ID and Origin-of-Life Research
by KrauzeA while ago, I commented on Ed Brayton's misgivings about ID. Brayton noted that among ID investigators, there were different attitudes towards "the theory that all modern life forms are derived from one or a few common ancestors via descent with modification" – I, for example, accept it, whereas Paul Nelson from ID the Future rejects it. So, Brayton inquired, what does ID say about common descent? My answer, as I gave him at that time, was that ID itself didn't take a stand on common descent, just like evolutionary theory itself didn't take a stand on the discussions of tradition gradualism vs. punctualism, adaptationism vs. structuralism, etc.
Earlier today, I cracked open a new book, The Spark of Life: Darwin and the Primeval Soup by Christopher Willis and Jeffrey Bada, and was reminded of my answer by a passage in the introduction. After mentioning physicist Freeman Dyson's suggestion that the first organisms were nothing but bags of metabolic pathways, Willis and Bada write:
"Dyson's idea illustrates vividly the severe fragmentation of viewpoints among scientists who deal with the origin of life. Dyson and other scientists, such as Gunter Wächtershäuser of Munich, David Deamer of the University of California at Santa Cruz, and Doron Lancet of the Weiszmann Institute in Israel, are firm believers that metabolism must have come first. Another and much larger group of scientists, including Stanley Miller of the University of California at San Diego, Thomas Cech of the University of Colorado, and Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, believe just as firmly that gene replication came first.
This second group is hardly monolithic. There are endless arguments among them – for example, what was the nature of the first genetic material? Was it ribonucleic acid (RNA)? Did some other simpler genetic material precede RNA? Is it possible to construct simple molecules capable of carrying genetic information in the laboratory"
Willis and Bada believe that their book will provide the answer that'll unite the field, but their describtion of the current situation is instructive. Like the statement "Some features of life are intelligently designed" is compatible with multiple scenarios, so is the statement "Life is the result of purely unintelligent processes". Each statement act as a common denominator for a varied group of people, holding to different scenarios, some more developed and well-supported than others.
(At TeleoLogic, Mike also draws some interesting comparisons between ID and origin-of-life research.)
June 5th, 2005 at 1:15 pm
Mike Gene is right: All ID folk need to do is follow the astrobiologists in their methodologies.
When will the first ID lab open? It's been 14 years — in that amount of time Einstein's hypotheses were already being tested and found to work. When do we see the first ID hypothesis?
Comment by edarrell — June 5, 2005 @ 1:15 pm
June 5th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
Hi Ed,
Big ideas take time. From Oparin first proposed his ideas about abiogenesis to they were tested by Stanley Miller, more than 30 years passed.
Comment by Krauze — June 5, 2005 @ 2:17 pm
June 5th, 2005 at 6:35 pm
But Oparin was active in his lab in the meantime, and there was plenty of other research going on.
Oparin didn't demand that any school district anywhere teach his ideas as solid science, either.
Why can't ID advocates be as good a scientist as Oparin was?
Comment by edarrell — June 5, 2005 @ 6:35 pm
June 5th, 2005 at 6:45 pm
I think the comparison between Origin of Life research and ID is instructive. I think OOL is fairly characterised as a protoscience. As Kuhn (SOSR pp 11-18) describes this stage in the development of a science, the clear distinguishing feature is the lack of a generally accepted paradigm to guide research. The result is an unstructured discipline with little common agreement between practitioners, and consequent slow progress. However, the individual work done by practitioners in these fields is still guided by scientific methodology, and is still science.
This is the situation in OOL as described by Willis and Bada. There is no common paradigm within the field. However researchers are clearly trying to develop such a paradigm by turning vague statements of principle into detailed, emperically testable models. That they cannot agree on the model to use has not prevented the discovery of a slew of intriguing facts (such as the ability of RNA to replicate given only the presence of primed nucleotides and zinc ions).
The contrast with ID is stark. Whereas OOL is trying to turn vague general ideas into detailed, testable models; ID insists that no such effort can be made, or expected of it. Specifically, by insisting that no claims can be made about the nature of the "designer", or about his/her/its intentions, ID theorists preclude any possibility of emperical testing of their theory. So while OOL is a poorly understood subject, its researchers are striving to turn their theories into a detailed, testable mature science. ID theorists cut on in principle any hope of such develepment from the start.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 5, 2005 @ 6:45 pm
June 5th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
ID theorists do not preclude testing of their theories by not fitting your forced expectations. Instead, they insist that the object of testing is not the designer or the designer's method, but rather the marks of design in the object–which is a science worth persuing in its own right. Application can then be made from this field to OOL. In the case of abiogenesis, for example, it better helps to understand a historical description if it can be determined whether an object is in fact designed. What sense is there to criticize ID for not being what it isn't?
