus:
No Edge, you're missing JP's point. Using his logic, we don't have to know who designed the designer, it's enough to know that the designer was designed -- presumably by a being whose intelligence is even greater than the intelligence of our designer. ;-)
John Paul:
You are missing my point also. ID doesn't care about the designer, only the design- how to detect it, how to understand it and what to do with it.
Perhaps if you did a little research such a concept wouldn't be so foreign to you.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Brachinus, posted 03-18-2002 11:27 AM Brachinus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Brachinus, posted 03-18-2002 3:47 PM John Paul has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 74 of 121 (7235)
03-18-2002 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by John Paul
03-18-2002 12:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
I didn't know I was supposed to. The designer is irrelevant to ID. But you would have known that had you researched the issue.

Well, you have been asked a few times that I am aware of. I have not heard a response other than "irrelevant". Is that still your answer? Not very revealing...
And the designer is irrelevant to design? Hmm, sounds like a cop out to me.
And actually, I am researching the issue. I am trying to discover if we were designed in the same way that the designer was designed. In order to determine this, I must know who that ultimate designer was or is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by John Paul, posted 03-18-2002 12:58 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by John Paul, posted 03-18-2002 4:49 PM edge has replied

  
Brachinus
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 121 (7237)
03-18-2002 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by John Paul
03-18-2002 1:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

John Paul:
You are missing my point also. ID doesn't care about the designer, only the design- how to detect it, how to understand it and what to do with it.
Perhaps if you did a little research such a concept wouldn't be so foreign to you.

I'm not talking about trying to figure out who designed the designer, merely to settle the question of whether the designer was designed. Shouldn't ID be able to figure that out?
And if we take a putative designer (Jehovah, Brahma, the Invisible Pink Unicorn), shouldn't we able to examine their traits to determine whether they could have arisen by law, by chance or by design?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by John Paul, posted 03-18-2002 1:01 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by John Paul, posted 03-18-2002 4:58 PM Brachinus has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 121 (7239)
03-18-2002 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by edge
03-18-2002 2:10 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
I didn't know I was supposed to. The designer is irrelevant to ID. But you would have known that had you researched the issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
Well, you have been asked a few times that I am aware of.
John Paul:
And you still don't understand?
edge:
I have not heard a response other than "irrelevant". Is that still your answer? Not very revealing...
John Paul:
What am supposed to reveal? That ID concerns itself with the design and not the designer? That much would be obvious to those who have studied ID.
quote:
edge:
And the designer is irrelevant to design? Hmm, sounds like a cop out to me.
John Paul:
I would most likely agree if it was called the theory of the intelligent designer. However it is the theory of intelligent design or the intelligent design theory.
Recognizing and understanding the design are its priorities.
edge:
And actually, I am researching the issue.
John Paul:
Good for you.
edge:
I am trying to discover if we were designed in the same way that the designer was designed.
John Paul:
So you already know how we were designed? That would be the first step, right? Being a scientist and all, wouldn't you want to follow a methodical approach to resolving the issue?
I would hate to see how you would build a bridge.
Trying to resolve two issues when the conclusion of one most likely would influence the conclusion of the other? Please, spare me.
edge:
In order to determine this, I must know who that ultimate designer was or is.
John Paul:
Then I wish you luck on your quest.
I'm still working on the hows, whys, whats, wheres, whens of the observed design in living organisms on Earth.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by edge, posted 03-18-2002 2:10 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by edge, posted 03-21-2002 12:32 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024