Creationism, defined
by KrauzeIt's a well-known fact that the evil Discovery Institute uses a very narrow definition of creationism, so as to claim that they certainly aren't creationists. Fortunately, we have the pro-science Rev. J. D. Wright to give us the correct definition of creationism:
Creationism is not "the belief that the universe was created by a supreme being or deity". That God is the creator of all things is the first article of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, and so it is presumably the faith of all Christians, many of whom also accept evolution, and see no conflict between the two.
Creationism is rather the belief that God created the world exactly in the way described in Genesis chapter one (strangely, always ignoring the completely different account in chapter two), with all species exactly as they are today, and that therefore evolution cannot have happened, despite all the evidence.
I believe that should settle it. (HT: Red State Rabble)
June 26th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
He must be an Old Earth Creationist
Strange that he would define Creationism in terms of species and evolution without actually defining what he means by those terms. Alas, I still do not know what Creationism is.
Does anyone know what the term is for the belief that the universe was created by a supreme being or deity?
Comment by Mung — June 26, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
June 27th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Here's what I posted at their blog:
Comment by Bilbo — June 27, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
June 27th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Mung asks:
If God plays no further role in the history of the universe, Deism.
I'm still trying to figure out the difference between Progressive Creationism and Old Earth Creationism. Anybody know?
Comment by Bilbo — June 27, 2006 @ 4:15 pm
June 28th, 2006 at 9:44 am
I do not even grant that his definition is a valid for Young Earth Creationism.
Even many YEC's accept some speciation and some evolution.
His definition is utterly inadequate and describes no position taken by anyone that I am aware of. Did he cite any sources?
Comment by Mung — June 28, 2006 @ 9:44 am
June 29th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
You know, Mung, the real problem is that nobody is an actual authority on defining these terms. How about we come up with some definitions of our own, copyright them, and sue anybody who tries to change them?
Comment by Bilbo — June 29, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
must….close…tags….
Comment by Guts — June 29, 2006 @ 7:38 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 11:57 am
I don't think that would work, hehe. But I have no problem with the fact that there is no "authority," that is as it should be. For me the real problem is that people prefer to be careless and sloppy in defining their terms as if it provides some advantage to their argument, when it does no such thing. Equivocation for rhetorical purposes seems to be the rule rather than the exception.
An author should state, for example, "for the purposes of this essay I defining the term X to mean …" and then remain consistent in the usage of the term. If someone doesn't accept the definition it should come as no surprise that someone does not accept any conclusions based upon that definition.
Comment by Mung — June 30, 2006 @ 11:57 am
July 3rd, 2006 at 8:35 pm
Yes, well I have a problem with it. I here by pronounce that I am the sole authority for any and all terms containing the word "creation." (Just remember, Mung, you had your chance).
Comment by Bilbo — July 3, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
July 4th, 2006 at 10:14 am
On what authority do you claim you are the sole authority for any and all terms containing the word "creation?"
Comment by Mung — July 4, 2006 @ 10:14 am
July 4th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Coming back to this post, I was wondering why Creationism is sometimes limited to only the exact tale as told in Genesis? I always thought that Creationism referred to the view that the Abrahamic God brought about the Special Creation of life and the cosmos in some way, whether that be in the 6days 6000 years ago, or in some other fashion.
The reference to Special Creation in Of Panda's and People, for instance, clearly seems to fit the label of Creationist, does it not?
Basically, I accept that not all IDers are Creationists. But some IDers are Creationists, the ID textbook was written by a Creationist and make reference to Created forms, and ID is inherently deistic anyway.
Comment by Daniel — July 4, 2006 @ 2:34 pm
July 4th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
"Coming back to this post, I was wondering why Creationism is sometimes limited to only the exact tale as told in Genesis?"
No, what you *really* mean is "the Genesis account exactly as some persons interpret it and/or insist it must be understood."
"I always thought that Creationism referred to the view that the Abrahamic God brought about the Special Creation of life and the cosmos in some way, whether that be in the 6days 6000 years ago, or in some other fashion."
'The Genesis account' doesn't at all say *how* God created the heavens that the earth.
Is "6days 6000 years ago" a "fashion?" No. If the belief that the creation of the cosmos was accomplished in six days and occurred six thousand years ago is actually the truth, that truth still says nothing about *how* the creation was effected.
The "how" is not what Genesis is concerned with, it is concerned only with the "that" — just as 'modern evolutionary theory' is: Genesis asserts *that* the cosmos was intentionally created, it doesn't care about the how of it; 'modern evolutionary theory' asserts *that* the cosmos "arose" (just happened without intentional cause), the arguing about the how of it is a side-show to distract attention from the core assertion.
Comment by Ilion — July 4, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
July 4th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Ilion,
Am I correct in reading your critique of my post as focused on my choice of two or three words (i.e. exactly, and fashion)? For the most part, I accept your corrections of my choice of wording, up until the last paragraph of your comment:
I agree that Biblical accounts of Creation are not concerned with the "how," even though it offers a vague, mythological story of how it occurred (it doesn't sound too different from creation as told in Greek Mythology); but to say that any branch of science is focused on the conclusion and not the method (the "that" and the "how," respectively), misunderstands how science works. Science, including evolutionary theory, is very much concerned with the "how" and the "why," tries to conceive mechanistic explanations of observed phenomena, etc. The conclusions that you mention are merely nice little summarizations of the science, not the science itself.
But anyway, my original question still stands: The reference to Special Creation in Of Panda's and People, for instance, clearly seems to fit the label of Creationist, does it not? This instance, I contend, gives the impression that the foundations for Intelligent Design as a topic for education are Creationistic, or at least, deistic.
Comment by Daniel — July 4, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
July 4th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Hi Daniel,
"ID is inherently deistic anyway."
How so?
Comment by Krauze — July 4, 2006 @ 3:42 pm
July 4th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Krauze,
Well, I rather like Allen's thoughts as better articulated than my own, but I'll give an explanation of my own a shot.
Starting with a description of deism, this view "draws attention to the affirmative belief in a God." Elsewhere, deism might be described as "The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation."
I think that this second description is just a particular variation of deism, which as its etymology suggests, is essentially just the belief in a God, and it's this sense that I use the word.
And clearly, in every explanation of Intelligent Design that I've yet heard, the Designer is implicitly the Abrahamic God, regardless of individual views on the role or actions of God as the great and benevolent Designer. Alternative possibilities for the Designer's identity are laughable (e.g. aliens) – at least a deistic explanation of the Designer makes some theological sense.
What about theism? – well, I don't make much of a distinction between theism and deism either, which is a possible point of criticism, I suppose. Perhaps my equivocation of deism and theism misunderstands what they are… what do you think?
Comment by Daniel — July 4, 2006 @ 4:19 pm
July 4th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Allen's thoughts are muddled and as a consequence all that his articulation of his thoughts accomplishes is to make evident his muddled thinking. So you're better off trying your own. You might even understand your own thinking.
Allen was questioned about his thoughts and chose not to respond. That's the thanks one gets for trying to unravel muddled thinking.
Comment by Mung — July 4, 2006 @ 5:57 pm
July 4th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
It's not. The belief that each individual soul is specially created and imparted is also considered Creationism.
Comment by Mung — July 4, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
July 4th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Mung,
Perhaps you missed it, Allen did respond to some of the comments in his post. If you're complaining that he didn't address a specific question of yours, well, go back and ask him about it again – but the notion that he should have to make time to respond to every comment that comes along is asking a bit much. He does have other responsibilities, afterall.
