Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8961 total)
39 online now:
frako, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (5 members, 34 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,360 Year: 1,108/23,288 Month: 1,108/1,851 Week: 232/320 Day: 4/87 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 377 (608163)
03-09-2011 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by slevesque
03-09-2011 2:39 AM


Bad inductive reasoning
Let's rewrite your inductive argument to more accurately reflect what we actually know and what we want to prove.

Then new inductive argument becomes:

All non-biological IC systems whose origins we know are designed by humans.
A biological system not designed by humans shows IC
The biological system was designed by a non-human intelligent agent.

The above is still an attempt at generalization, but surely it is a lot weaker form than the one you were using. Your argument would be helped immensely by observation of some number of biological systems which are known to be designed. But we don't have any of those. I think Jar was correct in calling you on extending your "proof" to biological systems.

slevesque writes:

Let's try to clear up all the logical steps leading to IC maybe being a candidate for identifying designed systems before going into counter-examples.

Is there really any point to going further if you cannot deal with counter-examples to your initial premise?

What ID proponents do in order to make this work is to make non-rigorous arguments to the effect that nature cannot produce IC systems. But no real evidence is given to support this claim.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 2:39 AM slevesque has not yet responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 377 (608164)
03-09-2011 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by slevesque
03-08-2011 7:00 PM


slevesque writes:

it does give the impression that you are retarded (no offense)

Or perhaps the poster is not a native speaker of English. Nothing wrong with asking for coherency, but the "retarded" crack was uncalled for, your faux disclaimer not withstanding. I'll bet you would never call an adult with a cognitive disability retarded to his face.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 7:00 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 5:04 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Percy
Member
Posts: 19242
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 153 of 377 (608166)
03-09-2011 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by NoNukes
03-08-2011 2:11 PM


Re: Defining design.
Hi NoNukes,

I'm not sure what the problem is. Dembski thinks that specified complexity is an indicator for design, and he thinks he has a mathematical method for detecting specified complexity. I place the emphasis on the word "thinks".

I believe I've posted links to the Wikipedia article on Dembski a couple times. Since I've been debating his views for years my information on Dembski doesn't come from there because I can go from memory, but it appears to echo pretty much what I've been telling you. I agree with Dembski that if design can be detected that it will be mathematically.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by NoNukes, posted 03-08-2011 2:11 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2011 9:00 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 154 of 377 (608173)
03-09-2011 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Percy
03-09-2011 8:41 AM


Re: Defining design.
NoNukes writes:

I'm not sure what the problem is

C'mon Percy. I am trying to drop this.

I understood a statement in your message 82 to mean that Dembski had a mathematical definition for design. In response I asked you for pointers to that definition, and of course I did not get any such thing. Your later messages have made it clear that I missed your intended meaning.

There is no problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 03-09-2011 8:41 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

havoc
Member (Idle past 3137 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 155 of 377 (608176)
03-09-2011 9:46 AM


Working in reverse it would stand to reason that anything not made by an intelligent (creature, human, animal, being, thingy kabob) is not designed. It takes an act of will to design a thing. So an accidental rock slide causing a water dam is not designed but a beaver dam is. Drift wood is not designed the act of displaying it is designed. The effect of erosion is not designed but the presidents in Mt. Rushmore are.

This does not mean that everything created by an intelligent being is designed. If I accidentally spill paint on canvas the resulting picture is not designed but if I intentionally pour paint on canvas the aforementioned picture is designed. So the result of an intentional act by an intelligent being is designed.

This is the crux of IC and of SC. You might not like Dembski’s method of getting there but I think most would admit that if a thing has specified complexity then it is designed.


Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Wounded King, posted 03-09-2011 9:56 AM havoc has responded
 Message 159 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2011 10:27 AM havoc has responded
 Message 161 by ringo, posted 03-09-2011 10:47 AM havoc has not yet responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 156 of 377 (608177)
03-09-2011 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by havoc
03-09-2011 9:46 AM


You might not like Dembski’s method of getting there but I think most would admit that if a thing has specified complexity then it is designed.

I really doubt it, unless you also think that they would then go on to disagree with Dembski's assertion that there is specified complexity observable in living systems.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 9:46 AM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 10:23 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

havoc
Member (Idle past 3137 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 157 of 377 (608178)
03-09-2011 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Wounded King
03-09-2011 9:56 AM


I really doubt it, unless you also think that they would then go on to disagree with Dembski's assertion that there is specified complexity observable in living systems.

That is exactly what I think. From reading this board it sounds like most of the Darwinists on this board will admit design is self evident when it is the result of a human act. Seems to me that most here would accept specified complexity or intentional order as designed so long as we are familiar with its designer.

Since they discount a creator of life out of hand then the same order seen in the living things is not excepted as designed.

Edited by havoc, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Wounded King, posted 03-09-2011 9:56 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2011 10:47 AM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 165 by Taq, posted 03-09-2011 11:02 AM havoc has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17829
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 158 of 377 (608179)
03-09-2011 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by slevesque
03-09-2011 2:04 AM


slevesque writes:

I honestly do not know where you got the impression of any circular reasoning, irreducible complexity is certainly defined appart from any reference to design.


The concept of irreducible complexity was invented specifically to support the idea of intelligent design. Irreducible complexity implies design because it was defined in such a way that Behe hoped it would eliminate anything but design.

If the two ideas are only linked by inductive reasoning, why is it that only those who already believe in design come to the conclusion of design?

slevesque writes:

We need to ask ourselves what ability does an intelligent mind have that a natural process does not.


In this topic, we need to ask ourselves what evidence there is to distinguish the two. What evidence distinguishes a murder from a suicide or an accident?

What evidence distinguishes an intentional dam from an accidental one? Irreducible complexity doesn't work. Move on to something that does.


