Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A thought on Intelligence behind Design
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 261 (43167)
06-17-2003 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Peter
06-16-2003 11:33 AM


A thought on Intelligence behind Design
Peter<< Given the 'genetic programming' model of evolution, and the
highly complex results leads me to conclude that 'design' is
possible via mechanistic process being directed by some form
of selective pressure. This removes the need for intelligence. >>
William Dembski<< No genetic algorithm or evolutionary computation has designed a complex, multipart, functionally integrated, irreducibly complex system without stacking the deck by incorporating the very solution that was supposed to be attained from scratch.>>

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Peter, posted 06-16-2003 11:33 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2003 3:46 PM Warren has not replied
 Message 10 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 3:49 PM Warren has replied
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2003 4:40 PM Warren has not replied
 Message 22 by Rrhain, posted 06-17-2003 8:20 PM Warren has replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 261 (43171)
06-17-2003 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Warren
06-17-2003 3:32 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
Peter<< I have not seen any proof of 'IC cannot evolve' ... and
opened a thread sometime ago suggesting it was an argument
from incredulity.>>
The ID argument isn't that certain things can't evolve. It's impossible to prove a negative. ID critics try to put ID proponents in the position of proving the impossible. Where is the evidence that the flagellum DID evolve? Arguing that something is merely possible is about as weak an argument as there can be.
"Any one of us can come up with multiple, plausible stories concerning the evolution of a given biological feature. But plausibility is about the weakest criterion one can apply to an evolutionary hypothesis." - Robert Dorit, Biology Dept., Yale University
[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 3:32 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 4:16 PM Warren has not replied
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2003 4:53 PM Warren has replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 261 (43178)
06-17-2003 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Warren
06-17-2003 3:49 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
Crashfrog: "So what? This is not a description of living systems, in my view. Living systems aren't well designed, or functionally integrated - they only work well enough to reproduce. If an intelligent designer had designed life, especially the human body, I'd send the design back. ("Bleeding every 28 days?! Unacceptable!") "
Would you send your brain back? If your brain is poorly designed then how do you know the view you have just presented is correct? Why are you even debating this issue with other poorly designed brains? In any event, the human body isn't an IC system. The concept of IC in biology is mainly confined to systems within the cell such as molecular machines.
[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 3:49 PM Warren has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2003 4:37 PM Warren has not replied
 Message 47 by DBlevins, posted 06-18-2003 3:34 AM Warren has replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 261 (43182)
06-17-2003 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by NosyNed
06-17-2003 4:53 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
NosyNed: "The flagellum argument was that it COULD NOT have evolved. Thus showing that it could is enough to demolish that."
Absolutely false. As I said before, the ID argument isn't about proving something impossible. Here are some more comments from Dembski that points this out:
Note that to attribute such an incapacity to the Darwinian mechanism isn't to say that it's logically impossible for the Darwinian mechanism to attain such structures. It's logically possible for just about anything to attain anything else via a vastly improbable or fortuitous event. For instance, it's logically possible that with my very limited chess ability I might defeat the reigning world champion, Vladimir Kramnik, in ten straight games. But if I do so, it will be despite my limited chess ability and not because of it. Likewise, if the Darwinian mechanism is the conduit by which a Darwinian pathway leads to an irreducibly complex biochemical system, then it is despite the intrinsic properties or capacities of that mechanism. Thus, in saying that irreducibly complex biochemical structures are inaccessible to Darwinian pathways, design proponents are saying that the Darwinian mechanism has no intrinsic capacity for generating such structures except as vastly improbable or fortuitous events. Accordingly, to attribute irreducible complexity to a direct Darwinian pathway is like attributing Mount Rushmore to wind and water erosion. There's a sheer possibility that wind and water erosion could sculpt Mount Rushmore but not a realistic one.
Intelligent design's demonstration of the failure of Darwin's program is a combination of empirical and theoretical arguments. In both cases, however, the issue is one of connectivitycan the mechanism in question supply a step-by-step path connecting two otherwise disparate elements.