Comment by ariel — June 5, 2005 @ 7:28 pm
June 6th, 2005 at 12:42 am
If ID made strong predictions about the purpose, methods of design, and methods of manufacture used by the designer; those predictions would entail emperical consequences in the "designed objects", consequences that could be searched for. ID is consistent with any method of manufacture, from fully naturalistic evolution within a critically designed universe to recent creation of all living organisms without any ancestors (but with appropriate fake memories). It is consistent with any purpose from complete benevolence to active hatred. So by failing to make such predictions, ID ensures that no detailed fact of biology can refute its hypothesis.
At the same time, ID theorists wish to claim they can detect "marks of design"; but absent independant predictions, ID theory reduces to the circular process of insisting certain features are "marks of design", and then discovering that things with those features have "marks of design". The circularity and strict scientific vacuity of the process is shown by the fact that no novel prediction arises from the discovery that bacterial flagela, for example, have "marks of design".
Comment by tom_kbel — June 6, 2005 @ 12:42 am
June 6th, 2005 at 2:49 am
Hi Ed,
"But Oparin was active in his lab in the meantime, and there was plenty of other research going on."
Not testing his conjecture for the origin of life. If you know some evidence to the contrary, you're welcome to cite it.
"Oparin didn't demand that any school district anywhere teach his ideas as solid science, either."
Neither do I demand that. So what's your point?
"Why can't ID advocates be as good a scientist as Oparin was?"
You seem confused about the nature of Oparin's work. Please explain, in detail, what research Oparin did regarding the origin of life that you would have "ID advocates" do the equivalent of.
Comment by Krauze — June 6, 2005 @ 2:49 am
June 6th, 2005 at 3:06 am
Hi Tom,
How about adressing the points raised in my post? I was responding Ed Brayton's question about what ID said about common descent. I answered by pointing to another field of inquiry, the origin of life, where individual researchers also took different positions. As I said, "Like the statement "Some features of life are intelligently designed" is compatible with multiple scenarios, so is the statement "Life is the result of purely unintelligent processes". Each statement act as a common denominator for a varied group of people, holding to different scenarios, some more developed and well-supported than others."
You write:
"Whereas OOL is trying to turn vague general ideas into detailed, testable models; ID insists that no such effort can be made, or expected of it."
This is your subjective impression, based on your stereotypes about ID investigators.
"Specifically, by insisting that no claims can be made about the nature of the "designer", or about his/her/its intentions, ID theorists preclude any possibility of emperical testing of their theory."
It is a fact that we have no methods for investigating the intentions of a non-human designer without having direct evidence of it. If you or any others have developed such methods, I'd be glad to see them. Obviously, investigating whether life was designed would be immensely easier with such knowledge in hand, but alas, we live in a reality where this isn't the case.
Now, there are two possible reactions to this fact. Either, you give up on investigating design, instead trying to explain life using only non-intelligent processes. Or, you try to overcome this limitation of our knowledge, trying to develop some methods that doesn't depend on knowledge about the designer's intentions.
Comment by Krauze — June 6, 2005 @ 3:06 am
June 6th, 2005 at 8:51 am
Hi.
I believe I was adressing an aspect of your post. Simply comparing ID with some field of science pointing out differences of opinion in that field does not evade Ed's criticism. As I understand it, Ed claims that there are vast gulfs in opinion within the ID movement, and that these gulf's persist without visible comment or discussion by IDists. Nelson, for example, feels no need to propose experiments that would support of falsify recent creation; nor does Dembski feel compelled to outline the scientific case for common descent. The best explanation of this is that IDists "… neither have, nor are concerned with having, a coherent model of the natural history of life on earth". The reasons "ID evolutionists" are not concerned with their creationist colleagues lack of relliance on emperical evidence is because they themselves are not concerned with it; certainly not as concerned with pushing the message that life was designed.
I chose not to focus on the relative size of the differences of belief in a mature science (ie, between selectionists and neutralists) or on the fact that those differences have over time reduced and virtually disappeared. Instead, I focussed on a protoscience, in which the differences are very great, and have persisted (and are likely to persist) for some time. But even in protoscience, as in mature science, the focus of researchers is on stating the different views in ways which maximise their emperical testability. The critical and illuminating difference between differences of opinion in science (and even proto-science) and ID is the reaction to it.
