Developing a focused set of questions for IDists - Comments encouraged
noctiluca
Univ. in L.A. wherein they will lay themselves open to their harshest
critics asking the tough questions. More on this here -
http://www.biola.edu/cal/cal_detail.cfm?e=222.
As I have been indolently accumulating a list of such questions I
thought this would be a good time to try and polish them up by kicking
them around here. What I'm looking for is comment on the phrasing,
fairness, inherent flaws in, possible answers to, these questions. The
point in asking questions like these is obviously to try to reveal an
actual flaw or contradiction in ID reasoning, but I have to accept that
there may be unfair assumptions built into the questions that I have
missed. If you see a problem please don't hesitate to point it out.
All of the questions will be posted at my blog -
http://www.litcandle.blogspot.com/ (comments there are welcome as well)
but I thought it might be best to deal with these one at a time here.
And so, off we go with the first question,
1. For those who suggest "common design" as a reasonable
explanation for common descent - hypothesize a biological datum that
would falsify "common design." Regarding this datum, please explain
how you know the designer could not or would not design in such a
fashion.
Robert
Ken Shaw
The question seems fair. Too bad Dembski isn't going to be there. I
have an ID as info theory question that no else has been able to reply
to substantively.
Ken
noctiluca
I thought Dembski was part of the lineup but I might be misremembering.
I can't access the Biola site right now for some reason.
Anyway, do you mind posting your question here? I know little of
information theory but I'm always interested in cases where reason has
gone wrong.
Robert
> Ken
Desertphile
Some questions I would like to see ID proponants answer:
o) What tests have you applied to your ID hypothesis to prove it false?
o) How does ID differ, if it does, from the "watchmaker" hypothesis?
o) If a bacterium's flagella require designers, why would those
designers not require designers?
o) Most of the many questions that ID raises are almost always answered
by ID proponants with "We don't know yet; that needs more research."
What steps has the ID proponant community put in place to answer those
questions?
o) Why is nearly 100% of DI proponant's efforts been spent in the
political arena and in the funding arena, instead of in the scientific
arena?
Lee Jay
> Some of ID's brightest bulbs will be convening for a session at Biola
My question would be, "are flashlights allowed into this venue?"
lee Jay
John Harshman
I think the most entertaining thing to do would be to exploit the
internal contradictions in the big tent. Ask them about whether the
universe is billions of years old and whether humans and chimps are
related by common descent. Saying no puts them into the biblical
creationist camp and destroys their credibility as scientists (or
whatever they may have had), while saying yes costs them credibility
with their supporters. If they try to weasel, that costs them any
integrity they may have had.
Tracy P. Hamilton
please point out that
1) euthanasia is just microevolution
2) Weikart accepts microevolution
therefore
3) Weikart's beliefs about biology could lead to euthanasia.
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
noctiluca
Desertphile wrote:
> noctiluca wrote:
>
> > Some of ID's brightest bulbs will be convening for a session at Biola
> > Univ. in L.A. wherein they will lay themselves open to their harshest
> > critics asking the tough questions. More on this here -
> > http://www.biola.edu/cal/cal_detail.cfm?e=222.
> >
> > As I have been indolently accumulating a list of such questions I
> > thought this would be a good time to try and polish them up by kicking
> > them around here. What I'm looking for is comment on the phrasing,
> > fairness, inherent flaws in, possible answers to, these questions. The
> > point in asking questions like these is obviously to try to reveal an
> > actual flaw or contradiction in ID reasoning, but I have to accept that
> > there may be unfair assumptions built into the questions that I have
> > missed. If you see a problem please don't hesitate to point it out.
> >
> > All of the questions will be posted at my blog -
> > http://www.litcandle.blogspot.com/ (comments there are welcome as well)
> > but I thought it might be best to deal with these one at a time here.
> >
> > And so, off we go with the first question,
> >
> > 1. For those who suggest "common design" as a reasonable
> > explanation for common descent - hypothesize a biological datum that
> > would falsify "common design." Regarding this datum, please explain
> > how you know the designer could not or would not design in such a
> > fashion.
>
> Some questions I would like to see ID proponants answer:
I have taken the liberty of numbering your questions.
> 1) What tests have you applied to your ID hypothesis to prove it false?
Indeed, I agree that this is an important question. In fact something
like it was going to be my next offering for comment here. I put it
this way,
2 - Scientific investigation identifies a set of observations that
require explanation, hypothesizes a causal agency for the observations,
then tests the hypothesis. ID identifies the observations and
hypothesizes the causal agency, but refuses to perform the actual
science by testing the hypothesis. Name another science that operates
in this fashion.
> 2) How does ID differ, if it does, from the "watchmaker" hypothesis?
>
> 3) If a bacterium's flagella require designers, why would those
> designers not require designers?
This is another important fundamental question when based on the
"complexity" argument. Jay Richards, as I recall, has attempted to
argue this difficulty away. I'll have to refamiliarize myself with his
piece and try to frame the question accordingly.
> 4) Most of the many questions that ID raises are almost always answered
> by ID proponants with "We don't know yet; that needs more research."
> What steps has the ID proponant community put in place to answer those
> questions?
>
> 5) Why is nearly 100% of DI proponant's efforts been spent in the
> political arena and in the funding arena, instead of in the scientific
> arena?
I think 4, and 5 are related and could be subsumed into a broader
question. I was thinking of constructing a similar question that
offered IDists a chance to either repudiate the Wedge (phase II in
particular) or stop whining about ID critics repeatedly throwing it up
in their faces.
Thanks for your comments.
Robert
noctiluca
Just confirming that Ken was right. Dembski is not scheduled to be
there.
noctiluca
Yes, provided you do *not* assume they operate by strictly natural
prcesses.
Robert
> lee Jay
Windy
noctiluca wrote:
> Some of ID's brightest bulbs will be convening
Haha, ha, ha.
> As I have been indolently accumulating a list of such questions I
> thought this would be a good time to try and polish them up by kicking
> them around here.
Here's another one:
Why did Behe claim that gene duplication and subsequent alteration of
protein-ligand binding sites requiring multiple mutations was a valid
test for the evolution of complexity when he modelled it (Behe & Snokes
2004) but said it was not relevant last week when the Bridgham, Carroll
and Thornton paper came out?
More info:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/evolution_of_ic_1.html
-- w
Ken Shaw
Here goes:
If ID is really able to detect intelligently designed streams of
characters then why is it not being applied to signal processing and
cryptography? The applications in both fields of the ability to
identify the designed stream from the random stream would be
tremendous.
Obviously this question is not something to ask Behe or the rest of the
panel that Biola has lined up.
Ken
noctiluca
Well, beyond the entertainment value I think this would be a fair line
of inquiry. As you know some of these guys have at various times
allowed that common descent could be a viable explanation but nearly
all of them gag a bit when asked about how humans fit into the scheme.
In another post I mentioned that it might be beneficial to phrase a
question in such a way as to offer the opportunity to formally
repudiate the Wedge or stop complaining about ID critic's use of it. I
think something along those lines, asking them to either repudiate
creationism or accept that ID is inextricably linked with creationism,
might be both tactically beneficial and logically justifiable.
Robert
noctiluca
I see what you mean. None of them appears to have the appropriate
credentials. Can you speculate on what Dembski's answer would be? My
guess would be something complaining about the entrenched establishment
but I suppose he might offer a more technically relevant answer.
Robert
> Ken
noctiluca
I saw that as well, and agree that it would be a fair question for
Behe. But I'm thinking in terms of questions that address fundamental
contradictions in the kinds of ID arguments most proponents agree upon
and use.
Robert
> -- w
TomS
<1145030460.6...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, noctiluca stated..."
* Take any acknowledged feature of the world of life. Assume that
there are inscrutable designers, using unknown materials and methods,
for purposes which are to be forever beyond our ken. What is the
probability that these designers would choose that feature, among
all of the possibilities that they could choose? Is that probability
greater than zero? Is that probability more than the probability of
"pure chance, restricted only by our knowledge of the laws of nature"?
(Calculate the probability by dividing the number one, representing
what is actually the case - by infinity, the number of possibilities
open to "intelligent designers".)
* Is there any feature of the world of life which is "irreducibly
complex", "complex specified information", or "intelligently
designed" which distinguishes the standard human body from a
typical mammalian body? From a hominid body?
* Are we permitted to draw any conclusions about values, purposes,
or morals from the close correspondences of human bodies with those
of other animals? Are we, on the other hand, permitted to draw any
such conclusions from what differences there are between different
humans? (This is essentially Tracy Hamilton's point.)
* Are we permitted to make "design inferences" from features of
the world of life other than anatomy of individuals or species?
Do facts of biogeography, taxonomy, comparative anatomy,
paleontology, evo-devo, ecology, and other sciences, also bear the
"appearance of design"?
* What would it look like if we were to see a "design event" to
take place? Would the result be a single new organ in an already
existing individual, or a single new individual, or a pair, or a
population, or would it be an entire, mature, interacting ecological
system? How viable are the situations immediately before and after
the "design event"? How is it distinguishable from an "omphalos"
situtation - with the appearance of having a history?
* Is there any prospect of development, growth, or change in ID?
Is there any possibility of a surprising new discovery? Is anyone
doing any investigation into the limits of ID - to use the jargon,
"pushing the envelope"?
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
catshark
noctiluca wrote:
> Some of ID's brightest bulbs will be convening for a session at Biola
> Univ. in L.A. wherein they will lay themselves open to their harshest
> critics asking the tough questions. More on this here -
> http://www.biola.edu/cal/cal_detail.cfm?e=222.
>
> As I have been indolently accumulating a list of such questions I
> thought this would be a good time to try and polish them up by kicking
> them around here. What I'm looking for is comment on the phrasing,
> fairness, inherent flaws in, possible answers to, these questions. The
> point in asking questions like these is obviously to try to reveal an
> actual flaw or contradiction in ID reasoning, but I have to accept that
> there may be unfair assumptions built into the questions that I have
> missed. If you see a problem please don't hesitate to point it out.
In his response to the recent evidence about the evolution of "IC"
molecular systems
<http://waddle.uoregon.edu/?id=482>
Behe dismissed the work as not really involving IC because they require
at least three pieces and must perform some specific function to fit
his notion of irreducibly complex.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/science/07evolve.html?ex=1302062400&en=c4dfe02b8d70db4b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss>
Carl Zimmer has exploded this
<http://loom.corante.com/archives/2006/04/07/the_blind_locksmith_continued_the_mushy_definition_of_complexity.php>
<http://loom.corante.com/archives/2006/04/10/the_final_adventures_of_the_blind_locksmith.php>
As has Ian Musgrave:
<http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/evolution_of_ic.html>
My question then is: Why *three*?
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
The overwhelming evidence at trial established
that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling
of creationism, and not a scientific theory.
US District Judge John E. Jones III
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Robert Carnegie
> Some of ID's brightest bulbs will be convening for a session at Biola
> Univ. in L.A. wherein they will lay themselves open to their harshest
> critics asking the tough questions. More on this here -
> http://www.biola.edu/cal/cal_detail.cfm?e=222.
Now what is the goal in engaging with them -
1. Portray them as on a par with "other" scientists as far as
intellectual respectability goes.
2. Make them realise they're all idiots or poor liars, so that they go
home crying.
3. Make the audience realise that the ID bulbs are all idiots or poor
liars.
4. Induce stroke.
...or...
Cubist
[snippage]
> Some of ID's brightest bulbs will be convening for a session at Biola
> Univ. in L.A. wherein they will lay themselves open to their harshest
> critics asking the tough questions. More on this here -
> http://www.biola.edu/cal/cal_detail.cfm?e=222.
>
> As I have been indolently accumulating a list of such questions I
> thought this would be a good time to try and polish them up by kicking
> them around here...
* A number of IDists have asserted that science ought to abandon
"naturalism", on the grounds that naturalism is an unwarranted and
crippling limitation on science. If naturalistic Dr. Fred and
non-naturalistic Dr. George are both investigating the same phenomenon,
what, *exactly*, would Dr. George do *differently* from Dr. Fred? Are
there any testable hypotheses which Dr. Fred's naturalism would prevent
him from comijng up with, that non-naturalistic Dr. George *could* come
up with?
* How, *exactly*, does ID differ in *substance* from "somehow,
somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent *did* something"?
* How can science investigate a Designer without at least advancing
a hypothesis about any aspects of that Designer's goals, methods,
tools, motivations, etc etc etc?
noctiluca
He's not on the list. Is there anything more to his argument than the
garden-variety "Darwinism leads to _______" (fill in the blank with
your favorite social ill)?
Was this discussed in t.o?
