Sean's Smooth granite block
bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net
processes"because we know the limits of non-deliberate processes and
recognize when those limits have been exceeded. A frequent thought
experiment goes as follows.....
What would you think if you landed on Mars and came upon a perfectly
symmetrical, smooth granite block sitting on the ground? The ID
argument is that you would realize that no non-deliberate process could
have produced such a block and that therefore some intelligence must
have built it. You can infer this, they say, without the slightest
knowledge of the character or motives of the beings that designed it.
It seems obvious, that we would all agree that somebody must have built
that big granite block.
This thought experiment is deceiving, though. Although the claim is
that no knowledge of the designer is required, the only reason it seems
*obvious* that the block was designed is that the designers we know
about (humans) like to make big, symmetrical granite monuments. What
drives our ready agreement that the thing must have been manufactured
is the similarity to things we know are designed by human designers,
not merely the seeming improbablility of its having arisen from
non-deliberate processes.
To see the problem, imagine an alternative find on Mars. Imagine you
find a large, asymmetric, irregularly shaped granite object. You've
carefully studied Martaim geology and meteorology and hydrology and you
are very convinced that no non-deliberate process can have formed that
specific object. You have no idea why a designer would want to make it,
and know idea how a designer could have gotten there in the first
place, but, according to ID you do not need to know any of that. Few
people would, I think, be convinced of your claim that this was good
evidence for intelligent designers on Mars. They would be inclined to
think that you had overlooked some non-deliberate process capable of
producing that particular object.
When you decide whether something is designed or not you balance the
likelihood that is was designed by a designer whose motives, abilities,
and character you understand versus the likelihood of its having been
formed by natural processes that you understand. If you throw out all
information about the designer you are simply stuck. You may be pretty
sure no natural, non-deliberate process may have been involved, but if
you know nothing of the designer you have nothing to compare it too.
And in infinitely powerful designer of infinitely inscrutable motives
can explain anything at all, even those things for which a clear,
non-deliberate process is a ready explanation.
coaster
I absolutely agree.
I think another sticking point is the context in which the analogy is
applied. It seems to me that in one way or another Sean's smooth
granite cube relates to arguments concerning the bacterial flagellum..
If the cube argument is about "detecting design" then we aught to be
able to apply the same principles to detecting design in bacteria.
While there are still plenty of things we don't yet understand about
bacteria, there is nothing which could be considered even remotely
analogous to a "smooth granite cube". In other words there isn't
anything that is obviously artificial about the cell's structure.
We understand the chemical processes involved that produce the
morphologies of cells. What we don't understand is how they got that
way, but there are numerous theories, and new information is
forthcoming. In this sense the "smooth granite cube" becomes yet
another place-holder for information we are currently lacking.
Anything we don't quite understand is attributed to a designer,
everything we do understand is attributed to mere nature. It's just
another way to fill the gap.
But back to your argument. Mt. Rushmore is another popular example.
It is clearly designed because things like that just don't tend to
happen in nature. But this isn't about things that are "obviously
artificial". This is about things that occur naturally and we KNOW
occur naturally. Where is the "Mt. Rushmore" that mimics nature so
closely that we can scarcely tell one apart from the other? Which
mound of mud was designed? Which river carving is man made? Which
cell is artificial? This is where design inference fails.
I say, if Sean wants to show us the bacterial analogy of the "smooth
granite cube" then let him speak. But he doesn't know where to look.
Nobody knows where to look! Not when every part of the cell looks,
acts, and can be explained by other means. The simplest answer is that
it doesn't exist. It's an illusion created, not by knowledge, but by
ignorance... quite possibly the one constant in the universe.
neverbetter
There are numerous problems in his argument including vague or missing
definitions and need to collect so much data that it's practically
impossible for anybody to actually implement the methodology. How
symmetric is too symmetric for each of the millions of materials and
conditions? But let's suppose that this is all fixed, we have the data
and we have a methodology we can actually use. It is still a paradox.
He says that he can determine the limits of non-deliberate processes
without identifying those processes simply by collecting observations
of granite and pyrite as they occur in the nature without obvious human
interference. Perfect polished granite cubes haven't been observed in
the wild and pyrite cubes have been, so we can conclude that perfect
polished granite cubes are impossible for non-deliberate processes and
pyrite cubes aren't. But if this was anything other than a
hypothetical exercise and if we were actually to observe a perfect
granite cube in the need of an explanation occurring in the wild
without obvious human interference, this logic means that it would
become like a pyrite cube: observed and therefore within the realm of
non-deliberate processes.
He might say that the relevant difference is that perfect granite cubes
are very rare and unlikely in the wild and pyrite cubes are ubiquitous
but it can't be just the rarity that makes or breaks the case since
even non-deliberate processes may make rare and unlikely things every
once in a while and intelligent design may make things that are
everywhere, like Coca Cola bottles. We can't conclude that everything
that's rare is the product of intelligent design, can we? It could be
just an unlikely coincidence of factors. Bacterial flagellas aren't
that rare either, are they designed? I simply can't see how one can
conclude that the process creating object X is deliberate or
non-deliberate just by doing some statistics about the frequence of X
without identifying the process responsible for X.
Bobby D. Bryant
> There are numerous problems in his argument including vague or
> missing definitions and need to collect so much data that it's
> practically impossible for anybody to actually implement the
> methodology.
I periodically tell Sean I'm looking at something on my desk and ask
him to tell me the steps I need to take in order to determine whether
or not is designed. He can't do it, and won't even try. His
'methodology' boils down to "as Sean whether it's designed or not".
He likes to give arguments about symmetry, entropy, probability, etc.,
but they're just post hoc rationalizations for the answer provided
by the "ask Sean" methodology.
Sean, if you're reading this, I picked up something in the parking
lot today and now have it on my desk, beside my computer monitor.
What steps do I take to determine whether its shape is the result
of intelligent design, vs. unintelligent processes?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Seanpit
bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net wrote:
> Sean, and other ID fans, argue that we recognize design, or "deliberate
> processes"because we know the limits of non-deliberate processes and
> recognize when those limits have been exceeded. A frequent thought
> experiment goes as follows.....
>
> What would you think if you landed on Mars and came upon a perfectly
> symmetrical, smooth granite block sitting on the ground? The ID
> argument is that you would realize that no non-deliberate process could
> have produced such a block and that therefore some intelligence must
> have built it. You can infer this, they say, without the slightest
> knowledge of the character or motives of the beings that designed it.
> It seems obvious, that we would all agree that somebody must have built
> that big granite block.
You should also include that you have a good deal of knowledge about
how the material of granite interacts in the same predictable way with
the same predictable limits with many different kinds of non-deliberate
"random" acting forces.
> This thought experiment is deceiving, though. Although the claim is
> that no knowledge of the designer is required, the only reason it seems
> *obvious* that the block was designed is that the designers we know
> about (humans) like to make big, symmetrical granite monuments.
Humans also make big asymmetrical "modern-art" type granite monuments
that often cannot be readily distinguished from what might be produced
"naturally". So, this is not a good argument. Humans can and do make
just about any granite form imaginable. Non-deliberate randomly acting
forces do not. These random forces only produced a limited range of
granite forms with very predictable limits to that range - that include
a lack of ability to produce significant symmetry with regard to
irregularities in granite or other materials like marble or flint or
clay etc.
> What
> drives our ready agreement that the thing must have been manufactured
> is the similarity to things we know are designed by human designers,
> not merely the seeming improbablility of its having arisen from
> non-deliberate processes.
Very amorphous-looking granite rocks also share this same similarity to
things we know are designed by human designers. I've gone over this
problem several times with you in particular. Don't you get it? This
demonstration of similarity with human design is not enough since
humans design just about every type of granite form imaginable.
Therefore, in order to detect that the large granite cube was most
definitely designed, you have to know at least something about the
shared predictable limits of many non-deliberate processes as they
interact with the material of granite to produce pretty much the same
range of looks with pretty much the same limitations.
> To see the problem, imagine an alternative find on Mars. Imagine you
> find a large, asymmetric, irregularly shaped granite object. You've
> carefully studied Martaim geology and meteorology and hydrology and you
> are very convinced that no non-deliberate process can have formed that
> specific object. You have no idea why a designer would want to make it,
> and know idea how a designer could have gotten there in the first
> place, but, according to ID you do not need to know any of that. Few
> people would, I think, be convinced of your claim that this was good
> evidence for intelligent designers on Mars. They would be inclined to
> think that you had overlooked some non-deliberate process capable of
> producing that particular object.
Why? Why would "they" be inclined to look for a non-deliberate process
in this case of a irregularly shaped form, but not in the first case of
the large highly symmetrical granite cube form? Hmmmmm? Don't you
think it has something to do with the fact that irregularly shaped
granite forms with low degrees of symmetry are much more likely to be
the result of a non-deliberate process? You're just trying to fool
yourself here by appealing to what is in fact within the likely range
of non-deliberate processes.
> When you decide whether something is designed or not you balance the
> likelihood that is was designed by a designer whose motives, abilities,
> and character you understand versus the likelihood of its having been
> formed by natural processes that you understand. If you throw out all
> information about the designer you are simply stuck. You may be pretty
> sure no natural, non-deliberate process may have been involved, but if
> you know nothing of the designer you have nothing to compare it too.
> And in infinitely powerful designer of infinitely inscrutable motives
> can explain anything at all, even those things for which a clear,
> non-deliberate process is a ready explanation.
Again, you fail to realize, evidently anyway, that even relatively
"limited" human designers are in fact capable of producing just about
any granite form you can imagine. You therefore do not have anything
to compare with if you find this or that form on Mars. Any of the
forms you discussed about could have been produced by human-level
intelligences. Therefore, you have "nothing with which to compare".
Yet, even you are able to pick what is most likely designed regardless.
The reason for this is because the giant highly symmetrical polished
granite cube goes so far beyond what non-deliberate processes are
capable of achieving that you are left with no real choice but ID -
without any need for knowledge about the actual identity, motives, or
mechanisms of the designer(s).
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
neverbetter wrote:
> There are numerous problems in his argument including vague or missing
> definitions and need to collect so much data that it's practically
> impossible for anybody to actually implement the methodology. How
> symmetric is too symmetric for each of the millions of materials and
> conditions?
You forget that you don't need to know everything about everything to
know quite a bit about a particular material, like granite, and how it
interacts in pretty much the very same way, with the very same limits,
with many different non-deliberate randomly acting forces.
> But let's suppose that this is all fixed, we have the data
> and we have a methodology we can actually use. It is still a paradox.
> He says that he can determine the limits of non-deliberate processes
> without identifying those processes simply by collecting observations
> of granite and pyrite as they occur in the nature without obvious human
> interference.
Close, but not quite. You don't just collect granite and/or pyrite
forms and they occur in nature. That's not enough. You must also see
them as they are being formed over time in nature. You must actually
have some idea as to what force is involved with their formation. You
must have an idea about if this force acts "randomly" or in a
non-random fashion in general. For example, is heat from the sun or
wind energy random or non-random energy? Does it act in a deliberate
manner or a apparently random non-deliberate way? You have to actually
observed these forces acting on granite over time to determine the
limits that they have when it comes to the material of granite. Note
that these limits, as they act over time on granite, are pretty much
the same with regard to the production of certain characteristics -
like symmetry.
> Perfect polished granite cubes haven't been observed in
> the wild and pyrite cubes have been, so we can conclude that perfect
> polished granite cubes are impossible for non-deliberate processes and
> pyrite cubes aren't.
We don't just find them in the "wild". We actually see them formed in
the wild over time. We know what forces are involved and how these
forces interact with these materials over time.
There's just a bit more to it than you are letting on here. We know
quite a bit more about the forces involved and why the limits are what
they are for these materials.
> But if this was anything other than a
> hypothetical exercise and if we were actually to observe a perfect
> granite cube in the need of an explanation occurring in the wild
> without obvious human interference, this logic means that it would
> become like a pyrite cube: observed and therefore within the realm of
> non-deliberate processes.
Not true since we have more than a data set of merely observing a
certain type of granite form in the "wild". We also know what forces
produced such granite forms over time and that many different
non-deliberate random-type forces all have pretty much the same
limitations with regard to the production of symmetry in granite forms.
It is because of the consistency of this limitation that we can be so
confident that any large, highly symmetrical, polished granite cube
with nearly identical etchings on opposing faces were not produced by a
non-deliberate force - regardless of where such a cube may be found in
the universe.
> He might say that the relevant difference is that perfect granite cubes
> are very rare and unlikely in the wild and pyrite cubes are ubiquitous
> but it can't be just the rarity that makes or breaks the case since
> even non-deliberate processes may make rare and unlikely things every
> once in a while and intelligent design may make things that are
> everywhere, like Coca Cola bottles. We can't conclude that everything
> that's rare is the product of intelligent design, can we? It could be
> just an unlikely coincidence of factors. Bacterial flagellas aren't
> that rare either, are they designed? I simply can't see how one can
> conclude that the process creating object X is deliberate or
> non-deliberate just by doing some statistics about the frequence of X
> without identifying the process responsible for X.
