A thought on Intelligence behind Design

You just don't seem to get it. The quote you posted is exactly what I have been saying all along, as well as what a few other ID critics have said.We DO get it. Dembski is not talking about arguments or evidence for the "logical" impossibility that an IC system had evolved.What he is talking about is the "pragmatic" impossibility of their evolution.Unfortunately, as has already been pointed out, such negative arguments are NOT proof or evidence for the correctness of ID.All that he can possibly argue is that a specific theory of how a particular IC system evolved is not likely. Even his mathematical calculations--- a laugh in themselves--- are only good if we assume that he knows exact conditions and mechanisms so that his calculations are realistic for any particular system.Please deal with the problems of his arguing for "pragmatic" impossibility, and stop pretending like I am saying "logical" impossibility.Here's an analogy to help. You (or Dembski and Behe) can say it is like the chance of water to form Mount Rushmore, for an IC system to have evolved... but that does not make a magical fairy designing whole or partial organic entities any more likely than water forming Mount Rushmore.And as I have already pointed out, ID theory NEVER deals with evolutionary theories that deal with nonrandom changes in biological entities.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 07-23-2003]

Thanks, Warren for finally admitting that you were wrong.Now if I remember correctly didn'd Dembski go further in _No Free Lunch_ claiming that he did not even have to calculate the probability of the flagellum evolving becauseit was IC ?

Evolutionary algorithms refute that claim in any case.The model presented is of a number of 'components' which
go together as 'circuits' ... the 'Darwinian mechanism' of
descent with modifaction governed by natural selection is applied
.... and leads to new circuit designs (and sometimes ones that
do things they were not expected to -- like act as a radio
receiver).There may be intelligence in the design of the rules, but the process
blindly follows Darwinian 'rule' and leads directly to
complex, in some cases IC, electrical circuits (IC in the sense
that removing a component stops the circuit from working to
meet the 'selection pressure').

Warren: Intelligent design's demonstration of the failure of Darwin's program is a combination of empirical and theoretical arguments.The theoretical arguments have already shown to be fallacious. The design inference is powerless in demonstrating the failure of Darwin's program since in order to do so it first has to show that said program is erroneous. In order to do this probability calculations are required which have yet to be applied to Darwinian pathways.Empirical arguments? What empirical arguments? IC is not sufficient to identify design anymore (per your quote of Dembski), ID is even more elusive.What are we talking about here?

Human beings, at some point in history, likely discovered how animals that burned to death in fires were good to eat - most likely an accidental discovery. Humans discovered that the natural gas coming from the earth was flammable, also probably by accident. Would that mean that intelligent design is absent from the gas range? Is the designing intelligence behind the evolution of the gas stove a product of the evolution of life? Is it likely that the emergence of a designing intelligence in life happened accidently? Is the gas range it's final and ultimate creative act in response to the accidental discovery that cooked food is good?How could any thinking human being come to the absolute conclussion that design is absent from evolution as many scientists seem to do? And, on the other side of the coin, how could any thinking human being come to the conclusion that humans are now fully capable of understanding and describing the nature and final purpose of a universal intelligence or designing presence as religionists often do?[This message has been edited by Barryven, 07-29-2003][This message has been edited by Barryven, 07-29-2003]

quote:

---

Human beings, at some point in history, likely discovered how animals that burned to death in fires were good to eat - most likely an accidental discovery. Humans discovered that the natural gas coming from the earth was flammable, also probably by accident. Would that mean that intelligent design is absent from the gas range?

---

You'd have to equate human design with divine intelligent design for this chain of reasoning to lead to any conclusions about the natural world being designed. How can that be done?

quote:

---

Is the designing intelligence behind the evolution of the gas stove a product of the evolution of life?

---

Why not? What is intelligence? For us, it seems to be a survival adaptation that serves us well. Assuming more is just a pat on the back for humanity without much factual basis.

quote:

---

Is it likely that the emergence of a designing intelligence in life happened accidently? Is the gas range it's final and ultimate creative act in response to the accidental discovery that cooked food is good?

---

I'm not sure I follow. In what context are you setting up the gas range as a "final and ultimate creative act?" We've been making fires for thousands of years. Lately we've found a more convenient way to do so. All species do things like that, but we do it more often through the changing of habits and ideas instead of physical traits.

quote:

---

How could any thinking human being come to the absolute conclussion that design is absent from evolution as many scientists seem to do?

