|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1478 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A thought on Intelligence behind Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warren Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3775 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
Warren writes:
[q]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?[/q] 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 !
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Interesting. You insist that I am wrong yet you ignroe the objectiosn I raised.
Couild it be because you know that I am not wrong and that the ID arguments HAVE failed ? 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. Please show my how Dembski's filter can be practically applied to biology 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 !)If even Dembski cannot apply his own method in a sensible way (and he tried and failed) then it is in big trouble. And no, ID critics do NOT account for molecular machines on the basis of pure chance. Evolution is not pure chance. 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 (and there are excellent grounds for suspecting political reasons for this reluctance). The critics aren't to blame for the strategy of the ID movement - so put the blame where it belongs. Moreover evolution is a THEORY - that means that it is an overarching framework - and it is a successful theory, too. So of course evolution will be applied by default to features that appear within its domain. Not that that default is intended to be a permanent state of affairs but there are only so many evolutionary biologists and so many species that it would be absurd to expect detailed explanations of the evolution of everything. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. I just don't see how you can ignore the fact that when humans do design, it's nothing like life. And when we don't design, when we use GP, which is the opposite of intelligent design, we get things that approach similarity with living systems - redundant parts, feedback effects, components put to multiple, unrelated uses. You just can't design this stuff. I just find that too compelling to ignore. The evidence from design is not that life was designed; it's that life is too complex to have been designed. Maybe you can explain why you disagree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1478 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
In science we pu forward hypotheses ... if they can be refuted
then we must conclude that the hypothesis is inaccurate. ID proponents say 'this could not have evolved.' This statementis refuted as soon as someone can present a biologically feasible route by which the evolution could have happened. This has happened over and again. This (in any other scientific discipline) would lead a proponentto the possibility that the argument is not quite right (at least). To then say 'But you don't know that that IS what happened.' isirrelevent (it's unsupported for a start). The test was 'cannot evolve' the refutation is the 'it could like this'. It's that simple.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1478 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I'd also add that I think it unlikely as it would
proove impossible to build a safety case for a design that no-one knew how it worked. In aerospace safety is paramount, and there must always becomplete traceability in the event of a failure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1478 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
All (1) says is that life has the appearance of design.
We are not disputing this ... genetic algorithms suggest thatwe do not require an 'intelligent designer' to produce complex, patentable designs via an evolutionary process. (2) is one way of looking at the fact of biological systems.Fundamentally biological systems are vastly complex chemical systems ... the emergent property of which is life. That many of us find it hard to beleive that such things couldhave come about by chance is not suprising ... evolution isn't about chance ... it's about filtering out the bits that are better suited to the prevailing conditions. The question rasied here is about the inference of 'intelligence'behind these 'designs'. With Mount Rushmore we don't need inference, we know it wasdesinged. If we find a watch in a field we assume design becuase we know about watches (and in our experience watches are built by people) ... but what about primitive cultures, like those that thought the conquistadors mounted on horseback were some kind of centaurian gods, or that aircraft were great silver birds? What evidence points to 'intelligence' when there is evidence thatpoints to 'designed' objects coming out of non-intelligent processes ... life is a 'dumb design' not an 'intelligent design'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warren Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warren Inactive Member |
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-teleologistsshould 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I see that you have refused to argue my criticism of Dembski's argument (despite insisting that my criticism was wrong) and misrepresent my criticsm of Behe's.