Of course, I did not focus on, or draw out this connection in my initial comment. For reasons of time an space, I merely drew out the difference, and left it to you to make the connection.
With regard to my particular comments, you write:
It would be better to call it my subjective impression based on several years of quite detailed study of ID authors and their opinions. Of course, "subjective impressions" based on that sort of experience are more often called informed opinions.
Further, it appears to be not just my opinion, or even that of most (if not all) ID critics. It appears also to be the opinion of some ID proponents such as Paul Nelson and Mike Gene:
http://telicthoughts.com/?p=87
If ID is compatible with natural or supernatural intervention, instantaneous creation or front loading in a fine tuned universe, what emperical tests can possibly be proposed to test the theory?
A third alternative is to recognise that supernatural design cannot be investigated as a science, but that does not preclude its investigation by philosophical or religious methods. If, on the other hand, you do wish to test it scientifically, just develop a hypthesis that is sufficiently clear, and sufficiently comprehensive to be put to the test. That is the requirement for naturalistic theories to be admitted as science. I see no reason why supernaturalistic theories should get a special exemption.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 6, 2005 @ 8:51 am
June 7th, 2005 at 10:09 am
Hi Tom,
"As I understand it, Ed claims that there are vast gulfs in opinion within the ID movement, and that these gulf's persist without visible comment or discussion by IDists."
I think you're putting your own gloss on Brayton's argument. He was commenting on "how frustrating it is trying to get IDers to spell out what they think actually happened." He quotes Behe, Dembski, and Wells for their views on common descent, and then asks: "So what exactly does ID say about the natural history of life on earth?" It is this question my posts have been answering.
Instead of discussing my answer, you change the subject into whether individual ID investigators are interested in developing detailed scenarios. I certaintly agree that if ID is ever to become a majority among scientists, or even a sizeable minority, such a scenario will have to be proposed. And I'm pretty sure that if Paul Nelson was here, he'd say the same thing. However, before such a scenario can be constructed, a method is needed for detecting design without prejudging the result. Constructing a scenario of design without first knowing whether and which structures are designed seems to me to be the height of investigative irresponsibility.
It was on basis that I characterized your claim that "ID insists that no such effort can be made" as "your subjective impression". Had you instead written that all of the ID investigators whom you had talked with, insisted "that no such effort can be made", I would have had nothing to object to, as I don't know which ID investigators you'd talked with. But as one with far more knowledge of my own beliefs than you, I know for a fact that not all ID investigators can be subsumed under the label you were trying to apply.
Responding to my description of how can one react to the fact that we have no methods for investigating the intentions of a non-human designer without having direct evidence of it, you write:
"A third alternative is to recognise that supernatural design cannot be investigated as a science, but that does not preclude its investigation by philosophical or religious methods. If, on the other hand, you do wish to test it scientifically, just develop a hypthesis that is sufficiently clear, and sufficiently comprehensive to be put to the test."
First of all, non-human design need not be supernatural. Behe already dealt with this in his book from 1996.
Second of all, you seem to just rephrase the problem without dealing with the point of contention. For example, do you think that such a testable theory can be constructed without knowledge of the intentions of the designer?
Comment by Krauze — June 7, 2005 @ 10:09 am
June 8th, 2005 at 11:00 pm
I think you're putting your own gloss on Brayton's argument. He was commenting on "how frustrating it is trying to get IDers to spell out what they think actually happened." He quotes Behe, Dembski, and Wells for their views on common descent, and then asks: "So what exactly does ID say about the natural history of life on earth?" It is this question my posts have been answering.
I believe I have correctly summarised the point of Ed's argument.
Afterall, in my exposition of what he said, I did mention that:
However, Ed is on this list, and commenting on this thread. If he thinks I have put my own gloss on his opinion, he is free to say so.
(Apologies for breaking up the paragraph.)
I only once discuss the views of individual IDists on detailed scenarios, when I mention the views of Nelson and Dembski. I did so to illustrate Ed's observation that vast gulf's of opinion exist within ID without comment. Apart from that one instance, I have discussed the common elements of the ID research programe. It is a feature of the ID research programe that it makes no predictions about common descent, or even the age of the Earth. Given the strength of the evidence for both those facts, that is certainly something worthy of comment.