Robert
> [snip]
>
> Tracy P. Hamilton
Windy
noctiluca wrote:
> > Why did Behe claim that gene duplication and subsequent alteration of
> > protein-ligand binding sites requiring multiple mutations was a valid
> > test for the evolution of complexity when he modelled it (Behe & Snokes
> > 2004) but said it was not relevant last week when the Bridgham, Carroll
> > and Thornton paper came out?
> >
>
> I saw that as well, and agree that it would be a fair question for
> Behe. But I'm thinking in terms of questions that address fundamental
> contradictions in the kinds of ID arguments most proponents agree upon
> and use.
I dunno, it seems more general questions just give ID proponents more
room to spin fluffy, evasive arguments.
The question "is the claim, that molecular systems are IC, falsifiable"
has already been asked, and they can always say "you have to
empirically demonstrate stepwise evolution of an IC system" et cetera.
But when such research is done, Behe calls it "piddling" and says it
doesn't count since there weren't at least three parts! Sheesh! I'm
sure they can provide nice answers to falsification questions, and then
just move the goalposts again afterwards.
-- w
snex
QUESTION: can you name any recognized field of science that lead to a
paradigm shift where the proponents of that field concentrated on
getting their views taught to high school students rather than doing
research to gather evidence for their views?
>
>
> Robert
noctiluca
Robert Carnegie wrote:
> noctiluca wrote:
> > Some of ID's brightest bulbs will be convening for a session at Biola
> > Univ. in L.A. wherein they will lay themselves open to their harshest
> > critics asking the tough questions. More on this here -
> > http://www.biola.edu/cal/cal_detail.cfm?e=222.
>
> Now what is the goal in engaging with them -
Well, given that this is likely some sort of attempt to pump up the
troops in the wake of Dover one could look at it as an opportunity to
blunt that attempt.
Or one could consider that if there are actually "tough" questions
posed, and they are actually disposed to answer then it could be a
valuable exercise in disseminating better understanding of the problems
with ID.
> 1. Portray them as on a par with "other" scientists as far as
> intellectual respectability goes.
These people aren't dullards. I believe they are wrong, and in some
cases that they are perpetrating a wrong of which they are aware. But
to the degree they offer something approaching "intellectually
respectable" arguments I think it is important to engage and, where
appropriate, point out the inherent illogic
And to the degree they offer foolish arguments supporters of evolution
get to present a more thoughtful case (granted, this only impresses
those willing to think).
> 2. Make them realise they're all idiots or poor liars, so that they go
> home crying.
>
> 3. Make the audience realise that the ID bulbs are all idiots or poor
> liars.
>
> 4. Induce stroke.
Naah, nothing so serious. Maybe dumbstruck disbelief. But heck I can
get that here anytime I want just by reading a Pagano post.
Robert
> ...or...
Windy
> > 4) Most of the many questions that ID raises are almost always answered
> > by ID proponants with "We don't know yet; that needs more research."
> > What steps has the ID proponant community put in place to answer those
> > questions?
> > 5) Why is nearly 100% of DI proponant's efforts been spent in the
> > political arena and in the funding arena, instead of in the scientific
> > arena?
> I think 4, and 5 are related and could be subsumed into a broader
> question. I was thinking of constructing a similar question that
> offered IDists a chance to either repudiate the Wedge (phase II in
> particular) or stop whining about ID critics repeatedly throwing it up
> in their faces.
Naturally, they need to make their arguments to the broad public, since
the evo-atheist conspiracy is oppressing them, thus far denying them
grants for research or fair peer-review.
Next question!
-- w
noctiluca
I like this. They can come back with the protest about the DI
disavowing any mandated teaching of ID, but then they've got to take
responsibility for the "teach the controversy" slant, and there are
ways of following up on that bit of silliness.
Robert
> > Robert
Ken Shaw
I really couldn't speculate beyond noting that I have asked this
question both on this newsgroup and in direct emails to Dembski as well
as in comments on UD and have never gotten a response. As a matter of
fact my comments on UD were moderated and never appeared.
Ken
noctiluca
Windy wrote:
> noctiluca wrote:
> > > Why did Behe claim that gene duplication and subsequent alteration of
> > > protein-ligand binding sites requiring multiple mutations was a valid
> > > test for the evolution of complexity when he modelled it (Behe & Snokes
> > > 2004) but said it was not relevant last week when the Bridgham, Carroll
> > > and Thornton paper came out?
> > >
> > > http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/evolution_of_ic_1.html
> >
> > I saw that as well, and agree that it would be a fair question for
> > Behe. But I'm thinking in terms of questions that address fundamental
> > contradictions in the kinds of ID arguments most proponents agree upon
> > and use.
>
> I dunno, it seems more general questions just give ID proponents more
> room to spin fluffy, evasive arguments.
In retrospect, I'm coming around to the idea that maybe, since nearly
all ID proponents at one time or another fall back on IC, this might be
a profitable avenue. The problem could be that the arguments may very
quickly get over the head of most of the audience, leaving their
attention wandering and the point unmade.
> The question "is the claim, that molecular systems are IC, falsifiable"
> has already been asked, and they can always say "you have to
> empirically demonstrate stepwise evolution of an IC system" et cetera.
>
> But when such research is done, Behe calls it "piddling" and says it
> doesn't count since there weren't at least three parts! Sheesh! I'm
> sure they can provide nice answers to falsification questions, and then
> just move the goalposts again afterwards.
Well, when you're committed to wearing a particular piece of
ill-fitting underwear I suppose you're always going to be fidgeting
around trying to make it more comfortable.
Robert
> -- w
noctiluca
Yeah, I had the same thing happen to mine. And we're just the tip of
the iced-berg.
> Ken
noctiluca
Must read these. Do you know if Behe has responded to Musgrave yet?
Robert
noctiluca
I like this kind of question. It puts an ID proponent in a position I
don't think they can dismiss easily - having to choose between ID as a
"theory" which is truly comfortable encompassing all the findings of
evolutionary biology (as Dembski has said) or a hand-me-down incapable
of leaving its creationist roots behind?
> * Are we permitted to draw any conclusions about values, purposes,
> or morals from the close correspondences of human bodies with those
> of other animals? Are we, on the other hand, permitted to draw any
> such conclusions from what differences there are between different
> humans? (This is essentially Tracy Hamilton's point.)
>
> * Are we permitted to make "design inferences" from features of
> the world of life other than anatomy of individuals or species?
> Do facts of biogeography, taxonomy, comparative anatomy,
> paleontology, evo-devo, ecology, and other sciences, also bear the
> "appearance of design"?
>
> * What would it look like if we were to see a "design event" to
> take place? Would the result be a single new organ in an already
> existing individual, or a single new individual, or a pair, or a
> population, or would it be an entire, mature, interacting ecological
> system? How viable are the situations immediately before and after
> the "design event"? How is it distinguishable from an "omphalos"
> situtation - with the appearance of having a history?
>
> * Is there any prospect of development, growth, or change in ID?
> Is there any possibility of a surprising new discovery? Is anyone
> doing any investigation into the limits of ID - to use the jargon,
> "pushing the envelope"?
I think some of these questions (all of which I think are great by the
way) suffer from the fact that they call for speculation on matters for
which the ID proponent is not obligated by previous argument to have
considered. In other words I think they are great for getting into
extended discussion of problems with ID theory but not necessarily well
suited to making a point in a limited setting where a pointed question
needs to derive from the stated position of the IDist. To be honest I'm
not sure the question I started this thread with doesn't suffer from
the same problem.
Robert
noctiluca
Cubist wrote:
> noctiluca wrote:
>
> [snippage]
>
> > Some of ID's brightest bulbs will be convening for a session at Biola
> > Univ. in L.A. wherein they will lay themselves open to their harshest
> > critics asking the tough questions. More on this here -
> > http://www.biola.edu/cal/cal_detail.cfm?e=222.
> >
> > As I have been indolently accumulating a list of such questions I
> > thought this would be a good time to try and polish them up by kicking
> > them around here...
> * A number of IDists have asserted that science ought to abandon
> "naturalism", on the grounds that naturalism is an unwarranted and
> crippling limitation on science. If naturalistic Dr. Fred and
> non-naturalistic Dr. George are both investigating the same phenomenon,
> what, *exactly*, would Dr. George do *differently* from Dr. Fred? Are
> there any testable hypotheses which Dr. Fred's naturalism would prevent
> him from comijng up with, that non-naturalistic Dr. George *could* come
> up with?
In fact, a question addressing these concerns was going to be the third
in my series. Mine goes,
3 - Methodological naturalism is considered unfairly restrictive by
ID proponents. Please suggest a method by which science could
accommodate inference to the non-natural and remain operationally
potent. In other words, explain how we can empirically establish a
direct causal connection between natural phenomena and non-natural
agency.
> * How, *exactly*, does ID differ in *substance* from "somehow,
> somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent *did* something"?
> * How can science investigate a Designer without at least advancing
> a hypothesis about any aspects of that Designer's goals, methods,
> tools, motivations, etc etc etc?
Another good one, and it was number 5 on my list or questions for
IDists,
5 - ID proponents insist that we need know nothing of the designer in
discussing design. Hypothesize an example of a scientific inference to
intelligent design that can be made without any knowledge of the
designer. Describe this "design" using arguments that neither
directly nor indirectly suggest methods, motives or the nature of the
designer.
Robert
Ron O
noctiluca wrote:
> Some of ID's brightest bulbs will be convening for a session at Biola
> Univ. in L.A. wherein they will lay themselves open to their harshest
> critics asking the tough questions. More on this here -
> http://www.biola.edu/cal/cal_detail.cfm?e=222.
>
> As I have been indolently accumulating a list of such questions I
> thought this would be a good time to try and polish them up by kicking
> fairness, inherent flaws in, possible answers to, these questions. The
> point in asking questions like these is obviously to try to reveal an
> actual flaw or contradiction in ID reasoning, but I have to accept that
> there may be unfair assumptions built into the questions that I have
> missed. If you see a problem please don't hesitate to point it out.
>
> All of the questions will be posted at my blog -
> http://www.litcandle.blogspot.com/ (comments there are welcome as well)
> but I thought it might be best to deal with these one at a time here.
>
> And so, off we go with the first question,
>
> 1. For those who suggest "common design" as a reasonable
> explanation for common descent - hypothesize a biological datum that
> would falsify "common design." Regarding this datum, please explain
> how you know the designer could not or would not design in such a
> fashion.
>
>
The first question that they have to answer is when do they think that
IDiots will start doing any science.
They have to determine why they come up short and what they have to do
to bring ID up to the level that science can evaluate it. Until they
do that they are just wasting their time and spinning their wheels.
Ron Okimoto
Desertphile
o) "Proponants of ID/IC offer several examples of what they believe to
be 'intelligent design.' Can you, please, give a few examples of
objects that do not appear designed, and how do you know they are not
designed?"
catshark
No, I'm afraid I don't know.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
The peril of negative arguments is that they may rest on
our lack of knowledge, rather than on positive results.
- Michael J. Behe -
Desertphile
> QUESTION: can you name any recognized field of science that lead to a
> paradigm shift where the proponents of that field concentrated on
> getting their views taught to high school students rather than doing
> research to gather evidence for their views?
Nazi nationalism comes to mind; "Scientific Communism" also.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
noctiluca wrote:
> Some of ID's brightest bulbs will be convening for a session at Biola
> Univ. in L.A. wherein they will lay themselves open to their harshest
> critics asking the tough questions. More on this here -
> http://www.biola.edu/cal/cal_detail.cfm?e=222.
>
> As I have been indolently accumulating a list of such questions I
> thought this would be a good time to try and polish them up by kicking
> them around here. What I'm looking for is comment on the phrasing,
> fairness, inherent flaws in, possible answers to, these questions. The
> point in asking questions like these is obviously to try to reveal an
> actual flaw or contradiction in ID reasoning, but I have to accept that
> there may be unfair assumptions built into the questions that I have
> missed. If you see a problem please don't hesitate to point it out.
>
> http://www.litcandle.blogspot.com/ (comments there are welcome as well)
> but I thought it might be best to deal with these one at a time here.
>
> And so, off we go with the first question,
>
> 1. For those who suggest "common design" as a reasonable
> explanation for common descent - hypothesize a biological datum that
> would falsify "common design." Regarding this datum, please explain
> how you know the designer could not or would not design in such a
> fashion.
>
In the entire ID/creationism "debate", there are only two questions
that really matter -- all of the rest are irrelevant until the
ID/creationists provide a workable answer to one of these two.
First, if ID/creationism is science: What *is* the scientific theory
of ID/creationism, and how do we test it using the scientific method?
If ID/creationism is religion: What makes your particular religious
opinions any more valid or authoritative than mine, my next door
neighbor's, my car mechanic's, my veterinarian's, or the kid who
delivers my pizzas?