It has nothing to do with the rarity or prevalence of a particular
object in "the wild" or amongst a highly intelligent civilization. It
is all about determining the limits of non-deliberate forces as they
act over time on a particular material. Do many different
non-deliberate forces have pretty much the same limitation, to the same
degree, like when it comes to producing symmetry of irregularities in
granite forms? If the answer to this question is "yes", then you have
some basis to go on in determining if a particular form goes
significantly beyond these limitations - regardless of how many copies
there are of that form. It doesn't matter how many there are. It
matters if their forms are within or significantly beyond the studied
limits of what non-deliberate random-type forces can do with that
material.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> On Wed, 10 May 2006, "neverbetter" <never...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There are numerous problems in his argument including vague or
> > missing definitions and need to collect so much data that it's
> > practically impossible for anybody to actually implement the
> > methodology.
>
> I periodically tell Sean I'm looking at something on my desk and ask
> him to tell me the steps I need to take in order to determine whether
> or not is designed. He can't do it, and won't even try. His
> 'methodology' boils down to "as Sean whether it's designed or not".
But I have done this for you many times Bobby. All you have to do is
ask yourself a few questions. Is the object granite or marble or
flint? If so, does it have a very high degree of reflective symmetry
with regard to surface irregularities of any kind? If it does, it is
almost certainly designed.
> He likes to give arguments about symmetry, entropy, probability, etc.,
> but they're just post hoc rationalizations for the answer provided
> by the "ask Sean" methodology.
How are they "post hoc" if I don't even know what you have on your
desk?
> Sean, if you're reading this, I picked up something in the parking
> lot today and now have it on my desk, beside my computer monitor.
What material is it made out of?
> What steps do I take to determine whether its shape is the result
> of intelligent design, vs. unintelligent processes?
See steps listed above . . . yet again!
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Bobby D. Bryant
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 May 2006, "neverbetter" <never...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > There are numerous problems in his argument including vague or
>> > missing definitions and need to collect so much data that it's
>> > practically impossible for anybody to actually implement the
>> > methodology.
>>
>> I periodically tell Sean I'm looking at something on my desk and ask
>> him to tell me the steps I need to take in order to determine whether
>> or not is designed. He can't do it, and won't even try. His
>> 'methodology' boils down to "as Sean whether it's designed or not".
>
> But I have done this for you many times Bobby. All you have to do is
> ask yourself a few questions. Is the object granite or marble or
> flint?
None of the above.
> If so, does it have a very high degree of reflective symmetry
> with regard to surface irregularities of any kind?
What does "high degree" mean? What does "surface irregularities"
mean?
I can pick two points on the surface and argue that they are both the
same distance from the mid-point of the line between them. Is that
sufficient to prove designedness?
> If it does, it is almost certainly designed.
Unfortunately, you haven't told me how to determine "if it does".
>> He likes to give arguments about symmetry, entropy, probability, etc.,
>> but they're just post hoc rationalizations for the answer provided
>> by the "ask Sean" methodology.
>
> How are they "post hoc" if I don't even know what you have on your
> desk?
Well, given that you haven't told me how to make a determination for
the thing on my desk, post hoc doesn't enter in to it yet.
>> Sean, if you're reading this, I picked up something in the parking
>> lot today and now have it on my desk, beside my computer monitor.
>
> What material is it made out of?
Some kind of stone.
Is the material germaine to the detection of design?
>> What steps do I take to determine whether its shape is the result
>> of intelligent design, vs. unintelligent processes?
>
> See steps listed above . . . yet again!
You haven't given me any steps. You've only offered a handwave.
How do I detect "a very high degree of reflective symmetry with
regard to surface irregularities of any kind" ?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
hersheyhv
Seanpit wrote:
> neverbetter wrote:
>
> > There are numerous problems in his argument including vague or missing
> > definitions and need to collect so much data that it's practically
> > impossible for anybody to actually implement the methodology. How
> > symmetric is too symmetric for each of the millions of materials and
> > conditions?
>
> You forget that you don't need to know everything about everything to
> know quite a bit about a particular material, like granite, and how it
> interacts in pretty much the very same way, with the very same limits,
> with many different non-deliberate randomly acting forces.
IOW, how granite acts in the absence of the types of agents you are
proposing for the manufacture of smooth granite cubes. How else can
you determine that the processes you claim are non-deliberate are
non-deliberate?
> > But let's suppose that this is all fixed, we have the data
> > and we have a methodology we can actually use. It is still a paradox.
> > He says that he can determine the limits of non-deliberate processes
> > without identifying those processes simply by collecting observations
> > of granite and pyrite as they occur in the nature without obvious human
> > interference.
>
> Close, but not quite. You don't just collect granite and/or pyrite
> forms and they occur in nature. That's not enough. You must also see
> them as they are being formed over time in nature.
Specifically, you must have evidence that the processes are ones that
occur *in the absence* of the type of agent you propose is required to
smooth granite into polished cubes. How else are you going to be able
to say that the agent was not responsible for the types of changes you
see "in nature"?
> You must actually
> have some idea as to what force is involved with their formation. You
> must have an idea about if this force acts "randomly" or in a
> non-random fashion in general. For example, is heat from the sun or
> wind energy random or non-random energy? Does it act in a deliberate
> manner or a apparently random non-deliberate way? You have to actually
> observed these forces acting on granite over time to determine the
> limits that they have when it comes to the material of granite. Note
> that these limits, as they act over time on granite, are pretty much
> the same with regard to the production of certain characteristics -
> like symmetry.
Still trying to sneak in your knowledge about human granite cube
designers/manufacturers, aren't you? But even if you do, then all you
could say about the granite cube on Mars is that it either was due to
some condition dissimilar from the conditions on the earth or that it
was done by agents with human-like capacities to alter granite. You
could bet on the latter, but it wouldn't be a sure bet until you knew
more about the polished granite on Mars.
> > Perfect polished granite cubes haven't been observed in
> > the wild and pyrite cubes have been, so we can conclude that perfect
> > polished granite cubes are impossible for non-deliberate processes and
> > pyrite cubes aren't.
>
> We don't just find them in the "wild". We actually see them formed in
> the wild over time. We know what forces are involved and how these
> forces interact with these materials over time.
By "in the wild" you mean, of course, in the absence of human-like
manufacturers. Otherwise, you cannot possibly *know* that only wind or
water were responsible for the smooth polished surfaces seen in creek
pebbles. It could have been the guiding hand of man. Or, more to the
point, by the guiding hand of God working through natural agency. Or
are you a complete philosophical naturalist when it comes to anything
other than life? Are the heavens and earth (and granite pebbles)
manufactured by purely naturalistic process in your world view? There
is no God involved in these processes, right? Because if there is,
your argument about evolution fails because your agent can be used to
explain *anything* and *everything*. There is no "in the wild", but
only things made by the gods if not by humans. You (and all
creationists using your pseudoscientific arguments to try to prove the
existence of God) absolutely require that some things NOT be in the
provenance of God.
> There's just a bit more to it than you are letting on here. We know
> quite a bit more about the forces involved and why the limits are what
> they are for these materials.
All natural things for which we have known mechanisms are made using
natural mechanisms. All humans do is convert those mechanisms to
their own uses. So how do gods create things?
> > But if this was anything other than a
> > hypothetical exercise and if we were actually to observe a perfect
> > granite cube in the need of an explanation occurring in the wild
> > without obvious human interference, this logic means that it would
> > become like a pyrite cube: observed and therefore within the realm of
> > non-deliberate processes.
>
> Not true since we have more than a data set of merely observing a
> certain type of granite form in the "wild". We also know what forces
> produced such granite forms over time and that many different
> non-deliberate random-type forces all have pretty much the same
> limitations with regard to the production of symmetry in granite forms.
> It is because of the consistency of this limitation that we can be so
> confident that any large, highly symmetrical, polished granite cube
> with nearly identical etchings on opposing faces were not produced by a
> non-deliberate force - regardless of where such a cube may be found in
> the universe.
Wind and water and grit are used for polishing and shaping granite in
both the "natural" (absent humans) and "manufacturing" arenas. So,
unlike most religious people, the "natural" winds and water and grit
are not due to God in your world view. They are merely chance events.
Hurricanes happen not as part of God's plan or design, but merely as a
consequence of the interaction of solar heat input and the motion of
the earth over heated water. It certainly is nice to know that you are
an atheist about what happens on earth *except* when it comes to some
aspects of life (the ability of species to separate into different
independent lineages and the hypothetical inability of certain, but not
all, features to arise by modification of pre-existing systems in these
lineages).
> > He might say that the relevant difference is that perfect granite cubes
> > are very rare and unlikely in the wild and pyrite cubes are ubiquitous
> > but it can't be just the rarity that makes or breaks the case since
> > even non-deliberate processes may make rare and unlikely things every
> > once in a while and intelligent design may make things that are
> > everywhere, like Coca Cola bottles. We can't conclude that everything
> > that's rare is the product of intelligent design, can we? It could be
> > just an unlikely coincidence of factors. Bacterial flagellas aren't
> > that rare either, are they designed? I simply can't see how one can
> > conclude that the process creating object X is deliberate or
> > non-deliberate just by doing some statistics about the frequence of X
> > without identifying the process responsible for X.
>
> It has nothing to do with the rarity or prevalence of a particular
> object in "the wild" or amongst a highly intelligent civilization. It
> is all about determining the limits of non-deliberate forces as they
> act over time on a particular material.
How do you determine that a *force* is acting in a "non-deliberate"
way? After all, very similar forces and mechanisms that polish a
pebble in a stream are used to polish granite cubes (both involve grit
and a source of energy to move that grit on the surface). The only
difference I see in the *forces* used to polish granite is the presence
or absence of a detectable designer directing those forces.
Specifically, a human-like entity for the cube. I obviously cannot
make that distinction for an undetectable designer. But perhaps you
have some other way of determining that forces are being used in a
"non-deliberate" way? How do you exclude undetectable designers?
> Do many different
> non-deliberate forces have pretty much the same limitation, to the same
> degree, like when it comes to producing symmetry of irregularities in
> granite forms?
You keep assuming that you can distinguish that a force was
"deliberate" or "non-deliberate". What operational test do you use to
make this distinction? It is not the type of force or mechanism.
After all, polishing granite occurs both naturally and under human
direction using the same general principles and mechanisms. The only
test that works for me is the presence of absence of a *detectable*
directing agent. I am quite willing to admit that I cannot *logically*
exclude direction of natural forces and mechanisms by an undetectable
intelligence as an explanation. I can only pragmatically use Ockham's
famous shaver and exclude such an explanation as unnecessary when I try
to explain things using the methodology of *science*.
But if I cannot exclude undetectable agents, I also cannot include them
when I use the methodology of science. Precisely because their
undetectability makes them scientifically useless as explanation.
Seanpit
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> On Wed, 10 May 2006, "Seanpit" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
>
> > Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> >> On Wed, 10 May 2006, "neverbetter" <never...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > There are numerous problems in his argument including vague or
> >> > missing definitions and need to collect so much data that it's
> >> > practically impossible for anybody to actually implement the
> >> > methodology.
> >>
> >> I periodically tell Sean I'm looking at something on my desk and ask
> >> him to tell me the steps I need to take in order to determine whether
> >> or not is designed. He can't do it, and won't even try. His
> >> 'methodology' boils down to "as Sean whether it's designed or not".
> >
> > But I have done this for you many times Bobby. All you have to do is
> > ask yourself a few questions. Is the object granite or marble or
> > flint?
>
> None of the above.
Well, as I've explained many times before, I have to know what the
material is and have some experience with how it relates to various
non-deliberate forces to use my method. You can't just say, "I found
something, tell me it if was designed". You have to tell me what
material it is made out of and what it looks like. However, you don't
have to tell me who, why, how, or in what context.
> > If so, does it have a very high degree of reflective symmetry
> > with regard to surface irregularities of any kind?
>
> What does "high degree" mean?
I've also explained this before, several times. Again though, lets say
all the irregularities on stone have less than 0.001% variation with
the exact opposite point of the stone as a measure of distance from the
center of the stone. Let's also say that the range of distances on the
same side of the stone is significant, like +/- 50% of the average
distance, with many points being at the extremes of this range. Such a
stone would have a "high degree" of symmetry with respect to its
irregularities.
> What does "surface irregularities" mean?
Do you know the difference between a highly symmetrical sphere and a
highly symmetrical cube? If not, consider that all the surface points
of a highly symmetrical sphere are almost identical with respect to
their distance from the center of the sphere. In other words, there are
no significant surface irregularities on a sphere. This is not true of
a highly symmetrical cube. The surface points of a cube vary with
respect to their distance to the center of the cube. These variations
in surface distances with respect to the center of the object are
"irregularities".
