A thought on Intelligence behind Design

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]

quote:

---

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.

​

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.

​

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.

​

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 I came up with anything so absolutely preposterous, I'd have a pseudonym or two myself.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?------------------
Quien busca, halla

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]

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.

Warren,Science, very simply, works thusly: an inductively derived hypothesis is put forward to be deductively tested with predictions & potential falsifications. The working fault with ID is that it can come up with the inductively derived hypothesis, no problem: if it is complex it might be designed, right? But it has no real way of deductively testing that hypothesis. The only way this can be done is by objectively answering the question Quetzal has already proposed. How are you to differentiate natural "designoid" systems and true [intelligent] design? And then looking to see if those conditions are met.Every single creationist has drawn a blank answering this logically required question. ID simply, logically, cannot proceed without first being able to tell the difference between designed & naturally occurring objects, & then seeing if those predictions are borne out. Instead, their arguments are based on incredulity, fallacies of composition, question begging, & false dichotomies. For example, the evolution of the flagellum you yourself have brought up. But there is a problem here. A lack of evidence for one position does not therefore automatically support the opposite position. That is, a lack of evidence in no way can be considered positive evidence. In other words it is a false dichotomy. Even proving the flagellum didn't evolve doesn't therefore mean it was designed. It, like it's supposed designer could always have existed. I often wonder what IDers would make of God, surely something so complex was designed, right? Regardless, you haven't proven that the flagellum hasn't evolved, & a plausible evolutionary pathway exists that is consistent with current knowledge. Enter the argument from incredulity...........Anyway..........Given that there is ample evidence that complexity & function is able to evolve via natural processes, what positive evidence is there that determines that a system is either naturally occurring, or is intelligently designed? False dichotomies & lack of evidence for other hypothese are not evidence of design.Of course, not being able to make a logically acceptable argument in favour of ID doesn't make it wrong. But it does mean that no one is obliged to accept an essentially evidenceless, untestable, unfalsifiable proposition.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-18-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 07-18-2003]

Gee, I jump from the Geology forum to the Intelligent Design forum and find the exact same argument - there's no way to find evidence that would help distinguish between the Creationist and the scientific viewpoints. Existing evidence can be validly interpreted in either framework.Except that just like in the Geology forum, the Creationist viewpoint invokes unknown mechanisms. In Geology it was accelerated physical processes for which there is no evidence, while here it's a designer for which there is no evidence. Oh, no wait, that's wrong, the evidence is all around us! I forgot!--Percy

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]

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

Mark<< ID simply, logically, cannot proceed without first being able to tell the difference between designed & naturally occurring objects, & then seeing if those predictions are borne out.>>Why is the lack of reliable criteria for distinguishing betweeen teleological and non-teleological causes not considered a problem for the blind watchmaker hypothesis? Why aren't the advocates of blind watchmaking working on a filter or test to rule out teleological causes and thus establish non-teleology? Has the absence of a reliable detector for non-teleological causes stymied the blind watchmaker research program?Here are some insightful comments from Mike Gene:My goal is not to show the non-teleologists wrong. My goal is to determine how productive a teleological approach can be. This, after all, is how non-teleologists have worked for a century. They have not come up with tests to rule out teleological causes (they instead rely on philosophy). The inability to tell the difference between an organism that was designed to evolve, and an organism that evolved by "accidental changes captured by selection, cuts both ways (if you think about it). Instead, they have been focused on the utility of the non-teleological approach, where at some point, a successful track record becomes an argument for validity. I think teleologists would do well to learn from this model. Flesh out a teleological approach that doesn't center around trying to convince non-teleologists they are wrong, but instead seeks to understand biotic reality and its history. Maybe something juicy will eventually shake out....There are at least two ways teleologists can go about studying the natural world. One way is to look for features that clearly cannot be explained by non-teleological explanations. There is nothing wrong with this approach. In fact, it holds potential for developing new insights and methods, along with helping to better define the dispute. But there is another way that can complement this approach. This way simply begins by looking for things that one might expect to follow from design. This way follows the examples of mainstream science. Take origin of life research. Scientists do not look for things that could not be explained by teleologists. They are not looking for phenomena that rule out telic causes, therefore rule in non-telic causes. On the contrary, they begin with squishy, vague scenarios about how something might have happened and then see if something in the lab or nature can be fitted into such a scenario. What becomes important here is the development of a track record and a scenario that gets less and less squishy. I see no reason why teleologists cannot likewise adopt this approach.[This message has been edited by Warren, 07-18-2003]

Warren quotes Mike Gene:

quote:

---

Take origin of life research. Scientists do not look for things that could not be explained by teleologists. They are not looking for phenomena that rule out telic causes, therefore rule in non-telic causes. On the contrary, they begin with squishy, vague scenarios about how something might have happened and then see if something in the lab or nature can be fitted into such a scenario. What becomes important here is the development of a track record and a scenario that gets less and less squishy. I see no reason why teleologists cannot likewise adopt this approach.