Until the ID/creationists answer those simple basic questions,
everything else they yammer about is just misdirection and avoidance.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/
Desertphile
> Desertphile wrote:
> > noctiluca wrote:
> >
> > > Some of ID's brightest bulbs will be convening for a session at Biola
> > > Univ. in L.A. wherein they will lay themselves open to their harshest
> > > critics asking the tough questions. More on this here -
> > > http://www.biola.edu/cal/cal_detail.cfm?e=222.
> > >
> > > As I have been indolently accumulating a list of such questions I
> > > thought this would be a good time to try and polish them up by kicking
> > > them around here. What I'm looking for is comment on the phrasing,
> > > fairness, inherent flaws in, possible answers to, these questions. The
> > > point in asking questions like these is obviously to try to reveal an
> > > actual flaw or contradiction in ID reasoning, but I have to accept that
> > > there may be unfair assumptions built into the questions that I have
> > > missed. If you see a problem please don't hesitate to point it out.
> > >
> > > All of the questions will be posted at my blog -
> > > http://www.litcandle.blogspot.com/ (comments there are welcome as well)
> > > but I thought it might be best to deal with these one at a time here.
> > >
> > > And so, off we go with the first question,
> > >
> > > 1. For those who suggest "common design" as a reasonable
> > > explanation for common descent - hypothesize a biological datum that
> > > would falsify "common design." Regarding this datum, please explain
> > > how you know the designer could not or would not design in such a
> > > fashion.
> >
> > Some questions I would like to see ID proponants answer:
> I have taken the liberty of numbering your questions.
> > 1) What tests have you applied to your ID hypothesis to prove it false?
> Indeed, I agree that this is an important question. In fact something
> like it was going to be my next offering for comment here. I put it
> this way,
>
> 2 - Scientific investigation identifies a set of observations that
> require explanation, hypothesizes a causal agency for the observations,
> then tests the hypothesis. ID identifies the observations and
> hypothesizes the causal agency, but refuses to perform the actual
> science by testing the hypothesis. Name another science that operates
> in this fashion.
Your question is great, but the chief "flaw" is that you must first
make a statement that preceeds the question; I've found that when
asking questions to speakers in "Q&A" venues that having to first
explain the question before asking it is resented by the person one is
asking an answer from.--- even when that resentment is unfair. The
problem is compounded by the speaker first having to agree that the
explanation is valid first: dishonest speakers (which is nearly 100% of
Creationists) can, and do, easily avoid painful questions that follow
the prefixed explanation to the questions by dismissing the
explanation.... or addressing the explanation instead of the question.
> > 2) How does ID differ, if it does, from the "watchmaker" hypothesis?
> >
> > 3) If a bacterium's flagella require designers, why would those
> > designers not require designers?
> This is another important fundamental question when based on the
> "complexity" argument. Jay Richards, as I recall, has attempted to
> argue this difficulty away. I'll have to refamiliarize myself with his
> piece and try to frame the question accordingly.
Various ID proponants have already given the "answer:" some assert they
do not carry the burden of answering that question because "it is not
relevant." Others say that answer is secondary to establishing the
"fact" that designers were necessary for what we do observer, not what
we infer (the inferrance being designers for what we observe).
You will never, under any and all cercumstances, EVER get a
Creationists / IDists to answer the above question honestly. They will
all, without exception, evade it, ignore it, and/or fart smoke and
mirrors out of their anuses instead.
> > 4) Most of the many questions that ID raises are almost always answered
> > by ID proponants with "We don't know yet; that needs more research."
> > What steps has the ID proponant community put in place to answer those
> > questions?
> >
> > 5) Why is nearly 100% of DI proponant's efforts been spent in the
> > political arena and in the funding arena, instead of in the scientific
> > arena?
>
> I think 4, and 5 are related and could be subsumed into a broader
> question. I was thinking of constructing a similar question that
> offered IDists a chance to either repudiate the Wedge (phase II in
> particular) or stop whining about ID critics repeatedly throwing it up
> in their faces.
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> Robert
Desertphile
"Some of ID's brightest bulbs...." LOL! Funny!
Joe Cooper
7th and 8th grade is junior high, not high school
That is the target audience for the ID movement.
The idea is to influence the leaders of the future to make sure that
evolution is not considered to be useful.
Joe Cooper
noctiluca
I'm familiar with these types of assertions but of course it is
relevant if they wish to address ID within an empirical context. As
with many of these questions, the decision really tumbles to "do you
wish to maintain that ID is scientific or do you wish to acknowledge
the need for some particular exemption (in this case the requirements
of the complexity argument).
> Others say that answer is secondary to establishing the
> "fact" that designers were necessary for what we do observer, not what
> we infer (the inferrance being designers for what we observe).
Hmmm, I'm not sure I've heard this bit.
> You will never, under any and all cercumstances, EVER get a
> Creationists / IDists to answer the above question honestly. They will
> all, without exception, evade it, ignore it, and/or fart smoke and
> mirrors out of their anuses instead.
Nonsense. I have spoken with some who acknowledge difficult questions
and attempt honest answers. Now in public, well that can be a different
matter.
Robert
Friar Broccoli
Ken Shaw wrote:
> > Anyway, do you mind posting your question here? I know little of
> > information theory but I'm always interested in cases where reason has
> > gone wrong.
> >
>
> Here goes:
>
> If ID is really able to detect intelligently designed streams of
> characters then why is it not being applied to signal processing and
> cryptography? The applications in both fields of the ability to
> identify the designed stream from the random stream would be
> tremendous.
Nice question. Consider it stolen.
Ken Shaw
Thief! Thief!
Ken
Victor Eijkhout
> If ID is really able to detect intelligently designed streams of
> characters then why is it not being applied to signal processing and
> cryptography?
Heck, do a proof of concept. Are Jackson Pollocks paintings random or
did he design them somehow.
Victor.
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
ph: 512 471 5809
Victor Eijkhout
_when_.
Suppose you have an organism with an IC organ. Was the animal born
without and did he acquire it overnight?
If that didn't happen, if he was born with it, did his parents (or
whatever you call that in case of bacteria) have it? If yes, infinite
regression, if no then you should be able to find fossils or other
indication of a generation without followed by one with.
I guess you can avoid infinite regression by gradual build-up of the
organ. In that case, were there animals swimming around with half a
flagellum? Unlikely. Or maybe it was build up pretty much the way recent
research has indicated, where it was functional in every step.
In that case, what's the design? Were the immediate steps not
evolutionary advantages? If so, the animals wouldn't have survived. If
yes, then the IC organ was evolved, and I guess the only thing left for
the designer is to guide the evolution, in other words, we're down the
theistic evolution.
John Wilkins
> Ken Shaw <ksha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If ID is really able to detect intelligently designed streams of
>> characters then why is it not being applied to signal processing and
>> cryptography?
>
> Heck, do a proof of concept. Are Jackson Pollocks paintings random or
> did he design them somehow.
>
> Victor.
http://materialscience.uoregon.edu/taylor/art/TaylorlCCS2002.pdf
But note that Pollock had to *learn* how to do this - his earlier work is less
fractal. It seems that fractal complexity is something he was (presumably
unconsciously) aiming for, and he got there by trial and error.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos,
puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
nickm...@gmail.com
> all ID proponents at one time or another fall back on IC, this might be
> a profitable avenue. The problem could be that the arguments may very
> quickly get over the head of most of the audience, leaving their
> attention wandering and the point unmade.
It is true that when IC goes down, everything else goes down with it,
since that is their "toughest" argument. Dembski has explicitly said
that IC is a special case of "specified complexity", so if IC can
evolve, then so can SC.
However, Behe & co are quite shameless about redefining IC and their
systems, and at moving the goalposts about what counts as a "detailed
explanation." So the best you can do is show people that no matter how
productive the science is, "ain't nothing going to convince these guys"
-- the ID proponents have basically constructed an unfalsifiable
tautology to protect IC.
nickm...@gmail.com
hope you don't have any illusions about scoring major points with
socratic questioning. The IDers specialize at long, rambling answers
that don't answer the question, but sound reasonable and intelligent to
the naive listener. I expect there will be virtually no way to pin
them down, and that this whole event is just going to be propaganda
where the result will be "IDists confront their critics!" no matter
what occurs.
In the Kitzmiller case, it took us a full day of questioning to
deconstruct Behe, and we had several advantages one never has as a
questioner at the microphone:
(a) the lawyer asks the questions one-on-one with the witness
(b) the lawyer guides the discussion, and the witness therefore cannot
divert the topic to something else
(c) the lawyer has unlimited followups, can re-ask the question if it
is not answered, etc.
(d) the lawyer can introduce exhibits -- in the Kitzmiller case, these
were projected onto a large screen for all to see. E.g., we put up two
Behe quotes "defining" "the" blood-clotting system. One was from
Pandas, one was from Darwin's Black Box. We highlighted the two
definitions which were strikingly contradictory. Behe couldn't run
away without looking silly -- eventually he came up with a third, new
definition of "the" blood clotting system, thus proving our point that
he redefines the system at will
(e) a neutral arbiter with strict, very well defined rules about
evidence, types of questions, etc.
(f) about nine months to prepare
For a public event like the Biola thing, I think the only way it could
be made reasonable would be to atomize each core issue and convene a
panel of experts to debate it. E.g.:
* What exactly, is the definition of "information" according to IDers?
* Why, exactly, can't evolution produce new genetic information?
* Aren't examples of new genes with new functions new genetic
information?
* Why hasn't the ID movement ever discussed the hundreds of scientific
papers on this topic?
* If the IDers admit that evolution can produce new genetic information
after all, what exactly is the quantitative amount of new genetic
information that evolution cannot cross, and why? "Large amounts" of
new information is not sufficiently specific.
One would need to do a similar level of detail on dozens of topics to
have any hope of making progress I think.
nickm...@gmail.com
namely, the high school textbook Of Pandas and People.
Victor Eijkhout
> > Heck, do a proof of concept. Are Jackson Pollocks paintings random or
> > did he design them somehow.
> Of course someone has done exactly that, using fractal complexity:
Coolness....
topmind
Desertphile wrote:
> noctiluca wrote:
>
> > Some of ID's brightest bulbs will be convening for a session at Biola
> > Univ. in L.A. wherein they will lay themselves open to their harshest
> > critics asking the tough questions. More on this here -
> > http://www.biola.edu/cal/cal_detail.cfm?e=222.
> >
> > As I have been indolently accumulating a list of such questions I
> > thought this would be a good time to try and polish them up by kicking
> > them around here. What I'm looking for is comment on the phrasing,
> > fairness, inherent flaws in, possible answers to, these questions. The
> > point in asking questions like these is obviously to try to reveal an
> > actual flaw or contradiction in ID reasoning, but I have to accept that
> > there may be unfair assumptions built into the questions that I have
> > missed. If you see a problem please don't hesitate to point it out.
> >
> > All of the questions will be posted at my blog -
> > http://www.litcandle.blogspot.com/ (comments there are welcome as well)
> > but I thought it might be best to deal with these one at a time here.
> >
> > And so, off we go with the first question,
> >
> > 1. For those who suggest "common design" as a reasonable
> > explanation for common descent - hypothesize a biological datum that
> > would falsify "common design." Regarding this datum, please explain
> > how you know the designer could not or would not design in such a
> > fashion.
>
> Some questions I would like to see ID proponants answer:
>
It could be given evidence by finding hidden messages or images inside
of DNA. (Not a Christian doctrine, but not outside of "pure" ID.)
As far as falsifying it, even evolution by natural selection cannot be
universally falsified. Showing that evo did not happen in a particular
spot or planet does not prove that it cannot happen ever anywhere.
Thus, evo is not universally falsifiable, so why should ID be held to a
higher standard?
>
> o) How does ID differ, if it does, from the "watchmaker" hypothesis?
>
> o) If a bacterium's flagella require designers, why would those
> designers not require designers?
This depends on the scope of ID. Does it try to explain the formation
of intelligence on earth, or intelligence in general?
One could propose that out of a jillion universes, a smart robot just
happened to come together by shear bulk of probability, found a way to
travel among universes, and created life on earth for the hell of it.
Or, that the creator travelled back in time to create themselves. This
possibility has not been scientifically ruled out.
>
> o) Most of the many questions that ID raises are almost always answered
> by ID proponants with "We don't know yet; that needs more research."
> What steps has the ID proponant community put in place to answer those
> questions?
>
> o) Why is nearly 100% of DI proponant's efforts been spent in the
> political arena and in the funding arena, instead of in the scientific
> arena?
Truth is not inherarently tied to lobbying money. Features of the
universe do not turn themselves on or off based on the whims, fancies,
or efforts of humans. Thus, it is an irrelavent question. Saying that X
is false because X supporters lobby a lot is bad science. Would
relatively turn false if a billionare paid for pro-relativity lobbying?
