Design Detection
by BradfordWhen Intelligent and Natural Design Collide is the title of the linked article at Wired Science. A science writer was inspired to ponder principles of Intelligent Design while flying to California. He contacted astronomer Seth Shostak for input. Concerning the ambiguity inherent to observation and inference Shostak remarked:
"You're looking for information content, for structure patterns," he said. "And it's kind of tricky."
Shostak goes on to explain his approach to ferreting out design by relating information to complexity and simplicity:
But the key is comparison. Against a low-information background, one looks for life in complication; and against a complex background, one searches for simplicity. In either case, it's the degree of unexpected variation that matters. That's where Intelligent Design falls short.
This raises the issue of expectations and what is an objective criteria by which to assess what degree of variation is to be reasonably anticipated. He also addresses the matter of an information ratchet:
"ID advocates say the cell is too complex to be built up by random mutation and selection," he said. "But complexity doesn't necessarily mean design. The point is whether there is a natural mechanism that could increase complexity. There obviously is. We find fairly complex compounds in space. They require some chemistry to make, but nobody says that God is needed to make polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons."
Indeed. We do find some fairly complex molecules in space. Of course the cell is about much more than complex molecules. Molecules are linked to functions- biological parlance for purpose connected with replication. Nucleic acids perform blueprint functions. Proteins and some nucleic acids perform enzymatic functions. Lipids enable the formation of structural boundaries and versatile proteins are found in all sorts of cellular structures. Shostak's variation expectation intrigues because as a SETI researcher we would want to know what specific expectations he has with respect to an earth like planet having no life forms. What is the specific information or complexity ratchet that kick starts the process?
The article concludes with this pithy comment:
"Another answer is that given by Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart, in a case on pornography," said Shostak. "It's become a famous answer to all these questions: "I'll know it when I see it."
December 18th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
This is obviously not what ID advocates say, a rather oversimplification. Complex interdependent function and modularity via biological information processing would be more accurate as Bradford has pointed out. ID advocates do not imply complexity cannot be the result of NS and RV, nobody denies that it can't create great orders of unordered and unspecific non-functional complexity.
Indeed, the answer to this question is as important to SETI as it is detecting intelligence in the universe. In fact, I'd probably say SETI is a waste of time and money unless this question is answered. If life is so vastly improbable as to self-organize then probably the chances of finding life on other planets is as well. SETI seems to be going by the mainstream idea that given the right parameters life will inevitably arise via unguided chance and luck processes and the improbability for it happening decreases the greater amount of plausible habitable planets you have in the given universe.
Can SETI support an IDea such as Intelligent Design? I doubt that it can.
Comment by computerist — December 18, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
December 18th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
On the other hand, Intelligent Design would make it more probable that life actually exists beyond earth. Its sad that SETI's opinion of ID is so low while the reverse being true for ID's opinion of SETI. Most of us IDers believe SETI is performing good science.
Comment by computerist — December 18, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
December 18th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
*When I meant "life" SETI can detect, I obviously didn't mean just "any" life. If its not intelligent SETIs ability to detect it fails right off the bat.
Comment by computerist — December 18, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
December 18th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
What is the specific information or complexity ratchet that kick starts the process?
Excellent point. If SETI confines its search to indicators of advanced intelligence then it is restricting itself to very narrow search parameters.
ID and mainstream theories clearly differ with respect to indicators of life. A planet with water and a suitable temperature and atmosphere etc. are parameters looked at now. I'd like to see Shostak develop his ideas about design indicators and apply them to astronomical searches. They offer something more than the planetary conditions mentioned. From an ID perspective it also presents an opportunity to distinguish an ID approach from mainstream ideas.
BTW computerist, were you surprised at the Uriah Faber/Brown outcome and what are your views about the upcoming Mir/Nogueira bout? If you respond to this part please place the response in the open thread.
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
December 18th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
SETI doesn't seem to realize that biological systems are a universe of their own. Signs of intelligence increases while we move up to a higher resolution. Its also much more manageable than expecting to find signs of intelligence (which according to many is a subjective term) in the vast universe. For many, we haven't even defined Intelligence properly, this would be a major setback to ID and SETI since both rely on it.
So this means SETI is still science while ID isn't?
Intelligence IMO is not definable, its in a class of it own. We can study inputs and outputs (filter) and categorize the methods and properties of that process into either probable and predictable (intelligent induced) or improbable and unpredictable (unintelligent induced). This is what SETI and ID relies on that makes them both credible from that standpoint. Without a well enough understanding of what Intelligence can produce we can never be sure if the source of that signal or process (in any context) in question is what we expect.
Comment by computerist — December 18, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
December 18th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
As a side note, if I were to enter a Theistic Evolutionists thought process, I'd have mixed feelings about SETI. Theistic Evolutionists would probably admit that detecting a signal would be impossible because perhaps highly improbable signals are also designed to be undetectable.
Comment by computerist — December 18, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
December 18th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
SETI seeks indications of intelligent beings communicating and facing similar issues that we encounter when we communicate. It does not depend on any definition of intelligence, it merely assumes that intelligent beings will be somewhat like ourselves.
Only ID uses the term "intelligence" and then cries foul every time someone says, "What do you mean by that?"
