A thought on Intelligence behind Design

Ahhhhhh... at last a true to life ID theorist! I welcome your presence here Warren, as faux IDers have been mucking up the waters of debate for some time now.That said, I have to disagree with some of the points you have made. PaulK is totally correct that ID theory (as part of its argument) argues for the PRACTICAL impossibility of a thing as proof of ID. Your responses have not countered this point at all, except to shift debate to another part of the ID argument.To put things more clearly, ID theory uses a two prong approach in dealing with evolutionary explanations for observed phenoma.One is to present positive evidence of design. This involves an appeal to use the same scientific criteria we use to judge design in nonbiological phenomena to biological phenomena. In short, asking why should this distinction exist.The other is to raise questions about evolutionary explanations. This is where both Dembski and Behe (and to some lesser extent Wells) argue that evolutionary explanations for observed phenomena, while not logically impossible, are practically impossible and so should be discarded. This is advanced with an assumption that once evo theory is discarded other theories become equally or more viable.Dembski himself argues this point (calling it "eliminative induction") in his essay:
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC%2...In this article he further claims that those critical of this method are commiting the "argument of invincible ignorance." I dispute Dembski's position on this, but will leave that for some other thread.The point here is to show that much of ID's position and Behe's arguments in particular are a form of negative argument (used as a positive argument only in that it "weeds out" alternatives) and that it does so only by arguing practical (or in Dembski's words "pragmatic") impossibility.Sorry Warren, but that's from the horse's mouth (or to ID critics perhaps some other part of the equine).The problem from a critic's standpoint is that even if one accepts the second method (eliminative induction) as a form of argument, all it does is challenge specific known methods, without calling into question overall evo theory (which is NOT method specific). This is a point that seems to be missed by ID theorists.Even the popular paradigm of "slow, progressive changes based on genetic mutations" is not a crucial component of evolutionary theory. Punctuated-equilibrium has already altered the "slow, progressive" facet of that paradigm, and Lynn Margulis' work has challenged the "genetic mutation" portion.Evolutionary theory, being a general theory will stand whether those changes become major parts of the working paradigm, and if they eventually go away, replaced by more accurate or explanatory methods for the "evolutionary process."Another problem from the critics standpoint is that neither prong sets out a specific encompassing theory to explain what we see at all. In the first prong, we at least see an analogy that might raise some suggestions of a paradigm, but the second gives us nothing at all to work with.Given his acceptance of the eliminative induction method, one would think that Dembski could understand that ID gets weeded out due to its inability to coherently explain anything nearly as well, as its competitor.As a challenge to you, please show me any statement made by an ID theorist which says anything more than "there may be signs that an intelligent agent may have had a hand in something." I have yet to see any connecting theories which actually explain what I am experiencing every day, and how that took place in the past.------------------
holmes

I'm sorry, this is not how proper science is done. This means one is trying to answer very grandiose questions from the start, rather than looking at small phenomena and building up a larger theory. Again, this is not science. It isn't even proper scientific method used to determine "intelligent agency" (such as forensic science, or SETI).The categories of designed versus not designed sciences are bogus. Astronomy, chemistry. meteorology etc etc are sciences dedicated to investigating/explaining what we see in those categories of natural phenomena, including forces and interactions. Engineering is a study of how to apply forces and interactions to affect changes. Neither is dedicated to studying intelligent or unintelligent phenomena.What I really love is the convenient missing science: biology. Hmmm, which nonbiological science is life most like?Why could the author not accept another possibility, that life is unlike both engineering and chemistry? That there is another category altogether which life is like. I guess for convenience I'd call it "biology." This has to be the biggest crock of... You seem very intelligent Warren, and I cannot believe you don't see the problem in the above statement.My incredulity aside, let me explain. Biology's use of teleological language is one of convenience through analogy. Engineering's use of teleological language is one of necessity because one is discussing how to design something.The idea that there is a "teleology" to biology is a false construct by ID theorists (Dembski in particular). What exactly is the end point of a dog? How about a dinosaur? An engineer can always tell you what the end point of a car is going to be, it's the car he's making! Biological organisms keep changing and they keep changing on their own, and there is no known endpoint except an arbitrary endpoint we designate along the "life" of an organism's changes. This is yet another confusion between the convenience of analogy and a description of reality.There is no such thing as "information" being passed between organisms, there are only chemicals. They react in certain ways. It is convenient for us to conceive (and more importantly to model) interactions/changes in these biochemical systems by using information system analogies. That is all.I find it highly ironic that Behe (in Darwin's Black Box) criticized this very mistaken way of thinking, yet the champion of its practice is his pal Dembski.I would also add that the quote by Davies thrown in at the end is not problematic to evolutionary theory at all, and if anything affects ID much more so.First of all it is in regards to abiogenesis, not evolution.Second (if we apply it to both abiogenesis and evolution) it points up the very thing that evos have been saying all along. Our current inability to explain observed phenomena are due to "new physical principles". Now whether those "principles" are an as yet unknown force (what Davies suggests), several unknown intermediary steps/conditions (what most evos currently suggest), or a wholly different way that biological entities interact (as Lynn Margulis suggests) remains to be seen.Either way it should be obvious that the latter two should be investigated and accepted as more likely candidates, than the more far reaching first option. This should be obvious as "unknown force" only becomes credible once manifestations of the two known forces are essentially ruled out (by thorough investigation). Why jump the gun?In fact, the "new force" does not necessitate an "intelligent force", so that would be further down the line of logical inquiry... unless one simply wants that last thing to be true.One has to be careful not to fall in love with one's models and analogies. They are not the real world. Whether guided by an intelligent force or not, the real world is only chemical interactions and physical forces.While one may apply scientific methodology to determine if a specific structure has been designed, none of the reasons given were credible to think such an investigation would be fruitful.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 06-18-2003]