This is stranger than Shroedinger's Cat. Something is not true nor
false until lobbying money is spent?
-T-
topmind
> Some of ID's brightest bulbs will be convening for a session at Biola
> Univ. in L.A. wherein they will lay themselves open to their harshest
> critics asking the tough questions. More on this here -
> http://www.biola.edu/cal/cal_detail.cfm?e=222.
>
> As I have been indolently accumulating a list of such questions I
> thought this would be a good time to try and polish them up by kicking
> them around here. What I'm looking for is comment on the phrasing,
> fairness, inherent flaws in, possible answers to, these questions. The
> point in asking questions like these is obviously to try to reveal an
> actual flaw or contradiction in ID reasoning, but I have to accept that
> there may be unfair assumptions built into the questions that I have
> missed. If you see a problem please don't hesitate to point it out.
>
> All of the questions will be posted at my blog -
> http://www.litcandle.blogspot.com/ (comments there are welcome as well)
> but I thought it might be best to deal with these one at a time here.
>
> And so, off we go with the first question,
>
> 1. For those who suggest "common design" as a reasonable
> explanation for common descent - hypothesize a biological datum that
> would falsify "common design."
Do you mean the appearence of similarities between different species?
If so, wouldn't lack of similarity falsify it? The question is not
clear IMO.
> Regarding this datum, please explain
> how you know the designer could not or would not design in such a
> fashion.
Is this asking how to test the designer(s) motivation? That might bring
up the question of why it would be necessary to do such. Perhaps it is
comparable to historians trying to figure out why pivotable
personalities did what they did.
>
>
> Robert
-T-
Robert Carnegie
> Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > noctiluca wrote:
> > > Some of ID's brightest bulbs will be convening for a session at Biola
> > > Univ. in L.A. wherein they will lay themselves open to their harshest
> > > critics asking the tough questions. More on this here -
> > > http://www.biola.edu/cal/cal_detail.cfm?e=222.
> >
>
> Well, given that this is likely some sort of attempt to pump up the
> troops in the wake of Dover one could look at it as an opportunity to
> blunt that attempt.
>
> Or one could consider that if there are actually "tough" questions
> posed, and they are actually disposed to answer then it could be a
> valuable exercise in disseminating better understanding of the problems
> with ID.
>
> > 1. Portray them as on a par with "other" scientists as far as
> > intellectual respectability goes.
>
> These people aren't dullards. I believe they are wrong, and in some
> cases that they are perpetrating a wrong of which they are aware. But
> to the degree they offer something approaching "intellectually
> respectable" arguments I think it is important to engage and, where
> appropriate, point out the inherent illogic
>
> And to the degree they offer foolish arguments supporters of evolution
> get to present a more thoughtful case (granted, this only impresses
> those willing to think).
I don't say they aren't intellectually competent. I say they aren't
intellectually respectable. They're peddling nonsense but they're
doing it quite cleverly.
I suggest you try to trap them into endorsing Flood geology or biology,
or Jacob's animal breeding experiments - he mated his livestock in
sight of a patterned design and they produced patterned offspring. I
suppose you could cast that in terms of a species acquiring observed
characteristics from its environment, or something like that. But
they've probably memorised the chapter and verse of any dangerous bible
statements.
But yes, try a question that gives them a choice between (1) endorsing
a bizarre position that only exists in the bible or (2) calling you an
idiot for suggesting it. Don't dress like a scientist, though, or you
won't get in. Don't wear spectacles.
Ideally one of the less obvious stories... for instance you could ask
whether old bones contain DNA that can be used to reconstruct the form
of the living being, and they'll think you're asking about soft tissue
in dinosaur fossils. Then your followup is about Ezekiel preaching to
dry bones. (Was it Ezekiel?)
Or you could try pre-Flood animals being herbivores, or whether
underwater plant life existed before the Flood (Genesis only mentions
creation of land plants), or no rain before the Flood. (Actually I
think the bible is written so that if there was a verse about Cain
going out in the rain and sulking when his sacrifice to God was
rejected, it wouldn't amount to a contradiction - you'd just suppose
that it started to rain after Eden - but some creationists do take it
from the bible that there was no rain before the Flood.)
> > 2. Make them realise they're all idiots or poor liars, so that they go
> > home crying.
> >
> > 3. Make the audience realise that the ID bulbs are all idiots or poor
> > liars.
> >
> > 4. Induce stroke.
>
> Naah, nothing so serious. Maybe dumbstruck disbelief. But heck I can
> get that here anytime I want just by reading a Pagano post.
There's a list of names. But I had in mind that you could get /them/
to have strokes. That's mighty strong rhetoric, of course.
Robert Carnegie
The obvious riposte is that signal processing and cryptography and
mathematics are dominated by left-wing dogmatic atheists who don't even
allow intelligent design scientists to publish their ideas. The
techniques should be used but they aren't. That is why your computer
gets hacked by atheists in Russia and used for pornography - because
Microsoft hasn't embraced intelligent design.*
Another angle is that there are probably secret intelligent design
scientists working in the Pentagon to use intelligent design analysis
to break coded messages from atheist countries, but obviously they
can't tell us about that.
*You'd better wipe your monitor clean at this point, before the coffee
stain soaks in.
Robert Carnegie
catshark wrote:
> noctiluca wrote:
> > Some of ID's brightest bulbs will be convening for a session at Biola
> > Univ. in L.A. wherein they will lay themselves open to their harshest
> > critics asking the tough questions. More on this here -
> > http://www.biola.edu/cal/cal_detail.cfm?e=222.
> >
> > thought this would be a good time to try and polish them up by kicking
> > them around here. What I'm looking for is comment on the phrasing,
> > fairness, inherent flaws in, possible answers to, these questions. The
> > point in asking questions like these is obviously to try to reveal an
> > actual flaw or contradiction in ID reasoning, but I have to accept that
> > there may be unfair assumptions built into the questions that I have
> > missed. If you see a problem please don't hesitate to point it out.
>
> molecular systems
> <http://waddle.uoregon.edu/?id=482>
> Behe dismissed the work as not really involving IC because they require
> at least three pieces and must perform some specific function to fit
> his notion of irreducibly complex.
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/science/07evolve.html?ex=1302062400&en=c4dfe02b8d70db4b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss>
>
> Carl Zimmer has exploded this
> <http://loom.corante.com/archives/2006/04/07/the_blind_locksmith_continued_the_mushy_definition_of_complexity.php>
> <http://loom.corante.com/archives/2006/04/10/the_final_adventures_of_the_blind_locksmith.php>
>
> As has Ian Musgrave:
> <http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/evolution_of_ic.html>
>
> My question then is: Why *three*?
A very bad question, if you don't want a good answer. The creationist
can make up any babble that he likes that sounds good. He can talk for
half an hour if he wants to. And, in fact, he has a legitimate,
science-type answer: it's been demonstrated that two-pieces IC /can/
evolve naturally. That is why he has changed his position. He was
mistaken. It's what a scientist would say, given a similar challenge.
Robert Carnegie
> What I like to know is not how, why, or by who design is done, but
> _when_.
>
> Suppose you have an organism with an IC organ. Was the animal born
> without and did he acquire it overnight?
>
> If that didn't happen, if he was born with it, did his parents (or
> whatever you call that in case of bacteria) have it? If yes, infinite
> regression, if no then you should be able to find fossils or other
> indication of a generation without followed by one with.
Bad question. Easy answer. "We don't know because we didn't see it
done. However, human scientists do this by changing genes in an embryo
or a seed or in the generative organs of the previous generation, and
then seeing the gene expressed in the next generation of mature
individuals."
Robert Carnegie
> Desertphile wrote:
> >
> > Some questions I would like to see ID proponants answer:
> >
> > o) What tests have you applied to your ID hypothesis to prove it false?
>
> It could be given evidence by finding hidden messages or images inside
> of DNA. (Not a Christian doctrine, but not outside of "pure" ID.)
Beware... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Code
Anyway, they can argue that the design /is/ a message from the
designer.
> > o) Most of the many questions that ID raises are almost always answered
> > by ID proponants with "We don't know yet; that needs more research."
> > What steps has the ID proponant community put in place to answer those
> > questions?
> >
> > o) Why is nearly 100% of DI proponant's efforts been spent in the
> > political arena and in the funding arena, instead of in the scientific
> > arena?
>
> Truth is not inherarently tied to lobbying money. Features of the
> universe do not turn themselves on or off based on the whims, fancies,
> or efforts of humans. Thus, it is an irrelavent question. Saying that X
> is false because X supporters lobby a lot is bad science. Would
> relatively turn false if a billionare paid for pro-relativity lobbying?
> This is stranger than Shroedinger's Cat. Something is not true nor
> false until lobbying money is spent?
It isn't that they do lobbying, but that they /only/ do lobbying.
However, they'd probably spin that. They could point out that on this
particular occasion, they aren't lobbying, they are engaging in public
debate on their ideas, so it refutes your argument that they only
lobby.
So, not a killer argument.
jack.m...@gmail.com
> > Some questions I would like to see ID proponants answer:
> >
> > o) What tests have you applied to your ID hypothesis to prove it false?
>
> It could be given evidence by finding hidden messages or images inside
> of DNA. (Not a Christian doctrine, but not outside of "pure" ID.)
Are you finally willing to answer some of the questions raised in
previous threads? For example:
- Why would you expect to find signals in DNA, even if it were
designed?
- What kind of signals would you expect to find? This is where
you need to be very specific so that other people can
understand your justification for selecting particular
characteristics and repeat your work.
- Why would those signals be indicative of intelligence?
- A scientific approach works from a hypothesis that explains the
existing phenomena and then attempts to observe new phenomena
predicted by the hypothesis. What is your hypothesis and what
does it predict?
Simply saying "search in DNA" without answering these kinds of
questions is no more scientific than saying "look for patterns in the
clouds."
Jack
Robert Carnegie
John Harshman wrote:
> noctiluca wrote:
>
> I think the most entertaining thing to do would be to exploit the
> internal contradictions in the big tent. Ask them about whether the
> universe is billions of years old and whether humans and chimps are
> related by common descent. Saying no puts them into the biblical
> creationist camp and destroys their credibility as scientists (or
> whatever they may have had), while saying yes costs them credibility
> with their supporters. If they try to weasel, that costs them any
> integrity they may have had.
Yeah... this doesn't fit in the list you already wrote, but my question
would be like, "You are Christians and so you believe that God created
the world and God created mankind. So how do you dare to teach a false
un-Christian doctrine that denies God and gives the glory to the
mysterious designer, who could be Buddha or Mohammed or anybody?
Aren't you afraid of the punishment of God upon faithless people?"
I thought about sticking "or Martians" in there as well, but I think
that'd weaken it. Christians don't talk about Martians, as far as I
know. And you want to get as much of the question out as you can
before they take the microphone away - if that's the format. If
questions are put up in writing beforehand, you're kind of screwed, but
you could mount a protest outside afterwards, saying, "They didn't
answer my question!"
And I probably don't have the American Christian language exactly
right, being, for a long while, neither.
TomS
<1145095029.7...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Robert Carnegie
stated..."
My take on this question is something like this:
Before such-and-such an organ or function was put into the
animal, clearly the animal was fit to its environment. After the
"design event", wouldn't that animal be greatly better fit -
we're talking about a major change, after all. Wouldn't a sudden
major change make for a disruptive effect in the environment?
Think of the sudden introduction of 100% of an eye (there
being no use for 50% of an eye) in a predator. That would make
the predator so vastly better a predator that it would wipe out
the prey that it was previously able to find, even without sight,
at some sustenance level.
Think of a vertebrate with an adaptive immune system. Before
that sudden design event, the vertebrate was able to survive
bacterial infections. How vastly much better it would be with
the new immune system. Or, on the other hand, the sudden design
of the bacterial flagellum - what would that have done to the
animals that the bacterium was living in?
A major design event would be more disruptive than introducing
rabbits into Australia.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
Robert Carnegie
jack.m...@gmail.com wrote:
> topmind wrote:
> > > Some questions I would like to see ID proponants answer:
> > >
> > > o) What tests have you applied to your ID hypothesis to prove it false?
> >
> > It could be given evidence by finding hidden messages or images inside
> > of DNA. (Not a Christian doctrine, but not outside of "pure" ID.)
>
> Are you finally willing to answer some of the questions raised in
> previous threads? For example:
>
> - Why would you expect to find signals in DNA, even if it were
> designed?
There may not be signals in designed DNA, but it would be cute if there
were.
Two ways in which signals might arise in designed DNA:
- If the method by which designed DNA is generated also creates
non-functional artifacts. Kind of like publishing a software program
along with the source code.
- If the designer wants messages to be read by anyone studying the
designed DNA.