---

But that's precisely the problem: They don't. And from what I can tell, the reason why is because it can't be done.What does "design" look like? Given that an sufficiently advanced designer can make anything, how does one distinguish things that are designed from things that aren't?For example, suppose I were to take a handful of change and toss it on the ground. I then take an identical handful of change and meticulously place the coins in the same arrangement. Do you think that you could be able to tell the difference between them? Which one was caused by physics and which one was caused by design?Of course, that brings up a fundamental question: Is there anything that happens on its own?That is, if I take a handful of change and toss it on the ground, do the coins land the way they do all on their own under the effect of gravity or does god come down and personally, deliberately, and consciously place those coins in their final positions?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Warren, This illustrates my final point precisely. "Of course, not being able to make a logically acceptable argument in favour of ID doesn't make it wrong. But it does mean that no one is obliged to accept an essentially evidenceless, untestable, unfalsifiable proposition." The burden of proof is on ID to be able to tell the difference, not for it's sceptics to disprove ID. This adds another logical flaw to the raft already being invoked; shifting the burden of proof. ID M-U-S-T answer the question of how to tell the difference between a designed system & a non-designed one.If I showed you a gene complex, an operon, that digests lactose, provides a system whereby the transport of lactose into the cell is facilitated, & an expression control system, you would claim it is designed. It wasn't, the one I have in mind evolved under lab conditions (Hall 1982). The point being, even if I couldn't show you that, your claim of ID would still be pissing in the wind as it pertains to science. Untestable & unfalsifiable. It doesn't make you wrong, but it does mean no one is obliged to accept your argument.You & Mike can believe what you like, but it ain't science, & it doesn't have the required level of logical support. This is why Mikes beloved teleological argument is bullpuckey. Everyone schooled in logic realises this, why not you & Mr Gene? Could there be an alternative agenda?Logical fallacies used so far. Argument from incredulity, fallacies of composition, question begging, false dichotomies, & shifting the burden of proof.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Ever watch crime shows on TV-- something like 'The New Detectives"? The investigators pick up what pieces of evidence they can and work up a plausible reconstruction of events, assuming the perpetrator does not confess. That is all that is going one here. In neither case can you watch the event-- it has already happened. Nor can you re-enact it in all details-- most of those details are missing. You can't test the scenario except by analyzing the degree to which it fits the evidence. You can test bits and pieces of evidence, and use those tests to tie everything together. But in the end, what you have is a plausible story. So, assuming you are comfortable that police investigations can return useful conclusions, it doesn't make sense to complain as you do about the reconstruction of flagellum evolution.

quote:

---

Where is your evidence that any complex biological structure or organ was produced solely by non-teleological processes?

---

The non-teleological explaination is the default, simply because the teleological requires that we assume processes for which we have no evidence. It makes much more sense to explain things via processes we know about and can investigate.

quote:

---

Science has no test to distinguish between teleological and non-teleological causes, yet that has not stopped it from investigating non-teleological causes.

---

We investigate what we can investigate. And we don't investigate what we can't investigate. I don't see the problem. Teleological causes are not really amenable to investigation unless you know there is an intelligence, as in the case of criminal investigation. Even so, the investigation is of efficient causes. There is no way to directly investigate the teleological. A plausible teleological cause is constructed and called 'motive.'

quote:

---

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.

---

This isn't really accurate. The IDC critic claims we can show non-teleological processes and so why assume additional processes which we cannot demonstrate?

quote:

---

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.

---

Excuse me, Warren? You seem to be complaining that some people want evidence.

quote:

---

Your opinion that ID lacks evidence is worthless since you have yet to tell me what you would consider evidence for ID.

---

1) Critters which are not cobbled together from spare parts.
2) Components which are well designed for their function.I could probably think of more, but those would go a long way.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com