A thought on Intelligence behind Design

While Dembski states that he does not argue for the LOGICAL impossibility of evolution accounting for the flagellum it is a fact that he does argue (poorly) that it is a PRACTICAL impossibility.Both the major arguments of ID - Behe's irreducible complexity and Dembski's filter argue against the possiblity of evlution.And both arguments have essentially failed.Behe has failed to adequately handle "indirect" evolution. He has never got beyond the assertion that it is too unlikely - an assertion which is certainyl questionable and requires support. After seven years it seems unlikely that even an attempt at support will be forthcoming.Dembski has failed to offer any practical method of applying his filter that does not amount to assuming that if we do not know how a particular feature evolved then it did not evolve.

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.

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 AdelaideI 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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

So Warren, now you're back where are those testable ID hypotheses ?

So, where are those "testable ID hypotheses ?"

It would be fairer to ask you to explain what evidence would cause you to suspect a an explanation OTHER than intelligent design.But lest's look at your arguments.The first clearly applies to features such as skeletal structures where the evidence is far better than for ancient structures which leave no traces in the fossil record like bacterial flagella.The fact that the ID movement seems not to consider this worthy of further investigation, or even suitable as the basis for arguments for design suggests that many members of the ID movement do not consider it adequate.The second deals with an area where there is little information - but, despute your claim that it is a positive argument it is primarily negative. Moreover the question must be asked as to how it is proposed to investigate the possibility that design is responsible ? A suspicion on it's own is not enough.Moreover we must ask why the critics should be expected to find these reasons sufficient to suspect design. Is the ID movement proposing to leave research to their critics ? If so that in itself proves that ID is not science. If not, then there is no need for the critics to suspect design at all.

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.

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 note however that I was correct in identifying your source - why not ask him to come here rather than regurgitating his writings ? - and I also note that you are ignoring the substantive points Ihave raised in other posts.

However you did suggest that I seek Mike Gene out rather than arguing with you.Since you have come to a forum where I was already active why should I not argue with you ?And your defence of ID seems to be very odd. For instance denying the existence of Dembski's and Behe's main arguments for design or suggesting that they stole their arguments from ID critics.Or insisting that ID excludes YECs, when Philip Johnson explicitly insists that ID should be a movement including YECs.A defence of that sort is an implicit admission that much of ID is indefensible.

There is a simple reason why the inability to tell designed from non-designed is not a problem for the "non-design" side.Parsimony tells us not to attribute design without reason. This is especially true when there is no independant evidence of even a potential designer. Indeed this is why Dembski relies on elimination - he knows that non-design explanations are to be preferred and that is why he relies on disproving them to conclude design.