Your article suggested that there is nothing untoward about disagreement within a research programe. This is true, but in any science or even protoscience, the reaction to such disagreement is to make your theory more detailed in a way that increases testable content. Ideally, the increase will be in areas where different opinions have different opinions, but any increase will do.
In contrast, the reaction within the ID community to radically different auxilliary hypotheses is to not discuss the matter, and especially do not develop the auxilliary hypotheses in ways which increase testable content. That was not, however, basis of my original comment. Rather, I pointed out that ID theorists do not even develop their core hypothesis in ways that increase emperical content. On the contrary, they explicitly rule out as illegitimate the obvious ways to go about increasing this content.
This is directly related to your original post, for the reaction to individual differences and to the core hypothesis are part and parcel of the same phenomena. Indeed, ID theorists are only able to ignore the differences about common descent, etc. because they do not elaborate their core hypothesis. Any attempt to elaborate the core must necessarilly involve elaborating the auxilliary hypotheses as well.
And this suggestion shows (again) how far ID is from science. The method of science is, as Popper put it, the method of conjecture and refutation. You put forward a conjecture. You elaborate it to give as much emperical detail as possible. Then you subject the resulting predictions to emperical testing. If it passes, you have reason to continue pursuing that conjecture. If it fails, you modify the conjecture; and repeat.
This method can never give us absolute certainty – but we have very good reason to believe conjectures which have passed multiple and repeated attempts at refutation are true. (And for what I mean by passed, see Lakatos.)
How would this apply to design theory? You would conjecture that some organelle is designed, say. From that conjecture you develop a series of emperically testable predictions. But to do that, you can no longer be agnostic between common descent and special creation; nor between a young and an old earth. So, having gone past that agnosticism, you develop your testable predictions; and pick those were alternate hypotheses (ie, Darwinism) makes a different prediction – and carry out the test. Your approach puts the cart before the horse.
ID insists that no effort to elaborate the core theory be made because they insist that no claims about the nature or intentions of the designer be admitted. Further, in practise they do not elaborate on the designer's methods. Without such elaborations, no possibility of emperical testing remains. I see no evidence of your bucking the trend and developing detailed scenarios.
It is a common belief within the ID movement that the "fine tuned" cosmological constants are evidence of design. Dembski says that the fine tuning is an example of specified complexity (which seems hard to deny). Now, if you do not agree with the majority of IDists that the designer is supernatural, please explain how the universe could be created by a non-supernatural being? If alternatively, you disagree with Dembski's conclusion, please explain why this is not a clear falsification of the explanatory filter.
Just because you do not want to make an inference does not mean they are not implicit in beliefs you hold.
Yes they can, but only if the theories are detailed in elaborating the means used, either to design, or to execute the design. Ideally, a theory of the motive would also be available. In every example of the scientific attempt to detect design, whether in forensics, archeology or SETI, an attempt is made to elaborate all these factors. Again I do not see why supernatural hypotheses of design (or ID theory if you like) should be granted a special exemption of what is required of all other sciences.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 8, 2005 @ 11:00 pm
June 10th, 2005 at 11:51 am
Hi Tom,
"I believe I have correctly summarised the point of Ed's argument.
Afterall, in my exposition of what he said, I did mention that:
The reasons "ID evolutionists" are not concerned with their creationist colleagues lack of relliance on emperical evidence is because they themselves are not concerned with it; certainly not as concerned with pushing the message that life was designed."
Yes, this is your gloss. Yet you didn't deal with what I quoted from Brayton's post.
"However, Ed is on this list, and commenting on this thread. If he thinks I have put my own gloss on his opinion, he is free to say so."
Ed Brayton isn't writing in this thread, nor anywhere else on this blog. Ed Darrell was at some time writing in this thread, but, as usual, when pressed for concrete evidence, he lost interest.
Besides, there's no need to have Brayton explain his word; his argument was clear from his post.
"It is a feature of the ID research programe that it makes no predictions about common descent, or even the age of the Earth. Given the strength of the evidence for both those facts, that is certainly something worthy of comment."
Given that ID is merely an attempt to detect evidence for design, I thought it would be relatively clear that it doesn't make predictions about common descent and the age of the Earth.
In my previous reply, I made what I consider a completely reasonal point:
"However, before such a scenario can be constructed, a method is needed for detecting design without prejudging the result. Constructing a scenario of design without first knowing whether and which structures are designed seems to me to be the height of investigative irresponsibility."