Signals might take the form of genes not expressed, or of genes
expressed without having a good reason to exist other than being
designed. For instance, if God engineered Christians to smell faintly
of boiled egg, it makes it easier at the Rapture for the angels to find
the right people.
> - What kind of signals would you expect to find? This is where
> you need to be very specific so that other people can
> understand your justification for selecting particular
> characteristics and repeat your work.
Under construction, but any DNA code which is meaningful but not
functional is a signal. Of course that calls for a definition of
"meaningful", which ultimately is only statistical. You recall the
metaphor of a chimpanzee at a typewriter spontaneously producing the
complete works of Shakespeare. The message would not be meaningful
because the chimpanzee does not understand the message. On the other
hand, if you are given the complete works of Shakespeare, you wouldn't
conclude that it was typed at random by a chimpanzee - despite the
spelling.
I have in mind essentially a symbolic representation of information
other than the information acknowledged to be in DNA, the meaningful
instructions that produce effects useful to the survival and
reproduction of an organism - or the meaningful instructions that
merely reproduce themselves (viruses) - or DNA which is left over from
a previous species' functional DNA, but is now out of service. Those
don't count.
And if there isn't any such DNA, then there isn't. No one's found any
yet, have they?
> - Why would those signals be indicative of intelligence?
Intelligence is the only process we know of that encodes information in
readable abstract symbols, as opposed to functioning natural machinery.
I'd think that any process that /can/ do that can be shown to be, for
practical purposes, intelligence.
> - A scientific approach works from a hypothesis that explains the
> existing phenomena and then attempts to observe new phenomena
> predicted by the hypothesis. What is your hypothesis and what
> does it predict?
This isn't necessarily a scientific approach. We don't do everything
in our lives scientifically.
catshark
>
> Robert
You might want to read, if you haven'talready, Elliot Sober's paper:
INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY AND THE SUPERNATURAL --
THE "GOD OR EXTRA-TERRESTRIALS" REPLY
<http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/ID%20and%20the%20Supernatural%20final%20F&P%20w%20patch.pdf>
He addresses the problem of how to segment the attributes of something
when deciding if it is IC:
There is an objection . . . that stems from an ambiguity in Behe's
concept
of irreducible complexity. There are many ways to segment a system
into
parts; whether a system is taken to be irreducibly complex depends
on
how fine-grained the division into parts is. Consider the eye. If
the parts
of someone's eye are taken to be the cornea, the retina, etc., the
system
will be judged to be irreducibly complex. However, if the parts of
the eye
are taken to be the atoms of which it is made, the conclusion that
follows
is that the system is not irreducibly complex; excise a single atom
and the
eye still sees. This suggests that what Behe intends is that a
system
should be judged irreducibly complex precisely when some
segmentation
into parts satisfies the condition, not that every segmentation must
do so.
However, this interpretation raises the problem that many highly
redundant
systems will be judged to be irreducibly complex when a
coarse-grained
division into parts is used.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
The peril of negative arguments is that they may rest on
our lack of knowledge, rather than on positive results.
- Michael J. Behe -
michael....@gmail.com
noctiluca wrote:
> Some of ID's brightest bulbs will be convening for a session at Biola
> Univ. in L.A. wherein they will lay themselves open to their harshest
> critics asking the tough questions. More on this here -
> http://www.biola.edu/cal/cal_detail.cfm?e=222.
>
> As I have been indolently accumulating a list of such questions I
> thought this would be a good time to try and polish them up by kicking
> them around here. What I'm looking for is comment on the phrasing,
> fairness, inherent flaws in, possible answers to, these questions. The
> point in asking questions like these is obviously to try to reveal an
> actual flaw or contradiction in ID reasoning, but I have to accept that
> there may be unfair assumptions built into the questions that I have
> missed. If you see a problem please don't hesitate to point it out.
>
> http://www.litcandle.blogspot.com/ (comments there are welcome as well)
> but I thought it might be best to deal with these one at a time here.
>
> And so, off we go with the first question,
>
> 1. For those who suggest "common design" as a reasonable
> explanation for common descent
This statement is a contradiction in terms.
> - hypothesize a biological datum that
> would falsify "common design."
A controlled experiment showing the production of biological diversity
from a common ancestor on par with what is extant.
>Regarding this datum, please explain
> how you know the designer could not or would not design in such a
> fashion.
Irrelevant since the issue is to methodologically establish the quality
of a scientific inference to an unguided naturalistic mode of causation
for any such datum.
Robert Carnegie
And two suggested creationist answers:
(1) The fossil record is fragmentary, and is consistent with such a
sudden removal of a prey species. Species do become apparently extinct
- too rare to appear in the fossil record - such as trilobites.
(2) A responsible Designer would upgrade the prey at the same time as
upgrading the predator, to make the game still good sport. So when a
predator gets eyes, the prey get camouflage.
jack.m...@gmail.com
> > - What kind of signals would you expect to find? This is where
> > you need to be very specific so that other people can
> > understand your justification for selecting particular
> > characteristics and repeat your work.
>
> Under construction,
By whom?
> but any DNA code which is meaningful but not
> functional is a signal.
Why? It could simply be an artifact of the evolutionary process.
> I have in mind essentially a symbolic representation of information
> other than the information acknowledged to be in DNA,
What symbols would you expect to find? What exact encoding mechanism?
This is the core weakness of Topmind's suggestion. If you search for
patterns in DNA, however represented, you _will_ find them. Unless you
have clearly and precisely defined what patterns constitute a signal,
and backed up that definition with a rationale, those patterns are
meaningless.
> > - A scientific approach works from a hypothesis that explains the
> > existing phenomena and then attempts to observe new phenomena
> > predicted by the hypothesis. What is your hypothesis and what
> > does it predict?
>
> This isn't necessarily a scientific approach. We don't do everything
> in our lives scientifically.
Topmind claims that ID can be scientific. If that is his goal, he
needs to follow the scientific method.
Jack
TomS
<1145105602.8...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, Robert Carnegie
stated..."
And as to (2), I suggest that this is perilously close to
omphalism.
Zachriel
"topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:1145086018.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> noctiluca wrote:
>> Some of ID's brightest bulbs will be convening for a session at Biola
>> Univ. in L.A. wherein they will lay themselves open to their harshest
>> critics asking the tough questions. More on this here -
>> http://www.biola.edu/cal/cal_detail.cfm?e=222.
>>
>> As I have been indolently accumulating a list of such questions I
>> thought this would be a good time to try and polish them up by kicking
>> them around here. What I'm looking for is comment on the phrasing,
>> fairness, inherent flaws in, possible answers to, these questions. The
>> point in asking questions like these is obviously to try to reveal an
>> actual flaw or contradiction in ID reasoning, but I have to accept that
>> there may be unfair assumptions built into the questions that I have
>> missed. If you see a problem please don't hesitate to point it out.
>>
>> All of the questions will be posted at my blog -
>> http://www.litcandle.blogspot.com/ (comments there are welcome as well)
>> but I thought it might be best to deal with these one at a time here.
>>
>> And so, off we go with the first question,
>>
>> 1. For those who suggest "common design" as a reasonable
>> explanation for common descent - hypothesize a biological datum that
>> would falsify "common design."
>
> Do you mean the appearence of similarities between different species?
> If so, wouldn't lack of similarity falsify it? The question is not
> clear IMO.
Not just similar, but a nested hierarchy. E.g. there is a very strong
correlation between having mammaries and having three ear bones. And
reptiles never have mammalian ear bones. Having feathers implies avian
features, heart, lungs, etc. This is true whether the feathered creature
walks, swims or flies. And so on for millions of data-points, and
predictions which can be made about the possible characteristics of yet to
be discovered species, and which strata extinct species will be found in.
On the other hand, design typically breaks the nested hierarchy. So, pigs
with wings, a centaur, a feathered mammal, are evidence of design, not
common descent.
Though the nested hierarchy of extant life is the most detailed and powerful
evidence of common descent (especially the genomes), the nested hierarchy in
time of extinct life is the easiest for many to see and understand. Besides
Little Average thinks dinosaurs are "Cool!"
--
Zachriel
"not just a mere similarity, but a family resemblance.”
http://www.zachriel.com/nested/
Zachriel
If you find such messages, let us know. You have the technology at your
fingertips to analyze the data. Not bothering to look or to research what
others have already done is considered poor scientific practice. Meanwhile,
it is just unsupported speculation mixed with a dose of handwaving. But
please keep us informed of your progress.
> As far as falsifying it, even evolution by natural selection cannot be
> universally falsified.
Natural selection is posited as a mechanism to explain adaptation of life on
Earth. Natural selection, variation, adaptation have all been observed.
There are other known mechanisms at work, as well.
> Showing that evo did not happen in a particular
> spot or planet does not prove that it cannot happen ever anywhere.
That is called handwaving. The domain at issue is life as it naturally
occurs on Earth. It doesn't explain the evolution of dog breeds, which is
due to artificial selection. It may not explain robotic evolution on the
planet Zorg.
> Thus, evo is not universally falsifiable, so why should ID be held to a
> higher standard?
One could suppose that Apollo, having been banished from Mount Olympus to
the Oort Cloud, hurls the occasional comet at the Earth. However, there is
no evidence of this, and there are strong explanatory mechanisms that
predict the trajectory of comets and other planetary bodies. If you find
evidence of design in the orbits of comets, let us know. Otherwise, it is
non-scientific speculation.
>
>>
>> o) How does ID differ, if it does, from the "watchmaker" hypothesis?
>>
>> o) If a bacterium's flagella require designers, why would those
>> designers not require designers?
>
> This depends on the scope of ID. Does it try to explain the formation
> of intelligence on earth, or intelligence in general?
Intelligent Design purports to explain away non-intelligent mechanisms of
adaptation. But because they do not adhere to actual evidence, some IDers
accept Common Descent, others don't, and some are even young Earthers.
>
> One could propose that out of a jillion universes, a smart robot just
> happened to come together by shear bulk of probability, found a way to
> travel among universes, and created life on earth for the hell of it.
Abiogenesis is an active field of scientific study, and there are still many
unknowns. But the Theory of Evolution (or Germ Theory for that matter) does
not depend on a plausible theory of abiogenesis. The first life form on
Earth may have been a lucky accident, a natural property of carbon and
liquid water, a unique circumstance, seeded by comets, or even a Divine
Miracle. The Theory of Evolution concerns the diversification of life, not
its origin. However, it is known that life did not always exist on Earth,
but that once it began, it diversified into a variety of forms.
Alan Wostenberg
Desertphile wrote:
> noctiluca wrote:
> > 1. For those who suggest "common design" as a reasonable
> > explanation for common descent - hypothesize a biological datum that
> > would falsify "common design." Regarding this datum, please explain
> > how you know the designer could not or would not design in such a
> > fashion.
Re 1. If you asked this quesiton, you might get reminded that designers
are perfectly capable of making things look undesigned. So so there is
no datum meeting your requiremenent.
For example, in my profession we sometimes construct random number
generators. Given a printed sequence of numbers, you could not tell if
it was made by rolling dice or from one of these manmade generators.
Yet random number generators are clearly designed.
Design is science, so we are not interested in undetectable design. But
detectable design. What are the patterns we see in the world for which
design is the best explanation?
> Some questions I would like to see ID proponants answer:
>
> o2) What tests have you applied to your ID hypothesis to prove it false?
Re 2. See 1. Dembski offers the explanatory filter: law, chance,
design. If we've ruled out law, and ruled out chance, it must be
design. This method of reasoning, the "inference to best explanation"
when there are many competing ones, is common in jurisprudence and the
historical sciences; see http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Abduction
> o3) How does ID differ, if it does, from the "watchmaker" hypothesis?
good question.
Re 3. You might want to review the opening chapter of Darwin's Black
Box, since Dr. Behe covers the queston quite nicely, so you can reframe
the question.
Basically, Paley was right about watches, but we didn't know at that
time enough about organisms to apply the argument rigorously. But
molecular biology recently opened the black box (hence Dr. Behe's title
_darwin's black box_), and biologists see molecular machines in there,
so can draw the design inferences for the first time as scientists, not
philosophers.
> o4) If a bacterium's flagella require designers, why would those
> designers not require designers?
Re 4. This is a good question for natural theology. Modern design
theory is science, not theology, so does not address it.
> o) Most of the many questions that ID raises are almost always answered
> by ID proponants with "We don't know yet; that needs more research."
> What steps has the ID proponant community put in place to answer those
> questions?
Good question.
> o) Why is nearly 100% of DI proponant's efforts been spent in the
> political arena and in the funding arena, instead of in the scientific
> arena?
First things first. Perhaps DI has done a root cause analysis and
determined this is a political problem, not a scientific one.
Frank J
noctiluca wrote:
> Some of ID's brightest bulbs will be convening for a session at Biola
> Univ. in L.A. wherein they will lay themselves open to their harshest
> critics asking the tough questions. More on this here -
> http://www.biola.edu/cal/cal_detail.cfm?e=222.
