A thought on Intelligence behind Design

Mr.Hambre: "An inference of Intelligence already assumes that the only thing capable of producing machine-like phenomena is Intelligence."There is no evidence that non-intelligent processes can produce machines. We do know that intelligent agents produce machines. Therefore, there is sufficient reason to suspect ID was behind the origin of molecular machines. Is this absolute proof? No. Could new information erase this suspicion? Yes. But right now, based on what we do know, ID is a reasonable inference.[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-25-2003]

Crashfrog<< What, every time I see a stick lying on a round rock, I'm supposed to believe that somebody forgot their lever? A wedge (a simple machine) can never form naturally? (Looking in a rock garden, I see that they can and do.)>>I was not referring to a "simple machine" like a stick falling over a rock. When I refer to a machine I have in mind Behe's definition of an irreducibly complex system consisting of many well-matched parts. You are comparing apples and oranges. A simple lever and fulcrum found in a forest is different from a mulicomponent, closely matched, magnificent molecular machine.I can't prove molecular machines were designed. But I do find design to be the best explanation for the origin of a machine. One thing is clear. The Darwinian paradigm did not lead us to *expect* the existence of molecular machines. Folks like Haeckel and Huxley originally expected life to be very simple at its core - a slimy protoplasm that fell together with the right ingredients. And even until the last few decades, the cell had been viewed as a membranous sac that contained a soup. As it turns out however, cells are built around incredibly intricate molecule architectures populated by all kinds of really neat molecular machines. I read where one biologist referred to life as carbon-based nanotechnology. In biology, scientists commonly treat life as if it were technology employing codes, circuitry, sensors, feedback controls, molecular machines, etc. Yet if pressed, most biologists would argue these are only handy metaphors. A literal interpretation would argue these are literal machines, codes, sensors, etc. Life is technology. And evolution is an expression of this technology, not some side-effect.[This message has been edited by Warren, 06-25-2003]

Peter<< I find it hard to understand how you cannot see that the whole ID concept is founded in culturally programmed incredulity. >>Let's lay some considerations on the table.1. You have provided no evidence that indicates the flagellum evolved.2. You have provided no evidence that indicates RM&NS brought the flagellum into existence.3. You have provided no argument that indicates a teleological explanation for the origin of the flagellum is wrong.4. When asked what type of data about the flagellum would cause you to suspect ID, you are stumped.5. You have no way of distinguishing a non-teleological origin from a teleological origin for the flagellum.6. In light of 4 and 5, it seems safe to conclude that if the flagellum was indeed designed, you would tell us otherwise.In light of 6, how much weight should I assign to your incredulity about ID?

Peter: "Chemical reactions CAN and DO happen all by themselves in nature."Yeah, I guess this debate we are having reduces to nothing more than chemical reactions.[This message has been edited by Warren, 07-17-2003]

Warren<<1. You have provided no evidence that indicates the flagellum evolved.2. You have provided no evidence that indicates RM&NS brought the flagellum into existence.>>MrHambre<< Ian Musgrave at the University of Adelaide has published a detailed naturalistic model of a possible developmental pathway through which the BacFlag may have evolved from a bacterial secretory system.>>Warrren<< I see. So imagining a vague story with potential pathways counts as the experimental evidence that establishes neo-Darwinian evolution as the cause behind flagellar origins.>>Warren<<3. You have provided no argument that indicates a teleological explanation for the origin of the flagellum is wrong.4. When asked what type of data about the flagellum would cause you to suspect ID, you are stumped..>>MrHambre<< The burden is on intelligent-design creationists to show us why we should suspect that intelligence is responsible for a biological structure, since intelligence has never demonstrated the ability to produce any living organism or structure thereof.>>Warren<< Nonsense. Where is your evidence that any complex biological structure or organ was produced solely by non-teleological processes? Science has no test to distinguish between teleological and non-teleological causes, yet that has not stopped it from investigating non-teleological causes. Likewise, there is no reason why scientists can't investigate teleological causes. What's important is whether or not a certain methodology (teleological or non-teleological) helps us better understand some aspect of biotic reality. >>Warrren<< 5. You have no way of distinguishing a non-teleological origin from a teleological origin for the flagellum.>>MrHambre<< Neither do you. For proponents of IDC, the assumption of intelligent design is sufficient. The 'dual model' concept of intelligent design creationism simply argues that there is not enough evidence of evolution, therefore IDC wins by default despite the utter lack of positive evidence of IDC.>>Warren<< Right back at you. The ID critic assumes non-teleological processes are sufficient to explain every aspect of biotic reality and challenges the ID proponent to either show them the designer or prove blind watchmaking impossible. Failing that the ID critic wins by default.>>Warren <<. In light of 4 and 5, it seems safe to conclude that if the flagellum was indeed designed, you would tell us otherwise.>>MrHambre<<:That would be safer to say if you were actually to prove that it was intelligently designed. Perhaps if there really were persuasive evidence of the intelligent design of any living thing, you would be correct in calling us dogmatic.>>Warren<< What would you accept as evidence for ID? Seeing the designer in action? Proof that blind watchmaking is impossible? Yeah, you're open-minded alright.>>Warren<< In light of 6, how much weight should I assign to your incredulity about ID?>>MrHambre<< Exactly the same weight you would assign to our incredulity and skepticism concerning any other theory that lacks evidence.>>Warren<< Your opinion that ID lacks evidence is worthless since you have yet to tell me what you would consider evidence for ID.>>[This message has been edited by Warren, 07-17-2003]