For the questions that you left there:
If I may, my answers to these questions:
(1) I'm not sure why he chose to say "incontrovertibly," to be honest. But does the meaning of his statement really change much if you take out that one word?
(2) Darwinism, or evolutionary theory, says nothing either way about the existence of God, unlike Deism and Theistic Evolutionary Theory which can be viewed as at least theological permutations of "Darwinism."
(3) Yes, I'd agree, that's the real question – and as I'm arguing, no, I don't think ID can be distinguished from theology (or deism – as I've said, right or wrong, I'm using them interchangably here).
Maybe he didn't respond to those comments of yours because they're not very insightful questions…
Ilion already corrected me on that characterization of Creationism – however, that just reinforces my conclusion that, at the very least, the ID textbook (Of Pandas and People) is Creationist, doesn't it?
Comment by Daniel — July 4, 2006 @ 6:27 pm
July 4th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
Bilbo,
I'm pretty sure I do. If I don't, I hope no one tells me, as I prefer to remain in ignorance, as is usual for Young Earth Creationists.
Anyway, I think the difference is that "Progressive Creationism" accepts both an "old" Earth, and also the evolution of creatures, including man. "Old Earth Creationism", on the other hand, I think only accepts an "old" Earth, but denies the evolution of creatures (namely, "common descent").
And with that, I pat myself on the back for another Internet job well-done.
Comment by Douglas — July 4, 2006 @ 11:06 pm
July 4th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
"… as I prefer to remain in ignorance, as is usual for Young Earth Creationists."
Hey, now! Don't you try to hog all the glory. *All* we creationists prefer to remain in ignorance. Everyone knows that.
Comment by Ilion — July 4, 2006 @ 11:44 pm
July 5th, 2006 at 2:01 am
Hi Daniel,
As Allen starts out by assuming what is at issue – namely that the intelligent designer is God – I think I'll stick to your thoughts.
"Alternative possibilities for the Designer's identity are laughable (e.g. aliens) – at least a deistic explanation of the Designer makes some theological sense."
How is the hypothesis of natural designers any more "laughable" than the hypothesis of a supernatural designer? And what does it mean to make "theological sense" According to the holy writings of which religion? The Raelians?
Comment by Krauze — July 5, 2006 @ 2:01 am
July 5th, 2006 at 9:53 am
Natural intelligent designers imply the existence of natural intelligence. Natural intelligence would possess a high degree of complex specified information would it not? Therefore the existence of natural intelligence would imply either that these natural designers were themselves designed, or that CSI is not an indicator of design. If the designers were themselves designed, then the designer of the designers must possess an intelligence that is even more complex and specified, since he has to design a designer which is specified as being willing and able to design life on earth. And so on.
Sooner or later, you must admit that ID implies either a supernatural designer, or the invalidity of CSI (and other ID methods) as design indicators.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 5, 2006 @ 9:53 am
July 5th, 2006 at 11:57 am
Krauze,
I like Mark's response on "so where did the natural designers come from then," but there's another approach that comes to mind.
A natural designer would, necessarily, have to act by natural means. Yet, natural design of the sort envisioned by "weak" ID – specifying of complex information; getting around supposed irreducibility or improbability; or simply directing mutations – have no basis in natural law. At least no way of facilitating such design according to natural laws has yet been conceived.
Perhaps though I chose the wrong word when I said "laughable," but the argument for a natural designer is purely "what if," and baseless in fact.
By "makes theological sense," I was referring to the view of God as the Designer fits with the theological view of a benevolent deity as the creator of life, the Universe, etc., and the Anthropic Principles behind Western religions (we're here because we were meant to be here by God, etc.). Now, I'm a layperson with regards to religion, but I see nothing wrong with such views as far as religion goes, whereas a natural designer both denies the existence of a deity and has no empirical backing, such that it is caught in the middle of both disciplines – science and religion – and is correct for neither.
I hope that makes sense – that's just my personal ponderings, I could be way off for all I know.
Since I mentioned the Anthropic Principle though, I looked through your Front-Loading ideas (post 573) – am I correct in seeing some aspects of the AP in this view?
Comment by Daniel — July 5, 2006 @ 11:57 am
July 5th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Hi Mark,
"Natural intelligence would possess a high degree of complex specified information would it not?"
I don't know. What degree of complex specified information would a supernatural designer have to possess?
"Therefore the existence of natural intelligence would imply either that these natural designers were themselves designed, or that CSI is not an indicator of design."
I don't think specified complexity by itself proves design.
"Sooner or later, you must admit that ID implies either a supernatural designer, or the invalidity of CSI (and other ID methods) as design indicators."
But this implies that positing supernatural designers somehow solve those problems that natural designers have. Yet it's not clear to me why this should be the case.
Comment by Krauze — July 5, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
July 5th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
You seem to hold to a view in which natural laws actually cause events.
Let's assume that they do, just for the sake of argument. Those events would then be quite predictable would they not? Even, dare we say, lawlike?
Now try thinking in terms of information content.
Comment by Mung — July 5, 2006 @ 5:53 pm
July 5th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
It seems to me, Krauze, that i+d is not really about 'solving' problems, so much as it is about suggesting a new paradigm, way of seeing, allowing intelligent agent causality into biological science. What would it take, for example, for you to say that 'design' is proven? Nothing/everything – this is a kind of definition of agnosticism. It is, thus, the irony of this thread that an agnostic has no knowledgeful place in defining creationism.
Actually, Daniel's observation is quite astute:
Where is RBH when you want to hear from him on a topic?
In a way, this dilemma reflects the confusion behind Krauze's revealing quote:
At one time, not so many months ago, Krauze was prepared to label mainstream IDists, or at least the coiners of ID, as creationists!
Let me then make a suggestion in attempt to help solve this quagmire. Why not include a new word into the vocabulary: creativism? Creativism refers to creativity and the verb 'to create.' Creativism is an ideology (i.e. ism) that accepts the reality of creativity as it is expressed, manifested, demonstrated, discovered, explored, revealed, studied, observed, practised, shared, heard, investigated, sought after, etc. in human history and universal history. Creativism means that creativity, creating, and human capacity to create are not dismissable by anti-creationists and is not concerned with pigeon-holing questions about 'origins of life.'
People who believe in creativity and creating are not necessarily prone to believing in a literal reading of the first book of the Torah, Old Testament – Genesis. There is no such thing as OE creativist and YE creativist. The dialogue could change on the basis of redefining the terms, which do already exist outside of the american context.
g.a.
Comment by g arago — July 5, 2006 @ 6:05 pm
July 5th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
Are you suggesting that human designers are incapable of "directing mutation" If not, do you believe that when they do so they are violating "natural law" If not, what's the problem with a non-human designer doing so?
Comment by Mesk — July 5, 2006 @ 6:15 pm
July 5th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the supernatural counterpart to the body of scientific knowledge we have about natural laws and natural forces. I am therefore unable to draw conclusions about what would or would not be necessary in the supernatural.
We're not talking about the supernatural, though. We're talking about a non-supernatural designer (i.e. a natural, material being with a material/non-supernatural mechanism for producing complex, specified behaviors such as successful design of entire ecosystems). Surely you're not suggesting that it is possible, within the natural realm, to produce a material mechanism that is capable of thinking, without the involvement of supernatural intervention, intelligent design, or any CSI? If nature can produce thinking matter, spontaneously, without any design or CSI, then what need is there to invoke ID to explain any lesser phenomenon?
The realm of the supernatural includes such things as eternal deities. It is entirely moot to seek a scientific explanation for the origin of the Designer's intelligence if the Designer, being eternal, had no beginning and thus no origin to explain. Appealing to the supernatural allows one to terminate the infinite chain of "designers who need to be designed," because it allows the assumption an eternal and uncaused First Cause of all created intelligences.