>
> As I have been indolently accumulating a list of such questions I
> thought this would be a good time to try and polish them up by kicking
> them around here. What I'm looking for is comment on the phrasing,
> fairness, inherent flaws in, possible answers to, these questions. The
> point in asking questions like these is obviously to try to reveal an
> actual flaw or contradiction in ID reasoning, but I have to accept that
> there may be unfair assumptions built into the questions that I have
> missed. If you see a problem please don't hesitate to point it out.
>
> All of the questions will be posted at my blog -
> http://www.litcandle.blogspot.com/ (comments there are welcome as well)
> but I thought it might be best to deal with these one at a time here.
>
> And so, off we go with the first question,
>
> explanation for common descent - hypothesize a biological datum that
> would falsify "common design." Regarding this datum, please explain
> how you know the designer could not or would not design in such a
> fashion.
>
>
Careful, "common design" is a classic weasel word. I would ask if they
mean "independent abiogenesis," as is usually inferred, or not. And if
not, exactly what, saltation (meaning common descent but not
"macroevolution")?, front-loading (meaning common descent, but with
only "information losses")?, some combination of the 3?
I would also ask that, if they deny common descent, to define "kinds,"
especially the one that includes H. sapiens, as unequivocally as
possible.
Since the Cambrian seems to be the latest strategy to strain ID into
accommodating classic creationism (OEC, if not YEC), I would get them
to repeat clearly when they think that it occurred, and what bearing it
has on primate origins. And of course to provide some testable
hypotheses of how the designer (or creator if not the same as the
designer) created such "kinds" if not by descent with modification from
other "kinds."
IOW, don't let them get away with the Dembski double standard ("I won't
take the bait..."). If they want to be taken seriously in science, the
ball is in their court. They can't have it both ways.
BTW, I'm still working on the list of contradictions, double standards,
bait-and-switch, etc. for which you were kind enough to add examples.
I'm now gathering references, but it may take some time. There's a lot
of info out there, and the day job is taking a lot of my time.
Alan Wostenberg
noctiluca wrote:
> All of the questions will be posted at my blog -
> http://www.litcandle.blogspot.com/ (comments there are welcome as well)
> but I thought it might be best to deal with these one at a time here.
>
> And so, off we go with the first question,
>
> 1. For those who suggest "common design" as a reasonable
> explanation for common descent - hypothesize a biological datum that
> would falsify "common design." Regarding this datum, please explain
> how you know the designer could not or would not design in such a
> fashion.
I see most of the questions posted are related to ID in biology. But ID
is broader, and as one of the attendees is Dr. Gonzalez co-author of
_the privileged_planet, you might want to review his book and widen
your scope of questions so he doesn't feel left out of all the fun.
Also, Antony Flew is in attendence. He accepts that life is designed,
but he's not a Christian or even a theist, since he "does not believe
in the God of any revelatory system"{1}. This former atheist calls
himself a deist in the tradition of Aristotle. What questions would you
one who finds intelligent design reasonable but is not a believer?
{1} Flew interview at http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/ . Download pdf
for full interview text.
noctiluca
Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> Desertphile wrote:
> > noctiluca wrote:
>
> > > 1. For those who suggest "common design" as a reasonable
> > > explanation for common descent - hypothesize a biological datum that
> > > would falsify "common design." Regarding this datum, please explain
> > > how you know the designer could not or would not design in such a
> > > fashion.
>
> Re 1. If you asked this quesiton, you might get reminded that designers
> are perfectly capable of making things look undesigned. So so there is
> no datum meeting your requiremenent.
In which case there is no empirical warrant for calling something
designed save privileged knowledge of some sort. That knowledge would
then have to be justified and that takes us back to the original
question.
> For example, in my profession we sometimes construct random number
> generators. Given a printed sequence of numbers, you could not tell if
> it was made by rolling dice or from one of these manmade generators.
> Yet random number generators are clearly designed.
>
> Design is science, so we are not interested in undetectable design. But
> detectable design.
Agreed, hence my question.
> What are the patterns we see in the world for which
> design is the best explanation?
Those patterns which can be empirically attributed to the only designer
for which we have evidence - humans.
As the remainder of your post appears to be directed to Desertphile,
I'll leave the rest to him.
Robert
noctiluca
Yeah, I just downloaded that and it's at the top of my very long list
(if there is a heaven, it's where I have unlimited time to read and my
fifty year old eyes never get tired).
Thanks.
Robert
noctiluca
Indeed, a road down which so much of ID argumentation is forced (if not
having already taken the path that leads to the cul de sac of
scientific creationism). But I do love the construction "a responsible
Designer" and all of the wonderfully contradictory extrapolations that
entails.
Robert
noctiluca
topmind wrote:
> noctiluca wrote:
> > Some of ID's brightest bulbs will be convening for a session at Biola
> > Univ. in L.A. wherein they will lay themselves open to their harshest
> > critics asking the tough questions. More on this here -
> > http://www.biola.edu/cal/cal_detail.cfm?e=222.
> >
> > As I have been indolently accumulating a list of such questions I
> > thought this would be a good time to try and polish them up by kicking
> > them around here. What I'm looking for is comment on the phrasing,
> > fairness, inherent flaws in, possible answers to, these questions. The
> > point in asking questions like these is obviously to try to reveal an
> > actual flaw or contradiction in ID reasoning, but I have to accept that
> > there may be unfair assumptions built into the questions that I have
> > missed. If you see a problem please don't hesitate to point it out.
> >
> > All of the questions will be posted at my blog -
> > http://www.litcandle.blogspot.com/ (comments there are welcome as well)
> > but I thought it might be best to deal with these one at a time here.
> >
> > And so, off we go with the first question,
> >
> > 1. For those who suggest "common design" as a reasonable
> > explanation for common descent - hypothesize a biological datum that
> > would falsify "common design."
>
> Do you mean the appearence of similarities between different species?
> If so, wouldn't lack of similarity falsify it?
There can be no similarity without some lack of similarity, it's a
semantic thing. In other words lack of similarity wouldn't fasify
common design any more than it would common descent.
But if common design is proffered as an explanation for the appearance
of particular conserved characters or structures or genetic sequences
etc., for this to be a scientific observation (not to mention simply
logical) of value it must exist in opposition to a potential
disqualifying observation. I'm asking IDers to hypothesize such an
observation and support it.
> The question is not
> clear IMO.
Entirely possible, that's one of the reasons I asked for input on it
here. How would you phrase it?
> > Regarding this datum, please explain
> > how you know the designer could not or would not design in such a
> > fashion.
>
> Is this asking how to test the designer(s) motivation? That might bring
> up the question of why it would be necessary to do such. Perhaps it is
> comparable to historians trying to figure out why pivotable
> personalities did what they did.
No, I think it is more appropriately comparable to the process by which
we identy non-controversial design. In legitimate scientific
disciplines which deal with intelligent design (archeology etc.) there
is a direct connection between the phenomenon investigated and the mode
of causation. In other words, we can and do know why and how a
particular artifact or quality or an artifact is designed because we
have empirical knowledge of the processes (methods, motives etc.) by
which the designer effected the phenomenon.
In the case of inference to unidentified intelligent design none of
this background knowledge exists such that an inference to this
"designer," absent substantial external
evidential confirmation, can be justified.
I'm suggesting that design proponents are giving the weight of
empirical validity to what are merely assumptions, and trying to pose a
question that will point this out.
Robert
>
> -T-
noctiluca
goodr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> noctiluca wrote:
> > Some of ID's brightest bulbs will be convening for a session at Biola
> > Univ. in L.A. wherein they will lay themselves open to their harshest
> > critics asking the tough questions. More on this here -
> > http://www.biola.edu/cal/cal_detail.cfm?e=222.
> >
> > As I have been indolently accumulating a list of such questions I
> > thought this would be a good time to try and polish them up by kicking
> > them around here. What I'm looking for is comment on the phrasing,
> > fairness, inherent flaws in, possible answers to, these questions. The
> > point in asking questions like these is obviously to try to reveal an
> > actual flaw or contradiction in ID reasoning, but I have to accept that
> > there may be unfair assumptions built into the questions that I have
> > missed. If you see a problem please don't hesitate to point it out.
> >
> > All of the questions will be posted at my blog -
> > http://www.litcandle.blogspot.com/ (comments there are welcome as well)
> > but I thought it might be best to deal with these one at a time here.
> >
> > And so, off we go with the first question,
> >
> > 1. For those who suggest "common design" as a reasonable
> > explanation for common descent
Hey, Mike, it's a pleasure to get a substantive response from you, and
in two places no less. I hope you don't mind if I repeat myself.
> This statement is a contradiction in terms.
Yeah, I'll give you that. But it is a construction of convenience and
it gets the point across.
> > - hypothesize a biological datum that
> > would falsify "common design."
>
> A controlled experiment showing the production of biological diversity
> from a common ancestor on par with what is extant.
Considering that instead of offering an observation or datum you have
suggested that we must be capable of replicating something on the order
of planetary biology and timescales, let me rephrase the question -
"...hypothesize a biological datum, *that is not so obviously chosen
for its removal from the reality of scientific investigation that it is
functionally equivalent with refusing to answer the question*, that
would fasify "common design."
Now, feel free to try this again.
> >Regarding this datum, please explain
> > how you know the designer could not or would not design in such a
> > fashion.
>
> Irrelevant since the issue is to methodologically establish the quality
> of a scientific inference to an unguided naturalistic mode of causation
> for any such datum.
Yes, when investigating natural processes the issue certainly is to
"methodologically establish the quality of a scientific inference to an
unguided naturalistic mode of causation for any such datum." And the
quality of such an inference is dependent entirely upon the
characteristics and processes of said "unguided naturalistic mode of
causation," not independent of knowledge of it.
In other words, we know that a particular mode of causation is
responsible for a particular phenomenon precisely because we know, and
can empirically establish, how and under what conditions that mode of
causation actually works to produce the phenomenon. In natural
intelligent design this is uncontroversial because we know all about
humans and their activities. There is no need to evidentially support
an inference to the possibility of human design.
This is not true of design wherein the identity of the causal agency or
methods and motives for causation have not been established. Put simply
then, it is not only relevant, but crucial to demonstrating the
connection of the phenomenon to its cause, to ask how one knows what
factors led to the phenomenon in question, or "how you know the
designer could not or would not design in such a fashion."
Unfortunately, then, neither of your answers has addressed the issue so
much as continued to promulgate the ID equivocation that "we need know
nothing of the designer." This is a scientifically vacuous diversion
designed to insulate "intelligent design" from those evidentiary
requirements of legitimate science which would reveal ID's theological
commitments.
Robert
Windy
Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> Also, Antony Flew is in attendence. He accepts that life is designed,
> but he's not a Christian or even a theist, since he "does not believe
> in the God of any revelatory system"{1}. This former atheist calls
> himself a deist in the tradition of Aristotle. What questions would you
> one who finds intelligent design reasonable but is not a believer?
>
> {1} Flew interview at http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/ . Download pdf
> for full interview text.
HABERMAS: Then, would you comment on your "openness" to the notion
of theistic revelation?
FLEW: Yes. I am open to it, but not enthusiastic about potential
revelation from God. On the positive side, for example, I am very much
impressed with physicist Gerald Schroeder's comments on Genesis 1.
(10) That this biblical account might be scientifically accurate raises
the possibility that it is revelation.
Genesis 1 scientifically accurate? Nassty Flew, it hurtses our brain!
--w
noctiluca
Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> noctiluca wrote:
>
> > All of the questions will be posted at my blog -
> > http://www.litcandle.blogspot.com/ (comments there are welcome as well)
> > but I thought it might be best to deal with these one at a time here.
> >
> > And so, off we go with the first question,
> >
> > 1. For those who suggest "common design" as a reasonable
> > explanation for common descent - hypothesize a biological datum that
> > would falsify "common design." Regarding this datum, please explain
> > how you know the designer could not or would not design in such a
> > fashion.
>
> I see most of the questions posted are related to ID in biology. But ID
> is broader, and as one of the attendees is Dr. Gonzalez co-author of
> _the privileged_planet, you might want to review his book and widen
> your scope of questions so he doesn't feel left out of all the fun.
I suspect there will be plenty of fun for Gonzalez. In any case, I see
the cosmological arguments for design as even more dependent upon
simple incredulity than the biological, if that's possible. Most of the
arguments are transparently dependent upon staggeringly large
probability calculations which are little more than arguments from
coincidence. It also suffers from the problem that it directly ties
design to a transcendental, God-like designer.
> Also, Antony Flew is in attendence. He accepts that life is designed,
> but he's not a Christian or even a theist, since he "does not believe
> in the God of any revelatory system"{1}. This former atheist calls
> himself a deist in the tradition of Aristotle. What questions would you
> one who finds intelligent design reasonable but is not a believer?