MrHambre<< Like I said, feel free to offer any proposal whatsoever that explains how the BacFlag was intelligently designed. No such thing?Again, whenever you'd like to offer testable ID hypotheses we're listening. No such thing?We're also waiting for an example of any biological organism or structure known to have been created by Intelligence. No such thing?I guess all you have is the claim that we're just biased against all the substantive arguments for intelligent design creationism. That would be a lot more persuasive if you had some sort of real theory to promote.>>Where are your substantive arguments for the non-teleological origin of the flagellum? And do you really expect a teleological explanation to express itself the same as a non-teleological explanation? For the simple sake of argument, imagine the first cells deposited on this planet were bioengineered. How would one really determine the mechanism of design? Do you expect a design theorist to provide you with blueprints, protocols and recipes? And what are you going to bring to the table? A just so story? Can you provide an example of any complex biological structure known to have been created by random mutations and natural selection? And what do you offer as a testable hypothesis for the origin of the flagellum? I haven't seen one yet that doesn't appeal to lucky coincidence (the heart of the cooption stories). How does one test for lucky coincidence?[This message has been edited by Warren, 07-18-2003]

Parasomnium<< Now, that would constitute proof of intelligent design. (Especially the fact that They would have thought of patenting it.) Until some such story is reported in the media (and believe you me, it would be the scoop of the century, nay, the millennium) I think we'd better stick to simpler, testable hypotheses and not introduce unnecessary elements into the story, for which there is not a shred of evidence from other reliable sources, and which cannot be tested anyway.>>You know as well as I do that a scientific hypothesis is based on evidence not proof. I'm asking the ID critics what evidence would cause them to merely suspect design. I'm not asking them what they would consider proof of design. You say there is not a shred of evidence for ID but I have no idea what you would consider evidence for ID other than something ostentatious like a message written in the cell. But what if the evidence for ID is subtle? Most scientific investigations begin with a suspicion based on subtle clues not some ostentatious manifestation. If it takes extraordinary evidence for you to suspect something then you would rarely investigate anything. This isn't the way science works.

The ID critic claims there isn't any empirical evidence for intelligent design. But are they speaking as an apologist or as an open-minded investigator? An open-minded investigator should be able to pause, ponder, and come back with the type of data that would lead him/her to suspect ID. And it need not be any specific finding, but merely the type of data. For example, as it stands, I would probably be correct in translating most ID critics "no evidence" claim to mean that no one has proven evolution is impossible and no one has shown us the designer. But I fail to see how either of these, as "evidence for design," would likely exist if design were true. In other words, the critic's "no evidence" claim would simply reflect his personal needs, not something that intersects with the truth of design.The issue of "evidence" comes up again and again in this topic. But we need to distinguish what I would call epistemological evidence (EE) from ontological evidence (OE). EE is about acquiring data that would convince a hardcore skeptic of your position. That is, we ask what we could possibly know that would convince the skeptic. The skeptic comes back with some possible finding (Genesis encoded in DNA as evidence for Intelligent Design) and then, I suppose, it becomes an issue about whether or not such evidence exists.OE is about acquiring data that would be expected to exist if a hypothesis is true. The data then are the fingerprints of the proposed event. Such data might not convince the skeptic, but that's not relevant if you are trying to conduct an investigation.Now if you want me to provide papers that present ontological evidence for ID I can do that, but I suspect the ID critics on this forum will accept nothing less than epistemological evidence. If that's the case we are at an impasse.[This message has been edited by Warren, 07-18-2003]