If we are not going to appeal to a supernatural Intelligence as the end of the inevitable chain, then the alternative is to grant that, despite our intuitive perceptions to the contrary, nature itself is capable of spontaneously producing material mechanisms which serve complex, specified functions, without the necessity for either supernatural intervention or intelligent design.
Given the degree specified complexity needed to produce "thinking matter," it would be awkward, at best, to try and argue that any lesser mechanism (say, a flagellum) suggested a design inference. If ID does not insist on the necessity of the supernatural, and concedes the possibility of spontaneous natural mechanisms for producing specific intelligent behaviors, then what is left of ID, scientifically speaking?
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 5, 2006 @ 6:56 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 2:28 am
Hi Daniel,
"A natural designer would, necessarily, have to act by natural means. Yet, natural design of the sort envisioned by "weak" ID – specifying of complex information; getting around supposed irreducibility or improbability; or simply directing mutations – have no basis in natural law. At least no way of facilitating such design according to natural laws has yet been conceived."
Mesk handled this one nicely, so let's move on.
"Perhaps though I chose the wrong word when I said "laughable," but the argument for a natural designer is purely "what if," and baseless in fact."
No one has been making an "argument for a natural designer". I haven't come across any good argument that allows me to move from a hypothesis of design to the identity of the designer, and I am therefore agnostic on that issue. Now, you come along claiming that "ID is inherently deistic", so I assume you have such an argument that allows me to go beyond my agnosticism.
"By "makes theological sense," I was referring to the view of God as the Designer fits with the theological view of a benevolent deity as the creator of life, the Universe, etc., and the Anthropic Principles behind Western religions (we're here because we were meant to be here by God, etc.)."
Yes, a Western conception of God fits with what Western religions say about God. Just like the conception of aliens creating life fit with those religions who claim that aliens created life. But how is any of this relevant to determining whether any designer is natural or supernatural?
"Now, I'm a layperson with regards to religion, but I see nothing wrong with such views as far as religion goes, whereas a natural designer both denies the existence of a deity"
So if aliens designed life, we would have to conclude that God doesn't exist?
"and has no empirical backing, such that it is caught in the middle of both disciplines – science and religion – and is correct for neither."
What is the "empirical backing" behind a supernatural designer?
"Since I mentioned the Anthropic Principle though, I looked through your Front-Loading ideas (post 573) – am I correct in seeing some aspects of the AP in this view?"
No. My interests are centered on the origin of life, whereas the Anthropic Principle to my knowledge is only relevant to the origin of the universe.
Comment by Krauze — July 6, 2006 @ 2:28 am
July 6th, 2006 at 2:42 am
Hi G. Arago
"It seems to me, Krauze, that i+d is not really about 'solving' problems, so much as it is about suggesting a new paradigm, way of seeing, allowing intelligent agent causality into biological science."
Must these things be incompatible? According to Kuhn, new paradigms arise exactly because of unsolved problems (or "anomalies").
"What would it take, for example, for you to say that 'design' is proven? Nothing/everything – this is a kind of definition of agnosticism. It is, thus, the irony of this thread that an agnostic has no knowledgeful place in defining creationism."
How so?
"In a way, this dilemma reflects the confusion behind Krauze's revealing quote:
"By divorcing design from the identity of the designer, creationists have allowed agnostics like myself and others with no interest in advancing Christian apologetics to take the idea [of i+d] and run with it." – Krauze
At one time, not so many months ago, Krauze was prepared to label mainstream IDists, or at least the coiners of ID, as creationists!"
You need to provide the full context for this quote:
"Creativism is an ideology (i.e. ism) that accepts the reality of creativity as it is expressed, manifested, demonstrated, discovered, explored, revealed, studied, observed, practised, shared, heard, investigated, sought after, etc. in human history and universal history."
How does this "new word" provide resolution to the debate. For example, is there any person on the planet who doesn't accept "the reality of creativity … in human history"
Comment by Krauze — July 6, 2006 @ 2:42 am
July 6th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Krauze,
Doesn't the latter have, at the least, indirect implications for the former?
Comment by Douglas — July 6, 2006 @ 9:26 am
July 6th, 2006 at 9:32 am
We may not know everything about the designer, but neither are we totally ignorant about him. Just by virtue of the fact that he is posited as the explanation for the existence of various structures and processes we find in nature, we know several salient points about him (or her/it/them):
1. He is capable of imagining things which do not exist (inherent in the definition of "designer").
2. He has (or had) the desire to bring them into existence (otherwise his designs would never have been implemented).
3. He has the will to achieve what he desired (ditto).
4. He is able to know the laws of nature well enough to create designs that survive and thrive under those conditions (otherwise he would have been unable to successfully implement his designs).
5. He is intelligent enough to produce complex designs (whole ecosystems, for example) that function correctly (otherwise he would not be the designer of the systems we do see).
6. He had the physical means to implement his designs (otherwise they would exist only in his imagination).
So regardless of what form this designer takes, we know he possesses a mind, a will, desires, and mechanisms for manipulating the natural world. If we posit a natural designer, we can add a seventh conclusion:
7. He, and the mechanisms by which he thinks and feels and wills and creates, had a beginning, and was thus caused by some prior cause (since all natural things, and even the universe itself, have/had a beginning).
In the case of the natural designer, then, we have a 3-way fork in the road: either the designer's intelligence originated through some degree of supernatural intervention, or it originated through at least some degree of intervention by a natural intelligent designer, or nature is capable of spontaneously producing mechanisms, made of matter and energy, which function as an autonomous mind and will, as emotion (desire), and as some means of implementing, or creating the implementation tools, for bringing the design into existence.
Note that in the third alternative, we're specifically saying that nature must be capable of producing a sophisticated and coordinated set of mechanisms for a wide range of specified and complex functions, without any supernatural involvement (alternative 1) or non-supernatural intelligent design (alternative 2). Alternative 2 simply leads back to the same 3-way fork in the road, so there can be only two terminal alternatives: either supernatural intervention was involved, or else the existence of natural mechanisms with specified functions implies neither ID nor the supernatural.
Since alternative 3 amounts to ID denying its own validity, the only conclusion that is consistent with ID is the first: ID requires supernatural involvement. QED.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 6, 2006 @ 9:32 am
July 6th, 2006 at 9:41 am
[...] [I posted this in the comments on a post at Telic Thoughts, but I liked it so much I decided to put it up here as well.] [...]
Pingback by Heaven is not the sky » Blog Archive » The Supernatural Designer (again) — July 6, 2006 @ 9:41 am
July 6th, 2006 at 11:07 am
To the first sentence, are you serious? Thought I'd ask, because I can think. It comes quite naturally to me, and suspect it does to you as well.
To the second second sentence, you can't demonstrate design false by simple assertion that Neodarwinism embraces a different point of view.
How do you know it's a "he?" All vital organisms great and small possess will, desires and mechanisms for manipulating the natural world (or just 'self' in relation to the natural world). "Mind" can of course be asserted – as can "intelligence" – but until there's a good working definition for the purpose of argument, it's pointless to argue.
All three roads rely upon a causal 'poof' to explain apparent biological design. We do not observe spontaneous generation of any forms of life in nature. In fact, the idea of spontaneous generation was demonstrated wrong nearly 150 years ago by Louis Pasteur. Individual people can of course choose to believe in spontaneous generation anyway, but metaphysical beliefs aren't science.