You are correct that if something like Rushmore were found on the moon, it would likely be interpreted and investigated as a designed object.However, crashfrog is correct that such an interpretation would be made only if we recognized the "Rushmoon" as a depiction of something (not random shapes), made by chiseling techniques (not meteorite impacts), and that we know sculptors create chiseled depictions.This requires enough knowledge or experience of the moon and sculpting to rule out "random events" as an explanation by creating a more plausible overriding explanation of design.This has no equivalent in the study of biological organisms.While we are making some very strong progress, we are not close to having a clear picture of all the natural processes which make up any "living system."How then can one leap to claims of what could or could not have caused all bits and pieces of all living systems.Perhaps evos have done themselves a disservice by talking about "random mutations", rather than "unknown or unexplained mutations." The word random seems to fuel the fire of ID theorists who feel that a force of some kind beyond a "random event" is clearly indicated. And so since we see people creating structures similar to those seen in biology, a similar creation event would become the overriding explanation.Perhaps there is some force necessitated behind the changes, and maybe it was not wholly "random" (in the sense that ANYTHING GOES), but that does not mean it was intelligent by any means. Changes may be do to routine chemical reactions given certain conditions, of which we have not fully explored and so do not understand.No known natural processes, does not equate to no natural processes at all.We have a pretty good understanding of what natural processes could possibly effect the landscape of the moon.Not so with organisms... much less the microlevel of organisms which is what underlies the macro changes we see.Neither (as some have pointed out) have we seen any indication that there is an intelligent agency outside of humans, unless one starts with an assumption that life is a designed product. But that is circular reasoning.Lynn Margulis has discussed options beyond "random mutations" and she has done so with some pretty credible scientific research. While I do not think it impossible that a biochemist will eventually find a better explanation for the "unkown reason" biochemical systems change the way they do, Margulis' work is compelling as an overriding explanation for how and why many systems change.I find it upsetting that ID theorists do not deal with Margulis at all. Especially Behe. ID theorists act as if 1960's evolutionary paradigms are the only possibilities, when recent works hold much more realistic possibilities, moreso than reaching for "intelligent entities" of which we have no direct, or testable experience.Since you seem very well read, do you have any reason why Margulis' work should be ignored by ID as a plausible counter to ID claims?And why do you not address conventional evos's multi-stage pathways to complex systems. I understand that it is only a possibility that they are listing. But does that possibility not require full testing, before acceptance of a theory which involves an entity for which there is no physical evidence (the ever unseen designer)?------------------
holmes

I don;t claim that Behe or Dembski argue that evolution is impossible.They DO however argue that there are certain features which are so unlikely to evolve that we must reject the idea that they did evolve.Im Behe's case that is his claim for irreducibly complex systems
In Dembski's case that is his method - and he has even set a probability bound to use - 2^-500 (~10^-150, Dembski's "Universal Probablity Bound"And no, Darwinian evolution is NOT necessarily direct in Behe's sense. Only directed evolution - which is more properly seen as part of ID would proceed directly. Darwinian evolution is not teleological so it can and does proceed by indirection.To say that Darwinian evolution has been rejected as an explanation of IC systems is an absolute falsehood.

As Homes has said, and as I pointed out in my previous post, arguing against evolution is the only argument that Behe and Dembski propose.No ID critic sat down and forced Behe to write about Irreducible Complexity.No ID critic forced Dembski to write _The Design Inference_I find it quite amusing that an ID proponent has been reduced to insisting that the two main arguments produced by the ID movement are so bad that they ,ust have been created by opponents of ID.You claimed to have testable ID hypotheses - and you made that claim in the context of the flagellum. Well where are they ? I am not going to beat my brains out trying to find an ID argument strong enough to overcome the problem of positing an otherwise unevidenced designer (a crippling restriction which you appear to insist on - direct evidence of a potential designer would make things so much easier).
The simple fact is that "the" flagellum is not a very promising candidate for this sort of argument. Not only are there many, many variations - which ones are designed ? all of them ? one or a few "ur-flagellae" ? Never mind that we are dealing with an ancient molecular system which has a VERY long history that can only be inferred from what we find in modern organisms.No the real evidence for ID won't come from one or two examples - if it turns up at all. What we want is a real THEORY of ID - one that can take evoluion on head on. One that manages real predictions not, one that can be falsified by more than explaining the evolution of absolutely everything - and it was Dembski himself who offered THAT as a falsification of ID. But the ID movement doesn't want that at all.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.

Wouldn't it have been simpler if he'd just tatooed 'Another fine organism brought to you by GOD' on everyone's butt?

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.This is not the case.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.And it's avoiding the subject of the OP:::If evolutionary process can be shown to produce complex,
apparently designed objects (genetic algorithms producing
patentable circuits) then we have separated 'design' from
'intelligence'.Showing that something can be considered 'designed' is no longer
sufficient to support ID ... one must show 'intelligence'.How does ID show 'intelligence' if 'design' does not require
it?[This message has been edited by Peter, 06-19-2003]

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]

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?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<< 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]

And when the investigation fails to uncover evidence, at some point we recognize the fruitlessness of further research. And we certainly never accept the theory under investigation until there's some evidence. You don't have any. 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.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.Stick a fork in ID - it's done.

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]

I think you knew that I meant "proof" in the sense of a sufficient weight of evidence to grant tentative acceptance of a theory. You're just being disengenuous now.In terms of a weight of evidence, you don't have any for ID. So why should we accept the propositions of ID? You've granted there's no clear evidence - you've rejected the idea that there could be, in fact. And 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?)

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]