Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 76 of 261 (43449)
06-19-2003 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Warren
06-19-2003 5:20 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Warren, posted 06-19-2003 5:20 PM Warren has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2003 5:55 PM Warren has not replied
 Message 80 by Andya Primanda, posted 06-20-2003 4:29 AM Warren has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 77 of 261 (43450)
06-19-2003 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Warren
06-19-2003 5:20 PM


How can you say there is no evidence for ID if you don't know what evidence for ID would look like? You could be looking right at it and not recognize it.
If you can't explain what it is, if no one can provide an explanation of what evidence for design would be, how can we look for it? How can a reasonable person propose a model of ID if no one can even explain what the evidence for the model would look like? Do you really expect us to take this stuff seriously?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Warren, posted 06-19-2003 5:20 PM Warren has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 78 of 261 (43451)
06-19-2003 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Warren
06-19-2003 5:30 PM


I never said known, observed, natural processes suffice to explain the origin of life.
You agreed that natural processes have a non-zero probability of creating life. If abiogenesis isn't against the laws of physics than it is possible, and natural explanations are sufficient. Or are you using a different definition of "sufficent" perhaps?
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.
Not so. Occam's razor doesn't rule out the possibility of human sculptors creating Mount Rushmore. So obviously Occam's razor can't eliminate the possibility of intelligent design where there is evidence of intelligent designers.
If humans had "Property of God" on their butts, Occam's razor couldn't stop us from proposing the existence of god. What Occam's razor does do is remind us not to needlessly invent entities who are forever removed from scientific inquiry.
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.
To the contrary. While abiogenesis theories will always be hampered by the lack of fossil records, nothing ever proposed in any natural abiogenesis theory will be physically impossible or unreplicatable under controlled conditions.
I can't show how life started on earth. I don't have a time machine. What I can do is propose a model and test it - does it work in the lab under assumed primordial conditions? If so, it's a viable explanation for the origin of life.
Where's your creator? How does it create? These are questions that can't be escaped, no matter how many ID theorists say who the creator is doesn't matter. It does matter. If the existence of a creator can be inferred from creation, then that creator falls under the purview of science. But if we can't ever find any independant evidence for the existence of said creator, we need to come up with an explanation for "creation" that doesn't involve a creator.
Hence, evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Warren, posted 06-19-2003 5:30 PM Warren has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 79 of 261 (43452)
06-19-2003 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Warren
06-19-2003 3:23 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
OK, if we find a potential makers mark in a few organisms then that is grounds to *suspect* ID - and can be further investigated by looking at more organisms.
Much better would be evidence of a potential designer.
But why can't your researchers find their own grounds to investigate ID ? Why do they need me to think of potential lines of investigation ? It's not as if I am taking any active role in STOPPING them so how can it be the case that I am not allowing them to do their research as you say ?
pADDED in Edit
And where are these testable ID hypotheses you mentioned. Is there any reason why you keep ignoring my request for you to tell us what they are ?
[This message has been edited by PaulK, 06-19-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Warren, posted 06-19-2003 3:23 PM Warren has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by PaulK, posted 06-26-2003 3:43 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 261 (43460)
06-20-2003 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Warren
06-19-2003 5:30 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
Hi Warren,
As I consider it, living things have both the 'appearance of design' (complexity, etc.) and 'appearance of common descent' (nested hierarchy, shared characters)
Suppose your proposition of ID and IC is correct. Then we may postulate that God created the flagella and put it in its place.
But as far as my judgement goes, IC/ID guys are not addressing the question of common descent. God could have created the ur-cell with all the machinery needed (Behe's scenario in 'Darwin's Black Box') but it would still have to diverge into millions of species that ever lived. AS far as I know, ID theorists does not attempt to take this into account, while Michael Behe opted for evolution by natural selection.
I'd like to know how ID explains what evolution explains best: nested hierarchy. For instance, the Designer designed cats ranging from housecats to lions, cheetahs and sabretooths, but apparently He is constrained by the initial 'cat' design so He cannot design, for instance, a herbivorous cat, or an aquatic cat with paddles or flippers... Evolution explains this as a pattern of common descent and evolutionary constraint, but I have yet to hear a good explanation from the other camp. What prevented the Designer from going beyond nested hierarchy?
On the other hand, if you agree with Behe that all those diversity is because of plain old evolution, then let me know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Warren, posted 06-19-2003 5:30 PM Warren has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 81 of 261 (43463)
06-20-2003 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Warren
06-19-2003 4:36 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
quote:
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.>>
Why take that particular stance?
I thought you were seeking evidence of ID ... your comment above
is founded in the framework of ID being the correct proposition.
If you believe that something indeed has an intended function
you are automatically assuming intelligent design (since only
an intelligent designer can have an intent).
quote:
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? >>
Try a web-search on current ideas for the evolution of feathers.
I read an article in Scientific American about research into
developmental biology wrt evolution. They have suggested a
possible route to the evolution of modern avian feathers based
upon the current growth and development of such. To support
this they have uncovered fossil evidence of the stages along
the way.
quote:
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? >>
First, the program is not designed to achieve a specific goal
(what would be the point of that?). By a process of reproduction
and mutation the circuit output is compared to the desired output.
Those that match best are allowed to reproduce (and random
mutations are introduced).
In one case, when the target signal was an oscillator, the process
produced a radio receiver.
I always see the argument 'Yes but the program was intelligently
designed.' But the program simply runs the 'rules of nature' that
are suggested by evolutionary theory.
...and how does the phenotype feedback into the genotype in this
process anyhow??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Warren, posted 06-19-2003 4:36 PM Warren has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 82 of 261 (43471)
06-20-2003 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Warren
06-19-2003 5:20 PM