Comment by Joy — July 6, 2006 @ 11:07 am
July 6th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Mesk:
True, humans are capable of artificial selection, but only within the boundaries of effecting reproductive success. If a given direction for "design" is bound by "irreducible" complexity, artificial selection for that design would fail, would it not?
Krauze:
Then why did you ask why I called such an argument laughable? As for the God as the Designer – I don't know how else to say it than it seems like a blatantly obvious identification. Whether talking about Paley, the Discovery Institute, Dembski, or any other prominent ID advocate, the role of religion has played a major role in their views. Even Behe admitted as much in Dover – saying that a prior belief in God makes ID far, far more acceptable.
I find such comments difficult to take seriously, so I'll pass on that one.
None, of course. But a deity as the designer, again, "makes theological sense." I.e. it fits with religion, and is therefore an acceptable explanation for many religiously-minded individuals.
As described in The Privileged Planet, an extension of the AP is that the cosmos was created as a suitable place such that we, humans, would necessarily be produced. This includes the origin of life as a necessary step in the process. I may be over-simplifying it a bit, but that's what I was suggesting, basically.
Comment by Daniel — July 6, 2006 @ 12:38 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
The mere existence of the issued patent (jointly owned by Monsanto and the USDA) for "Terminator Technology" demonstrates that reproductive success isn't necessarily an applicable constraint for intelligent design of life forms, and that selective breeding isn't the only way to intelligently design life forms.
Comment by Joy — July 6, 2006 @ 1:12 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Ok, Joy – then please explain to me how a human designer might create something such as the bacterial flagellum, the human brain, the eye, the acquired immune system, the feather, chromosomes, the Kreb's or Calvin's cycles, photosynthesis, epigenetic and transcriptional regulation of gene expression, the genetic code, etc. – de novo and without reverse-engineered examples provided beforehand.
Each of these, and more, are prime examples of feats well beyond humanity's capabilities; and if these examples were designed by natural designers, those beings did so without a trace (where are their design facilities?, surely some of their equipment would have fossilized, right?)
Comment by Daniel — July 6, 2006 @ 1:39 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
I think Mesk is referring to site directed mutagenesis , not just artificial selection.
Comment by Guts — July 6, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Guts,
Yes, but site-directed mutagenesis is not the same as either evolution or ID – it's a special and limited case. I assumed that he (and joy, for that matter) was suggesting that site-directed mutagenesis or other molecular biology methods could design complicated structures de novo – which just exaggerates the capabilities of molecular biology to an absurd degree.
Comment by Daniel — July 6, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
By the way, to get back to my original assertion in this thread, am I to assume that no one disagrees with my point that the ID textbook, at least, is Creationist – owing to the references to Special Creation, the book's authorship, etc.?
Comment by Daniel — July 6, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Actually, to the contrary, such experiments are great (although primitive) examples of the intelligent design of evolution (ignore the lunatic in the comments).
Actually we are just beginning to be able to build such things , it doesn't matter if it's de novo or if it's reverse engineered, simply that the an intelligent mind can accomplish those tasks is enough for the inference. However, all of the basic "components" are there, since there are many similarities between machines and biological systems. We just need to become more advanced.
Comment by Guts — July 6, 2006 @ 1:56 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Guts,
Ah, good link. Yet, could a natural designer have done that repeatedly through the history of life, leaving no trace? I think not. Such a proposition still greatly exaggerates the capabilities of molecular biology – which returns me to my response to Joy. Not to mention, you'd have to posit a mechanism by which such changes altered the population genetics of the many species being influenced. Do you suppose that such designers changed all of the organisms in each population changed throughout geological time, or some other means? That's a big stretch, either way.
And to what end would a natural designer make changes across the spectrum of life? How would they forecast what changes to make to direct adaptation? Why would they need to do that, when undirected adaptation, as studied in the last century, works quite well as it is?
Comment by Daniel — July 6, 2006 @ 2:10 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
I think Mike makes good headway into thinking along those terms on his webpage (see here for example http://www.idthink.net/biot/de... and maybe more in his book. For most biological systems, I don't think there is any evidence that undirected adaptation works well. But for both hypotheses, the assumption works as a guiding light , although we don't really know the how .
Comment by Guts — July 6, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Joy,
Obviously, but where and how did this ability arise? Did it arise in the absence of supernatural intervention and intelligent design? Is there no CSI involved in the mechanisms which enable human intelligence?
If one claims that there's no complex specified information in the genes for their brain cells, then I would have to ask them how they determine what is and is not CSI.
Good thing I never said anything remotely like that then.
I've said nothing whatsoever about ID being false, nor have I said anything good, bad or indifferent about neodarwinism. I'm simply applying ID methodology to the question of explaining what we do know about any non-supernatural intelligent designer who might hypothetically have been involved in the origin of the things we observe in life on earth.
Mere rhetorical convenience. I also said it could just as well be "she," "it," or "they."
Indeed, but the question is, what is the origin of the natural mechanisms for these things? If we infer design because a flagellum has a natural, specified function, then why do we not also infer design in the case of other natural, specified functions?
The design function involves an irreducibly complex interaction of at least six seperate subfunctions: imagination, desire, will, understanding, intelligence, and implementation. Take away any one of the six subfunctions, and the design function will not produce a designed phenomenon.
A natural (i.e. non-supernatural) intelligent designer is known to manifest the design function. It is clearly more difficult for nature to spontaneously produce the irreducibly complex combination of subfunctions that combine to form the design function, than it is for nature to spontaneously produce a flagellum. If the design inference is justified in the case of the flagellum, then it is much more justified in the case of the more-improbable design function. Conversely, if the design inference is not justified in the case of the design function, then it's that much less justified in the case of the simpler motility function of the flagellum.
Consequently, the "non-supernatural intelligent designer" alternative is an infinite loop, with each designer justifying the inference of a prior designer, whose existence justifies the inference of a still-earlier designer, and so on. Since the universe has existed for only a finite amount of time, the "non-supernatural designer" chain is untenable.
The only two escapes from this infinite loop are to acknowledge the need for a supernatural, intelligent First Cause, or to concede that design inferences are not justified in the case of highly-specified natural functions, up to and including autonomous intelligence, will, and emotional mechanisms with a specific design purpose (and thus, by extension, in any functions that are relatively less improbable, complex and specified).
Not according to anything I've said. My observations above are still true whether the implementation method involves biochemical engineering, nanotechnology, miracles, or magic wands. All I said about the method of implementation is that the designer requires some means of manipulating the natural world, otherwise his (or her or its or their) designs will not actually become part of the observable physical world. To propose that the designer did create the "designs" in question is to declare that he/she/it/they did have such a mechanism at his/her/its/their disposal.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 6, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Let's take a closer look at the argument. Steps 1 through 6 all seem to be arrived at from reasoning from effects, with perhaps the exception of the first.
Now look what happens:
Why would we posit such a thing? We have jsut left off reasoning from effects to trying to reason a priori. If we reason about the capabilities of the designer from the designs, how then do we make the leap to reasoning about the nature of the designer? Where's the logical connection? It's quite a leap that you've taken, so how do you justify it?
Comment by Mung — July 6, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
*sigh* Doesn't Darwin's Origin contain references to Special Creation? So is it Creationist?
Comment by Mung — July 6, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Guts,
Whaaat? You think Natural Selection is directed then? Clearly, we're using the word "directed" in a different sense then, you and I.
Mung,
Equally – that's a backwards statement. Darwin's Origin argued against the Creationist "centers of creation" view, not for it.