Perhaps you didn't see the multiple posts where I've explained this
already?
> I can pick two points on the surface and argue that they are both the
> same distance from the mid-point of the line between them. Is that
> sufficient to prove designedness?
If all the points show such a match with opposing points, and these
points are significantly irregular on one side with respect to the
center of the object (as described above), then yes, this is sufficient
to demonstrate "designedness" to a very high degree of predictive value
- if the object is granite or marble or flint. Clearly, the finding of
just one surface point of near perfect identity with the opposing point
is not enough. Why do you think I chose a *polished* highly symmetrical
granite cube with nearly identical etchings on opposing faces as my
example? Because it has so many irregularities that match and none
that do not match - to the degree I specified above.
> > If it does, it is almost certainly designed.
>
> Unfortunately, you haven't told me how to determine "if it does".
But I have, over and over again.
> >> He likes to give arguments about symmetry, entropy, probability, etc.,
> >> but they're just post hoc rationalizations for the answer provided
> >> by the "ask Sean" methodology.
> >
> > How are they "post hoc" if I don't even know what you have on your
> > desk?
>
> Well, given that you haven't told me how to make a determination for
> the thing on my desk, post hoc doesn't enter in to it yet.
Actually, this would be a definite example of "pre hoc" since I'd be
telling you the answer based only on knowledge of what the material is
and my prior experience with that material and the limits of
non-deliberate random-type forces acting on that material with respect
to a characteristic like symmetry. I don't need to know who or why or
how or even in what context this specific object was actually formed to
know if it was or wasn't almost certainly the result of deliberate
design or not.
> >> Sean, if you're reading this, I picked up something in the parking
> >> lot today and now have it on my desk, beside my computer monitor.
> >
> > What material is it made out of?
>
> Some kind of stone.
What kind of stone - specifically?
> Is the material germaine to the detection of design?
Yes! - How many times do I have to say this? Knowledge about the
material and how it interacts with random-type natural forces over time
is very "germane" to the detection of design.
> >> What steps do I take to determine whether its shape is the result
> >> of intelligent design, vs. unintelligent processes?
> >
> > See steps listed above . . . yet again!
>
> You haven't given me any steps. You've only offered a handwave.
I've given you very detailed steps, over and over again.
> How do I detect "a very high degree of reflective symmetry with
> regard to surface irregularities of any kind" ?
Come on now - Don't tell me you honestly have had no idea what I've
been talking about with regard to surface irregularities and symmetry?
Really? I have a very hard time believing that.
dwib...@gmail.com
> We don't just find them in the "wild". We actually see them formed in
> the wild over time. We know what forces are involved and how these
> forces interact with these materials over time.
Really? There have been granite cubes found in the wild? Can you give
us an example of one and how they are formed?
Dwib
Bobby D. Bryant
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 May 2006, "Seanpit" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 10 May 2006, "neverbetter" <never...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > There are numerous problems in his argument including vague or
>> >> > missing definitions and need to collect so much data that it's
>> >> > practically impossible for anybody to actually implement the
>> >> > methodology.
>> >>
>> >> I periodically tell Sean I'm looking at something on my desk and ask
>> >> him to tell me the steps I need to take in order to determine whether
>> >> or not is designed. He can't do it, and won't even try. His
>> >> 'methodology' boils down to "as Sean whether it's designed or not".
>> >
>> > But I have done this for you many times Bobby. All you have to do is
>> > ask yourself a few questions. Is the object granite or marble or
>> > flint?
>>
>> None of the above.
>
> Well, as I've explained many times before, I have to know what the
> material is and have some experience with how it relates to various
> non-deliberate forces to use my method.
As I said earlier: your 'methodology' always boils down to "ask Sean".
> You can't just say, "I found something, tell me it if was designed".
> You have to tell me what material it is made out of and what it
> looks like. However, you don't have to tell me who, why, how, or in
> what context.
I'm not asking you to tell me whether it was designed. I'm asking you
to pony up on your claim that you have an method that can be used to
determine whether something is designed. You tell me the method, I
apply it.
>> > If so, does it have a very high degree of reflective symmetry
>> > with regard to surface irregularities of any kind?
>>
>> What does "high degree" mean?
>
> I've also explained this before, several times. Again though, lets say
> all the irregularities on stone have less than 0.001% variation with
> the exact opposite point of the stone as a measure of distance from the
> center of the stone.
Center of mass, or center of volume?
And where do you come up with the 0.001% ? Does that follow from the
principles of intelligent design theory, or is it just an ad hoc
choice that you will abandon when someone points out that it produces
false positives?
> Let's also say that the range of distances on the same side of the
> stone is significant, like +/- 50% of the average distance, with
> many points being at the extremes of this range. Such a stone would
> have a "high degree" of symmetry with respect to its irregularities.
Does this apply to snowflakes and benzene molecules, or just to stones?
>> What does "surface irregularities" mean?
>
> Do you know the difference between a highly symmetrical sphere and a
> highly symmetrical cube?
Yes, they have different shapes.
> If not, consider that all the surface points of a highly symmetrical
> sphere are almost identical with respect to their distance from the
> center of the sphere. In other words, there are no significant
> surface irregularities on a sphere. This is not true of a highly
> symmetrical cube.
So the corners of the cube are "irregularities"?
> The surface points of a cube vary with respect to their distance to
> the center of the cube. These variations in surface distances with
> respect to the center of the object are "irregularities".
Strange terminology, but let's see where it heads.
Are crystals intelligently designed? Active galaxies? Mouse droppings?
> Perhaps you didn't see the multiple posts where I've explained this
> already?
I've seen lots of posts where you say a lot of words, but I've never
seen you offer an objective way of detecting design that you didn't
back off of as soon as people started reporting as being designed.
For you latest scheme, someone has already asked whether a snowflake
is designed.
>> I can pick two points on the surface and argue that they are both the
>> same distance from the mid-point of the line between them. Is that
>> sufficient to prove designedness?
>
> If all the points show such a match with opposing points, and these
> points are significantly irregular on one side with respect to the
> center of the object (as described above), then yes, this is sufficient
> to demonstrate "designedness" to a very high degree of predictive value
Is your +/- 50% the definition of "significantly irregular"?
> - if the object is granite or marble or flint. Clearly, the finding
> of just one surface point of near perfect identity with the opposing
> point is not enough. Why do you think I chose a *polished* highly
> symmetrical granite cube with nearly identical etchings on opposing
> faces as my example? Because it has so many irregularities that
> match and none that do not match - to the degree I specified above.
What if you're looking for design in something other than a granite
cube. Say, a flint arrowhead, or an E.coli flagellum?
>> > If it does, it is almost certainly designed.
>>
>> Unfortunately, you haven't told me how to determine "if it does".
>
> But I have, over and over again.
No, you give stuff like the above, which can at most be applied to some
overly specific hypothetical case, such as a granite cube, and which
you pile with arbitrary restrictions to keep us from concluding that
snowflakes, quartz crystals, and benzene molecules are designed.
>> >> He likes to give arguments about symmetry, entropy, probability, etc.,
>> >> but they're just post hoc rationalizations for the answer provided
>> >> by the "ask Sean" methodology.
>> >
>> > How are they "post hoc" if I don't even know what you have on your
>> > desk?
>>
>> Well, given that you haven't told me how to make a determination for
>> the thing on my desk, post hoc doesn't enter in to it yet.
>
> Actually, this would be a definite example of "pre hoc" since I'd be
> telling you the answer based only on knowledge of what the material is
> and my prior experience with that material and the limits of
> non-deliberate random-type forces acting on that material with respect
> to a characteristic like symmetry. I don't need to know who or why or
> how or even in what context this specific object was actually formed to
> know if it was or wasn't almost certainly the result of deliberate
> design or not.
No, you're basically assuming that all granite cubes are intelligently
designed, and giving us a post hoc list of rules for "detecting" that
design.
A *growing* post hoc list, I might add. Most of the conditions you
state above weren't part of your formula when you first started talking
about granite cubes, but you've kept adding rules to filter out the
false positives.
Why does shape-based detection of design depend on the material?
>> >> Sean, if you're reading this, I picked up something in the parking
>> >> lot today and now have it on my desk, beside my computer monitor.
>> >
>> > What material is it made out of?
>>
>> Some kind of stone.
>
> What kind of stone - specifically?
Is that part of your design inference checklist?
How are you going to detect design in biology, if your inference kit
requires knowledge of what kind of stone something is made of?
>> Is the material germaine to the detection of design?
>
> Yes! - How many times do I have to say this? Knowledge about the
> material and how it interacts with random-type natural forces over
> time is very "germane" to the detection of design.
So if I find a granite cube and a sandstone cube, I can conclude that
the granite cube is designed but can't make the same conclusion about
the sandstone cube?
>> >> What steps do I take to determine whether its shape is the result
>> >> of intelligent design, vs. unintelligent processes?
>> >
>> > See steps listed above . . . yet again!
>>
>> You haven't given me any steps. You've only offered a handwave.
>
> I've given you very detailed steps, over and over again.
No, you've given a handwave argument and a growing list of arbitrary
filters to keep the false positives out.
>> How do I detect "a very high degree of reflective symmetry with
>> regard to surface irregularities of any kind" ?
>
> Come on now - Don't tell me you honestly have had no idea what I've
> been talking about with regard to surface irregularities and symmetry?
> Really? I have a very hard time believing that.
I have a real good intuitive idea. But I want something that I can
apply rigorously. Otherwise I might as well skip the pretense at
rigor, and just state my intuitions about whether something is designed.
Of course, that's what *every* advocate of ID does. All the procedural
methodology is just pseudoscientific window dressing that breaks down
(or evaporates) upon close inspection.
You have narrowed your inference methodology to a procedure for detecting
design in granite cubes, and the procedure increasingly boils down to
"if it's a cube, then it's designed".
AC
> Sean, and other ID fans, argue that we recognize design, or "deliberate
> processes"because we know the limits of non-deliberate processes and
> recognize when those limits have been exceeded. A frequent thought
> experiment goes as follows.....
>
> What would you think if you landed on Mars and came upon a perfectly
> symmetrical, smooth granite block sitting on the ground? The ID
> argument is that you would realize that no non-deliberate process could
> have produced such a block and that therefore some intelligence must
> have built it. You can infer this, they say, without the slightest
> knowledge of the character or motives of the beings that designed it.
> It seems obvious, that we would all agree that somebody must have built
> that big granite block.
>
> This thought experiment is deceiving, though. Although the claim is
> that no knowledge of the designer is required, the only reason it seems
> *obvious* that the block was designed is that the designers we know
> about (humans) like to make big, symmetrical granite monuments. What
> drives our ready agreement that the thing must have been manufactured
> is the similarity to things we know are designed by human designers,
> not merely the seeming improbablility of its having arisen from
> non-deliberate processes.
Why do Creationists always go out of their way to find the most obvious
examples of manufacture? The answer's pretty simple, of course, as you say,
we know, from experience, that symetrical granite monuments are made by a
known intelligence.
But this is an absolutely horrible test, one that can produce all sorts of
false positives, and quite likely miss actual examples of manufacture.
Let's take two examples. The first is clouds. I'm sure all of us as kids
have laid back and watched clouds go by, remarking at how they look like
elephants, automobiles or Richard Nixon. Clearly natural phenomona can, to
one degree or another, replicate familiar objects, without any intelligent
manipulation. Rock faces can resemble dead presidents, crystals can produce
symetry to an incredible degree, pulsars can generate highly regular
signals, and clouds can appear that look like familiar objects. How is this
"symetry" test going to help us with that?
The second example is a primitive stone tool. To the casual observer (that
is to say, over 99% of the human species), you could walk through a field
littered with Mousterian artifacts without recognizing anything particularly
special about them. This is an example of non-obvious manufacture, where it
takes careful inspection to find signs of manipulation of the material.
Another hypothetical example might be an ancient city made of mud brick,
which over thousands of years, has collapsed into a heap of dirt. A casual
observer might walk past such a ruin without ever realizing it was, indeed,
an artifact, and only more careful observation and understanding of how such
a feature may not fit within the geology of the area would suggest that
there is something else to this.
So saying "you find a wristwatch on a beach" or whatever particular
overly-obvious example a Creationist wishes to demonstrate the alleged
veracity of design detection is really nothing more than a rhetorical game.
We all know that monuments are the product of intelligent design, so that
even if we find one on a planet where no human has been, and find a
symetrical monument, it's not exactly an enormous leap of logic to at least
entertain the possibility of manufacture.