---

Not all scientists do, and not all feel the need to. The problem is those who assume design, who do research with the end goal of finding evidence thereof, simply to justify their emotional need for a creator god. I don't assume absence of design. I assume that I can understand the world by observing and inferring, and by learning from others who do the same. If there were anyone who presented arguments for design, without having a pre-existing emotional requirement for their work to lead them to that point of view, I would find that compelling, and would take their work seriously. I just haven't ever heard of such a person.

quote:

---

How could any thinking human being come to the absolute conclussion that design is absent from evolution as many scientists seem to do? And, on the other side of the coin, how could any thinking human being come to the conclusion that humans are now fully capable of understanding and describing the nature and final purpose of a universal intelligence or designing presence as religionists often do?

---

To my way of thinking, you answered your first question with the second. We've spent ages in this forum trying to establish standards for detecting intelligence in natural design, to no avail.At face value, intelligence doesn't seem to be present in natural design. The haphazard history of life on Earth, with all its circuitous routes and mass extinctions, doesn't point to a guiding intelligence. Complex organisms and organs demonstrate design cobbled together from remnants of previous systems, not crafted anew for a unique purpose or function. Natural design displays amidst its messiness an ingenuity that would have been unnecessary if we assume the presence of intelligent intervention.Intelligent design creationists declare that only our preconceptions prevent us from recognizing intelligent design in nature. Simply because at face value we don't notice the designer's intentions, they say, that's no reason to assume that intelligence is absent from the design. In effect, IDC states that the intelligent design assumption is the default position, and any design can be considered the product of intelligence.The biggest problem with this line of thinking is its lack of utility in science. As you stated, even if there were intelligence behind natural design, could we understand or articulate the purposes of this intelligence? It does us no good to assume that there is intelligence behind the chaos of natural design, especially since that assumption doesn't enhance our perspective or widen the scope of scientific inquiry.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

What you are referring to, I think, is the presence of an intelligent designer who, to exist, must be perfect in it's designing capabilities and certainly wouldn't have struggled with evolution, extinctions, botched individuals, etc. ... A perfect, omnipotent diety God like the God of many religions. So, it seems, the choice is either that or nothing at all.But, what if both positions are wrong (incomplete). The fact that many human beings have burned themselves, died, botched their directional designing efforts in the use of fire, doesn't prove the absence of designing or creative intelligence at work, does it? Are you saying that mistakes in evolution should prove the absence of any creative or designing presence or principle in evolution???And, maybe it is possible that the gas range is a product of a huge number of coincidental events that just look like design. We can know that because no designer or intelligence would have made all those errors.
Barry

quote:

---

Are you saying that mistakes in evolution should prove the absence of any creative or designing presence or principle in evolution???

---

I'm saying you're presenting your personal philosophy and expecting science to validate it at all costs. You want to see intelligent design in nature, regardless of whether there is evidence of this intelligence. I guess there's no conceivable evidence that could convince you that your intelligent designing presence doesn't exist, so it's hardly a scientific hypothesis.I'm not saying the chaos of evolution proves anything about intelligent design except that this type of inquiry is outside the realm of real science.

quote:

---

And, maybe it is possible that the gas range is a product of a huge number of coincidental events that just look like design. We can know that because no designer or intelligence would have made all those errors.

---

This is the rock-solid foundation of your Magic Happy Love Science, that the diversity and complexity of nature is just like, well, a gas range. It's a new one.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

quote:
Not all scientists do, and not all feel the need to. The problem is those who assume design, who do research with the end goal of finding evidence thereof, simply to justify their emotional need for a creator god. I don't assume absence of design. I assume that I can understand the world by observing and inferring, and by learning from others who do the same. If there were anyone who presented arguments for design, without having a pre-existing emotional requirement for their work to lead them to that point of view, I would find that compelling, and would take their work seriously. I just haven't ever heard of such a person.I agree with this statement. I also feel that there is a significant element in the scientific community who, because of the efforts of those with a "design" agenda, take an oppositional position based on an emotional requirement to refute.What I find objectionable is that many scientists react to anyone who presents the possibility that there may be more than one way to understand the relationship of things..such as the emergence of human intelligence and the instinct to create using reproduction and natural selection of designing ideas could be a possible expression of universal designing presence.. means that I have taken a position and am insisting that this is how I prove the existence of God..There was a time when some people believed there was an invisible presence that visited itself on human beings causing sickness and death. Others didn't believe in that at all. Both were right and wrong to some extent. Who, on either side of that argument, could have predicted what the lens revealed. And, if we would have absolutely refused to consider the idea that there was something living that interacted with human beings and that was invisible to the naked eye...well, you know what I mean.My only point is that an open mind characterized by truly open ended questioning and research is the best position...like the position you've described for yourself.So, new ideas regarding the relationships of things - the possible relationshiup of the emergence of human intelligence and the instinct to design to universal intelligence and design - do not prove anything...but, they should not always be taken as attempts to impose a religious agenda on science...could just be a question...something like the age old question: is there a relationship between the visible world and some invisible world? Who, a few hundred years ago, could have presented any credible argument supporting that a relationship like that existed?[This message has been edited by Barryven, 07-31-2003]

I'm afraid that there is an emotional component involved. And some polarizing and hardening of views. This is just human.Lets entertain the idea of some designer (space aliens or whatever). If any real evidence now arose there would be a greater struggle to get it looked at because of the poor science of the ID'ers to date. That's not what should happen but, as I said, we are humans.

quote:

---

I agree with this statement. I also feel that there is a significant element in the scientific community who, because of the efforts of those with a "design" agenda, take an oppositional position based on an emotional requirement to refute.