But instead of adressing it, you respond by removing the label "science":
"And this suggestion shows (again) how far ID is from science. The method of science is, as Popper put it, the method of conjecture and refutation. You put forward a conjecture. You elaborate it to give as much emperical detail as possible. Then you subject the resulting predictions to emperical testing. If it passes, you have reason to continue pursuing that conjecture. If it fails, you modify the conjecture; and repeat."
But this is fine, as I don't think ID is science yet. So if developing one's hunches in this way is incompatible with what it means to "do science" then I have no problem with it.
"ID insists that no effort to elaborate the core theory be made because they insist that no claims about the nature or intentions of the designer be admitted."
I don't think that the designer's nature or intentions shouldn't be admitted. However, as I explained in my previous post, we simply have no way of getting that information. If you know of a way, you're welcome to share it.
"Further, in practise they do not elaborate on the designer's methods. Without such elaborations, no possibility of emperical testing remains."
This is the designer-centric approach. If you're right, then we have no way of knowing if life is designed, as we have not found the designer's tools and blueprints. IOW, we have no other choice but to explain the origin of life, using only non-teleological processes.
However, my experiences tell me that there are other options than the designer-centric approach, and experience trumps rethoric. So I hope you'll excuse me for not seeing things the way you do.
"I see no evidence of your bucking the trend and developing detailed scenarios."
Nor do I claim to have done so.
Regarding whether the designer must be supernatural, you write:
"It is a common belief within the ID movement that the "fine tuned" cosmological constants are evidence of design. Dembski says that the fine tuning is an example of specified complexity (which seems hard to deny). Now, if you do not agree with the majority of IDists that the designer is supernatural, please explain how the universe could be created by a non-supernatural being?"
My interest is limited to the origin of life. With regards to that, your reply makes little sense. Let's say the first manned mission to Mars uncovers an ancient factory, the function of which is unknown. Would they be forced, by the fine-tuning of the universe, to conclude that the designers were supernatural?
"Just because you do not want to make an inference does not mean they are not implicit in beliefs you hold."
This has nothing to do with which inferences I "want" to make, and everything with which inferences are warranted. Don't kid yourself that you know my intentions better than I do.
Krauze: "For example, do you think that such a testable theory can be constructed without knowledge of the intentions of the designer?"
Tom: "Yes they can, but only if the theories are detailed in elaborating the means used, either to design, or to execute the design. Ideally, a theory of the motive would also be available."
And would one go about constructing such theories, sans knowledge of the designer?
"In every example of the scientific attempt to detect design, whether in forensics, archeology or SETI, an attempt is made to elaborate all these factors."
In forcensics and archeology, the designers are humans, the motives and methods of which we have plenty of experience with.
Regarding SETI, please explain which attempts to elaborate on the intentions and methods of the designers there have been. Also, if SETI is science, which experiments have it inspired, and in which peer-reviwed journals have they been published?
Comment by Krauze — June 10, 2005 @ 11:51 am
June 10th, 2005 at 9:50 pm
I think you need to reread my previous post. It is, I admit, difficult to do so, for when I attempted to do a quote of a quote, only my original sentence got block quoted, and your words which I quoted got included with my new text without distinction.
I also included my previous summary of Ed's point:
Compare that with Ed's own summary:
He then goes on about the lack of a theory in ID, and the consequent lack of predictions (my main theme). I think that is fairly solid evidence that I got Ed's concerns right. However, I will not further pursue this issue. You can beleive what you want.
Sorry about the brain explosion confusing the two Ed's.
I agree that the hypothesis of design makes no intrinsic predictions re: common descent. My point is that without such auxilliary hypotheses there is no possibility of making testable predictions from a design hypothesis. ID is not commited to any given auxilliary hypothesis; but unless it commits to such hypotheses, it cannot be science.
First, the label "science" is of crucial importance, but not because science is the only source of knowledge. It is crucial because the whole purpose of the ID movement is to have it taught as science that there is a designer of life. There are other believers in a designer of life who are content to employ philosophical arguments, and call them such. I think they are wrong, but I have no argument with them; and in many cases, greatly respect them. It has been a traditional Christian claim that the fact that life has a designer is revealed in, first, the history of Israel, and secondly, and most fundamentally, in the life, death and ressurection of Jesus of Nazareth. Again, I think they are wrong, but there is no reason in principle why they must be. I absolutely have great respect for scholarly proponents of this view (such as the late FF Bruce, and NT Wright); and also for a great many adherents of this view.