A few Christmases ago, someone was posting various strings, asking any ID
advocate to determine which was random and which was designed. Not one of
our the local ID advocates would venture to try. Now, to be fair, none of
them, so far as I can tell, have the mathematical knowledge to even start a
task, but it ably demonstrated the severe flaws in the so-called design
inference, that it, in fact, has no utility. It cannot be used to determine
anything beyond the most outrageously simple and obvious signs of
manufacture, which, in fact, don't even require any specific knowledge
beyond basic experience with human manufactured objects.
That ID advocates claim that somehow or other one can apply the same kind of
reasoning that recognizes a wrist watch as a designed object to, say, DNA,
and actually show some sort of corellation of not only design, but of even
the methods one could use to determine design, is pure rubbish. "Looks
designed" is about as useful to biology as "tastes like chicken" is to
cuisine.
Design can be enormously tricky to determine, and an actual mathematical
method of determining design versus natural phenomona would be a great boon
to research as diverse as archaeology and SETI. But ID advocates don't have
any such thing, they have a bunch of dressed up fluff, and ultimately just
the tired and worn out Paley-esque argument.
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
john.1...@gmail.com
My contention, is that we do not recognize or identify design, we model
manufacture
and that we concluded that an object is manufactured if and only if we
we know the
manufacturing process.
So, for the gedanken experiment of the "amorphous granit block on
Mars", we could
identify the object as manufactured if there was auxilliary information
that would show
us the manufacturing process used to make that specific block, or
others like it. Eg. on Earth
we use chisels and the like, but the Martians might use a corrosive
substance such as
hydrofluoric acid to shape their blocks. If you found physical
evidence of the means and
evidence that this means were applied, then that would constitute the
necessary and sufficient
condition for the object to be recognized as being manufactured.
-John Stockwell
Seanpit
If you had been following these discussions at all, or even read the
rest of this post to get the context, you would know that I'm talking
about granite forms in general here. We know the limitations of what
non-deliberate forces can do with granite because we see them acting on
granite over time. Nothing that is produced by these random
non-deliberagte forces comes remotely close to creating a granite form
with a very high degree of reflective symmetry when it comes to the
significant majority of its surface irregularities - -
> Dwib
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Richard Forrest
What you would also know if you have been following this and other
threads, is that Sean is remarkably coy about the details of the
methodology he proposes.
As far as I can judge from his endlessly evasive and rambling postings,
his it consists of the following:
1) Identifying all natural processes affecting the form of granite
2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
3) Calculating the statistical range of the forms produced by such
processes.
4) Demonstrating that there is a set of characteristics shared by *ALL*
such forms.
5) Demonstrating that your statistical method can provide a
statistically valid estimate of the chance of a granite cube being the
outcome of such processes.
If I am incorrect in this, Sean, please give us a clear exposition of
your methodology.
I contend that this methodology could not tell us if Michaelanglo's
statue of "David" is an artefact. He has shifted his claim to the
assertion that the statue shows "reflective symetry" - a claim which is
patently false for the statue taken as an object formed out of marble.
I invite Sean to present us with a clear description of his methodology
so that we can judge for ourselves whether or not it is capable of
discerning "David" as an artefact.
I anticipate little more than evasion, unfounded assertion, and the
misuse of mathematical and scientific terms.
So go on, Sean.
Astonish us.
RF
neverbetter
> neverbetter wrote:
>
> > There are numerous problems in his argument including vague or missing
> > definitions and need to collect so much data that it's practically
> > impossible for anybody to actually implement the methodology. How
> > symmetric is too symmetric for each of the millions of materials and
> > conditions?
>
> You forget that you don't need to know everything about everything to
> know quite a bit about a particular material, like granite, and how it
> interacts in pretty much the very same way, with the very same limits,
> with many different non-deliberate randomly acting forces.
Do you think that all non-deliberate forces are random? How come some
of them are so predictable that they can be called laws?
How does knowing about granite help us to determine whether life is
designed? What are the relevant materials and what are the forces and
the limits affecting them? Given that we have no known cases of
designed life and no known cases of life that are the product of
non-deliberate random forces, how are you going to figure out the
limits of non-deliberate processes? We have just instances of life
occurring. Which processes are non-deliberate and which are deliberate?
Supposing we need to find out if the bacterial flagella and the eye
were designed millions or billions of years ago, which processes that
we can observe today would be relevant?
> > But let's suppose that this is all fixed, we have the data
> > and we have a methodology we can actually use. It is still a paradox.
> > He says that he can determine the limits of non-deliberate processes
> > without identifying those processes simply by collecting observations
> > of granite and pyrite as they occur in the nature without obvious human
> > interference.
>
> Close, but not quite. You don't just collect granite and/or pyrite
> forms and they occur in nature. That's not enough. You must also see
> them as they are being formed over time in nature.
I thought it was implied in "observations...without obvious human
interference". You'd have to know at least something about the
formation to exclude human interference. But anyway, does this mean
that there's no chance to figure out whether life was designed or not
since nobody was there to see life form over time? We can't tell if
rock strata are designed or not since they have mostly formed too long
ago for us to observe them being formed? Galaxies, too far?
> You must actually
> have some idea as to what force is involved with their formation.
If this is so, why did you repeatedly argue that you don't need to know
the processes?
>You
> must have an idea about if this force acts "randomly" or in a
> non-random fashion in general. For example, is heat from the sun or
> wind energy random or non-random energy? Does it act in a deliberate
> manner or a apparently random non-deliberate way?
How do random and non-random energy differ? How do heat or wind act if
they're being deliberate or non-deliberate? This is just unhelpful word
salad to me, I'm afraid. Can you help me out?
Anyway, isn't there a bit of presuming the conclusion involved in this?
The point of this exercise is to distinguish between the products of
deliberate processes and the products of non-deliberate processes, and
we can't do that unless we already have a preconceived idea of whether
the processes involved are deliberate or non-deliberate... I don't like
where this is going.
> You have to actually
> observed these forces acting on granite over time to determine the
> limits that they have when it comes to the material of granite. Note
> that these limits, as they act over time on granite, are pretty much
> the same with regard to the production of certain characteristics -
> like symmetry.
How do you know that you have found the limits of non-deliberate forces
and are not observing the actions of an undetectable designer who likes
his granite that way for breakfast?
> > Perfect polished granite cubes haven't been observed in
> > the wild and pyrite cubes have been, so we can conclude that perfect
> > polished granite cubes are impossible for non-deliberate processes and
> > pyrite cubes aren't.
>
> We don't just find them in the "wild". We actually see them formed in
> the wild over time. We know what forces are involved and how these
> forces interact with these materials over time.
So, after all these threads, we come down to this: If we have enough
knowledge of the processes involved in the formation of a class of
objects, we can tell how they were formed. Great. That's what
scientists have been saying all along the history of science.
> There's just a bit more to it than you are letting on here. We know
> quite a bit more about the forces involved and why the limits are what
> they are for these materials.
Tell me. Why *are* the limits what they are? Why is symmetry in granite
limited but symmetry in snowflakes isn't? Why can't granite cubes form
naturally but pyrite and salt cubes can?
Is the material of life more like snowflakes and pyrite or more like
granite? If we find that there is symmetry in life, how do we tell that
it goes over the limits for the materials?
> > But if this was anything other than a
> > hypothetical exercise and if we were actually to observe a perfect
> > granite cube in the need of an explanation occurring in the wild
> > without obvious human interference, this logic means that it would
> > become like a pyrite cube: observed and therefore within the realm of
> > non-deliberate processes.
>
> Not true since we have more than a data set of merely observing a
> certain type of granite form in the "wild". We also know what forces
> produced such granite forms over time and that many different
> non-deliberate random-type forces all have pretty much the same
> limitations with regard to the production of symmetry in granite forms.
> It is because of the consistency of this limitation that we can be so
> confident that any large, highly symmetrical, polished granite cube
> with nearly identical etchings on opposing faces were not produced by a
> non-deliberate force - regardless of where such a cube may be found in
> the universe.
Can't you leave the universe out of it? It's a tall, untestable claim
and you might well be wrong. Somewhere there may be a planet on which
there are plenty of cubical crystals that get hollowed out and filled
with granite over time. Maybe there isn't, and you're right, but
untestable assertions don't make the argument stronger.
Your method seems to be a form of ordinary pattern recognition after
all. We know what natural rocks tend to look like and we know what
manufactured rocks tend to look like and check which one is a closer
match. But if we find something new and don't know how it was formed,
and don't have observations about how other things like it were formed,
we can't tell whether it was designed or not. Looks like it rules out
finding out whether life was designed or not, since we haven't got the
database on how the symmetry of non-designed life is limited.
> > He might say that the relevant difference is that perfect granite cubes
> > are very rare and unlikely in the wild and pyrite cubes are ubiquitous
> > but it can't be just the rarity that makes or breaks the case since
> > even non-deliberate processes may make rare and unlikely things every
> > once in a while and intelligent design may make things that are
> > everywhere, like Coca Cola bottles. We can't conclude that everything
> > that's rare is the product of intelligent design, can we? It could be
> > just an unlikely coincidence of factors. Bacterial flagellas aren't
> > that rare either, are they designed? I simply can't see how one can
> > conclude that the process creating object X is deliberate or
> > non-deliberate just by doing some statistics about the frequence of X
> > without identifying the process responsible for X.
>
> It has nothing to do with the rarity or prevalence of a particular
> object in "the wild" or amongst a highly intelligent civilization. It
> is all about determining the limits of non-deliberate forces as they
> act over time on a particular material.
Nonsense, the whole argument of the limits depends upon the very low
probability of certain granite forms, which depends on the extreme
rarity of these forms. E.g. the non-existence of polished granite cubes
with etchings on the sides in the wild. You have arrived upon these
alleged limits by pondering about rocks that haven't been messed with
by humans as far as you know and noticing that hey, granite cubes seem
to be nonexistent and pyrite is everywhere. Hmm, pyrite cubes must be
the result of non-deliberate processes and granite cubes must be
deliberate. But if there were a lot of granite cubes found in the
nature in the absence of humans you would simply classify them with
pyrites and salt and suppose that it's the way non-deliberate forces
like crystallization act on the material. You wouldn't conclude that
they must be intelligently designed because they go beyond the observed
limits for non-deliberate forces acting on granite, you would simply
have proposed some other limits for non-deliberate forces acting on
granite and forget all about "granite cannot form symmetrical cubes
left to its own devices", just like you don't seem to conclude that
pyrite must be intelligently designed because pyrite cannot form cubes
if it's left to its own devices.
It's quite simple: If granite cubes were frequently found in the
nature they wouldn't go beyond the observed limits for forces acting on
granite, because the granite cubes would be observed. Of course they
might nevertheless be designed by an undetectable agent but so can
pyrite cubes or amorphous granite be. There is no way to exclude an
undetectable agent and his actions may very well look like
non-deliberate processes acting on granite or pyrite. So if there is an
intelligent undetectable agent who is actually interested in rock
manufacture, it may easily be that most of the rocks we suppose
undesigned are actual works of art and boring granite cubes are what
happens in the absence of said designer. How could we tell if cubical
symmetry was the natural way that granite forms, but an intelligent
designer manufactures it to look asymmetrical?
This argument depends a little too much on assumptions to be to my
taste. Some of the assumptions:
1. We can tell which processes are non-deliberate, even though we must
allow for an undetectable designer.
2. When the undetectable designer works, his design is detectable as
such.
3. Even though there is a designer, he is not responsible for
everything and there are non-deliberate processes which we can use for
comparisons.
4. What the designer creates will be rare like a perfectly polished
granite cube in Mars, not everywhere like pyrite, because otherwise it
wouldn't stand out among our observations because it's so improbable.
5. There are no natural processes which produce rare objects that stand
out among our observations because they're so improbable. This would
give us false positives.
I know that you said that prevalence does not matter but it seems to me
that it must, because you want to base your proposed limits on the
observations of things that you have seen occurring in the nature
(frequent occurrences being more likely to be observed), and because
you talk about small probabilities of certain forms occurring being the
decisive factor. Where do you get these small probabilities from?
Because that something is rarely or never observed to occur without
obvious human influence.
> Do many different
> non-deliberate forces have pretty much the same limitation, to the same
> degree, like when it comes to producing symmetry of irregularities in
> granite forms? If the answer to this question is "yes", then you have
> some basis to go on in determining if a particular form goes
> significantly beyond these limitations - regardless of how many copies
> there are of that form. It doesn't matter how many there are. It
> matters if their forms are within or significantly beyond the studied
> limits of what non-deliberate random-type forces can do with that
> material.
Aren't we presuming the conclusion again? To find out whether the
granite form we have found is produced by deliberate or non-deliberate
forces, we have to presume that we already know which forces are
non-deliberate and see if the one we found differs from those that
these forces produce. But we have nothing definite to identify
non-deliberate forces with and our reasoning depends upon having
correctly assumed what forces are non-deliberate and not having left
anything rarely occurring out. And it is all rubbish if what we suppose
natural and non-deliberate is actually the work of an undetectable
designer. He's an unknown factor that throws all data under suspicion.
bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net
Seanpit wrote:
> bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net wrote:
> > Sean, and other ID fans, argue that we recognize design, or "deliberate
> > processes"because we know the limits of non-deliberate processes and
> > recognize when those limits have been exceeded. A frequent thought
> > experiment goes as follows.....
