A thought on Intelligence behind Design

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 is
impossible. 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]

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]

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]

PaulK<< Here's one idea of evidence for ID. A maker's mark. A portion of DNA that is non-functional, yet conserved across all of life. One that is too long to be accounted for by chance. Yes it is something that evolution cannot explain - but it is ALSO plausible behaviour by a designer. And that makes it better evidence for a designer than any number of irreducibly complex systems. >>A message from the designer encoded in the cell is essentially a proof of ID. I asked you what evidence would cause you to merely suspect ID. Scientific investigations typically begin with a hunch or suspicion that follows up on subtle clues rather than something ostentatious that produces instant consensus. Your requirement that we find something ostentatious before we consider ID is a sure way to short-circuit any investigation into ID. If you expect ID to be investigated in a scientific manner then you should allow for an ID investigation to start with a suspicion that follows up on subtle clues.[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-19-2003]

Warren<< A message from the designer encoded in the cell is essentially a proof of ID. I asked you what evidence would cause you to merely suspect ID. >>Crashfrog<< You're seriously objecting to his proposal because it's too good? it would prove your point too well, so you don't like it?If there can't be any proof for ID, why should we suspect it at all?>>Warren<< I have no objection to someone submitting what they would consider proof for ID. I'm just pointing out that scientific investgations don't start out with proof. If we have proof of something then there is no need of an investigation. >>Crashfrog<< ID is being investigated because of some subtle "clues" that lead people to suspect ID. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about ID being an accurate conjecture. If we're to accept that it is, we need proof. >>Warren<< What does proof have to do with science? There is likewise no proof that life ever existed on Mars, but scientists and engineers plan on looking for it (or its traces).>>[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-19-2003]

Peter: "It's not that they just happen to have a useful sub-function
at all."Your argument shows that you have a (possibly sub-consious)
assumption that the current function of an IC system was it's
intended function all along.>>Warren<< I assume the current function of an IC system was it's
intended function all along unless there is evidence that this is not the case.>>Peter: "The sub-function (in Darwinian terms) provided some kind of
selective advantage and was passed on. Combine a number of
such effects and you get (not by random chance but by reason
of utility) complex interactions that cannot be backward decomposed
without breaking them.It's not about chance ... it's about utility."Warren<< Sure, one can imagine this was the case but again I'm not interested in mere possibilities. We are talking about history (What actually did happen). How about some evidence to support your nice little story? >>Peter<< If evolutionary process can be shown to produce complex,
apparently designed objects (genetic algorithms producing
patentable circuits) then we have separated 'design' from
'intelligence'.>>Warren<< I don't know that computer programs that attempt to mimic evolution actually map to biology. I have read articles by scientists that don't think they do. The one you are talking about doesn't seem to me to be really Darwinian, with truly random mutation. Also, if the `phenotype' is able to feedback directly to the `genotype' then this would be Lamarckian, not Darwinian. In the program you mention, the GA's cannot fail to work because they have been *designed* to infallibly achieve a goal of finding an optimal solution. Are you claiming that an intelligently designed algorithm which works within defined limits to infallibly achieve a desired goal, is an analogue of a blind watchmaking process? >>[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-19-2003][This message has been edited by Warren, 06-19-2003]

Crashfrog: "I just can't tell if you're joking. "What does proof have to do with science?" Proof is what we use to determine which theories to reject. Science isn't just random speculation; science has results."You must be joking if you think scientific theories are ever proven. You don't know what you are talking about. Scientific theories are based on evidence not proof.[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-19-2003]

Crashfrog: "People have been looking for evidence for ID for some time now. That none has been forthcoming is sufficient to reject the theory at this point."How can you say there is no evidence for ID if you don't know what evidence for ID would look like? It could be right in front of you and you wouldn't recognize it.[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-19-2003]

Crashfrog: " you never answered my first question - why is it better to resort to the actions of unknown, untestable entities when known, observed, natural processes suffice (by your own admission) to explain the existence of life? (Ever heard of Occam's Razor?)"I never said known, observed, natural processes suffice to explain the origin of life.As for Occam's razor, one problem I have with using the razor at this level is that if ID were in fact behind the origin of life the razor would tell us otherwise. There is no way to actually test the razor itself. All that can be said is that it has proven to a be a good rule of thumb but who knows if it can successfully distinguish between teleological and non-teleological causes at the origin of life?It's interesting that you mention unknown, untestable entities when current abiogenesis explanations invoke thousands of unknown, untestable entities in the form of imaginary, ill-defined precursors to the cell, unobserved simple sloppy entities with imaginary functions, evolving via imaginary selective advantages, and existing in imaginary environments.[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-19-2003]