ID Evidence
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 is a very pertinent question. Permit me to turn it around on you. What evidence has ID generated that would grant the speculation some basis or foundation?
1. If you postulate the existence of designed, irreducibly complex biological systems, what type of evidence would you expect to find that leads science to this conclusion and a de facto rejection of non-teleological cause(s)? How would we distinguish a "designoid" system (i.e., one which appears designed but is in fact natural), from an intelligently designed system, or from a purely natural, albeit irreducible, system? IOW, how does ID move away from accusations of "incredulity" arguments or negative argumentation based on "don't know yet"?
2. If you postulate the existence of complex specified information as a criteria (Dembski's explanatory filter), what type of evidence would you expect to find that allows you to distinguish between CSI "created" by a designer and "apparent CSI" (Dembski's term) that is purely natural? If you use the design filter's probability calculations as a basis, how do you determine the probability of something without knowing the causative history of the phenomenon? In the event the filter indicates design because of a probability calculation, how does ID rule out the impact of new knowledge or techniques that change the background conditions upon which the original calculation were predicated? Finally, how does CSI and the explanatory filter rule out false positives or the action of confounding variables?
3. What specific observations have been made that lead the early ID "pioneers" to derive ID as a working hypothesis? Darwin, for example, used biogeography, animal husbandry, Malthusian population dynamics, etc, in developing the theory of descent with modification. What is the ID equivalent?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Warren, posted 06-19-2003 5:20 PM Warren has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 83 of 261 (43758)
06-23-2003 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peter
05-14-2003 6:21 AM


I'm a bit confused as to how Gould would intend his miltons and franlikns to cash INTO your question to the exclusion of Gould's view on geneic selectionism for Dawkins said in BUT IS IT SCIENCE eds Ruse"I agree with Maynard Smith(1969) that "The main task of any theory of evolution is to explain adaptive complexity, i.e. to explain the same set of facts which Paley used as evidence of a Creator." I suppose people like me might be labeled neo-Paleyists, or perhaps "transformed Paleyists." We concur with Paley that adaptive complexity demands a very special kind of explanation: either a Designer as Paley taught, or something such as natural selection that does the job of a designer. Indeed, adaptive complexity is probably the best diagnostic of the presence of life itself."
and yet Gould DOES NOT give GALTON's TIPPED% polygon any meat in his extension of the core Darwinian logic aka extending NS which to me he should to meet Dawkins head on without A PRIORI Prejudice. It may be merely that Gould refuses to think of Morphology as a CAUSE of constraint even in the positive sense.
I suspect however that this is a fau confusion for when ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY was out and being read I simple could not find that Gould *saw* Conants Eastern Herp Newt Plate in the correct colors. I guess I had agreed that you *understood* this explanation. It is true that some may not be able yet to "follow" Gould's discussion of the inverted vertebrate/invertebrate nervous system aka Geoffroy but I certainly have seen and stated on the web that books tend to make me look at skin cells as turned with respect to any nervous system picture and it is not "crazy" to which Gould could it that instance of a pargraph gainsaid and cut down on the txt. I hope this helps. Best Brad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peter, posted 05-14-2003 6:21 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 84 of 261 (43785)
06-23-2003 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Warren
06-18-2003 2:22 PM