Comment by Daniel — July 6, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Mung:
You would have to ask that question to those who assert that ID allows for the possibility of a non-supernatural designer. I think it is fairly clear that proposing a possible non-supernatural designer only delays the inevitable concession that a supernatural designer must be invoked if the entire ID methodology is not to be invalidated.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 6, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
It [consciousness] arose in life, way close or right at the beginning, I presume. I do not assume a priori when considering the phenomenon in question that nothing supernatural was involved or that evolution/life isn't intelligently designed. I don't automatically look for a supernatural explanation because that wouldn't explain the process. I have no ideological bias on the question of apparent design at that ponder point either, because I don't need one. To reduce any aspect of the physical whole by examination doesn't answer the question of design because what's being examined *IS* the design. Reduction is supposed to inform us about proximate causes in the examined substrates. No a priori assumptions to final cause need apply.
I understand your concern that not addressing this question doesn't favor the ideological bias of Neodarwinism, but there's no reason to address it if we can't agree that design is present. "Who" is irrelevant so long as we're still arguing about what. BTW, can you give us a short rundown of "ID methodology" so we'll all know what you're talking about?
Evolution is the origin of the natural mechanisms, if indeed all life shares a common ancestor with all other life forms. What is at issue are the mechanisms. No one disputes natural selection. We see it at work all the time, and can make pretty good guesses about history when there's good evidence. Now that we know asteroids/comets can hit planets (that was not what 'science' believed when I was young), we can guess how the dinosaurs died off. Selection is well described as the Wheel of Fortune (or the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune…). Here is the required, mostly "random" mechanism, which boils down to existence and relative survival – life itself.
Thus when I consider the mechanisms of evolution, I would grant creative ability to the in-house one – mutation. I grant design in all cases of specified function because the function is specified (and often, harmful mutations to the relevant genes cause disfunction). I don't credit selection as designer of specified function, because the organism wouldn't be alive if a vital function weren't adequately functional. The components of cells that do the work of life are specified. Mutations in these genes do supply relative ability to function (classical neodarwinian selection), but mutations that enhance function aren't selected. I don't believe in "positive selection" because selection is a negative function, its positive strongly suggests purpose. Neodarwinism can't rely on "positive selection" or "emergence" to save it from its own inner contradictions. Both are appeals to design, which suggests intent.
So what? Is science in the business of peddling provisional theory as Absolute Truth, or is it just Neodarwinism? Infinite regress is just another metaphysical conclusion, no different that gods/God. We have no particular reason to suppose that life isn't confined exclusively to planet earth, but we've no real evidence that it exists anywhere else. Until we do have that evidence no final cause can be validly postulated. There is no good, scientific reason (while we're so invested in a question in need of answer) for biology to push the a priori conclusion about the origin of life on earth. If it is accepted that life may exist elsewhere in the universe, we can't predict how intelligent it is either – there may be life forms way, way more scientifically and technologically advanced than we are. Heck, with 8, 11, 22 or infinite dimensions to work with as reality's substrate, we can't even predict how many dimensions intelligent life could exist in!
You're trying to prematurely answer questions that you will probably not ever know the answers to, even if you live to be 120. Such questions are thus relegated to the realm of metaphysics, about which science has nothing authoritative to say. IOW, it just flat out doesn't matter what anybody on either side of the question believes about final cause[s]. The arguments aren't scientific.
My opinion. I know beliefs about final cause[s] are why the current evolutionary paradigm is so afraid of ID. But because physics is currently asea about the very most basic parameters, emotional attachments to the more materialistic theoretics in all other sciences don't count as much as the emotionally invested would like to believe they do. That's also a plain fact. Our knowledge/understanding about the very fabric and nature of reality is up in the air at present. All bets should be hedged.
Comment by Joy — July 6, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Joy,
I also do not assume a priori that the supernatural is excluded or that ID is excluded. I'm simply enumerating the alternatives proposed by ID advocates (i.e. that the Designer might be supernatural or that non-supernatural designer(s) could be responsible), with no preference for either alternative. However, in comparing the two alternatives, we need to acknowledge the difference between the alternative which appeals to the supernatural, and the alternative which does not.
Having done this, it is a worthwhile and even necessary exercise to explore the real-world consequences which would ensue in the event the non-supernatural designer were the correct hypothesis. That's how science works: you propose a hypothesis, and then look for the consequences that would logically ensue if that hypothesis were the correct explanation. In this case, those consequences lead directly and logically to three potential outcomes: an infinite series of non-supernatural designers, an appeal to the supernatural, or the repudiation of the claim that a design inference can be justified by the existence of irreducibly complex and specified functions in nature.
Sure there is. It's standard scientific procedure to consider the consequences which logically ensue from a proposed hypothesis. Considering this sort of question is what allows us to measure the hypothesis against the real world data, to see if the hypothesis fits the facts. In this case, a careful consideration of this question enables us to see that the proposed explanation leads to an untenable infinite loop of designers designed by other designers, unless one breaks the loop by appealing to the supernatural or by conceding that the nature of the evidence does not, after all, justify a design inference.
Precisely. And the "thinking" function, the "will" function, the "desire" function and all the other functions which come together to produce the design function–are these not specified functions? How do you define "specified" in such a way as to apply to motility functions but not to data processing functions, emotive functions, implementation functions, and so on? And more importantly, why would anyone define "specified" differently depending on what functions were being specified?
I'm not talking about finding the answers to things we don't know. I'm only talking about the real-world consequences that inevitably ensue from what we do know. Science may very well make provisional theories based on limited knowledge, but the whole point of calling it "provisional" is so that we can move on to something else should we find a flaw in the hypothesis.
The infinite loop of non-supernatural designers, in a universe where design and implementation require measurable amounts of time, and where only a finite amount of time is available, is a flaw in the hypothesis. If design inferences are valid, what we do know about any proposed non-supernatural designers is enough to justify a design inference with regards to the origin of the designer's biological mechanism for specified design functions. That leads to an infinite series of non-supernatural designers. Since the natural world cannot provide an infinite series of non-supernatural designers, we must take one of the other two options: either appeal to the supernatural, or concede that specified functions do not justify design inferences.
This is not a resort to metaphysical final causes, it is a consideration of the immediate causes of each non-supernatural designer. We have a reasonable and scientific duty to explore the ramifications of the non-supernatural designer hypothesis before accepting it as a valid possibility, and if we carry out this duty, we see that it requires one of the other two conclusions in order to be tenable.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 6, 2006 @ 5:55 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
By the authority vested in me by me, I hereby accet Douglas's distinctions between Old Earth and Progressive Creationism. Henceforth, let no other definition be offered, unless I change my mind.
Comment by Bilbo — July 6, 2006 @ 7:58 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
Be that as it may, I have it on several good authorities that I am the "most ignorant of the ignorant" of Creationists. My glory is thus transcendant.
Comment by Douglas — July 6, 2006 @ 8:33 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
While the glory of your ignorance is no doubt transcendent, it is not all-encompassing.
Comment by Ilion — July 6, 2006 @ 8:39 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
Joy, this is exactly the sort of pointless word-games — pointless other than for the purpose of obfuscation — that so many 'ID Critics' engage in so frequently. It's wrong when they do it, it's wrong when you do it. While wrong, it's at least understandable that they do it — they're trying to prop up a false and dying paradigm. Is there some mitigating circumstance that makes your word-games understandable (though nonetheless wrong)?
Mark said "he" because "he" is the proper English pronoun to use in reference to an unknown person of unknown sex. In his post, Mark nodded towards the modern sensibility and the fact that number is also an unknown (i.e. " … we know several salient points about him (or her/it/them):"), but thereafter he used the less cumbersome singular pronoun.