[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2003 4:53 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 5:50 PM Warren has not replied
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2003 5:52 PM Warren has not replied
 Message 19 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-17-2003 6:06 PM Warren has not replied
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2003 6:55 PM Warren has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 261 (43184)
06-17-2003 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Warren
06-17-2003 5:16 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
NosyNed: "The flagellum argument was that it COULD NOT have evolved. Thus showing that it could is enough to demolish that."
ID is not based on proving the impossible. You think the flagellum evolved because it's merely possible? Where is the evidence that the flagellum DID evolve? Where is the evidence that it was random mutations and natural selection that evolved the flagellum?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 5:16 PM Warren has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2003 5:55 PM Warren has replied
 Message 50 by Peter, posted 06-18-2003 5:58 AM Warren has replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 261 (43203)
06-17-2003 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
06-17-2003 5:55 PM


A thought on Intelligence behind Design
Crashfrog<< That's a subjective judgement - even if we didn't have photographic evidence of the carving of Mount Rushmore, we could reasonably assume that it was carved by sculptors because we see sculptors today, carving things out of stone. That's a process we can observe to this day.>>
What if Mount Rushmore was on the moon? What would you conclude produced it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2003 5:55 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2003 8:41 PM Warren has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 261 (43206)
06-17-2003 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Rrhain
06-17-2003 8:20 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
<< Take a look at the latest Boeing 777. It was completely designed by computer. >>
Yeah, ID had nothing to do with it. Give me a break!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Rrhain, posted 06-17-2003 8:20 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 8:55 PM Warren has replied
 Message 29 by Rrhain, posted 06-17-2003 8:55 PM Warren has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 261 (43215)
06-17-2003 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Warren
06-17-2003 8:33 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
PaulK << Both the major arguments of ID - Behe's irreducible complexity and Dembski's filter argue against the possiblity of evolution.
And both arguments have essentially failed.>>
Wrong and wrong. First of all, there is a difference between evolution and Darwinian evolution. In saying that irreducibly complex biochemical structures are inaccessible to Darwinian pathways, design proponents are saying that the Darwinian mechanism has no intrinsic capacity for generating such structures.
All the ID critic is doing is invoking pure chance for the origin of a molecular machine and then challenging the ID proponent to prove it impossible. I don't blame them. It must be comfy when your hypotheses about the world only need to be possible. Then to have a brand of metaphysics that converts the possible into the actual, unless the possible is proven impossible, my, now that's luxury.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 8:33 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 9:06 PM Warren has not replied
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 06-18-2003 4:06 AM Warren has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 261 (43222)
06-17-2003 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Warren
06-17-2003 8:55 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
Warren<< What if Mount Rushmore was on the moon? What would you conclude produced it? >>
Crashfrog<< We're not talking about Mount Rushmore on the moon; we're talking about life on Earth. So answer me this - when faced with trying to figure out what process gave rise to something, which is better: to explain it through the action of process we observe and can test in the present time; or to explain through the action of entities no longer present and inaccessable to scientific inquiry?>>
Warren<< Why didn't you answer my question? If Mount Rushmore was found on the moon what would you think produced it? The simple answer is you would suspect it was produced by beings with human-like intelligence. Right? That the entities are no longer present and accessable to scientific inquiry shouldn't prevent the logical inference to ID. >>
[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 8:55 PM Warren has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2003 9:11 PM Warren has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 261 (43242)
06-17-2003 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by NosyNed
06-17-2003 9:37 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
Why didn't you answer my question? If Mount Rushmore was found on the moon what would you think produced it?
Crashfrog<< It's a stupid question. There's no Mount Rushmore on the moon because sculptors have never lived on the moon. What's your point?>>
The point is simple. We don't need to observe intelligent designers making something in order to infer ID. If a simple mousetrap was found on Mars, scientists would infer a human-like intelligence made it. They wouldn't go looking for some non-intelligent mousetrap-making process.