As I stated Behe rueld out indirect routes of evolution for irreducibly complex systems on the basis of an unsupported assertion that the probability was too low. Rather than support this assertion you have chosen to argue that since Behe never claimed it was absolutely impossible there can't be anything wrong with his argument! Evolutionary scenarios for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum have been produced - see : Page not found | Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences | University of Adelaide I also see that you think that because I hold ID proponents responsible for their own strategy of argumentation I am not allowed to point out how those arguments fail.Let me make it simple for you. Behe and Dembski use negative arguments. Those arguments have failed for lack of sufficient rigour. You claim that they have not failed, therefore it is up to you to show that the arguments are sufficiently rigourous. My opinion of the value of negative arguments is not relevant. And no, I have not misrepresented you. You focus on "mere possibility" but is it not the case that scientists are investigating how the evolution of these structures occurred ? As I point out even mere possibility is enough for a tentative conclusion until further investigation can be done. If you wish to dispute that please go to the earlier post where I explain why that is the case. Now why don't you show me an example of your "testable ID hypotheses" that have been rejected ? Whether I can think of ways to prove that the flagellum was designed has no bearing on that - after all you are claiming that there is a way. If you can show that it doesn't matter if I manage to think of it or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warren Inactive Member |
Peter<< In science we put forward hypotheses ... if they can be refuted
then we must conclude that the hypothesis is inaccurate. ID proponents say 'this could not have evolved.' This statement is refuted as soon as someone can present a biologically feasible route by which the evolution could have happened. This has happened over and again. >> This is such nonsense. Once again, ID doesn't argue that evolution isimpossible. If your are arguing for the merely possible then fine. Have at it. Just don't expect to convince me with such a weak argument. Peter<to the possibility that the argument is not quite right (at least). To then say 'But you don't know that that IS what happened.' is irrelevent (it's unsupported for a start). The test was 'cannot evolve' the refutation is the 'it could like this'. It's that simple. >> Wrong. The test was never "this cannot evolve". I'm sure there are some ID apologists that make this argument but ID scientists like Behe and Dembski don't. [This message has been edited by Warren, 06-18-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1478 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
So what claims does ID make based upon irreducible
complexity? I thought it was along the lines that 'IC systems could nothave evolved in a step-wise manner by succesive small changes therefore they must have been designed 'as is''.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: Whoops! Cheerfully withdrawn. ----------------------------- Dan Carroll
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warren Inactive Member |
PaulK<< I see that you have refused to argue my criticism of Dembski's argument (despite insisting that my criticism was wrong) and misrepresent my criticsm of Behe's.
You are misrepresenting Dembski and Behe if you are claiming they argue that evolution is impossible. PaulK: "As I stated Behe ruled out indirect routes of evolution for irreducibly complex systems on the basis of an unsupported assertion that the probability was too low. Rather than support this assertion you have chosen to argue that since Behe never claimed it was absolutely impossible there can't be anything wrong with his argument!" Darwinian evolution is serial direct evolution. Yes, that kind of evolution can't produce an IC system. However, indirect evolution isn't Darwinian evolution. If the origin of an IC system depends on multiple parts just happening to have a useful subfunction, then the origin of that system relies heavily on converging independent, random events. Now there is no way to prove that kind of evolution impossible. You might as well dispense with Darwinism altogether and claim the flagellum just poofed into existence out of thin air and then challenge me to prove your claim impossible. When it comes to the origin of IC, Darwin has been abandoned. We can see now, from your response, that in Darwin’s place, we get the raw metaphysics of the non-teleologist, invoking pure chance for the origin of machines. The answer? The flagellum was poofed into existence by chance. The argument you use is a justification of invoking such poofing, which basically argues that with enough tries, something like the flagellum will poof into existence. This is thus a tacit concession that the Darwinian mechanism fails to explain the origin of IC. [This message has been edited by Warren, 06-18-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warren Inactive Member |
PaulK<< Let me make it simple for you. Behe and Dembski use negative arguments.>>
Behe and Dembski don't argue that something couldn't have evolved therefore it must have been designed. This is an argument that the ID critics try to force ID proponents into. It goes something like this. I ask an ID critic what they would count as evidence that ID was behind the origin of the flagellum. Nine times out of ten the reply is "demonstrate that it couldn't possibly have evolved." They are attempting to bait me into a negative argument and if they succeed they will then complain about negative arguments! I'm not about to fall into that trap. It would be amusing to see an ID critic propose a positive argument and actually try to provide some data that indicate the eubacterial flagellum did indeed evolve because of differential reproductive success. If you want a positive argument then don't ask for evidence that something couldn't evolve. So Paul, why don't you tell us what evidence would cause you to suspect that ID was behind the origin of the flagellum? Notice I didn't ask you what would convince you the flagellum was designed. I'm asking you what would merely cause you to suspect the flagellum was designed. [This message has been edited by Warren, 06-18-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024