> >
> > What would you think if you landed on Mars and came upon a perfectly
> > symmetrical, smooth granite block sitting on the ground? The ID
> > argument is that you would realize that no non-deliberate process could
> > have produced such a block and that therefore some intelligence must
> > have built it. You can infer this, they say, without the slightest
> > knowledge of the character or motives of the beings that designed it.
> > It seems obvious, that we would all agree that somebody must have built
> > that big granite block.
>
> You should also include that you have a good deal of knowledge about
> how the material of granite interacts in the same predictable way with
> the same predictable limits with many different kinds of non-deliberate
> "random" acting forces.
We do have some knowledge about that, but that knowledge is not what
gives this thought experiment its appeal to fans of ID.
>
> > This thought experiment is deceiving, though. Although the claim is
> > that no knowledge of the designer is required, the only reason it seems
> > *obvious* that the block was designed is that the designers we know
> > about (humans) like to make big, symmetrical granite monuments.
>
> Humans also make big asymmetrical "modern-art" type granite monuments
> that often cannot be readily distinguished from what might be produced
> "naturally". So, this is not a good argument.
Indeed, if a human designer makes something that is meant to look like
a natural product, and does a good job at it, he will fool me.
Similarly, if a god has made the biological world in such a way that it
appeared to be the product of repeated cycles of mindless variation and
selection he has succeeded in fooling me and most other scientists.
>Humans can and do make
> just about any granite form imaginable. Non-deliberate randomly acting
> forces do not. These random forces only produced a limited range of
> granite forms with very predictable limits to that range - that include
> a lack of ability to produce significant symmetry with regard to
> irregularities in granite or other materials like marble or flint or
> clay etc.
>
> > What
> > drives our ready agreement that the thing must have been manufactured
> > is the similarity to things we know are designed by human designers,
> > not merely the seeming improbablility of its having arisen from
> > non-deliberate processes.
>
> Very amorphous-looking granite rocks also share this same similarity to
> things we know are designed by human designers. I've gone over this
> problem several times with you in particular. Don't you get it? This
> demonstration of similarity with human design is not enough since
> humans design just about every type of granite form imaginable.
Sorry, most products of human design do not look like amorphous
products of nature, no matter how helpful it would be to your argument
if they did.
> Therefore, in order to detect that the large granite cube was most
> definitely designed, you have to know at least something about the
> shared predictable limits of many non-deliberate processes as they
> interact with the material of granite to produce pretty much the same
> range of looks with pretty much the same limitations.
>
> > To see the problem, imagine an alternative find on Mars. Imagine you
> > find a large, asymmetric, irregularly shaped granite object. You've
> > carefully studied Martaim geology and meteorology and hydrology and you
> > are very convinced that no non-deliberate process can have formed that
> > specific object. You have no idea why a designer would want to make it,
> > and know idea how a designer could have gotten there in the first
> > place, but, according to ID you do not need to know any of that. Few
> > people would, I think, be convinced of your claim that this was good
> > evidence for intelligent designers on Mars. They would be inclined to
> > think that you had overlooked some non-deliberate process capable of
> > producing that particular object.
>
> Why? Why would "they" be inclined to look for a non-deliberate process
> in this case of a irregularly shaped form, but not in the first case of
> the large highly symmetrical granite cube form? Hmmmmm? Don't you
> think it has something to do with the fact that irregularly shaped
> granite forms with low degrees of symmetry are much more likely to be
> the result of a non-deliberate process?
No, not at all. It has to do with the fact that the designers we know
about, people, have frequently designed big, symmetrical granite
blocks.
>You're just trying to fool
> yourself here by appealing to what is in fact within the likely range
> of non-deliberate processes.
No, we stipulated that the guy landing on Mars was quite sure that the
*specific* irregular shape could not have been produced by
non-deliberate processes. You would not go so far as to claim that
non-deliberate processes can produce every possible irregular shape,
would you? No, the guy is just as sure that no non-deliberate process
could have produced that specific, peculiar shape as you are that
evolution cannot produce things beyond a certain level of functional
complexity this side of a zillion years.
The reason he is greeted with skepticism is because his irregular
mineral formation (as likely as it may be to be an exact likeness of an
ancient Martian king) just doesn't look like a common product of a
known human designer. GIven that, people are more inclined to suspect
that the guy's understanding of all non-deliberate processes on Mars is
not quite as good as he thinks it is.
>
> > When you decide whether something is designed or not you balance the
> > likelihood that is was designed by a designer whose motives, abilities,
> > and character you understand versus the likelihood of its having been
> > formed by natural processes that you understand. If you throw out all
> > information about the designer you are simply stuck. You may be pretty
> > sure no natural, non-deliberate process may have been involved, but if
> > you know nothing of the designer you have nothing to compare it too.
> > And in infinitely powerful designer of infinitely inscrutable motives
> > can explain anything at all, even those things for which a clear,
> > non-deliberate process is a ready explanation.
>
> Again, you fail to realize, evidently anyway, that even relatively
> "limited" human designers are in fact capable of producing just about
> any granite form you can imagine. You therefore do not have anything
> to compare with if you find this or that form on Mars. Any of the
> forms you discussed about could have been produced by human-level
> intelligences.
As I've said several times, if a human designer successfully mimics
something produced by non-deliberate forces, he may succeed in fooling
us. So what?
>Therefore, you have "nothing with which to compare".
> Yet, even you are able to pick what is most likely designed regardless.
> The reason for this is because the giant highly symmetrical polished
> granite cube goes so far beyond what non-deliberate processes are
> capable of achieving that you are left with no real choice but ID -
> without any need for knowledge about the actual identity, motives, or
> mechanisms of the designer(s).
You seem to think that one goes about ruling out non-deliberate
processes in the absence of a specific alternative idea about how
something was made. What people actually do (say, the archaeologist
looking at bits of stone that might be tools) is two compare the
evidence in favor of alternative hypotheses, natural product or human
product. If something looks a lot like a known human product, e.g. a
car, an intact amphora, a book, then the"natural product hypothesis
never gets off the ground. If something does not look at all like a
known human product, the natural product hypothesis gets stronger. The
more you understand about how the natural process might have worked to
produce the object, and the less like known products of human design
the object looks, the stronger will be your conclusion that
non-deliberate processes were responsible. It may remain possible that
someone deliberately made something look non-deliberate. You might be
fooled. That's life.
In the difficult cases, things that look like they might be similar to
simple stone tools, for example, but which might have been produced by
geology, you will need to know more about their history, their context,
and the local geology in order to decide between the deliberate or
non-deliberate hypotheses.
What you would like to do is claim that something, either a
hypothetical smooth granite block in space or a bacterial flagellum,
could not have been produced by any non-deliberate process known or
unknown. OK. What's the specific alternative? An unspecified designer
of unknown motives and potentially infinite powers? Until you have a
more specific alternative explanation you've got nothing to work with.
Let's stipulate, only for the sake of argument though, that no known
non-deliberate process could have produced the bacterial flagellum.
Then we are left with the choice of saying it was produced by an
unknown non-deliberate process or an unknown deliberate process.
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
How many times are you going to ask this same question? I've told you
over a dozen times now, personally, that all natural processes with the
potential to affect a granite form do NOT need to be identified. My
"methodology" is based on determining nearly identical limits to a
subset of non-deliberate processes as one observes them interacting
with granite over time. Since many different non-deliberate processes
share pretty much the same limitations with respect to creating certain
features, like symmetry, with granite and other homogenously mixed
materials like marble, or flint, this consistency can be used to
extrapolate to the entire set of potential non-deliberate processes -
hypothesizing, through inductive reasoning, that the entire set will
also share the same limitations as the subset shares.
> 2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
You record the range of granite forms produced by a subset of
non-deliberate processes and show that all of these non-deliberate
forces have pretty much the same limitations when it comes to a certain
characteristic, like symmetry.
> 3) Calculating the statistical range of the forms produced by such
> processes.
Yes, - by a subset of non-deliberate forces.
> 4) Demonstrating that there is a set of characteristics shared by *ALL*
> such forms.
Yes, - by a subset of non-deliberate forces.
> 5) Demonstrating that your statistical method can provide a
> statistically valid estimate of the chance of a granite cube being the
> outcome of such processes.
Yes, - by extrapolation to the whole set of non-deliberate random-type
forces.
> If I am incorrect in this, please give us a clear exposition of your
> methodology.
I really don't know how many times you are going to list these exact
same questions over and over again. Come on now. What's wrong with your
memory?
> I contend that this methodology could not tell us if Michaelanglo's
> statue of "David" is an artefact. He has shifted his claim to the
> assertion that the statue shows "reflective symetry" - a claim which is
> patently false for the statue taken as an object formed out of marble.
Have you not taken any art classes? There's more than one way to
measure symmetry. You already admit that the face of Michelangelo's
David does show very high reflective symmetry, but you think you still
have something when it comes to the statue taken as a whole?
What you do is take a line, drawn down the center of the stone, with
more lines splitting off to go down both arms and legs and more lines
splitting off to go down each finger and toe to the very tip (or
whatever appendages there may be on the stone). The surface points
perpendicular to these lines will match the surface point distances of
the line of equivalent distance on the other side of the figure of
David - to a very high degree.
So, you see, it doesn't matter what position the arms and legs and
fingers and toes are in. Their reflective symmetry can still be
measured in a quantifiable way. It's the same thing with any type of
figure. For example, say you want to figure out if all the snakes
coming out of the head of a sculpture of Medusa are cloned copies of
the same snake pattern. You can do measurements on each snake, using
the same method I've just described to you, to see if each snake
significantly matches the same pattern. It doesn't matter what
positions the snakes are in or if they are bent and turned in different
directions. The fidelity of a match to a common form can be measured.
> I invite Sean to present us with a clear description of his methodology
> so that we can judge for ourselves whether or not it is capable of
> discerning "David" as an artefact.
>
> I anticipate little more than evasion, unfounded assertion, and the
> misuse of mathematical and scientific terms.
>
> So go on, Sean.
>
> Astonish us.
I doubt you would admit error or astonishment even if someone were
raised from the dead.
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Richard Forrest
So where have you identified these processes?
> > 2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
>
> You record the range of granite forms produced by a subset of
> non-deliberate processes and show that all of these non-deliberate
> forces have pretty much the same limitations when it comes to a certain
> characteristic, like symmetry.
And where have you recorded these forms?
>
> > 3) Calculating the statistical range of the forms produced by such
> > processes.
>
> Yes, - by a subset of non-deliberate forces.
And where are these calculations?
>
> > 4) Demonstrating that there is a set of characteristics shared by *ALL*
> > such forms.
>
> Yes, - by a subset of non-deliberate forces.
>
And how have you demonstrated this from your dataset?
> > 5) Demonstrating that your statistical method can provide a
> > statistically valid estimate of the chance of a granite cube being the
> > outcome of such processes.
>
> Yes, - by extrapolation to the whole set of non-deliberate random-type
> forces.
And how have you demonstrated this from your dataset?
>
> > If I am incorrect in this, please give us a clear exposition of your
> > methodology.
>
> I really don't know how many times you are going to list these exact
> same questions over and over again. Come on now. What's wrong with your
> memory?
My memory is fine.
It is perfectly clear that you have yet to apply your methodology to
any material.
So stop making assertions about what your methodology can show, and
actually apply it.
<more irrelevant ramblings snipped>
RF
Seanpit
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
< snip >
> >> > If so, does it have a very high degree of reflective symmetry
> >> > with regard to surface irregularities of any kind?
> >>
> >> What does "high degree" mean?
> >
> > I've also explained this before, several times. Again though, lets say
> > all the irregularities on stone have less than 0.001% variation with
> > the exact opposite point of the stone as a measure of distance from the
> > center of the stone.
>
> Center of mass, or center of volume?
Either way is fine . . .
> And where do you come up with the 0.001% ? Does that follow from the
> principles of intelligent design theory, or is it just an ad hoc
> choice that you will abandon when someone points out that it produces
> false positives?
I'll bet you $1,000 that it will not produce false positives in your
lifetime - as long as you include the rest of the requirements as
listed in the following paragraph:
> > Let's also say that the range of distances on the same side of the
> > stone is significant, like +/- 50% of the average distance, with
> > many points being at the extremes of this range. Such a stone would
> > have a "high degree" of symmetry with respect to its irregularities.
>
> Does this apply to snowflakes and benzene molecules, or just to stones?
Again, we are just talking about granite here - or marble or flint or
clay or other such homogenous non-crystalline materials.
> >> What does "surface irregularities" mean?