Dembski's Blunders
I’m not persuaded at all by Dembski’s work, and perhaps the reason conventional science hasn’t bowed before him and dismantled the outmoded edifice of methodological naturalism at his behest is not philosophical stonewalling but because others share my misgivings.
The basis of Dembski’s inference of intelligent intervention is Complex Specified Information, but that impressive term boils down to ‘complexity in nature’. Information theory treats all information as complex and specified. Dembski distinguishes between a string of merely ordered numbers (like 12357) and a string of numbers that demonstrates CSI (like the entire series of prime numbers from 1 to 101), but never tells us what the magic threshold is where order crosses over into the realm of CSI. He simply knows it when he sees it.
Dembski claims that other sciences utilize the three-stage explanatory filter to infer intelligent intervention, so why not biology? This might seem logical to him, but there are more significant differences between forensics and archaeology on the one hand and biology on the other than ID is willing to admit. I liked Dembski’s example of election commissioner/fiddler Nicholas Caputo, and I fully agree that intelligent intervention is the correct inference in this case. But is the Caputo example applicable to detecting intelligent intervention in biology? It’s always easy to disqualify chance, so I’ll say chance is no issue. However, moving on to necessity illustrates the differences between biology and election-rigging. In the Caputo case, it’s difficult to conceive of any physical or material mechanism that could produce an outcome of any kind. Am I right in drawing a blank there? It’s easy to move on in the Caputo case, but it’s nowhere near that easy in biology. All the time there are new theories being offered about material mechanisms, and Dembski’s explanatory filter must at least claim to take them into account. When the subject is ancient biology, I feel that gauging the likelihood of any or all material mechanisms affecting the outcome is a much more difficult enterprise than Dembski lets on. However, the final step of concluding intelligent intervention is the one that illustrates how different biology and electoral politics are. Caputo’s identity, motives, methods, and political affiliation are all known. They all are essential in our inference of intelligent intervention, and any could conceivably have falsified our inference (for example, if Caputo had been a Republican). No information whatsoever exists about the Intelligent Intervener responsible for the bacterial flagellum.
Dembski also makes it seem like his explanatory filter is least likely to produce an inference of intelligent intervention, since that step comes only after he’s gauged the likelihood of chance and necessity. However, the opposite is actually true. He’s made it so he can assume the probability of design is 100% after he’s disqualified the other two options, but I think there are good reasons to weigh the probability of intelligent intervention independently. An archaeologist who claimed to have ‘inferred’ intelligent intervention in an artifact that was hundreds of millions of years old would still have questions to answer concerning the probability of intelligent intervention that far in the past. The more likely design inference would be fraud. (Does that help Dembski’s case?) In effect, while it infers exactly the same thing as the archaeologist, ID considers further questions concerning the likelihood of intelligent intervention in ancient molecular biology both unanswerable and irrelevant.
------------------
"Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow."
-John Lennon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Warren, posted 06-18-2003 2:22 PM Warren has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 06-23-2003 3:58 PM MrHambre has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 85 of 261 (43786)
06-23-2003 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by MrHambre
06-23-2003 3:50 PM