You can have brevity and clarify, or you can have accuracy and detail, but you can't easily have both. --Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 2:04 AM slevesque has not yet responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 377 (608181)
03-09-2011 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by havoc
03-09-2011 9:46 AM


[qs=havoc]It takes an act of will to design a thing.So an accidental rock slide causing a water dam is not designed but a beaver dam is.[/quote]

Beavers intentionally build dams, but I'm not convinced that beavers design dams.

Is the act of will enough to establish design? If I am told to draw a 3 inch circle and I do so using a compass, did either I or my instructor design the circle? Is a definition of design that excludes things like the circle example reasonable.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 9:46 AM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 10:43 AM NoNukes has responded

havoc
Member (Idle past 3137 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 160 of 377 (608184)
03-09-2011 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by NoNukes
03-09-2011 10:27 AM


Beavers intentionally build dams, but I'm not convinced that beavers design dams

What do you mean? Is it a question of understanding why you are doing a thing? If so, I’m not sure of the self awareness of a beaver but I think it must know that it is building a dam to back up the water to improve its habitat.

Understanding why an act was done is probably not required to determine whether it is designed or not. Certainly we could find an artifact made by an alien and without having any idea of what their level of self awareness was we could determine that it was designed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2011 10:27 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 10:50 AM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 168 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2011 11:16 AM havoc has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17829
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 161 of 377 (608185)
03-09-2011 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by havoc
03-09-2011 9:46 AM


havoc writes:

It takes an act of will to design a thing. So an accidental rock slide causing a water dam is not designed but a beaver dam is. Drift wood is not designed the act of displaying it is designed.


Yes, that's what I was getting at.

If the driftwood was moved onto my coffee table by a flood, for example, we could expect to find other evidence of that natural cause - dirt, water marks, etc. In the absence of such evidence, we can reasonably conclude that an object surrounded by human-designed objects was put there by human design.

Now, what about the dam? How can you tell whether the rocks fell into the river accidentally or were thrown there by me?

Edited by ringo, : Added a hyphen, just for fun. They're cheap.


You can have brevity and clarify, or you can have accuracy and detail, but you can't easily have both. --Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 9:46 AM havoc has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 11:13 AM ringo has responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 377 (608186)
03-09-2011 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by havoc
03-09-2011 10:23 AM


Self Evident??
havoc writes:

That is exactly what I think. From reading this board it sounds like most of the Darwinists on this board will admit design is self evident when it is the result of a human act.

What you think as expressed above is not correct. Essentially all of us, including regardless of our opinions of Behe's or Dembski's theories, accept that we can establish whether an object has been designed when we know the processes by which the objects are made and the intent of those involved.

On the other hand, at least some proponents of ID believe that we can determine design without knowing or even speculating about process, intent, or even the nature of the designer. I would not call myself a Darwinist, but I am skeptical that such a thing can be done. In particular, I think Behe's approach is complete bullocks.

I don't see anything the least bit inconsistent with those positions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 10:23 AM havoc has not yet responded

havoc
Member (Idle past 3137 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 163 of 377 (608187)
03-09-2011 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by havoc
03-09-2011 10:43 AM


Is the act of will enough to establish design? If I am told to draw a 3 inch circle and I do so using a compass, did either I or my instructor design the circle? Is a definition of design that excludes things like the circle example reasonable.

Im not sure who designed the circle but finding a stone tablet with a circle carved into one would be correct to assume that it was designed.

I think the circle question is more conceptual ie: Who is responsible for the design? Which designer gets credit for the circle? Both interesting questions but I think they are outside of evidence of design, you have to already know that a thing was designed before you could get to your question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 10:43 AM havoc has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2011 11:37 AM havoc has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8213
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 164 of 377 (608188)
03-09-2011 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by slevesque
03-09-2011 2:39 AM


We have a boatload of IC systems that we know were designed in many different spheres of technology. The only IC systems that we do not know the origin are biological systems.

My point is that the biological systems far outnumber the human made IC systems. You are using a relatively small number of IC systems from non-reproducing designs to make a generalized statement about a much larger number of IC systems from reproducing organisms that, btw, evolve.

The induction is not incomplete, in fact you yourself give the answer.

Suppose we replace the first premise.

All IC systems are designed by humans
System A is IC
Therefore system A was designed by humans

Here is the inductive argument.

All IC systems of known origin were designed by humans.

Therefore, all IC systems of unknown origin were designed by humans.

We know this can't be true, therefore IC fails as evidence of design.

If all IC systems are designed by humans, then biological IC systems were designed by humans
biological IC systems are not designed by humans,
Therefore not all IC systems are designed by humans

Therefore, not all IC systems are designed. Period.

Let's try to clear up all the logical steps leading to IC maybe being a candidate for identifying designed systems before going into counter-examples.

Until you show that the inductive argument does not require humans as the designer then I would say that the inductive argument has failed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 2:39 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 5:11 PM Taq has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8213
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 165 of 377 (608190)
03-09-2011 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by havoc
03-09-2011 10:23 AM


That is exactly what I think. From reading this board it sounds like most of the Darwinists on this board will admit design is self evident when it is the result of a human act.

I would call it non-controversial. When an archaeologist is digging at a site and comes across an arrowhead and an earthworm which one do you think he sends back to a museum as an artefact of intelligent engineering?

Seems to me that most here would accept specified complexity or intentional order as designed so long as we are familiar with its designer.

If you could show us how to measure such things we could certainly entertain it.

Since they discount a creator of life out of hand then the same order seen in the living things is not excepted as designed.

Surely you need evidence of something before you accept it as true, don't you? Why should we be any different?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 10:23 AM havoc has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 11:15 AM Taq has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020