> >
> > Do you know the difference between a highly symmetrical sphere and a
> > highly symmetrical cube?
>
> Yes, they have different shapes.
It's more than that . . . there's something very "regular" about one,
but not about the others - can you guess which one?
> > If not, consider that all the surface points of a highly symmetrical
> > sphere are almost identical with respect to their distance from the
> > center of the sphere. In other words, there are no significant
> > surface irregularities on a sphere. This is not true of a highly
> > symmetrical cube.
>
> So the corners of the cube are "irregularities"?
Yes - - and so are all surface points that are at different distances
from the center of the stone relative to each other.
> > The surface points of a cube vary with respect to their distance to
> > the center of the cube. These variations in surface distances with
> > respect to the center of the object are "irregularities".
>
> Strange terminology, but let's see where it heads.
>
> Are crystals intelligently designed?
No - -
Active galaxies?
No - -
Mouse droppings?
No - -
Highly symmetrical granite cubes with near identical etchings on
opposing faces?
Yes - -
> > Perhaps you didn't see the multiple posts where I've explained this
> > already?
>
> I've seen lots of posts where you say a lot of words, but I've never
> seen you offer an objective way of detecting design that you didn't
> back off of as soon as people started reporting as being designed.
Where have I ever "backed off" from my determination that something was
designed? This statement is simply not true.
> For you latest scheme, someone has already asked whether a snowflake
> is designed.
And I've already said that crystalline structures like pyrite cubes, as
well as snowflakes, are not the apparently result of deliberate thought
or action. They can easily be made via apparently random non-deliberate
forces. But, I guess you didn't see where I've answered this many many
times already?
> >> I can pick two points on the surface and argue that they are both the
> >> same distance from the mid-point of the line between them. Is that
> >> sufficient to prove designedness?
> >
> > If all the points show such a match with opposing points, and these
> > points are significantly irregular on one side with respect to the
> > center of the object (as described above), then yes, this is sufficient
> > to demonstrate "designedness" to a very high degree of predictive value
>
> Is your +/- 50% the definition of "significantly irregular"?
That's part of it. However, to be significantly irregular you need
many points that vary to this degree - not just one or two or even a
few dozen. A few thousand or tens of thousands of irregularities would
start to become significant.
> > - if the object is granite or marble or flint. Clearly, the finding
> > of just one surface point of near perfect identity with the opposing
> > point is not enough. Why do you think I chose a *polished* highly
> > symmetrical granite cube with nearly identical etchings on opposing
> > faces as my example? Because it has so many irregularities that
> > match and none that do not match - to the degree I specified above.
>
> What if you're looking for design in something other than a granite
> cube. Say, a flint arrowhead, or an E.coli flagellum?
The same basic principles apply - If you can find a characteristic that
goes significantly beyond the clearly limits of the subset of known
non-deliberate processes with regard to these materials, then you can
detect design to the predictable exclusion of any non-deliberate cause.
> >> > If it does, it is almost certainly designed.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, you haven't told me how to determine "if it does".
> >
> > But I have, over and over again.
>
> No, you give stuff like the above, which can at most be applied to some
> overly specific hypothetical case, such as a granite cube, and which
> you pile with arbitrary restrictions to keep us from concluding that
> snowflakes, quartz crystals, and benzene molecules are designed.
Not just granite cubes can be detected as being designed by my method.
Any granite form that shows such a degree of symmetry can be detected
as being designed. The same thing is true of any highly symmetrical
form made out of marble or flint or clay.
Just because some materials can produce highly symmetrical crystalline
forms does not mean that all materials can do this. When you know that
the material in question cannot produce such a crystalline structure,
the feature of significant symmetry can be used to detect design.
Again, you have to know something about the material in question via
prior experience with that material as it interacts with various
non-deliberate forces.
> >> >> He likes to give arguments about symmetry, entropy, probability, etc.,
> >> >> but they're just post hoc rationalizations for the answer provided
> >> >> by the "ask Sean" methodology.
> >> >
> >> > How are they "post hoc" if I don't even know what you have on your
> >> > desk?
> >>
> >> Well, given that you haven't told me how to make a determination for
> >> the thing on my desk, post hoc doesn't enter in to it yet.
> >
> > Actually, this would be a definite example of "pre hoc" since I'd be
> > telling you the answer based only on knowledge of what the material is
> > and my prior experience with that material and the limits of
> > non-deliberate random-type forces acting on that material with respect
> > to a characteristic like symmetry. I don't need to know who or why or
> > how or even in what context this specific object was actually formed to
> > know if it was or wasn't almost certainly the result of deliberate
> > design or not.
>
> No, you're basically assuming that all granite cubes are intelligently
> designed, and giving us a post hoc list of rules for "detecting" that
> design.
Not true. I'm telling you "pre hoc" that *any* granite form with such a
degree of reflective symmetry that you find in the future will have
been the result of deliberate design.
> A *growing* post hoc list, I might add. Most of the conditions you
> state above weren't part of your formula when you first started talking
> about granite cubes, but you've kept adding rules to filter out the
> false positives.
All of these rules were part of the original list. Please, what
particular have I added? I've always been talking about highly
symmetrical granite cubes with reflective designs in opposing faces - -
for years now. Look it up.
> Why does shape-based detection of design depend on the material?
Because, different materials react differently to random non-deliberate
forces. Different materials therefore have different "limitations" in
what characteristics can and cannot be produced by such forces.
> >> >> Sean, if you're reading this, I picked up something in the parking
> >> >> lot today and now have it on my desk, beside my computer monitor.
> >> >
> >> > What material is it made out of?
> >>
> >> Some kind of stone.
> >
> > What kind of stone - specifically?
>
> Is that part of your design inference checklist?
Yes - it is. Why else do you think I've specifically talked about
granite so much? Why didn't I just say, "some cubic rock" instead of
specifying that the rock is "granite"?
> How are you going to detect design in biology, if your inference kit
> requires knowledge of what kind of stone something is made of?
I have to know what kinds of materials the biosystems are made of too .
. .
> >> Is the material germaine to the detection of design?
> >
> > Yes! - How many times do I have to say this? Knowledge about the
> > material and how it interacts with random-type natural forces over
> > time is very "germane" to the detection of design.
>
> So if I find a granite cube and a sandstone cube, I can conclude that
> the granite cube is designed but can't make the same conclusion about
> the sandstone cube?
You need prior experience with both materials to be able to tell.
> >> >> What steps do I take to determine whether its shape is the result
> >> >> of intelligent design, vs. unintelligent processes?
> >> >
> >> > See steps listed above . . . yet again!
> >>
> >> You haven't given me any steps. You've only offered a handwave.
> >
> > I've given you very detailed steps, over and over again.
>
> No, you've given a handwave argument and a growing list of arbitrary
> filters to keep the false positives out.
The filters are not arbitrary if they actually work to keep false
positives away. That's the whole goal of a good scientific hypothesis.
> >> How do I detect "a very high degree of reflective symmetry with
> >> regard to surface irregularities of any kind" ?
> >
> > Come on now - Don't tell me you honestly have had no idea what I've
> > been talking about with regard to surface irregularities and symmetry?
> > Really? I have a very hard time believing that.
>
> I have a real good intuitive idea. But I want something that I can
> apply rigorously. Otherwise I might as well skip the pretense at
> rigor, and just state my intuitions about whether something is designed.
Great! I've given you the method. I can be applied very rigorously.
You just have to try it and see.
> Of course, that's what *every* advocate of ID does. All the procedural
> methodology is just pseudoscientific window dressing that breaks down
> (or evaporates) upon close inspection.
Try it an see . . .
> You have narrowed your inference methodology to a procedure for detecting
> design in granite cubes, and the procedure increasingly boils down to
> "if it's a cube, then it's designed".
Not just a cube. If it is granite, has a whole lot of irregularities
which show a very high degree of reflective symmetry with
irregularities on the opposite side of the stone, it was designed.
I've defined irregularities for you. I've defined "significant
symmetry" for you. What else do you need to detect design in any
granite rock that meets these requirements? Not just a granite cube
meets these requirements you know . . .
Navillus
Exactly. Great post. And should a person on Mars assume intelligent
agents if they found a large stone that looked like this?
http://web.fu-berlin.de/fzem/proteine/viraleproteine/pics/f_protein_em_vs_modell.jpg
Because that's what 99.9999% of the cell's products look like. All the
signs of human engineering? I think not.
Navillus
Copy/pasted the wrong URL there. That one's a virus. Still falls into
the catagory of evolution, but here's a better example:
Seanpit
bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net wrote:
< snip >
> > > This thought experiment is deceiving, though. Although the claim is
> > > that no knowledge of the designer is required, the only reason it seems
> > > *obvious* that the block was designed is that the designers we know
> > > about (humans) like to make big, symmetrical granite monuments.
> >
> > Humans also make big asymmetrical "modern-art" type granite monuments
> > that often cannot be readily distinguished from what might be produced
> > "naturally". So, this is not a good argument.
>
> Indeed, if a human designer makes something that is meant to look like
> a natural product, and does a good job at it, he will fool me.
> Similarly, if a god has made the biological world in such a way that it
> appeared to be the product of repeated cycles of mindless variation and
> selection he has succeeded in fooling me and most other scientists.
That's correct. However, if there is some part of the granite form or
the biosystem that clearly goes beyond the limits of what
non-deliberate process can achieve, you can then detect design to a
very high degree of predictive value.
> > Very amorphous-looking granite rocks also share this same similarity to
> > things we know are designed by human designers. I've gone over this
> > problem several times with you in particular. Don't you get it? This
> > demonstration of similarity with human design is not enough since
> > humans design just about every type of granite form imaginable.
>
> Sorry, most products of human design do not look like amorphous
> products of nature, no matter how helpful it would be to your argument
> if they did.
You're getting hung up on this notion of commonality. It doesn't
matter if humans do or do not usually make non-natural looking
products. What matters is that humans can easily make natural looking
products. In this same line, it doesn't matter if you find one giant
highly symmetrical granite block with near identical etchings on
opposing faces or a million of them - they would all be beyond the
reach of the well-established limits of non-deliberate forces acting on
granite.
> > > To see the problem, imagine an alternative find on Mars. Imagine you
> > > find a large, asymmetric, irregularly shaped granite object. You've
> > > carefully studied Martaim geology and meteorology and hydrology and you
> > > are very convinced that no non-deliberate process can have formed that
> > > specific object. You have no idea why a designer would want to make it,
> > > and know idea how a designer could have gotten there in the first
> > > place, but, according to ID you do not need to know any of that. Few
> > > people would, I think, be convinced of your claim that this was good
> > > evidence for intelligent designers on Mars. They would be inclined to
> > > think that you had overlooked some non-deliberate process capable of
> > > producing that particular object.
> >
> > Why? Why would "they" be inclined to look for a non-deliberate process
> > in this case of a irregularly shaped form, but not in the first case of
> > the large highly symmetrical granite cube form? Hmmmmm? Don't you
> > think it has something to do with the fact that irregularly shaped
> > granite forms with low degrees of symmetry are much more likely to be
> > the result of a non-deliberate process?
>
> No, not at all. It has to do with the fact that the designers we know
> about, people, have frequently designed big, symmetrical granite
> blocks.
People, that we know about, also design very amorphous looking granite
forms as "art". Therefore, you cannot use the notion that humans can
design a particular "look" as evidence that this look is definitely
designed - or not.
> >You're just trying to fool
> > yourself here by appealing to what is in fact within the likely range
> > of non-deliberate processes.
>
> No, we stipulated that the guy landing on Mars was quite sure that the
> *specific* irregular shape could not have been produced by
> non-deliberate processes.
"Quite sure" based on what? You used a form that is clearly within the
realm of what non-deliberate forces can achieve - and then you say the
guy is "quite sure" that such a form could not have been produced by
non-deliberate processes? You then go on to say that he couldn't be so
sure after all? You're just trying to trick yourself here. You know
there is a big difference between an amorphous granite form and a
highly symmetrical giant granite cube with near identical etchings on
opposing faces. This is why you are trying to use a form as an example
that is much easier to explain via non-deliberate forces.
> You would not go so far as to claim that
> non-deliberate processes can produce every possible irregular shape,
> would you?
A huge variety of irregular shapes are definitely within the realm of
what non-deliberate processes can achieve. It would be much harder to
prove that a particular irregular shape is in fact beyond the limit of
what non-deliberate processes can achieve. That is why you chose to use
this notion instead of symmetry - which clearly have well delineated
limits. You are trying to blur the issue when the issue is very clear
when it comes to symmetry.
> No, the guy is just as sure that no non-deliberate process
> could have produced that specific, peculiar shape as you are that
> evolution cannot produce things beyond a certain level of functional
> complexity this side of a zillion years.
Why not use the granite cube illustration then? Why come up with some
vague concept that has not current basis in testable reality?