​

What I find objectionable is that many scientists react to anyone who presents the possibility that there may be more than one way to understand the relationship of things..such as the emergence of human intelligence and the instinct to create using reproduction and natural selection of designing ideas could be a possible expression of universal designing presence.. means that I have taken a position and am insisting that this is how I prove the existence of God..

---

I'm resisting the urge to scream "but they started it!"Seriously though, I think that's a good perspective; and, like Nosy said, we're all human. It's hard for anyone not to get emotionally attached to their ideas, however rational and fact-based they may be. I won't claim that I'm as open-minded and objective as the ideal position I described. I simply hold it as a high virtue to which I aspire.

MrHambre<< I'm saying you're presenting your personal philosophy and expecting science to validate it at all costs. You want to see intelligent design in nature, regardless of whether there is evidence of this intelligence. I guess there's no conceivable evidence that could convince you that your intelligent designing presence doesn't exist, so it's hardly a scientific hypothesis.>>Yeah, you said the samething about me and it doesn't hold water. You can't make the case that ID theorists have anymore of a philosophical need to see design in nature than the materialist has a desire to see no design in nature. In fact, it seems to me the materialist is more dogmatic on these matters than the ID'er. This is clear from one simple fact. ID'ers can accept instances of Darwinian evolution and like Behe can even accept common ancestry but the materialistic Darwinist can't accept that anything in nature was designed. In fact they can't even site one thing in nature that even causes them to merely suspect design.As for there being no conceivable evidence that could convince me ID was wrong, here is a little something to refresh your memory. I previously told you that if life was not built around encoded information and sophisticated machines, and if the Miller-Urey type experiments did lead to nice theories/demonstrations of abiogenesis, I would not suspect design at all. Now if you are not presenting your personal philosophy and expecting science to validate it at all costs then please submit what conceivable evidence would cause you to merely suspect some aspect of biotic reality was the product of intelligent design. Notice I said cause you to suspect ID not convince you of ID. Things that would convince a person of ID would be things like seeing the designer in action, finding a secret message written in the cell, finding something in nature that couldn't possibly evolve etc. On the other hand, it should only take subtle clues to merely raise a suspicion of ID. Subtle clues are what cause you to suspect abiogenesis, right? So why don't you tell us what subtle clues would cause you to suspect ID? If you can't do that I suggest you have a philosophical need to see no design in nature.[This message has been edited by Warren, 07-31-2003]

quote:

---

You can't make the case that ID theorists have anymore of a philosophical need to see design in nature than the materialist has a desire to see no design in nature.

---

Oh, Warren, you are the most hopelessly predictable purveyor of semantic nonsense I've ever run across. How many times have you come up with this tired old canard, and how many times have we tried to impress upon you how sadly and irretrievably you are mistaken?One more time. Science isn't going to prove or disprove anything as far as ontological naturalism, i.e. the existence or non-existence of a Grand Designer behind all chemical reactions and Intervening Intelligence who creates complex natural systems. Methodological naturalism is merely a realistic constraint used by believers and nonbelievers alike to ensure that scientific results are consistent, repeatable, and verifiable.Science is only going to come up with material mechanisms for natural processes. You are free to believe that these mechanisms are controlled or guided by an Intelligence, but there will never be any way to scientifically support this philosophical opinion. If your version of New Age Magic Happy Love Science makes you feel good, that's great. If it makes you feel good to suspect that the rest of us (and any scientists who fail to acknowledge the Grand Designer) are merely looking for ways to defend our rabid atheism and immorality, that's great. Just great.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

Warren,You said:
"Subtle clues are what cause you to suspect abiogenesis. Right? So why don't you tell us what subtle clues would cause you to suspect ID? If you can't do that I suggest you have a philosophical need to see no design in nature."By the same logic I could ask you to tell us what subtle clues would cause you to suspect that George W. Bush is a destructive robot from the future. If you couldn't do that I would suggest you have a philosophical need to see no such robot in your president.But that wouldn't be sensible, would it? I think we can agree on that. But then I ask you: what's the difference between my suggestion and yours?Cheers.