Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A thought on Intelligence behind Design
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 136 of 261 (46432)
07-18-2003 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Warren
07-18-2003 1:15 AM


quote:
And do you really expect a teleological explanation to express itself the same as a non-teleological explanation?
I don't know what to expect, because you've never offered a teleological hypothesis. You've never offered an explanation of how we're supposed to verify or falsify an IDC hypothesis. You've never offered an explanation of how an IDC hypothesis would be useful in guiding further research.
quote:
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?
What I've been saying here is that intelligent design creationism is not a valid scientific program, because the claims are impossible to verify or falsify through scientific inquiry. Of course it's conceivable that all natural processes are in fact teleological. However, if there's no conceivable way to verify this one way or the other, what use does this teleological assumption have in science?
You have only said that you find it unlikely that non-teleological processes could be responsible for complex biological systems, while never giving any example of the ability of intelligence to account for anything in biology. We've even given you a proposal for the possible evolution of the BacFlag (twice), but you have offered us nothing. Give us something or else accept our skepticism.
------------------
Quien busca, halla

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Warren, posted 07-18-2003 1:15 AM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Warren, posted 07-18-2003 1:06 PM MrHambre has replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 261 (46436)
07-18-2003 11:52 AM


Intelligent design
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Quetzal, posted 07-18-2003 12:01 PM Warren has replied
 Message 139 by Wounded King, posted 07-18-2003 12:04 PM Warren has not replied

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


Message 138 of 261 (46437)
07-18-2003 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Warren
07-18-2003 11:52 AM


Re: Intelligent design
Hi Warren,
Just out of curiosity, doesn't your post mean ID is shifting the burden of proof? What observation do YOU consider to be compelling (or even suspicious) evidence of ID? Are there concrete examples you can cite that are better explained by recourse to design than natural processes? Is there a way to differentiate between natural "designoid" (to borrow Dawkin's term) systems and true design?
My only real criticism of ID is that no one so far has been able to articulate any concrete examples that would be at least moderately unambiguously indicative of the activity of designer. Do you have such examples? Eubacterial flagella doesn't really help, because there ARE in fact natural possibilities - hence it isn't all that unambiguous. If you're going to overthrow the dominant paradigm, you really need to come up with either compelling evidence or a solid research methodology.
Just my two cents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Warren, posted 07-18-2003 11:52 AM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Warren, posted 07-18-2003 2:33 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 139 of 261 (46438)
07-18-2003 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Warren
07-18-2003 11:52 AM


But the entire point is to move away from subtle clues and use experimentation to show something clearly and as definitively as you can. This may take time of course, it isn't an instantaneous process. But isn't the onus on the proponents of ID to show how credible their science is rather than on the whole rest of the scientific to suspend their incredulity.
Evidence quite often is ostentatious, look at the screens for mutants in drosophila. If there were not so many striking examples of embryonic lethal and homoeotic mutant developmental genetics would be a lot poorer for it. In many cases it is the ostentatious phenotype that allows us to detect subtle genetic changes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Warren, posted 07-18-2003 11:52 AM Warren has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 261 (46444)
07-18-2003 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by MrHambre
07-18-2003 11:24 AM


Evidence for ID
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by MrHambre, posted 07-18-2003 11:24 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Primordial Egg, posted 07-18-2003 1:19 PM Warren has not replied
 Message 142 by MrHambre, posted 07-18-2003 2:26 PM Warren has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 261 (46445)
07-18-2003 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Warren
07-18-2003 1:06 PM


Re: Evidence for ID
Hypothesis: I have two heads
"Ontological evidence": If I had two heads, there would exist for me a left-most ear and a right-most ear
Experimental results: I have a left-most ear and a right-most ear (also witnessed by others, in a double blind test)
Conclusion: Intelligent design.
Is this how it works?
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Warren, posted 07-18-2003 1:06 PM Warren has not replied