> The reason he is greeted with skepticism is because his irregular
> mineral formation (as likely as it may be to be an exact likeness of an
> ancient Martian king) just doesn't look like a common product of a
> known human designer.
There you go with the "common place" notion. It doesn't matter if the
form is a "common place" creation or not. Michelangelo's David is not
a "common place" creation either - yet its symmetry is clear evidence
of design - even if you found such a statue on an alien planet. All
such granite forms are within the realm of human creativity. Some are
not within the realm of what non-deliberate forces can do. That's what
matters.
One more example, where on Earth have you ever seen or heard of a 50 x
50 x 50 meter highly symmetrical polished solid granite cube with near
identical etchings on opposing faces? Yet, despite the fact that
humans do no "commonly" make such a structure, if you ever found such a
structure, it would be clear evidence of deliberate design anyway. Why?
Because the degree of reflective symmetry, with regard to its surface
irregularities, goes way beyond the clearly established limits of what
non-deliberate processes can do. That's why. It has nothing to do with
what is "common" and what isn't.
> GIven that, people are more inclined to suspect
> that the guy's understanding of all non-deliberate processes on Mars is
> not quite as good as he thinks it is.
Try it with a huge granite cube (as described above) that no one has
seen made before either.
> > > When you decide whether something is designed or not you balance the
> > > likelihood that is was designed by a designer whose motives, abilities,
> > > and character you understand versus the likelihood of its having been
> > > formed by natural processes that you understand. If you throw out all
> > > information about the designer you are simply stuck. You may be pretty
> > > sure no natural, non-deliberate process may have been involved, but if
> > > you know nothing of the designer you have nothing to compare it too.
> > > And in infinitely powerful designer of infinitely inscrutable motives
> > > can explain anything at all, even those things for which a clear,
> > > non-deliberate process is a ready explanation.
> >
> > Again, you fail to realize, evidently anyway, that even relatively
> > "limited" human designers are in fact capable of producing just about
> > any granite form you can imagine. You therefore do not have anything
> > to compare with if you find this or that form on Mars. Any of the
> > forms you discussed above could have been produced by human-level
> > intelligences.
>
> As I've said several times, if a human designer successfully mimics
> something produced by non-deliberate forces, he may succeed in fooling
> us. So what?
That's a big deal. You can't really know if you are being fooled or
not. Design could always be the real explanation for a given granite
form. The opposite is not true, however. Non-deliberate forces have
clearly determined limits with regard to certain characteristics, like
symmetry, when it comes to certain materials, like granite. It is
therefore extraordinarily unlikely that you will be tricked when you
determine that a giant highly symmetrical polished granite cube, with
nearly identical etchings on opposing faces, was indeed the result of
deliberate design. This is not only true for cubes like this; it is
also true of any other type of highly symmetrical granite form.
> >Therefore, you have "nothing with which to compare".
> > Yet, even you are able to pick what is most likely designed regardless.
> > The reason for this is because the giant highly symmetrical polished
> > granite cube goes so far beyond what non-deliberate processes are
> > capable of achieving that you are left with no real choice but ID -
> > without any need for knowledge about the actual identity, motives, or
> > mechanisms of the designer(s).
>
> You seem to think that one goes about ruling out non-deliberate
> processes in the absence of a specific alternative idea about how
> something was made.
You have an alternative. You have knowledge that ID has no real limits.
That isn't worthless information. It is very helpful. All you then
have to know is that a given form has gone significantly beyond the
limits of what non-deliberate processes can achieve.
> What people actually do (say, the archaeologist
> looking at bits of stone that might be tools) is two compare the
> evidence in favor of alternative hypotheses, natural product or human
> product.
Archeologists have no basis to know that a product is human designed
unless they know the limits of what non-deliberate processes can
achieve with the material(s) in question. That's the whole point here.
> If something looks a lot like a known human product, e.g. a
> car, an intact amphora, a book, then the "natural product hypothesis
> never gets off the ground.
The question is, why does a car or a book look like a human product?
What if non-deliberate forces of nature also produced very similar
looking things? How could you tell the difference? You see, it is
because of the fact that such things go far beyond what non-deliberate
process can ever achieve this side of eternity that they are clear
evidence of deliberate artifact.
> If something does not look at all like a
> known human product, the natural product hypothesis gets stronger.
Is a highly symmetrical polished granite cube with nearly identical
etchings on opposing faces - 100 m cubed, a known human product? How
about a giant granite form, 1 km cubed, that is made of squiggly
tube-like structures where the squiggles are all mirror images of each
other on both sides of the stone? Every seen that before?
< snip more of the same >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Richard Forrest wrote:
> > > What you would also know if you have been following this and other
> > > threads, is that Sean is remarkably coy about the details of the
> > > methodology he proposes.
> > >
> > > As far as I can judge from his endlessly evasive and rambling postings,
> > > his it consists of the following:
> >
> > > 1) Identifying all natural processes affecting the form of granite
> >
> > How many times are you going to ask this same question? I've told you
> > over a dozen times now, personally, that all natural processes with the
> > potential to affect a granite form do NOT need to be identified. My
> > "methodology" is based on determining nearly identical limits to a
> > subset of non-deliberate processes as one observes them interacting
> > with granite over time. Since many different non-deliberate processes
> > share pretty much the same limitations with respect to creating certain
> > features, like symmetry, with granite and other homogenously mixed
> > materials like marble, or flint, this consistency can be used to
> > extrapolate to the entire set of potential non-deliberate processes -
> > hypothesizing, through inductive reasoning, that the entire set will
> > also share the same limitations as the subset shares.
>
> So where have you identified these processes?
LOL - You don't think weather patterns and the wind, rain, cold, and
heat that results are apparently non-deliberate? - or at least
apparently random in their action on granite?
> > > 2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
> >
> > You record the range of granite forms produced by a subset of
> > non-deliberate processes and show that all of these non-deliberate
> > forces have pretty much the same limitations when it comes to a certain
> > characteristic, like symmetry.
>
> And where have you recorded these forms?
In my head. If you disagree with the limits of the range that I
propose, then please, do show your falsifying evidence. Sure, I
haven't published yet, but do you require that before you can recognize
if a proposed hypothesis has likely merit or not? Give me a break! My
hypothesis is easily falsifiable as presented. Can you falsify it or
not? If you can, I'll give you $1,000. You don't even have to give me
anything if you can't. It's a win-win bet for you - except, perhaps,
for the possibility of loosing face on your part. Which isn't really a
possibility now is it? - since you won't ever admit error anyway? ; )
< snip repeats >
> > I really don't know how many times you are going to list these exact
> > same questions over and over again. Come on now. What's wrong with your
> > memory?
>
> My memory is fine.
>
> It is perfectly clear that you have yet to apply your methodology to
> any material.
I have applied it. I've just not published it yet. If you think my
applications, as stated, are obviously in serious error, you must know
of some falsifying evidence already. Where is it. I'll give you $1,000
for this information.
> So stop making assertions about what your methodology can show, and
> actually apply it.
Assertions are perfectly fine as scientific hypotheses - as long as
they are falsifiable. Mine are easily falsifiable. Prove me wrong.
I'll give you $1,000 for your trouble.
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Navillus wrote:
> > Exactly. Great post. And should a person on Mars assume intelligent
> > agents if they found a large stone that looked like this?
> >
> > http://web.fu-berlin.de/fzem/proteine/viraleproteine/pics/f_protein_em_vs_modell.jpg
> >
> > Because that's what 99.9999% of the cell's products look like. All the
> > signs of human engineering? I think not.
>
> Copy/pasted the wrong URL there. That one's a virus. Still falls into
> the catagory of evolution, but here's a better example:
>
> http://fig.cox.miami.edu/~cmallery/150/cells/sf13x20.jpg
You forget that the limits to biological systems aren't found in the
isloated structural appearance of proteins, but in the overall
functional aspect of the systems that they product. There are definite
limits here, but the limits in biological systems are with respect to
the minimum size and specificity requirements for different types of
systems of function.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Deadrat
"Seanpit" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:1147280179....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 May 2006, "Seanpit" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 10 May 2006, "neverbetter" <never...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > There are numerous problems in his argument including vague or
>> >> > missing definitions and need to collect so much data that it's
>> >> > practically impossible for anybody to actually implement the
>> >> > methodology.
>> >>
>> >> I periodically tell Sean I'm looking at something on my desk and ask
>> >> him to tell me the steps I need to take in order to determine whether
>> >> or not is designed. He can't do it, and won't even try. His
>> >> 'methodology' boils down to "as Sean whether it's designed or not".
>> >
>> > But I have done this for you many times Bobby. All you have to do is
>> > ask yourself a few questions. Is the object granite or marble or
>> > flint?
>>
>> None of the above.
>
> Well, as I've explained many times before, I have to know what the
> material is and have some experience with how it relates to various
> non-deliberate forces to use my method. You can't just say, "I found
> something, tell me it if was designed". You have to tell me what
> material it is made out of and what it looks like. However, you don't
> have to tell me who, why, how, or in what context.
You have this exactly backwards. *You* have to tell us what algorithm
you're using. Your defintions, mathematical formulas, etc must be usable
without your personal intervention. If you're told enough about the object,
then you can recognize the object as something you've seen that you know
to have been designed.
Deadrat
<snip>
Richard Forrest
Seanpit wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> > > > What you would also know if you have been following this and other
> > > > threads, is that Sean is remarkably coy about the details of the
> > > > methodology he proposes.
> > > >
> > > > As far as I can judge from his endlessly evasive and rambling postings,
> > > > his it consists of the following:
> > >
> > > > 1) Identifying all natural processes affecting the form of granite
> > >
> > > How many times are you going to ask this same question? I've told you
> > > over a dozen times now, personally, that all natural processes with the
> > > potential to affect a granite form do NOT need to be identified. My
> > > "methodology" is based on determining nearly identical limits to a
> > > subset of non-deliberate processes as one observes them interacting
> > > with granite over time. Since many different non-deliberate processes
> > > share pretty much the same limitations with respect to creating certain
> > > features, like symmetry, with granite and other homogenously mixed
> > > materials like marble, or flint, this consistency can be used to
> > > extrapolate to the entire set of potential non-deliberate processes -
> > > hypothesizing, through inductive reasoning, that the entire set will
> > > also share the same limitations as the subset shares.
> >
> > So where have you identified these processes?
>
> LOL - You don't think weather patterns and the wind, rain, cold, and
> heat that results are apparently non-deliberate? - or at least
> apparently random in their action on granite?
No, I don't think that you have systematically recorded all known
processes.
Making things up are you go along is not science.
>
> > > > 2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
> > >
> > > You record the range of granite forms produced by a subset of
> > > non-deliberate processes and show that all of these non-deliberate
> > > forces have pretty much the same limitations when it comes to a certain
> > > characteristic, like symmetry.
> >
> > And where have you recorded these forms?
>
> In my head. If you disagree with the limits of the range that I
> propose, then please, do show your falsifying evidence. Sure, I
> haven't published yet, but do you require that before you can recognize
> if a proposed hypothesis has likely merit or not?
Yes.
> Give me a break! My
> hypothesis is easily falsifiable as presented.
It's not an hypothesis. It's a proposed methodology based on the
assertion that forms produced by all "non-deliberate" processes can be
identified as a class.
> Can you falsify it or
> not?
How can I falsify an unfounded assertion?
> If you can, I'll give you $1,000. You don't even have to give me
> anything if you can't. It's a win-win bet for you - except, perhaps,
> for the possibility of loosing face on your part. Which isn't really a
> possibility now is it? - since you won't ever admit error anyway? ; )
>
> < snip repeats >
>
> > > I really don't know how many times you are going to list these exact
> > > same questions over and over again. Come on now. What's wrong with your
> > > memory?
> >
> > My memory is fine.
> >
> > It is perfectly clear that you have yet to apply your methodology to
> > any material.
>
> I have applied it.
I don't believe you.
> I've just not published it yet. If you think my
> applications, as stated, are obviously in serious error, you must know
> of some falsifying evidence already.
To repeat what I have said many times, this is about the methodology
you propose.
I do not think that your methodology could identify as an artefact
something as obviously manufactured as Michaelangelo's statue of David.
Your proposed methodology is based on an unfalsifiable assertion, and
is so cumbersome that it would take a very long time to carry out.
> Where is it. I'll give you $1,000
> for this information.
For what information? The fact that your methodology is based on an
unfounded assertion?
It is.
>
> > So stop making assertions about what your methodology can show, and
> > actually apply it.
>
> Assertions are perfectly fine as scientific hypotheses - as long as
> they are falsifiable.
No, assertions are not fine as scientific hypotheses.
If you think that they are, your grasp of basic scientific methods is
even worse than I thought.
> Mine are easily falsifiable.
You have asserted that you have a methodology which can identify the
forms produced in granite by "non-deliberate" processes by identifying
on a statistical basis the possible range of such forms.