Re: Dembski's Blunders
I see Dembski's argument as being rather simpler.
Dembki uses his own definition of "complexity" derived from probability. Typically he then confuses it with the more usual idea of "complexity". Whether he does so dishonestly or unthinkingly assumes that the ideas are equivalent I do not claim to know.
The one attempt at actually applying his version of CSI to biology seems to have been the flagellum calculation in _No Free Lunch_ - which contributed nothing since it relied on using - or rather abusing - Behe's Irreducible Complexity.
In fact Dembski assumed exactly what Warren claims ID proponents do not due - he assuemd that Ireducibly compext systems could not evolve. That is how he tried to save himself from the problem of having to show tha the probability of a flagellum evolving.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by MrHambre, posted 06-23-2003 3:50 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by MrHambre, posted 06-23-2003 6:59 PM PaulK has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 86 of 261 (43803)
06-23-2003 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by PaulK
06-23-2003 3:58 PM


Re: Dembski
I see what you mean. That's just my point, that he doesn't consider it necessary to calculate the independent probability of the flagellum being designed (whatever that would entail) after he's disposed of the other two explanations. As others have rightly noted, Dembski also assumes that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive, and I could think of quite a few instances where that is not true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 06-23-2003 3:58 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 06-23-2003 7:31 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 87 of 261 (43808)
06-23-2003 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by MrHambre
06-23-2003 6:59 PM


Re: Dembski
It's all in the definitions.
I believe it was Wesley Elsberry who argued that Darwinian evolution closely matched Dembski's concept of design. (most of his material about Dembski is on antievolution.org - along with a lot of useful links - if they are still live)
But in the end Dembski can always refine his definitions to include any alternative under what he now calls "chance" (including "regularity"). Which I believe was his intent in the first place.
So long as he is not burdened with actually proving the existence of CSI - by his definition - in biology he loses nothing by such a manouevre.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by MrHambre, posted 06-23-2003 6:59 PM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Peter, posted 06-24-2003 6:39 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 88 of 261 (43890)
06-24-2003 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by PaulK
06-23-2003 7:31 PM


Re: Dembski
I think your discussion at this point is in line with
my original question in this thread.
ID proponents spend a lot of time supposedly identifying
design ... and then infer intelligence.
If a mechanistic, dumb process can produce 'designs' then
that inference is inappriate.
What is the evidence for 'intelligence'? That's basically
what I have been asking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 06-23-2003 7:31 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by MrHambre, posted 06-24-2003 9:30 AM Peter has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 89 of 261 (43902)
06-24-2003 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Peter
06-24-2003 6:39 AM


Re: Intelligence
Dennett made the point (in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea) that the Darwinist model of Design-with-no-designer is so contrary to Mind-first, essentialist philosophy that it still has the power to disturb people. Prior to Darwin, the burden was on nonbelievers to prove order could emerge from chaos without a pre-existing intelligence. The fact that some believers feel the need to resurrect that extinct notion of top-down creation in the face of a mountain of evidence of bottom-up evolution forces them into absolutely futile feats of intellectual gymnastics. I’m not convinced by any of the Intelligence-proving arguments put forward by the ID folks. I’m even less convinced by the accomodating stance taken by some evolution supporters who feel they have to be delicate with the tender sensibilities of people looking for God in a microscope. I suppose it would be comforting if the bacterial flagellum were proof that our lives have cosmic meaning and assurance that the suffering of millions is not in vain. Unfortunately, that’s a lot to ask of a tool that, whether IC or not, helps bacteria along on their often insidious errands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Peter, posted 06-24-2003 6:39 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Peter, posted 06-24-2003 10:02 AM MrHambre has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 90 of 261 (43905)
06-24-2003 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by MrHambre
06-24-2003 9:30 AM


Re: Intelligence
It's always been my assumption that those who insist
on intelligence behind the universe have problems relating to
the possibility that we are just here, and that's all there is to
it.
Some people seem to need to feel that they are part of some
greater purpose.
IDer's would doubtless claim otherwise, and say that evidence
of intelligent design is staring us all in the face ... and
then forget to tell us what that evidence is.
That life 'looks' designed is a reasonable (if subjective)
statement.
They need to show me the 'intelligence' though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by MrHambre, posted 06-24-2003 9:30 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by MrHambre, posted 06-24-2003 10:26 AM Peter has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024