MrHambre<< Behe and his acolytes are so stuck on analogies, why can't they see that a machine so jury-rigged that it will stop functioning if ONE part is removed isn't a testament to Intelligence at all? >>All machines have an irreducible core from which the removal of one part will cause it to cease functioning.[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-25-2003]

If removing a part doesn't cause a system to cease functioning then it wasn't IC to begin with. An IC system by definition is a system that can't be reduced any further without losing the function of the system.[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-25-2003]

MrHambre<< The Intelligence theorists... assume what they're trying to prove. >>Are you suggesting that proponents of the non-teleological view don't begin with the assumption that everything is explained by non-teleological causes and then seek to flesh out what they already believe?From such a position, all evidence must point to a non-teleological cause. If it doesn't, then it becomes "no evidence." That is, a non-teleologist has only two options - evidence for a non-teleological cause or the unknown. Thus, it is common for non-teleologists to interpret the fact that there is no evidence for their positions to mean we are dealing with the unknown. This also explains why it is that when non-teleologists are asked what type of data they would consider evidence for ID, they inevitably retreat into the realm where they demand certain proofs of ID. They are so indebted to their world view that it is not possible for them to tolerate an ID inference because it is only an inference. They demand proof and certainty. There are no subtle clues from nature that would cause a non-teleologist to suspect ID at the origin of life. On the other hand, all that's needed to convince them a non-teleological cause was behind the origin of life is a plausible "could have happened" story.[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-25-2003]

MrHambre: "So if you agree that the blood clotting cascade is IC, then dolphins shouldn't be able to do without the Hagemann factor. However, if you agree that the Intelligent Design is in their ability to do without that important step, you've effectively refuted Behe."Irreducible complexity does not imply there is only one way of doing something, it just implies that one particular system will cease functioning if changed. What if dolphins just have a different pathway for blood clotting, which is also irreducibly complex?Actually, I have long stated that I employ the concept of IC with regard to molecular machines and neither the mammalian middle ear or the blood clotting cascade qualifies.[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-25-2003]

MrHambre<< However, my argument is that using IC as evidence for Intelligent Design is presumptuous. Why is this property (however it's defined) your automatic proof of Intelligent Intervention? What is it about this particular property that justifies an inference of Intelligent Design?>>I never claimed to have proof of ID. ID is an inference. My ID inference hinges on the fact that molecular machines are machines (as all machines are IC at some level). They are not like machines - they are machines. What's more, life itself is machine-dependent (which means evolution, as we have observed it and its evidence, has been driven by machines). Now, I do indeed find it unlikely that machines are going to come into existence through random shuffling of parts that were not originally part of the machine, especially when the process of random shuffling is machine-dependent itself. But that's merely a supplemental consideration. The primary consideration is that experience leads me to connect machines with an intelligent origin. Call me crazy but I confess to assigning machines to engineering-type causes rather than rock-forming causes. Something about effects of the same kind being assigned to the same causes. Not enough to establish design, but enough to cause me to suspect it.[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-25-2003]

quote:It's extremely convenient that you should limit IC to structures too small fossilize and therefore extremely difficult to establish any sort of developmental pathway in detail.Zephyr<< Extremely convenient. It's awfully fertile ground for an argument from ignorance. I'm a fairly intelligent person and I have a hard time following technical discussions in that area. Even so, I knew enough to lose interest in Behe's book when he began building them up as a refutation of unguided evolution. >>There's nothing convenient about it. This just happens to be where the design inference is the strongest for me. The evidence for design comes from matching cause and effect. For example, scientists did not expect life to be built around a highly optimized code. They did not expect life to be built around so many sophisticated and elaborate molecular machines. But they did expect to easily solve the origin-of-life puzzle after the Miller-Urey experiments. 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.I thought we all agreed that the OOL and evolution were separate topics. Therefore, explanations that may apply in evolution don't apply at the OOL. So on what basis should I assume that the process that produced the mammalian middle ear is the same process that produced the flagellum?[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-25-2003]