Flew changed his mind after his unfortunate encounter with Shroeder and
repudiated "intelligent design" as put forth by the DI. I'd be careful
in counting on him for support (though I do admit to wondering what he
will be doing at this event).
Robert
Alan Wostenberg
noctiluca wrote:
> Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> > Desertphile wrote:
> > > noctiluca wrote:
> >
> > > > 1. For those who suggest "common design" as a reasonable
> > > > explanation for common descent - hypothesize a biological datum that
> > > > would falsify "common design." Regarding this datum, please explain
> > > > how you know the designer could not or would not design in such a
> > > > fashion.
> >
> > Re 1. If you asked this quesiton, you might get reminded that designers
> > are perfectly capable of making things look undesigned. So so there is
> > no datum meeting your requiremenent.
>
> In which case there is no empirical warrant for calling something
> designed save privileged knowledge of some sort. That knowledge would
> then have to be justified and that takes us back to the original
> question.
It seems we agree: from the fact that designers are capable of making
things look random, it does not follow design is undetectable.
> > For example, in my profession we sometimes construct random number
> > generators. Given a printed sequence of numbers, you could not tell if
> > it was made by rolling dice or from one of these manmade generators.
> > Yet random number generators are clearly designed.
> >
> > Design is science, so we are not interested in undetectable design. But
> > detectable design.
>
> Agreed, hence my question.
Then why not put your question more directly, such as "what are the
assumptions of design theory?". For the way you frame your question
(the part about "would not or could not"), is asking about detecting
undetectable design. By definition, we can't.
> > What are the patterns we see in the world for which
> > design is the best explanation?
>
> Those patterns which can be empirically attributed to the only designer
> for which we have evidence - humans.
That last statement would make a good question: is the design inference
limited to detecting human design? Or is it a generic inference? You
will either uncover an axiom ("design inference is not
species-specific, but generic") or a defense of it as a conclusion from
prior axioms. Design theory, like all the sciences, has it's axioms.
Inuit4Life
characters then why is it not being applied to signal processing and
cryptography? The applications in both fields of the ability to
identify the designed stream from the random stream would be
tremendous.
Obviously this question is not something to ask Behe or the rest of the
panel that Biola has lined up.
Your question is not very hard to answer. They do. Cryptography
programs constantly look for 'designed' sets of numbers, for patterns,
for pieces of information that would not have been randomly
transmitted. I'm not sure why you think they wouldn't do such a thing.
TomS
<1145120797.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, noctiluca stated..."
>
>
>Alan Wostenberg wrote:
>> noctiluca wrote:
>>
>> > All of the questions will be posted at my blog -
>> > http://www.litcandle.blogspot.com/ (comments there are welcome as well)
>> > but I thought it might be best to deal with these one at a time here.
>> >
>> > And so, off we go with the first question,
>> >
>> > 1. For those who suggest "common design" as a reasonable
>> > explanation for common descent - hypothesize a biological datum that
>> > would falsify "common design." Regarding this datum, please explain
>> > how you know the designer could not or would not design in such a
>> > fashion.
>>
>> I see most of the questions posted are related to ID in biology. But ID
>> is broader, and as one of the attendees is Dr. Gonzalez co-author of
>> _the privileged_planet, you might want to review his book and widen
>> your scope of questions so he doesn't feel left out of all the fun.
>
>I suspect there will be plenty of fun for Gonzalez. In any case, I see
>the cosmological arguments for design as even more dependent upon
>simple incredulity than the biological, if that's possible. Most of the
>arguments are transparently dependent upon staggeringly large
>probability calculations which are little more than arguments from
>coincidence. It also suffers from the problem that it directly ties
>design to a transcendental, God-like designer.
The major problem that I have with so many of these arguments
is that they are, even if we grant all of the argumentation,
incomplete. They argue one half of the way to their conclusion.
They argue that a "naturalistic" or "scientific" or whatever
explanation cannot account for such-and-such. They *never* fill
in the rest of the argument, which would be that their answer
does account for the such-and-such.
Suppose that there are those staggeringly large calculations
of the probabilities. Then calculate the same probabilities on the
hypothesis that unspecified designers acted in unspecified ways -
are the probabilities any greater? As far as I can tell, such
designers could do anything that a naturalistic cause could do,
and then some - and that means that the probabilities are even
less. The such-and-such is only one tiny possibility among the
vast number of possibilities open to these designers, and we have
no way of restricting what they could do - after all, we don't know
anything about them, their methods, or their purposes.
This point is, as I understand it, essentially the argument of
Michael Ikeda and William H. Jefferys.
>
>> Also, Antony Flew is in attendence. He accepts that life is designed,
>> but he's not a Christian or even a theist, since he "does not believe
>> in the God of any revelatory system"{1}. This former atheist calls
>> himself a deist in the tradition of Aristotle. What questions would you
>> one who finds intelligent design reasonable but is not a believer?
>
>Flew changed his mind after his unfortunate encounter with Shroeder and
>repudiated "intelligent design" as put forth by the DI. I'd be careful
>in counting on him for support (though I do admit to wondering what he
>will be doing at this event).
>
>Robert
>
>> {1} Flew interview at http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/ . Download pdf
>> for full interview text.
>
--
noctiluca
nickm...@gmail.com wrote:
> Are you actually going to be one of the critics at this Biola thing?
It was originally my intention to attend and submit a question if this
was permitted. As it happens I have recently been invited to be one of
the critics though I have not decided whether I will accept. As a
matter of fact I was going to email Dr. Scott and Glenn Branch for
their input. I would certainly welcome any further advice you might
offer, here or in email.
> I hope you don't have any illusions about scoring major points with
> socratic questioning.
Believe me, I have none. In fact I have no illusions that anything of
substance at all will come of this event, but I do not believe that
*all* of these guys are of malicious intent and as a result I'm holding
onto the (perhaps naive) belief that an opportunity might arise in
which substantive dialogue could occur.
> The IDers specialize at long, rambling answers
> that don't answer the question, but sound reasonable and intelligent to
> the naive listener. I expect there will be virtually no way to pin
> them down, and that this whole event is just going to be propaganda
> where the result will be "IDists confront their critics!" no matter
> what occurs.
Well, you won't get any odds from me. I agree that past performance
makes this a likely outcome.
> In the Kitzmiller case, it took us a full day of questioning to
> deconstruct Behe, and we had several advantages one never has as a
> questioner at the microphone:
>
> (a) the lawyer asks the questions one-on-one with the witness
>
> (b) the lawyer guides the discussion, and the witness therefore cannot
> divert the topic to something else
>
> (c) the lawyer has unlimited followups, can re-ask the question if it
> is not answered, etc.
>
> (d) the lawyer can introduce exhibits -- in the Kitzmiller case, these
> were projected onto a large screen for all to see. E.g., we put up two
> Behe quotes "defining" "the" blood-clotting system. One was from
> Pandas, one was from Darwin's Black Box. We highlighted the two
> definitions which were strikingly contradictory. Behe couldn't run
> away without looking silly -- eventually he came up with a third, new
> definition of "the" blood clotting system, thus proving our point that
> he redefines the system at will
>
> (e) a neutral arbiter with strict, very well defined rules about
> evidence, types of questions, etc.
>
> (f) about nine months to prepare
>
> For a public event like the Biola thing, I think the only way it could
> be made reasonable would be to atomize each core issue and convene a
> panel of experts to debate it. E.g.:
On the other hand, if we are ever to get anywhere with reasonable
discussion of these issues we might need to have substantially lower
standards than those.
I agree with your comments, but merely suggest that we approach each
opportunity as if it were a genuine attempt at interaction. If we do it
with an insistence that the playing field be leveled and are at some
future point accommodated on this, then there might be a chance for
some headway.
For example, I am expecting to hear from an organizer about the format
of the event. It will be my choice to either accept the format as is,
ask for a change (which I do not expect they would grant), or refuse to
participate. If there are no provisions for follow-up such that I can
expect to get a reasonable answer to a question then I will refuse the
offer.
At some point in the broad context of this debate the ID movement will
either be forced to meet their opponents in an intellectually amenable
setting or they will continue to suffer losses in such venues as Dover,
where their rhetorical latitude is more restricted. In fact, I consider
venues such as this group (t.o) an example of such a setting, despite
IDist's whinging about the howling distractions.
> * What exactly, is the definition of "information" according to IDers?
> * Why, exactly, can't evolution produce new genetic information?
> * Aren't examples of new genes with new functions new genetic
> information?
> * Why hasn't the ID movement ever discussed the hundreds of scientific
> papers on this topic?
> * If the IDers admit that evolution can produce new genetic information
> after all, what exactly is the quantitative amount of new genetic
> information that evolution cannot cross, and why? "Large amounts" of
> new information is not sufficiently specific.
>
> One would need to do a similar level of detail on dozens of topics to
> have any hope of making progress I think.
I'm not entirely sure that there aren't a few core areas of
reason-gone-wrong that cannot be addressed in a broader, and less
demanding, context. For example, most of the questions I've asked in
this thread go to only a couple of fundamental flaws in ID logic. They
usually resolve to - a) your answer will either acknowledge that ID is
not science, or it will be evidentially/logically paradoxical, or b)
you are making mutually contradictory statements, the genesis of which
is your commitment to a set of mutually contradictory a priori
assumptions.
If, and I emphasize that that's a big "if" - some in an audience can be
made to understand these kinds of problems with ID then I think
progress has been made. Obviously that has to be calculated in the
context of possible losses elswhere so it's pretty much a judgement
call. All of which is just another way for me to say I don't expect
anything, but I want to approach the opportunity as if there is a
possibility for a positive outcome.
Thanks for your input.
Robert
noctiluca
I have a similar reaction. I often refer to this as arguing that what
we know exists can't really exist. The point being that a calculation,
for any particular phenomenon, of probabilities that are beyond the
capacity of natural law doesn't truly support an inference to
non-natural agency, it supports the conclusion that the phenomenon in
question never actually happened.
> Suppose that there are those staggeringly large calculations
> of the probabilities. Then calculate the same probabilities on the
> hypothesis that unspecified designers acted in unspecified ways -
> are the probabilities any greater? As far as I can tell, such
> designers could do anything that a naturalistic cause could do,
> and then some - and that means that the probabilities are even
> less. The such-and-such is only one tiny possibility among the
> vast number of possibilities open to these designers, and we have
> no way of restricting what they could do - after all, we don't know
> anything about them, their methods, or their purposes.
>
> This point is, as I understand it, essentially the argument of
> Michael Ikeda and William H. Jefferys.
And the reading list gets longer.
Robert
noctiluca
Oh, and I'm not fifty years old anymore.
Ron O
The problem is that you have to get the probability of some such
designer even existing into this calculation to make it at all
meaningful. What is the probablility that some such designer exists?
If one exists then it could have done things any number of ways and
could even do things in such a way as to mislead us about how it was
done. Who cares? No matter what they claim about the probability of
the pathway taken there isn't much hope in claiming that the ID option
is more probable if you can't even begin to calculate the probability
that your mechanism even exists. We can observe mutations, we can
observe natural selection. We can repeatedly look at sequence space
searches in antibody design, but what does the designer option have
going for it that you could even begin to calculate the probabilities?
When you can't even determine if the agent exists, how can you claim
that the probability favors your option? Genetic drift, natural
selection, mutation, recombination etc. they have all been documented
to exist and anyone can do the documenting. You can't say that about
some ID type designer. Religions can be based on the existence of some
designer, but science doesn't have that option anymore. It hasn't
since everyone that matters pretty much agreed that science hasn't been
able to address that issue. Anyone that doesn't think that this is
true just has to come up with a single ID designer did it success in
the entire history of science. A big reason why ID isn't science is
because it has never amounted to anything in science. My prediction is
that this won't change during or after this ID conference. Anyone want
to make a bet?
It would be nice if science could address the issue, but all we
currently have are a bunch of guys that are usually worse off than run
of the mill incompetent crackpots trying to make ID amount to
something. Until they can get all their ducks in a row and demonstrate
that they can actually do some science it doesn't look like a very
bright future for ID.
Ron Okimoto
Snip:
Ken Shaw
That is very naive cryptography. Modern cryptography is aimed at one
problem, double key encryption. No amount of processing the final
message or accumulating messages encrypted with the same key will get
you any closer to decrypting the message. For that you need a way to
determine the private key and there is at present no way to do this
more efficient than trying pairs of primes of the right magnitude and
checking if the public key matches the one you are trying to break.
Since the manipulations to generate the key pair consumes a lot of
clock cycles and their are an enormous number of possible primes to
work through this is not a viable method at this time.