As for Mark's post, it is well thought out and well argued. That Mark is unwilling or unable to see that 'modern evolutionary theory' is anti-rational and and can never be anything other than anti-rational has not a single thing to do with this particular argument he's presenting.
Comment by Ilion — July 6, 2006 @ 9:05 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
I didn't say anything about ID, what's involved in its consideration, or whether or not it's allowed. Science most certainly allows the inference. It's just the predominant theory that disallows it. If the predominant theory can't explain whole classes of observable phenomena, it's wrong or incomplete. Then the competition starts.
But the assumption you're making comes as preconceptual baggage with YOUR point of view, not mine. I didn't say that design appeals to the supernatural. You did. It's a mistake to assume that your preconceptions apply to my conceptions.
But you are the one who has "done this," not me. You have preconceived notions of what a design inference entails, and are applying it as if it must define what I am saying about an inference of design. IOW, you're not talking to me, you're talking to Bill Dembski and Mike Behe. I am not either one of them. I'm not even very familiar with what they've said, since I haven't read their books and don't much care. If they're onto something it'll stand on its own. If not, not.
If you're addressing me, I'd really appreciate it if you'd address what I say, not what someone else says. You can publish a criticism of Behe and/or Dembski on the web any time you like, in any one or more of several thousand forums. This forum is Telic Thoughts. If your arguments can't address what I say, just say so (or don't address what I say). It's okay. But you can't counter what I say by claiming I am arguing something I'm not arguing. Fallacy of logic (not to mention insult), and I've no patience for it.
No, they're attributes, thus developed functions. We observe and measure (formally and informally) a relative spectrum of expression in life forms. Why shouldn't we acknowledge that and investigate it rather than rule it out of consideration by fiat? My preconceived notions aren't the same as yours. If you're a Neodarwinist/Materialist I know pretty much what your assumptions are. You are presuming you know what mine are. I am telling you that you're wrong.
If my assumptions are not those you attribute to me, you sure as heck can't prove that I hold assumptions I don't hold. Any assertion that my actual words do not reflect my actual opinions is an assertion of dishonesty – ad hominem, another logical fallacy. Address what I say, not what you want me to be saying. Else there's no point in posting.
Appeal to the origin of life question is not even relevant to the subject of evolution. If you wish to boil it all down to OOL, at least be up front about it. If evolution is what we've long been told by critics that it is (so they don't have to deal with the OOL "Unknown"), all that counts is that life exists and evolves over time. How it does so is the issue. OOL is moot, as it has always been, apart from the metaphysics and ideological biases of the participants in the OOL debate. The OOL debate isn't this debate unless you want to assert your Unknown against my Unknown. Just let me know…
Comment by Joy — July 6, 2006 @ 11:11 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
Mostly. I was speaking above of that one specific post, not all his posts taken together.
The biggest problem seems to me that in his multiple posts overall he is conflating, and will not let go the conflation, an implication of an ID inference — and an unavoidable implication if ID is be rational — as being an assumption of ID. I mean, even aside from the problem of using the term "the supernatural," which is all-but-meaningless as most persons use it.
And then, there is (as Joy has already pointed out), the self-serving/one-sided insistence that ID *must* address the OOL problem; whereas 'modern evolutionary theory,' as we're constantly assured, can ignore well the OOL, because that's not what The Theory is about.
In other words, "One rule for me, another for thee."
Comment by Ilion — July 6, 2006 @ 11:41 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 4:15 am
Hi Mark,
"I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the supernatural counterpart to the body of scientific knowledge we have about natural laws and natural forces."
So what is it about the "body of scientific knowledge we have about natural laws and natural forces" that convinced you that natural intelligence must be CSI?
Sure, the only intelligence we know is CSI-based. In fact, I have difficulty imagining how a natural intelligence would work without in some ways being based on CSI. But the same applies to a supernatural intelligence. Invoking the supernatural doesn't seem to actually solve anything, it just adds a whole 'nother realm of unknown qualities to the mix. Which I suppose is the reason why so many ID critics want the designer to be supernatural.
"Surely you're not suggesting that it is possible, within the natural realm, to produce a material mechanism that is capable of thinking, without the involvement of supernatural intervention, intelligent design, or any CSI?"
Figuring out what is possible is for philosophy. I'm more interested in figuring out history, i.e. what actually happened.
"If nature can produce thinking matter, spontaneously, without any design or CSI, then what need is there to invoke ID to explain any lesser phenomenon?"
My thinking about intelligent design has nothing to do with whether intelligent design is necessary. After having followed this blog for so long, responding to nearly every post, you should know that by now.
"The realm of the supernatural includes such things as eternal deities."
Didn't you just tell me that you're "not familiar with the supernatural counterpart to the body of scientific knowledge we have about natural laws and natural forces" So how do you know what the "realm of the supernatural" includes?
Comment by Krauze — July 7, 2006 @ 4:15 am
July 7th, 2006 at 7:57 am
"transcendent"
Comment by Douglas — July 7, 2006 @ 7:57 am
July 7th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Joy,
Who's talking about "the predominant theory" I'm not. I'm applying ID methodology consistently, including applying it to what we know about any non-supernatural intelligent designer who might be proposed as having designed certain features of life on earth.
The only assumption I'm making is that ID methods can be applied consistently. The conclusion I'm reaching is that supernatural intervention is the only alternative which is consistent with ID, and I've outlined for you the steps by which I reach that conclusion. Have you found any flaws in any of those steps?
Eh? You have not "acknowledge[d] the difference between the alternative which appeals to the supernatural, and the alternative which does not" Why not? Do you disagree that there is a distinction between appealing to the supernatural and not appealing to the supernatural?
What "preconceived notions" would those be? I'm simply addressing Krauze's question about why a hypothesis about non-supernatural designers would be less plausible than a hypothesis about supernatural designers. It was Krauze who suggested that we consider both natural designers and supernatural designers as possible alternatives. I'm simply exploring the logical and scientific ramifications of each alternative as compared with (and distinct from) the other.
And yet you addressed your remarks to me anyway.
I have done that in my replies to you, and have quoted you, and have addressed specifically the points you have made. Bear in mind that your comments, to which I am responding, are comments about what I have said in my discussion with Krauze. If you have not understood what I am saying to Krauze, or you find my remarks irrelevant to what you believe, you are welcome to ask me about them or ignore them completely, as you like.
Ok, so they are functions, but they're developed functions, not specified functions. I'm not familiar with this concept of "developed functions." Can you please explain to me the difference between a developed function and a specified function? Why are they mutually exclusive categories? How can you tell the difference between a developed function and a specified one? Why are flagella, immune systems, centrioles, and blood-clotting cascades not also "developed functions"
Also, your definition of "specified" seems to differ somewhat from that of Dembski, who originally defined what "specified" means in ID terminology. Can you explain to me what your definition of "specified" is, and why complex functions which have a an independently specified purpose are not "specified"
Good question. I'm trying to investigate the natural consequences that would ensue in the event a natural designer were responsible for the structures we see in life on earth. Why should my investigation be ruled out by fiat?
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I really can't see any connection at all between what I've said, and your response to what I've said. I'm therefore at a loss as to how to respond to these accusations. All I've done is to take Krauze's proposition of the two alternatives (natural designers versus supernatural designers), and follow through logically on what we do know about those two alternatives. Other than the assumption that logic is a valid means of investigation, I'm not sure what preconceptions you think I'm appealing to.
That's an interesting train of thought, but since I'm not appealing to the origin of life, it's completely irrelevant.