Quetzal<< What observation do YOU consider to be compelling (or even suspicious) evidence of ID?>>Here are a couple of observations from an ID theorist that cause me to suspect ID:Life exhibits features specific to designWe 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, 07-18-2003]

MrHambre<< Give me a break, Warren. I could say exactly the same thing about your resistance to the mountain of evidence for naturalistic evolution that is staring you in the face. The core hypotheses of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection have been well confirmed and form the basis of much subsequent scientific progress. Your reluctance to read up on modern biology's real reasoning behind its acceptance of Darwin's concepts (the theory's consistency and verifiability) has made you an easy target for the IDC conspiracy theorists.>>Pure stereotype. Is Paul Davies an IDC conspiracy theorist? He says:"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."Excuse me if I find "the mountain of evidence for naturalistic evolution" pertaining to changes in bird beaks and fluctuations in the ratio of dark to light colored moths insufficient to explain the origin of information-processing systems, employing software control.[This message has been edited by Warren, 07-18-2003]

MrHambre<< Warren, when you first posted this long passage in Post 46, you only attributed it to an 'ID theorist'. Here you didn't attribute it to anyone. Whose words are they?>>Warren<< Sorry about that. They are the words of an anonymous ID theorist that goes by several different pseudonyms, one of which is Mike Gene. If it makes you feel better I can attribute his quotes to these various pseudonyms (one of which is female) rather than "ID theorist" if you think it important.>>MrHambre<< Quetzal's question is still unanswered: Is there a way to differentiate between natural "designoid" systems and true [intelligent] design?>>Warren<< I could ask you if there is a way to differentiate between evolvoid systems and truly evolved systems? Here is an interesting article from Mike Gene that discusses this issue.Author Topic: Evolvoid Phenomena
Mike GeneIn his book, Climbing Mount Improbable, Richard Dawkins introduces the term, 'designoid.' He defines designoid objects as things that look designed, but in fact are not. Instead, Dawkins asserts these things are created by variation and selection to provide the illusion of design. Of course, Dawkins fails to provide a way to distinguish between designed objects and designoid objects, but that's another issue. Instead, I would like to follow in Dawkins' footsteps and introduce another term to the origins lexicon, something I will call evolvoid. An evolvoid phenomena/thing is something that looks like it evolved, but did not. That is, these phenomena/things were designed in such a way that it merely looks like they evolved.The first problem with evolvoid phenomena is that is forces us to question the motivations/integrity of the designer. But does it really? Must we posit a misleading designer if evolvoid phenomena exist? No. First of all, there is no reason for thinking the designer designed things with the intention of making it clear to all that things either evolved or did not evolve. Secondly, and more importantly, the very process of design itself often yields things that are prone to evolutionary interpretations. This would mean only that evolvoid phenomena are a function of the way we impose beliefs upon reality. But let's consider some evolvoid phenomena - things that are designed, yet look like they evolved.Let's begin with a hypothetical. Imagine you are a scientist working alone on genetically modifying hemoglobin to improve its ability to bind and deliver oxygen. You design some sequence modifications and introduce the gene into the mouse genome with fairly standard techniques. After breeding a colony of mice, you determine that they indeed have a much improved hemoglobin molecule. You are working late in your lab one night, writing up your results, and a storm hits. A tree crashes into your lab, killing you. Yet the damage also causes the cages to open and the genetically modified mice run for safety. A spark then sets the lab on fire and the whole place goes up in flames. No one knows of your work, but the mice work their way into the world. Because of their oxygen-delivery advantages, they slowly begin to spread. Many, many years pass and the artificial sequences you used to deliver the gene decay away leaving nothing but the improved gene maintained by selection. Then, some scientists happen upon these mice and eventually sequence their hemoglobin gene. They find some rather significant sequence alterations and then publish evidence on how natural selection is at work improving the hemoglobin gene in mice! In this case, the hemoglobin gene would be evolvoid. It would clearly be interpreted as the result of mutation and natural selection, when in reality, the changes were designed.Let's consider a second example, that of artificial selection. The various dog breeds that exist today exist because of intelligent planning. That is, in some ways, the dogs were designed. Or at the very least, an explanation of the origin of various dog breeds would not be complete without intelligent design. But we know this because of our experience in breeding dogs. What if we removed this experience? What if we had nothing but the genetic, morphological/fossil data to draw upon? Imagine a non-human outside investigator trying to explain dog origins without any information about humans. If this investigator were a Darwinist, the dogs would easily be explained in this light. Each form would be explained in light of its own just-so story, tailored to explain the morphology and genetics in light of various hypothetical environments and other forms of selective pressures. The dogs would thus be evolvoid, looking like they evolved without intelligent intervention, when intelligent intervention was the crucial element to the story.How about moving out of the realm of the hypothetical? Consider Tim M. Berra's "Evolution and the myth of creationism." He employs an analogy to illustrate descent with modification. He points to various successive generations of cars that change in appearance, yet also inherit certain attributes from previous generations. Yet we know that the mechanism behind this whole process was deeply dependent on intelligent design and planning. In this case, a series of events that owe their origin to intelligent design can "look evolved." Descent with modification can be evolvoid.Or consider Mike Behe's mousetrap. John McDonald has a web page (http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html) called "A reducibly complex mousetrap" whereby he argues that simpler and simpler functional mousetraps could exist. Clearly, an evolutionary mindset could propose this very continuum to explain the evolutionary origin of the mousetrap. But again, we know this is not how it happened and we know the trap was indeed designed. Thus, McDonald unknowingly demonstrates that the tendency to see evolvoid things can be so strong that even something like the mousetrap can "look evolved."What these examples all show is that things that are designed can be viewed as things that look like they evolved. The evolvoid tendency is very strong. If intelligent design employs evolution (as in the case of dogs), it will be viewed as evolvoid. If intelligent design is subtle, yet builds on much knowledge (as in the case of redesigning hemoglobin), it will be viewed as evolvoid. If intelligent design does not re-invent the wheel every time around, but instead builds on previous design (as with cars), it will be viewed as evolvoid. And if intelligent design can be deconstructed into simpler parts/forms in a purely imaginary realm (as with the mousetrap), it will be viewed as evolvoid.Now, should a designer steer clear of all these methods simply to avoid making evolvoid things? I can't think of any good reason why. Thus, it remains a plausible reality where design exists, but is commonly interpreted in evolvoid terms. And that means just because something "looks evolved" is not sufficient reason for thinking it did evolve.