However if it was possible to apply any number of the correct magnitude
as the private key and have software determine if the output was even
potentially useful the problem would be much more amenable. Since the
original message could be in most any language or even be a sound,
image or video file simply checking the data stream for english or some
such isn't going to work. However since any text message or media file
will have been intelligently designed being able to run a trial
solution and check the "decrypted" message for ID signature would do
the trick.
Ken
noctiluca
Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> noctiluca wrote:
> > Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> > > Desertphile wrote:
> > > > noctiluca wrote:
> > >
> > > > > 1. For those who suggest "common design" as a reasonable
> > > > > explanation for common descent - hypothesize a biological datum that
> > > > > would falsify "common design." Regarding this datum, please explain
> > > > > how you know the designer could not or would not design in such a
> > > > > fashion.
> > >
> > > Re 1. If you asked this quesiton, you might get reminded that designers
> > > are perfectly capable of making things look undesigned. So so there is
> > > no datum meeting your requiremenent.
> >
> > In which case there is no empirical warrant for calling something
> > designed save privileged knowledge of some sort. That knowledge would
> > then have to be justified and that takes us back to the original
> > question.
>
> It seems we agree: from the fact that designers are capable of making
> things look random, it does not follow design is undetectable.
Do you mean "it does not follow design is [detectable]"? If not, you
are contradicting your earlier statement.
Following up on what I think you mean then, of course we can not assume
that design (especially transcendental design) is always empirically
detectable. But that is obviously not the point, as it is the
proponents of "design" who assert that that which they call design *is*
detectable.
> > > For example, in my profession we sometimes construct random number
> > > generators. Given a printed sequence of numbers, you could not tell if
> > > it was made by rolling dice or from one of these manmade generators.
> > > Yet random number generators are clearly designed.
> > >
> > > Design is science, so we are not interested in undetectable design. But
> > > detectable design.
> >
> > Agreed, hence my question.
>
> Then why not put your question more directly, such as "what are the
> assumptions of design theory?". For the way you frame your question
> (the part about "would not or could not"), is asking about detecting
> undetectable design. By definition, we can't.
No, it is not asking about "undetectable design." ID proponents do not
assert that "design" is undetectable, that is a statement even more
empirically vacuous than their usual output. They assert that they can
detect design, extending the argument to cover those observations that
biologists regard as evidence for common descent. In doing so they
become obligated to consider potential observations that would
contradict their hypothesis. As their hypothesis includes the action of
an intelligent non-natural agency, it is germane to ask how they know
the ways in which that agency would operate.
> > > What are the patterns we see in the world for which
> > > design is the best explanation?
> >
> > Those patterns which can be empirically attributed to the only designer
> > for which we have evidence - humans.
>
> That last statement would make a good question: is the design inference
> limited to detecting human design? Or is it a generic inference? You
> will either uncover an axiom ("design inference is not
> species-specific, but generic") or a defense of it as a conclusion from
> prior axioms. Design theory, like all the sciences, has it's axioms.
The problem being, of course, that the scientific axiom is not
constructed so as to include anything but self-evident reality, as
opposed to those of ID (feel free to post some) which are dependent
upon substantial theological or philosophical precommitment.
Robert
michael....@gmail.com
require explanation, hypothesizes a causal agency for the observations,
then tests the hypothesis. ID identifies the observations and
hypothesizes the causal agency, but refuses to perform the actual
science by testing the hypothesis. Name another science that operates
in this fashion."
False. This is a crass mis-characterization of ID. It commits a
fundamental category error.
The ID scientifc initiative is concerned with returning the process of
scientifc inductive reasoning to soundedness and completeness by
ensuring that said process is capable of reasoning to a true ontogeny.
There is not an empirical consideration, but a logical one. As such,
ID is not an initiative to alter the mechanics of science, but to
correct the axiomatic and reasoning basis of science.
ID does not refuse to do anything except begin the process with a
categorical denial which is unsound logically. Ironically it is the
Naturalistic Rationalists who engage in this irrational posture.
By contrast it is Naturalistic Rationalists who do not test that
unguided natural processes have achieved the results they claim for
them; they merely test that explanations in the form of naturalistic
arguments-of-persuasion meet the test of philosophical conformance.
TomS
<1145125403.4...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Ron O stated..."
Another example of one of these arguments which is not
carried to completion is the "2nd law of thermodynamics" argument.
I'm not going to rehash, yet again, how the argument is flawed
as a refutation of evolution.
What I would point out is that even if there were something in
the world of life in conflict with 2lot, that is not enough to show
that there had to be designers.
Because design is not enough to bypass 2lot. To get around
2lot, if it is possible, there has to be some other place to
look for an exception, other than design. And nobody is
making any suggestions as to what that "other place" might be.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics was discovered by the limits
that the very clever designers of machinery in the 19th century
ran up against. 2lot is, from its very foundation, a restriction
on design. Quite the opposite of design being a way around 2lot,
the 2lot is a feature of design.
If there were something in the world of life which violated
2lot, that would be a demonstration that there must be something
other than "intelligent design".
Victor Eijkhout
> A major design event would be more disruptive than introducing
> rabbits into Australia.
I think getting them to admit that there would have to be a "design
even" would already be a good thing. The whole notion of a species
running around blind, and then suddenly having eyes, is so ridiculous,
it's bound to alienate some of their supporters.
Victor.
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
ph: 512 471 5809
noctiluca
goodr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> (2) - "Scientific investigation identifies a set of observations that
> require explanation, hypothesizes a causal agency for the observations,
> then tests the hypothesis. ID identifies the observations and
> hypothesizes the causal agency, but refuses to perform the actual
> science by testing the hypothesis. Name another science that operates
> in this fashion."
(Excuse me for a moment, my eyes are welling up. Two substantive
comments from Mike in a day. There must be a God.)
> False. This is a crass mis-characterization of ID. It commits a
> fundamental category error.
Well of course the proposed category error is the crux of the question,
isn't it? The last sentence, I'll admit, is nothing more than a call to
address the categorization.
> The ID scientifc initiative is concerned with returning the process of
> scientifc inductive reasoning to soundedness and completeness by
> ensuring that said process is capable of reasoning to a true ontogeny.
This paragraph is meaningless, if for no other reason than it flies in
the face of what we all know the ID "scientific intiative" is actually
concerned with.
> There is not an empirical consideration, but a logical one. As such,
> ID is not an initiative to alter the mechanics of science, but to
> correct the axiomatic and reasoning basis of science.
What is wrong with the reasoning basis of science, Mike? What is
illogical about the fundamental scientific axiom that what we can learn
of the universe is not an illusion?
Oh, and what the heck does this have to do with the question quoted
above?
> ID does not refuse to do anything except begin the process with a
> categorical denial which is unsound logically. Ironically it is the
> Naturalistic Rationalists who engage in this irrational posture.
Describe the unsound logic, expose the irrational posture, expound on
the categorical denial. Get into some specifics and stop drawing your
arguments from the department of redundancy department.
> By contrast it is Naturalistic Rationalists who do not test that
> unguided natural processes have achieved the results they claim for
> them; they merely test that explanations in the form of naturalistic
> arguments-of-persuasion meet the test of philosophical conformance.
Okay, I take back the part about "substantive."
Robert
Alan Wostenberg
TomS wrote:
> "On 15 Apr 2006 10:06:37 -0700, in article
> <1145120797.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, noctiluca stated..."
> >
> >
> >Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> >> I see most of the questions posted are related to ID in biology. But ID
> >> is broader, and as one of the attendees is Dr. Gonzalez co-author of
> >> _the privileged_planet, you might want to review his book and widen
> >> your scope of questions so he doesn't feel left out of all the fun.
> >
> >I suspect there will be plenty of fun for Gonzalez. In any case, I see
> >the cosmological arguments for design as even more dependent upon
> >simple incredulity than the biological, if that's possible. Most of the
> >arguments are transparently dependent upon staggeringly large
> >probability calculations which are little more than arguments from
> >coincidence. It also suffers from the problem that it directly ties
> >design to a transcendental, God-like designer.
>
> The major problem that I have with so many of these arguments
> is that they are, even if we grant all of the argumentation,
> incomplete. They argue one half of the way to their conclusion.
> They argue that a "naturalistic" or "scientific" or whatever
> explanation cannot account for such-and-such. They *never* fill
> in the rest of the argument, which would be that their answer
> does account for the such-and-such.
It certainly would be a weakness in design theory if the inference were
based only on "staggeringly large probability calculations". In fact
that would be a good question to ask: is design inference based purely
on small probabilities? What are the other factors?
As Gonzales points out on page 297 "a common mistake is assuming that
the argument from design is merely of calculating probabilities or
complexities". In fact, Gonzales, and Dembski, do fill in the "rest of
the argument". Low probability is often necessary but rarely sufficient
to warrent the design inference. Any ideas what the additional factor
is?
michael....@gmail.com
ID proponents. Please suggest a method by which science could
accommodate inference to the non-natural and remain operationally
potent. In other words, explain how we can empirically establish a
direct causal connection between natural phenomena and non-natural
agency."
c.f., Dembski, W.A : "The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance
through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability,
Induction, and Decision Theory), Cambridge University Press.
michael....@gmail.com
evidence of design. Please suggest a class of cosmological
"designer" which would not contradict the ID movements' long
running repudiation of necessary inference to the supernatural
(religion)."
ID formally regards intelligence as a primitive, and as such all
intelligence is considered non-natural or super-natural from a
categorical perspective.
michael....@gmail.com
in discussing design. Hypothesize an example of a scientific inference
to intelligent design that can be made without any knowledge of the
designer."
The obvious scenario is the one of first-contact with some artifact of
previously unencountered designers.
"Describe this 'design' using arguments that neither directly nor
indirectly suggest methods, motives or the nature of the designer."
Alan Wostenberg
Yes, one wonders. A deist sharing the dias with theists on intelligent
design?
I wouldn't count this deist on the side of the angels since the god of
design theory is a long way from the God of Abraham. Here is a man who
says he "does not believe in the God of any revelatory system"{1} and
"there is no room for any supernatural revelation of that God or for
any transactions between that God and individual human beings".... and
yet, finds the "most impressive arguments for God's existence are those
that are supported by recent scientific discoveries... fify years of
DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful
argument to design". His view would, I think, be interesting to all
sides!
Does Flew subscribe to some kind of front-loaded intelligent evolution
theory, in which the god of deism arranged initial parameters of the
universe such that eventually a certain planet is habitable and life
gets going? Or are we scrap -- the unintended side of effect of some
superbeing's intelligent activity, as, say, scraps of a wood cuter's
lathe?
Von R. Smith
We read that. It doesn't answer the question. Neither did you, Mike.
Matt Silberstein
<awost...@psalmweaver.com> in
<1145121762....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
>It seems we agree: from the fact that designers are capable of making
>things look random, it does not follow design is undetectable.
It is undetectable *if* all you have is the product itself. Of course
if you have independent evidence of the existence, capabilities,
limitations, goals, tools, etc. of the various designers, then you can
distinguish design.
[snip]
>
>Then why not put your question more directly, such as "what are the
>assumptions of design theory?".
What are the assumptions of design theory?
What are the experiments of design advocates?
What conclusions do they have?
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Matt Silberstein
<awost...@psalmweaver.com> in
<1145133226.9...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
According to Behe it is. He admits that IC systems can evolve. He just
asserts, without making any argument, that it is "unlikely".
>As Gonzales points out on page 297 "a common mistake is assuming that
>the argument from design is merely of calculating probabilities or
>complexities". In fact, Gonzales, and Dembski, do fill in the "rest of
>the argument". Low probability is often necessary but rarely sufficient
>to warrent the design inference.
I agree, there is no calculation involved. The probability claims have
no support.
>Any ideas what the additional factor is?
Wishful thinking?
TomS
<1145133226.9...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Alan Wostenberg
stated..."
I see that once again I have not made myself clear.
I am *not* finding fault (at this point) with the argument that
design is *necessary* to explain the "small probabilities".
I *am* claiming that design is not *sufficient* to explain the
"small probabilities".
According to what we know about the ID-type design, the
probability of "the vertebrate eye" is, to a first approximation,
zero.
That would indicate that ID is hopeless as an adequate
explanation for The Vertebrate Eye.
"Pure chance" is not a likely explanation - on that we can
all agree. But when we compare the probabilities - the probability
of The Vertebrate Eye, given "pure chance" is greater than the
probability, given ID.
If someone is interested in explaining the origins of The
Vertebrate Eye, then ID is not enough.
Robert Carnegie
noctiluca wrote:
> noctiluca wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, I just downloaded that and it's at the top of my very long list
> > (if there is a heaven, it's where I have unlimited time to read and my
> > fifty year old eyes never get tired).
>
> Oh, and I'm not fifty years old anymore.
Modified congratulations. ;-)