All I'm doing is what Behe does when he draws conclusions about flagella, immune systems, and blood-clotting cascades. Obviously, if any structure was designed, it was the first instance that was designed, not the subsequent reproductions of that instance. In other words, if the design of the flagellum didn't happen until after bacteria were already producing flagella, then it wasn't really design, it was just copying what was already there. So the instance that was actually designed must have been the first instance.
The first bacterium with a flagellum, the first organism with an immune system, the first creature with a blood-clotting cascade, are dead and gone by tens of millions, hundreds of millions of years. There is no way Dr. Behe could get the first instance of each case into his lab and under his microscope. Dr. Behe is following back a chain of organisms and making what he sees as reasonable suppositions about the characteristics of the first instance, in order to draw his design inferences about these organisms.
Nobody accuses Dr. Behe of entangling science in metaphysical speculations about first causes. Nobody tells Dr. Behe that he can't draw his inferences unless he gets the actual first instances into his lab to study. Dr. Behe is reasoning backwards, based on what we do know, to draw conclusions about the origin of an original flagellum that we have no way of observing directly.
That's the same thing I'm doing, except that in Behe's case, the flagella we see today are reproductions of the original, and we know that these reproductions are not 100% identical to the original, due to mutation, horizontal gene transfer, genetic drift, etc. Over hundreds of billions of years and tens of billions of bacterial generations, it is highly probable that the original flagellum was significantly different from modern flagella, meaning that Behe's assumptions about the nature of the original instance are less reliable.
No such uncertainty exists about the specific points I've raised about a natural designer, however. Take away any of the six sub-functions of the design function, and it ceases to be a plausible explanation for the existence of designed features. A designer who can imagine new designs, but has no desire to create them, will not be the source of the features we see in nature. A designer who is willing to create what he desires but who lacks sufficient understanding of the universe to know what will work and what won't, will not be the source of what we observe. A designer intelligent enough to create things, but who lacks the ability to manipulate the material world, will produce only fantasies, not actual structures. So we can know that a successful designer must possess and exercise each of these six functions.
As to point 7, that a natural designer must have some beginning and some natural cause, this is not an appeal to metaphysical first causes or to the origin of life. It is merely pointing out that, in the specific case of a natural designer, we can know that there must be an immediate cause for his existence and for the existence of the functions which he exercises in the course of designing and implementing organic structures. This in turn justifies the investigation into what that cause might be, and, while we may not be able to know much about that cause, we can at least tell that there are three alternatives: that supernatural intervention was involved, that intelligent design was involved, or that nature can spontaneously produce specified, coordinated, complex functions (thinking, wanting, willing, desiring, implementing) without the need to invoke ID or the supernatural.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 7, 2006 @ 10:10 am
July 7th, 2006 at 10:15 am
Ilion,
Eh? Whatever gave you that idea? I'm not even talking about "modern evolutionary theory"! I'm simply applying ID methodology to ID hypotheses to show that the supernatural designer is more consistent with ID principles than the natural designer hypothesis.
What, is ID necessarily false if it appeals to a supernatural designer? Whatever happened to "follow the evidence wherever it leads"
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 7, 2006 @ 10:15 am
July 7th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Ilion,
Goodness, where did I ever say that the inevitable implications of an ID inference were an assumption of ID? My point is rather the opposite, i.e. that these things are the rational and logical consequences which would ensue in the case that the "natural designer" hypothesis were the correct explanation. Considering such issues is what science is all about. How else could you evaluate which hypotheses were more consistent with observed reality?
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 7, 2006 @ 10:20 am
July 7th, 2006 at 10:20 am
WHEN must a supernatural designer be invoked? You seem to want to invoke it form the beginning, a priori.
Indeed. Why not heed your own advice and stop trying to reason a priori about ultimate designers. Let's wait till we have the evidence in hand and then follow it wherever it leads.
You're so transparent Mark. It's so obvious that you know where you want to get to.
Do you deny that humans are designers?
Do you deny that it is possible to detect human designs?
Are human designers natural designers or supernatural designers?
How do you know?
Fine, if you want to, by force of logic, compel belief in an Ultimate Designer by virtue of the fact that we can detect human designs, so be it.
Comment by Mung — July 7, 2006 @ 10:20 am
July 7th, 2006 at 11:48 am
Krauze,
When considering the alternative of a natural designer, we know two things about any such designer:
1. He (she/it/they) must be natural, by definition, since that's the alternative we're considering, and
2. He (she/it/they) must exercise a specific design function.
By considering the components of design function, we can see that there is an irreducibly complex group of subfunctions required before the designer will successfully exercise the design function. Take away any of the subfunctions, and the design function will not occur.
From the given that the designer is natural, we know that in order to exercise these functions, the designer must possess material mechanisms for producing this functionality. These mechanisms must be physical structures and/or processes (I'll call them "mechanisms" for simplicity), composed of natural matter and/or energy.
In general, matter and energy do not spontaneously exhibit such functionalities as thinking, feeling, willing, knowing, imagining, and implementing designs. They must be specifically configured or ordered– "programmed," if you will– to produce these specific functions.
Thus, we can reasonably conclude that the natural designer must possess physical structures which embody the specific ordering or arrangement (or programming or design) needed in order to produce the specified functionality. We know this regardless of the particular physical mechanisms by which the direction for this functionality is encoded. Information is information, whether expressed as a series of codons in a double helix, or as a series of graphic shapes on a sheet of paper or computer screen, or as pattern of electromagnetic phase changes on the surface of a disk or in a radio or TV signal.
Regardless of what physical structures may encode the information needed to specify the functionality of the physical structures that the designer uses to perform his design functions, that information, by Dembski's definition, is both complex and specified.
Beg your pardon, I used the word "need." Apparently that's a bad word, but it's trivial to rephrase my point. If nature can spontaneously produce physical mechanisms capable of such advanced functions as thinking, autonomous will, feelings, and so on, then what justification is there for drawing design inferences in the case of lesser functions?
I never said that the natural sciences were the only means by which one could know the truth about something, or that a thing must be scientific in order to be true.
Besides, I'm only relaying what others, more knowledgeable than I, have attributed to the supernatural. If you have some reason for believing that eternal deities are not part of the supernatural realm, I'm certainly willing to respect your opinion. I'm only mentioning that some people, for theological reasons, hold that the supernatural includes one or more divine, eternal Persons. If that were the case, one could appeal to such persons as being the solution to the infinite loop of designed designers. I'm not insisting that this solution would necessarily be scientific, or would need to be scientific, however.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 7, 2006 @ 11:48 am
July 7th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Mung,
Apparently you've tuned in late, and have not read my earlier, detailed discussion, of which the statement above is only the briefest and most cursory summary. You might want to read the full discussion and address any of the points you feel are flawed. My CONCLUSION is that once you've looked at the evidence, you'll find that there are three possible outcomes: supernatural intervention, an infinite chain of natural designers, or a universe in which the evidence cited in favor of ID does not really justify the design inferences being made. Since the middle alternative is physically untenable, that leaves the first and last as the only plausible alternatives.
I can't stop what I haven't started.
My reasoning is based on, and applies to, only the evidence that we do have at hand. Do you insist that Dr. Behe not draw any conclusions about flagella until he has the original first flagellum at hand? We may not know much about any natural designer, but we do know enough to draw some conclusions about him in his absence, just like Behe draws conclusions in the absence of the original flagellum, immune system, and blood-clotting cascade he cites as evidence.
It's no secret. I want to get to a body of knowledge that is consistent with itself and with the real world.
Of course not.