PaulK<< I beleive that it is copied from "Mike Gene".
Warren is certainly imitating aspects of "Mike Gene's" approach - athough doing a rather poor job of it.>>If that's the case then why don't you find Mike Gene and debate him directly instead of spending time debating his poor imitator?[This message has been edited by Warren, 07-18-2003]

Warren: "Is Paul Davies an IDC conspiracy theorist?"MrHambre<< He's certainly no creationist>>Warren<< Boy, you sure know how to muck things up. You accuse me of being influenced by IDC conspiracy theorists. But it wasn't an IDC conspiracy theorist or a creationist that said:"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."Call me crazy but I confess to assigning information-processing systems, employing software control to engineering-type causes rather than rock-forming causes. Something about effects of the same kind being assigned to the same causes. This is the kind of stuff that causes be to suspect ID rather than religious apologetics.[This message has been edited by Warren, 07-18-2003][This message has been edited by Warren, 07-18-2003]

MrHambre<< You still have Quetzal's question to answer. This is the third time. Is there a way to differentiate natural "designoid" systems and true [intelligent] design?>>I answered this in previous posts. I know of no generic method to distinguish between design and non-design. However, keep in mind that science has no such test when excluding design to explain the origin of biological features. Also keep in mind that when ID citics say "distinguish," this usually refers to two themes: show me something that couldn't possibly evolve or show me the designer. I think the search for a razzle-dazzle magic bullet way to distinguish designed things from things not designed is a waste of time. The reality investigated is too complicated and design in life is probably too subtle.Now answer my question. Is there a way to differentiate between evolvoid phenomena and real evolution?<[This message has been edited by Warren, 07-18-2003]

PaulK<< There is a limit to the number of forums I can participate in. Remember I did not seek you out - so far as I know you came to this forum after I did.>>I never said you sought me out and I'm sure you were here before me. Not sure what that has to do with anything. As far as I can tell this forum is dominated by ID critics and I seem to be the only ID defender here. Sorry I haven't answered all your questions but I'm considerably out-numbered here. You would know what I mean if you spent some time on an ID forum.[This message has been edited by Warren, 07-18-2003]