How can I falsify that assertion?
You need to carry out your methodology - and contrary to what you
claim, you most evidently have not - to demonstrate that it can do what
you claim that it can.
Even if it could, it would not demonstrate that it is soundly based.
The claim that you can eliminate *all* "non-deliberate" processes as a
class based on the morphology of forms produced by known
"non-deliberate" processes is not a valid scientifc claim.
You cannot predict the outcome of unknown forces, "deliberate" or
"non-deliberate". To claim that you can shows your scientific
illiteracy.
> Prove me wrong.
> I'll give you $1,000 for your trouble.
>
What evidence would you accept that would prove you wrong?
RF
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
Deadrat
>
> bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>> > > This thought experiment is deceiving, though. Although the claim is
>> > > that no knowledge of the designer is required, the only reason it seems
>> > > *obvious* that the block was designed is that the designers we know
>> > > about (humans) like to make big, symmetrical granite monuments.
>> >
>> > Humans also make big asymmetrical "modern-art" type granite monuments
>> > that often cannot be readily distinguished from what might be produced
>> > "naturally". So, this is not a good argument.
>>
>> Indeed, if a human designer makes something that is meant to look like
>> a natural product, and does a good job at it, he will fool me.
>> Similarly, if a god has made the biological world in such a way that it
>> appeared to be the product of repeated cycles of mindless variation and
>> selection he has succeeded in fooling me and most other scientists.
>
> That's correct. However, if there is some part of the granite form or
> the biosystem that clearly goes beyond the limits of what
> non-deliberate process can achieve, you can then detect design to a
> very high degree of predictive value.
Well then, perhaps you should demonstrate these limits of what non-
deliberate processes can achieve. As far as granite goes, you've demonstrated
nothing but knowledge of the catalog of the Toledo Paperweight Company.
As far as biosystems go, you've demonstrated nothing at all.
<snip>
>> > > To see the problem, imagine an alternative find on Mars. Imagine you
>> > > find a large, asymmetric, irregularly shaped granite object. You've
>> > > carefully studied Martaim geology and meteorology and hydrology and you
>> > > are very convinced that no non-deliberate process can have formed that
>> > > specific object. You have no idea why a designer would want to make it,
>> > > and know idea how a designer could have gotten there in the first
>> > > place, but, according to ID you do not need to know any of that. Few
>> > > people would, I think, be convinced of your claim that this was good
>> > > evidence for intelligent designers on Mars. They would be inclined to
>> > > think that you had overlooked some non-deliberate process capable of
>> > > producing that particular object.
>> >
>> > Why? Why would "they" be inclined to look for a non-deliberate process
>> > in this case of a irregularly shaped form, but not in the first case of
>> > the large highly symmetrical granite cube form? Hmmmmm? Don't you
>> > think it has something to do with the fact that irregularly shaped
>> > granite forms with low degrees of symmetry are much more likely to be
>> > the result of a non-deliberate process?
>>
>> No, not at all. It has to do with the fact that the designers we know
>> about, people, have frequently designed big, symmetrical granite
>> blocks.
>
> People, that we know about, also design very amorphous looking granite
> forms as "art". Therefore, you cannot use the notion that humans can
> design a particular "look" as evidence that this look is definitely
> designed - or not.
Doesn't this undermine your own argument? If we can't rely on what
looks designed about some object of unknown origin to decide on design,
then what do you suggest?
<snip>
> One more example, where on Earth have you ever seen or heard of a 50 x
> 50 x 50 meter highly symmetrical polished solid granite cube with near
> identical etchings on opposing faces? Yet, despite the fact that
> humans do no "commonly" make such a structure, if you ever found such a
> structure, it would be clear evidence of deliberate design anyway. Why?
> Because the degree of reflective symmetry, with regard to its surface
> irregularities, goes way beyond the clearly established limits of what
> non-deliberate processes can do. That's why. It has nothing to do with
> what is "common" and what isn't.
You may not assume what you're trying to prove. How do you know its
the "reflective symmetry" and not just knowledge that humans produce
polished granite cubes?
<snip>
>> As I've said several times, if a human designer successfully mimics
>> something produced by non-deliberate forces, he may succeed in fooling
>> us. So what?
>
> That's a big deal. You can't really know if you are being fooled or
> not. Design could always be the real explanation for a given granite
> form. The opposite is not true, however. Non-deliberate forces have
> clearly determined limits with regard to certain characteristics, like
> symmetry, when it comes to certain materials, like granite.
Then all you've got is a theory of intelligently-designed granite. I
don't see how this helps.
> It is
> therefore extraordinarily unlikely that you will be tricked when you
> determine that a giant highly symmetrical polished granite cube, with
> nearly identical etchings on opposing faces, was indeed the result of
> deliberate design. This is not only true for cubes like this; it is
> also true of any other type of highly symmetrical granite form.
Unfortunately this tells us nothing about biosystems.
>
>> >Therefore, you have "nothing with which to compare".
>> > Yet, even you are able to pick what is most likely designed regardless.
>> > The reason for this is because the giant highly symmetrical polished
>> > granite cube goes so far beyond what non-deliberate processes are
>> > capable of achieving that you are left with no real choice but ID -
>> > without any need for knowledge about the actual identity, motives, or
>> > mechanisms of the designer(s).
>>
>> You seem to think that one goes about ruling out non-deliberate
>> processes in the absence of a specific alternative idea about how
>> something was made.
>
> You have an alternative. You have knowledge that ID has no real limits.
You do?
> That isn't worthless information. It is very helpful.
How? If IDiocy has no real limits, then it can do anything and can
explain any data. It's not science.
> All you then
> have to know is that a given form has gone significantly beyond the
> limits of what non-deliberate processes can achieve.
You need to show this.
>> What people actually do (say, the archaeologist
>> looking at bits of stone that might be tools) is two compare the
>> evidence in favor of alternative hypotheses, natural product or human
>> product.
>
> Archeologists have no basis to know that a product is human designed
> unless they know the limits of what non-deliberate processes can
> achieve with the material(s) in question. That's the whole point here.
So you keep saying.
Deadrat
Von R. Smith
Seanpit wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> > > > What you would also know if you have been following this and other
> > > > threads, is that Sean is remarkably coy about the details of the
> > > > methodology he proposes.
> > > >
> > > > As far as I can judge from his endlessly evasive and rambling postings,
> > > > his it consists of the following:
> > >
> > > > 1) Identifying all natural processes affecting the form of granite
> > >
> > > How many times are you going to ask this same question? I've told you
> > > over a dozen times now, personally, that all natural processes with the
> > > potential to affect a granite form do NOT need to be identified. My
> > > "methodology" is based on determining nearly identical limits to a
> > > subset of non-deliberate processes as one observes them interacting
> > > with granite over time. Since many different non-deliberate processes
> > > share pretty much the same limitations with respect to creating certain
> > > features, like symmetry, with granite and other homogenously mixed
> > > materials like marble, or flint, this consistency can be used to
> > > extrapolate to the entire set of potential non-deliberate processes -
> > > hypothesizing, through inductive reasoning, that the entire set will
> > > also share the same limitations as the subset shares.
> >
> > So where have you identified these processes?
>
> LOL - You don't think weather patterns and the wind, rain, cold, and
> heat that results are apparently non-deliberate? - or at least
> apparently random in their action on granite?
So weathering exhausts your imagined range of non-deliberate processes
that could act on granite?
>
> > > > 2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
> > >
> > > You record the range of granite forms produced by a subset of
> > > non-deliberate processes and show that all of these non-deliberate
> > > forces have pretty much the same limitations when it comes to a certain
> > > characteristic, like symmetry.
> >
> > And where have you recorded these forms?
>
> In my head. If you disagree with the limits of the range that I
> propose, then please, do show your falsifying evidence. Sure, I
> haven't published yet, but do you require that before you can recognize
> if a proposed hypothesis has likely merit or not? Give me a break! My
> hypothesis is easily falsifiable as presented.
I see. So describe again, please, how one would *independently*
determine whether the cube had been made by non-deliberate processes,
in the event that we found one. Simply betting that we won't find any
mysterious cubes on which to test your hypothesis is not testing your
hypothesis.
bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net
Seanpit menuliskan:
> bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>
> You have an alternative. You have knowledge that ID has no real limits.
> That isn't worthless information. It is very helpful.
This is the crux of your argument. ID has no real limits.
If something is beyond the limits of what you think can be produced by
known mechanisms of "law and chance" then you confidently conclude that
it cannot be produced at all by law and chance, even by a mechanism you
might not have understood yet..
If something is beyond the limits of what you've seen can be produced
by known designers, then you conclude that an unknown designer of
infinite power and unknowable motives must have produced it.
Why not simply conclude that you do not know how it got here, yet? As
many people have pointed out, an unidentified designer of infinite
power and unknowable motives can "explain" any observation at all, so
it's really no better than saying "Things just are the way they are."
Von R. Smith
Seanpit wrote:
> bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net wrote:
<snip>
> You have an alternative. You have knowledge that ID has no real limits.
> That isn't worthless information.
Actually, it isn't information at all. Explain the evidentiary basis
for your claim that ID has no real limits. Everything I know about
human designers indicates precisely the opposite; they have very
serious limitations. More importantly, the sort of limitations that I
know ID to have would pose a real problem for the thesis that one could
have designed life. For example, one known limitation on intelligent
designers is the need to acquire relevant knowledge, technique, and
experience before they can make or execute sophisticated designs.
Humans have had pretty much the same level of intelligence for
thousands of years, but have been been able to make MRIs or PET scans
for only a few decades. Where would designers working on a pre-biotic
earth have acquired the know-how to devise the millions of life-forms
we see on earth today, especially if we propose that the designer or
designers originated not just life on earth, but all organic life,
period?
Seanpit
Richard Forrest wrote:
< snip >
> > > > > 2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
> > > >
> > > > You record the range of granite forms produced by a subset of
> > > > non-deliberate processes and show that all of these non-deliberate
> > > > forces have pretty much the same limitations when it comes to a certain
> > > > characteristic, like symmetry.
> > >
> > > And where have you recorded these forms?
> >
> > In my head. If you disagree with the limits of the range that I
> > propose, then please, do show your falsifying evidence. Sure, I
> > haven't published yet, but do you require that before you can recognize
> > if a proposed hypothesis has likely merit or not?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Give me a break! My
> > hypothesis is easily falsifiable as presented.
>
> It's not an hypothesis. It's a proposed methodology based on the
> assertion that forms produced by all "non-deliberate" processes can be
> identified as a class.
This proposed methodology is a hypothesis. It can indeed be falsified.
> > Can you falsify it or not?
>
> How can I falsify an unfounded assertion?
Quite easily. In fact it should be easier to falsify an unfounded
assertion or hypothesis than any other type of assertion or hypothesis.
All you have to do is show that my predictions as to the limits of
what non-deliberate processes can do to granite or marble, as far as
symmetry is concerned, can cross the lines that I say are beyond their
reach this side of a practical eternity of time. This hypothesis is
falsifiable. It doesn't matter if it is "founded" or "unfounded". If I
tell you the sun will not come up tomorrow, it doesn't matter what the
basis of that claim is, it can indeed be falsified quite easily. You
should therefore be able to falsify my claim very easily - given that
it is "just an unfounded assertion".
> > If you can, I'll give you $1,000. You don't even have to give me
> > anything if you can't. It's a win-win bet for you - except, perhaps,
> > for the possibility of loosing face on your part. Which isn't really a
> > possibility now is it? - since you won't ever admit error anyway? ; )
Don't want to take $1,000 to disprove an obviously baseless assertion?
> > > So stop making assertions about what your methodology can show, and
> > > actually apply it.
> >
> > Assertions are perfectly fine as scientific hypotheses - as long as
> > they are falsifiable.
>
> No, assertions are not fine as scientific hypotheses.
> If you think that they are, your grasp of basic scientific methods is
> even worse than I thought.
You're wrong. Hypotheses are nothing more than assertions - often
based on very limited evidence. They are valid as scientific hypotheses
as long as they are testable in a falsifiable manner. My hypothesis is
testable and falsifiable. So, why not prove me wrong and pick up
$1,000 for your trouble?
> > Mine are easily falsifiable.
>
> You have asserted that you have a methodology which can identify the
> forms produced in granite by "non-deliberate" processes by identifying
> on a statistical basis the possible range of such forms.
No. I have proposed a methodology that can identify forms produced by
deliberate processes by identifying, on a statistical basis, the very
similar limits of the range of forms produced by all known
non-deliberate processes. Can you see the difference between this
statement and your strawman version?
> How can I falsify that assertion?
Easy - By showing that any non-deliberate force can actually produce a
high degree of reflective symmetry of irregularities in any granite
form beyond that which I prose cannot be done by any non-deliberate
force of nature.
If you can demonstrate this, I'll give you $1,000 for your trouble.
< snip >
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com