Sometimes, but not reliably or scientifically, as far as I know. MikeGene had a post a while back about accusations of lying. When someone says something that is not true, are they lying or merely mistaken? If their misstatement is designed to mislead others, then they are lying; if not, then they are merely mistaken. Mike's point, which is perfectly valid, is that you can't detect the presence or absence of the intention (i.e. the design) without being able to somehow enter the person's head and examine his thoughts. Seeing that a statement is false is not enough to justify the conclusion that the statement was designed to mislead.
I'm still open on the question of whether or not design can be detected scientifically, but I don't honestly know of any method proposed so far that can reliably and objectively determine the presence or absence of the intention (without which a design cycle becomes ordinary cause-and-effect).
I believe they are natural. Why, do you have some reason why I ought to believe they are supernatural?
Do you mean how can I trust my senses, or are you just inquiring about the scientific knowledge we have about the natural world and the humans who live there?
Why do you assume that's what I want? All I'm doing is following the logical consequences of postulating a non-supernatural designer as the source of design features on earth. If that leads logically to the conclusion that a supernatural designer is more consistent with ID than a natural designer, how am I to blame? I'm just the messenger here. If I observe the motions of the moon and sun, and predict a solar eclipse, that doesn't mean it's my fault it gets dark in the middle of the day.
Honestly, you'd think anything supernatural must automatically be false, the way people react to what I'm saying. If there's a flaw in my reasoning, point it out, don't just accuse me of having bad motives or being a bad person (or a Darwinist, which is apparently the same thing). Not everyone is doing that of course, but I mean, Sheesh! At least Krauze is addressing the points I'm actually raising instead of going after me personally.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 7, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
In the spirit of open inquiry, I'll mention one other alternative which just occurred to me: The infinite loop of designers could be resolved by time travellers! If some future race of advanced humans (or some other race, but I'll use humans for the sake of Occam's Razor)–if a race of advanced humans from the far future were to build a time machine, and go back in time, and design their own ancestors, you could posit a natural designer without appealing to the supernatural.
It's an intriguing possibility, since it not only accounts for the origin of designs in natural life forms, but could potentially account for all other purportedly supernatural phenomena and events as well. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," as A. Clarke says.
Begs the question, of course, of whether time travel is even possible in the natural world, but I'll take that as an open question, and propose this alternative in the interim. So I amend my original conclusion: there are two alternatives which are consistent with ID: a supernatural designer, and a time-travelling designer who created his own ancestors (and directly or indirectly, all life on earth).
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 7, 2006 @ 1:48 pm
July 8th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
Just got back from a vacation and since I really need a vacation from the vacation, you'll have to excuse me if my thinking here is a little muddled.
Mark talks about the "six sub-functions of the design function," but it is not clear to me that the six sub-functions are truly independent of each other. For example, the ability to imagine a design, the ability to have a desire to design, and the ability to implement a design, may all be inter-related phenomenon such that the six "sub-functions" are really just different points of emphasis of the same thing.
Mark also adds, "If nature can spontaneously produce physical mechanisms capable of such advanced functions as thinking, autonomous will, feelings, and so on, then what justification is there for drawing design inferences in the case of lesser functions?" But why think that life is a "lesser function" than thinking, autonomous will, feelings, and so on? For example, Simon Conway Morris makes the argument that the evolution of intelligence was effectively inevitable, while at the same time, he clearly flirts with the idea that the origin of life was an extremely lucky happening. It would seem to me that the origin of life is a much tougher nut to crack than the origin of the ability to design. But then, let's not get lost in the abstractions.
Mark is still focused on the origin of the designer, arguing "This in turn justifies the investigation into what that cause might be, and, while we may not be able to know much about that cause, we can at least tell that there are three alternatives: that supernatural intervention was involved, that intelligent design was involved, or that nature can spontaneously produce specified, coordinated, complex functions (thinking, wanting, willing, desiring, implementing) without the need to invoke ID or the supernatural."
If the designer of LAWKI was/is a natural entity, then yes, there are two possibilities "“ these natural designers ultimately owe their existence to God (one expression of the theology of continuous creation) or the natural designers ultimately owe their existence to natural law and chance. Mark thinks that the latter option is not open to the ID theorist, but this is simply not true. For example, I do not view ID through the lens of trying to determine whether nature can spontaneously produce specified, coordinated, complex functions. I am focused on the explanation that best accounts for the origin of life on this planet. And my design inference for the OOL does not come in the following form: "natural laws and chance cannot possibly account for the OOL, therefore life must have been designed by an intelligence agent."
BTW, speaking of natural designers, I'm not sure why that idea is deemed preposterous.
Comment by MikeGene — July 8, 2006 @ 9:11 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 8:37 am
If you mean that it might be possible for a single physical mechanism to be "programmed" to perform all five functions, then I agree. The same computer hardware can run different programs. But the functions themselves are distinct, i.e. imagining things that don't exist is a distinct task from understanding things that do exist (i.e. natural laws, forces, processes, etc).
And of course the sixth function (the ability to manipulate the material universe) is not one that can be lumped in with the five mental/emotional/volitional functions, unless you want to invoke telekinesis or something.
The natural designer must be alive (according to some definition of "alive") must he not? If you are going to say that a functioning mind and will and heart do not justify a design inference, but life does, you've still got the same scenario where every natural designer requires a previous designer.
Plus, "intelligent life" is more specified than "life," so in ID terms (CSI, IC, etc), life alone is less of a justification for a design inference than is intelligence.
And what is science, if not an attempt to look beyond the effects to the causes that produced them? How does one evaluate a hypothesis other than by considering the consequences which would ensue if the hypothesis were true? You can't compartmentalize an objective scientific investigation according to which questions lead to the answers you want to find (leaving other questions in the "*shrug*, I don't care about that" bin). A proper investigation must examine all the consequences of a particular hypothesis. In the case of inferring a natural designer, that includes the fact that we need to consider whether the known attributes of the inferred designer themselves justify a prerequisite design inference.
I didn't say it wasn't open to ID, I said it wasn't consistent with ID methodology. To allow that such complex functions do not justify an ID inference is to admit that the other ID inferences we make are not scientifically justified by observations of similarly complex and specified systems.
And the points I'm raising are cogent to precisely that investigation. Any natural designer proposed as the explanation for the OOL on earth must possess such qualities as to justify additional inferences, if ID methodologies are to be consistently applied. And while my remarks were not directed at the OOL question, they can be applied to it just as easily as they can to any system or structure where a design inference is in question.
It's not preposterous, it merely requires either a supernatural creator at some point, or else time travellers. Or the concession that design inferences are not actually justified. (See above.)
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 9, 2006 @ 8:37 am
July 9th, 2006 at 9:38 am
What infinite loop of designers?
Why is it not a surprise that you have no difficulty accepting an effect as it's own cause?
Comment by Mung — July 9, 2006 @ 9:38 am
July 9th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Mung,
The one I've been discussing at length in the comments above. The one suggested by reasoning that–so far–no one has attempted to demonstrate any flaws in.
You think that just because I mention something, that means I have no trouble accepting it? I believe I've already mentioned that as far as we can tell today, time travel is science fiction at best. However, since one of the other alternatives is a supernatural designer, I felt it was not unreasonable to mention the concept.
If you're suggesting that time travel is not a viable alternative, I certainly won't disagree with you. Which leaves two remaining alternatives: invoking the supernatural, or conceding that complex specified functions and irreducible complexity (among other things) do not really justify a design inference.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 9, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
Douglas: "transcendent"
Indeed.
Comment by Ilion — July 9, 2006 @ 8:28 pm