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


Message 142 of 261 (46451)
07-18-2003 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Warren
07-18-2003 1:06 PM


quote:
[Ontological Evidence] 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.
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.
Is IDC a better explanation for the patterns of change manifested in the fossil record? Does IDC form a better picture of the nested hierarchies among species that exist today? Does IDC give us a clearer understanding of the developmental pathways of species or biological structures? No on all three counts.
quote:
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.
If empirical evidential inference is not likely to uncover proof of Intelligence even if it were true, then perhaps IDC is simply outside the realm of scientific endeavor. There's certainly another reason Intelligence may be hard to prove in biology: it might not be there.
------------------
Quien busca, halla

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Warren, posted 07-18-2003 1:06 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Warren, posted 07-18-2003 4:27 PM MrHambre has replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 261 (46452)
07-18-2003 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Quetzal
07-18-2003 12:01 PM


Re: Intelligent design
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 design
We 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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Quetzal, posted 07-18-2003 12:01 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by PaulK, posted 07-18-2003 2:54 PM Warren has not replied
 Message 145 by MrHambre, posted 07-18-2003 3:36 PM Warren has replied
 Message 159 by Silent H, posted 07-18-2003 9:17 PM Warren has not replied
 Message 177 by Quetzal, posted 07-21-2003 9:30 AM Warren has not replied

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


Message 144 of 261 (46454)
07-18-2003 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Warren
07-18-2003 2:33 PM


Re: Intelligent design
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Warren, posted 07-18-2003 2:33 PM Warren has not replied

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


Message 145 of 261 (46456)
07-18-2003 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Warren
07-18-2003 2:33 PM


Mindless Copying, DNA Style
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?
EvC Forum: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
Quetzal's question is still unanswered: Is there a way to differentiate between natural "designoid" systems and true [intelligent] design?
{edited to fix quote}
------------------
Quien busca, halla
[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 07-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Warren, posted 07-18-2003 2:33 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 07-18-2003 4:04 PM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 149 by Warren, posted 07-18-2003 5:27 PM MrHambre has replied

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


Message 146 of 261 (46457)
07-18-2003 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by MrHambre
07-18-2003 3:36 PM


Re: Mindless Copying, DNA Style
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by MrHambre, posted 07-18-2003 3:36 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 261 (46458)
07-18-2003 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by MrHambre
07-18-2003 2:26 PM


Intelligent Design
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by MrHambre, posted 07-18-2003 2:26 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by MrHambre, posted 07-18-2003 5:44 PM Warren has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 148 of 261 (46460)
07-18-2003 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Warren
07-18-2003 1:15 AM


Re: Smoke and Mirrors
It is clear that many complex structures can arise without ID. The evidence is very strong for a lot of evolution.
Now the ID'ers want to say, ah, but what about this very specific thing? Well, they don't show anything to distinguish those things from all the others (which ID'ers mostly agree did evolve).
The statment was made that, for example, the bacterial flagelum could not evolve my any natural means. As soon as any plausible natural means is shown that argument is gone. The ID'ers have no other argument.
It is not reasonable to note that many, many things have evolved some of them rather complex and then pick on a few somewhat more complex things and state that they could not have without anyway to know if that is true or not nor any way to distinguish those things from others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Warren, posted 07-18-2003 1:15 AM Warren has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 261 (46463)
07-18-2003 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by MrHambre
07-18-2003 3:36 PM


Re: Mindless Copying, DNA Style
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 Gene
In 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by MrHambre, posted 07-18-2003 3:36 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Warren, posted 07-18-2003 5:51 PM Warren has not replied
 Message 152 by MrHambre, posted 07-18-2003 6:08 PM Warren has not replied

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


Message 150 of 261 (46465)
07-18-2003 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Warren
07-18-2003 4:27 PM


quote:
Is Paul Davies an IDC conspiracy theorist?
He's certainly no creationist:
"But the emergence of life and consciousness somewhere and somewhen in the cosmos is, I believe, assured by the underlying laws of nature. The origin of life and consciousness were not interventionist miracles, but nor were they stupendously improbable accidents. They were, I believe, part of the natural outworking of the laws of nature, and as such our existence as conscious enquiring beings springs ultimately from the bedrock of physical existence-those ingenious, felicitous laws."
-Paul Davies, from his Templeton Prize speech, 1995.
------------------
Quien busca, halla

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Warren, posted 07-18-2003 4:27 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Warren, posted 07-18-2003 6:25 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024