Crashfrog<< why do you think it's better to imagine entities and processes that don't exist today to explain things that the natural processes we see today can easily explain? >>
Simple. No natural process could explain the existence of a mousetrap on Mars.
[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2003 9:37 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2003 10:10 PM Warren has replied
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2003 11:12 PM Warren has replied
 Message 63 by Silent H, posted 06-18-2003 5:58 PM Warren has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 261 (43248)
06-17-2003 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by NosyNed
06-17-2003 10:10 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
NosyNed: "You're right, I think, if the mousetrap was like mousetraps here. But if the mousetraps had sex and produced little mousetraps with wee little differences they might well infer that they evolved."
I see. If we found a self-replicating mousetrap on Mars we could dismiss intelligent design? I don't think so. What we would have is a super sophisticated mousetrap that far exceeds anything human technology can produce. A design inference in the case of a self-replicating mousetrap would be even stronger than in the case of a non-replicating mousetrap.
In the case of a self-replicating mousetrap you need to explain the origin of the advanced technology behind the self-replication. Using self-replication to explain the origin of self-replication is circular reasoning that explains nothing.
[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2003 10:10 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2003 10:40 PM Warren has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 261 (43262)
06-18-2003 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by crashfrog
06-17-2003 11:12 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
Warren<< The point is simple. We don't need to observe intelligent designers making something in order to infer ID.>>
Crashfrog<< No, you do. Mount Rushmoon, we suspect, was sculpted because sculptors on earth make similar sculptures. >>
Warren<< Finally, you got it! You would infer that a human-like intelligence designed Mount Rushmoon even though you have no independent evidence of their existence. Why? Because as you correctly point out, intelligent designers on earth make similar designs. Likewise, ID is a known mechanism for producing codes and machines. There is no evidence that geochemistry spawns molecular machines or codes, therefore, I suspect life is carbon-based nanotechnology. And so far, no one has given me a good reason to think my suspicion is mistaken.>>
[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2003 11:12 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Warren, posted 06-18-2003 1:58 AM Warren has not replied
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 06-18-2003 4:55 AM Warren has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 261 (43265)
06-18-2003 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Warren
06-18-2003 1:35 AM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
Crashfrog<< We're talking about life on earth, not mousetraps on mars, which don't exist. Life isn't a moustrap. It's nothing like a mousetrap, nor any other human artifact. So why apply the same rules as human artifacts? >>
I disagree, as one ID theorist puts it:
We begin by asking whether or not life itself owes its origin to design through intelligent intervention. To help us answer the question, we can look to examples other than life: things that are designed through intelligent intervention and things that are not designed through intelligent intervention. More specifically, we can look to engineering on one hand, and physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology, and astronomy on the other hand. Then, we simply ask into which of these hands is life a better fit. It is my position that life better fits in the class of things known to be designed through intelligent intervention.
(1) The study of life is much more like the study of engineering than any other field of science. This is clearly seen from the fact that teleological language and concepts are very important in biology and engineering, but essentially missing from the other fields of science. If life is designed, this makes much sense.
(2) Over the last few decades, the more we have learned about cell biology and molecular biology, the greater has grown the distance between chemistry and biology. Biological states are high information states and biological processes depend crucially on these high information states. Thus, in order for life to exist, we find such things as codes, sophisticated molecular machines, proof-reading of information, and quality control mechanisms. In the entire known non-living universe, such things are found only in artifacts and given that these things are at the very heart of life, the significance of the similarity is profound. In fact, note carefully the conclusions of physicist Paul Davies:
"If I am right that the key to biogenesis lies, not in chemistry, but with the formation of a particular logical and informational architecture, then the crucial step involved the creation of an information-processing system, employing software control. In chapter 4, I argue that this step was closely associated with the appearance of the genetic code. Bringing some of the language of computation to the problem, I have endeavored to throw light on the highly novel form of complexity that is found in the genes of living organisms. This peculiarity of biological complexity makes genes seem almost like impossible objects - yet they must have formed somehow. I have come to the conclusion that no familiar law of nature could produce such a structure from incoherent chemicals with the inevitability that some scientists assert. If life does form easily, and is common throughout the universe, then new physical principles must be at work."