The reason I object to ID is not that they theorise that there was a designer, but because, without actually doing science, they insist the designer can be detected by science, and that it be taught as such. Such an abuse of process must cause irreperable damage to science education, and is likely to significantly damage scientific progress, if successfull. It is already causeing significant damage to scientific education in the US, just in the attempt to get it imposed. (This is why you find as many Christians as atheists opposing ID. It is not because we object to the concept of a designer (with some, generally obnoxious exceptions), it is because we want to defend science.)
Second, I was adressing the issue. I adressed it by detailing how ID could develop as a science.
I have already outlined the scientific way to get that information. You make a conjecture about the designers intentions. From that conjecture you make emperically testable inferences. You test the inferences; and adjust your model accordingly. This is the way humans determine each others intentions, though not as formally. I have no privileged access to your intentions, nor you to mine. So we make conjectures, and test to see of the conjectures are sustained. It is also the way we find out about the internal structure of the sun, or of atoms, or of the Earth, or of anything else we do not have immediate epistemic access to. It is the way of science.
If that is your interest, you still face the regress problem. A purported natural designer of Earth life must themselves have been specifiably complex, and contained irreducibly complex structures. Therefore, if you accept the ID arguments, they also were designed. And so also for their designers. The universe is only finitly old, so this regress must stop quite quickly. Eventually you have a natural designer who was designed, but cannot have any natural designers.
However, you failed to answer my questions. Why do the fine tuned constants not represent an example of Complexity sufficient to trigger a design inference? Why is the universe not specified by the requirement, "suitable for life" And, having accepted both of these, why do you not use Dembski's design inference to infer a supernatural designer of the universe? Or do you think this is a false positive for Dembski, and thus reject specified complexity as evidence of design?
SETI is a loose research program based on the Drake Equation. It has inspired the search for extrasolar planetary systems, and of course, at least two programs of observations to detect alien signals. SETI itself, the program of observations at Arecibo assumes that aliens will desire to communicate rapidly and efficiently, and hence make use of detectable radio communication. I believe that for deeper sky searches they also assume that aliens will attempt to deliberately communicate with other species (as humans have already done). Without these assumptions, there would be no basis for the search for alien radio emmissions. In fact, SETI has recently been criticised on the basis that advanced civilisations would want to communicate efficiently, and hence compress their data, making it indistinguishable from a random source. So even SETI (which I do not consider good science) makes predictions about alien intentions as part of its research program.
Again, it remains unclear why ID should in this, as in so many other areas, be granted exemption from the normal standards of science.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 10, 2005 @ 9:50 pm
June 13th, 2005 at 10:55 am
Hi Tom,
This discussion has gotten long and filled with quotes of quotes, so I'll try to simplify, summing up the issues of importance.
Science: In your reply, you continually inform me of what "science is" or what ID should do to qualify as science. But, as I've already explained to you, I don't consider ID to be science. I have no problem with adopting this position, as I don't seek to have ID taught in schools. Sorry, but I'm not interested in the prize you're dangling in front of that hoop.
Nature of the designer: When thinking about design, I try to keep assumptions about the potential designer to a minimum (that its intelligence is human-like), and focus on the biological details. Your approach seems to me to require first having a psychological profile of the designer. Figuring out the inner workings of others is hard enough when dealing with human designers (as illustrated by the nummerous ID critics whom in my writings thought they saw an intention to have ID taught in schools), and I see nothing suggesting that it'll be easier when dealing with non-human designers. In fact, if we ever discover artifacts from an extraterrestrial race, I predict that we'll sooner reach a consensus over whether it's designed that we'll do over its designer's psychology.
Supernatural design? In reply to my point that design need not be supernatural, you raise "the regress problem." This has already been dealt with here and here. However, since you raise this issue as something that favors supernatural over natural design, does that mean that you don't think the problem of infinite regress applies to supernatural designers?
"However, you failed to answer my questions."
Yes, as I didn't see how they were relevant to the question at hand. Even if some features of the universe were designed by a supernatural agent, does that we should invoke supernatural design for every other feature of it?
Also, it seems as though there is an additional problem to the attempt to infer supernatural design behind the origin of the universe:
SETI: It seems as though SETI likewise keep their assumptions about designers to a minimum (that aliens will desire to communicate rapidly and efficiently), focusing on detecting design. Also, you claimed that SETI was science, so I asked for the peer-reviewed articles in which the data from its experiments was published. You never answered me.
Comment by Krauze — June 13, 2005 @ 10:55 am