Where in chemistry, astronomy, or geology do we find essential information-processing systems employing software control??
I maintain that (1) and (2) constitute a positive case for the design of life through intelligent intervention. While these reasons may be insufficient to prove design, or even generate a widespread consensus, they are sufficient for employing ID as a working hypothesis.
[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Warren, posted 06-18-2003 1:35 AM Warren has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Peter, posted 06-18-2003 6:26 AM Warren has not replied
 Message 62 by Silent H, posted 06-18-2003 5:41 PM Warren has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 261 (43312)
06-18-2003 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by DBlevins
06-18-2003 3:34 AM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
DBlevins<< The human brain is notoriously fallible. It remember's event's that didn't occur, or corrupts the memory of them (ie. so that they become placed in an improper timeline), it's emotional, irrational, prone to bout's of insanity, fragile, etc. It is a remarkable organ and one that beg's to be studied but it is by no mean's perfect! >>
Not perfect but good enough that we're suppose to take your reasoning seriously. Right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by DBlevins, posted 06-18-2003 3:34 AM DBlevins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Warren, posted 06-18-2003 1:31 PM Warren has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 261 (43321)
06-18-2003 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Warren
06-18-2003 12:10 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
PaulK<< Please show me how Behe rules out indirect routes of evolution. Not by assertion but by sound argument based on the actual evidence. Can you ? If not then am right and Behe's arguemnt has failed. >>
One more time. ID doesn't make any claims that evolution is impossible. You are aware that proving a negative is impossible. Right? So why are insisting that I argue this position?
PaulK<< Please show my how Dembski's filter can be practically applied to biology.>>
I don't know that it can. I'm not here to defend Dembski's filter. I never even brought it up.
PaulK<< while properly taking into account the possibility of evolutionary paths which are not yet known - (or even paths that are hypothesised in outline as in the case of the bacterial flagellum !) >>
Are you back to claiming evolution is merely possible? And I'm suppose to dispute that?
PaulK: "And no, ID critics do NOT account for molecular machines on the basis of pure chance. Evolution is not pure chance."
Show me a non-teleological hypothesis for the origin of the flagellum that doesn't invoke pure chance.
PaulK<< And contrary to your claim that ID critics have set up the position where ID arguments are refuted by showing evolution to be a possible explanation it is the ID proponents who have created the situation They are the ones who insist on relying on negative argumentation and refuses to put forward a testable positive hypothesis. >>
If you are against negative arguments why did you ask me to rule out indirect routes of evolution? Why are you requesting a negative argument from me and then turning around and complaining about negative arguments? ID critics who complain about negative arguments are the one's who want Darwinian evolution to be shown impossible before they will consider teleological explanations. Ask them what they would count as evidence for ID and 9/10 times you'll get some explanation that amounts to - show me something evolution cannot explain.
Testable hypotheses have been put forward but the ID critics won't accept any ID hypotheses that don't show them the designer or prove evolution impossible. If you dispute this then please submit what you would consider as evidence that the flagellum was designed.
PaulK<< Yet the core of your argument is that we SHOULD have those answers NOW or accept ID. It is easy to make unreasonable demands - but not much of an argument in your favour that you rely on doing so. ID on the other hand does not even HAVE a theory in this sense of the word so it is not even a viable competitor to evolution - and that is the fault of the ID movement.>>
You have totally misrepresented my position. I am not arguing that non-teleologists
should have all the answers or accept ID. I'm all in favor of the non-teleologists continuing on their merry way forever looking for non-intelligent processes that create biological novelty and complexity.
I am not the one arguing that non-teleologists are wrong and irrational and should think as I do. I simply explain an alternative way to view things and non-teleologists become threatened. Interesting.
[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Warren, posted 06-18-2003 12:10 PM Warren has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 06-18-2003 2:09 PM Warren has not replied
 Message 61 by Silent H, posted 06-18-2003 5:39 PM Warren 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