Comment by don provan — December 18, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
December 18th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
And neither does Intelligent Design depend on any definition of intelligence. It simply sorts out between current known knowledge of improbable and probable. If the Aliens communication channel were so vastly superior to ours its possible that that SETI could never positively identify it as coming from an intelligent source. SETI assumes most likely cause as much as ID assumes most likely cause. Nobody is crying foul, I'm as much skeptic of the method as anyone else. I have a problem when there is no debate over what SETI does while there is a great debate when ID does it. They are both doing the same thing by applying current knowledge of law, chance and design, its not magic they are performing here, these things can be quantified and qualified.
Comment by computerist — December 18, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
December 18th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
And ID doesn't merely assume that intelligent processes will be somewhat like intelligent processes we devise?
Comment by computerist — December 18, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
December 18th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Then why does it use the term intelligence? SETI uses intelligence to mean "intelligent like us". If ID is all about improbability, why isn't it called "improbability in biological systems"?
Comment by don provan — December 18, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
December 18th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Just to add to my previous post:
And ID doesn't merely assume that intelligent processes will be somewhat like intelligent processes we devise?
If it was not possible to assume that as a priori then the rest of what follows fails because we wouldn't know how to make out the difference in the first place. 200 years ago when we couldn't make this comparison/connection any proposition of design detection would fall short rather quickly. There was simply not enough information.
Isn't that what "Intelligence" actually implies, a distinction between improbable and probable?
Comment by computerist — December 18, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
December 18th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
dp:
Dare we not define intelligence. Let us be content to observe that the work of intelligent beings is the product of intelligence. For as Shostak wisely observed:
That's nice and safe. We know that when already recognized intelligent beings design something we have- intelligent design.
But IDists, don't think you can use inductive reasoning to infer any common denominators to intelligence. That would be uh, er, using intelligence to recognize intelligence. A dasterdly thought.
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
December 18th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
dp:
ID sees that intelligent beings design structures, systems, codes… It assumes that intelligent beings would design somewhat like ourselves and evidence of that design would be found in structures, systems, codes…
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2008 @ 11:29 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 6:07 am
No. Not even a little bit.
Comment by don provan — December 19, 2008 @ 6:07 am
December 19th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Well, I do. Reminds me of a joke.
Athiest: "Watch me make polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons," as he gathers up the necessary atoms.
God: "Nah, uh, uh….use your own atoms."
I suppose the PAH was intentionally chosen due to the PAH world hypothesis.
The problem with materialism is that one of its premises is that God does not exist. To avoid being foolish, some have modified this to ~"God probably doesn't exist."
But the deck is stacked by materialists in that any ubiquitous signal that indicates that there was a creator is by definition natural, and not supernatural. Any miracle that is not natural is by definition a hallucination or illusion.
But, in other semi-scientific fields, such as archeology, the discovery of apparently designed artifacts is assumed, not proven. Indeed, markings on bones are taken to be proof that humans butchered a creature simply on the basis that we can make similar markings using primitive tools on similar bones. Certainly, stone in the form of complex statues are always assumed without debate to be designed, except in certain cases (e.g., the "Monkey watching sea" at Yellow Mountain, China.)
Comment by William Wallace — December 19, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
First, good joke. Thanks for sharing it.
But this just underscores the problem: you can move "God did it" around whereever you want, no matter what anyone says, no matter what anyone observes. That demonstrates that it's a pointless hypothesis, no matter how totally you or I believe in it.
Science simply says, "We cannot assume, a priori, that God exists." (It also says, "What do you mean when you use the term `God'". Do we want to go into that?)
Some people adopt a philosophy that says, "Since the scientific evidence does not support the notion of God, then I conclude there is no God and will live my life accordingly." I can understand you might disagree with them, but I'm not sure how you could argue with them about it. All you can really do is point out that if they add an assumption that God exists, or if they deny that science tells them anything useful, they'd reach different conclusions.
This is just false.
Exactly. They are taken as proof because we can and would make similar markings for similar reasons. It isn't because "design is assumed". If design was assumed, there wouldn't be heated debates among archeologists over some of the more marginal cases.
So what distinguishes those "certain cases"? Is it something magic in the Monkey that tells us it is not caused by intelligence? Or is it just that it doesn't actually look as much like a monkey as a human would make it?
Are the things telic thinkers point to Mount Rushmore or "Monkey watching sea"? They really don't look to me that much as a human would make them, but maybe that's because I don't know the exact formula to use to distinguish propellers from flagella when we see them in biological systems. Pardon me for saying so, but it sure looks to me like they're pointing to monkeys and calling them presidents.
Comment by don provan — December 19, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
And then? SETI assumes intelligence and then considers what a know intelligence — us — did to solve problems a hypothetical intelligence might also face. In particular, they take the common problem of limited power and assume a similar solution of narrow band signals. Then they look for it.
ID says intelligent processes will be somewhat like intelligent processes, but then it doesn't actually define "intelligent processes". Unlike SETI, ID suggests nothing specific nor how it could result in a specific effect that could be observed in a specific way. Consequently, it relies entirely on the claim that nothing else can explain some observed effect, and then declares that it therefore must be the result of an unidentified process with absolutely no known characteristics other than being an "intelligent cause", with "intelligent" still dangling undefined. (As I often point out, this leaves ID with a single, glaring problem: they cannot even rule out evolution's bone headed trial-and-error mechanism, exactly as biologists describe it, entirely as purposeless as those evil materialist say it is, as a possibility for the "intelligence" the IDists have inferred; very, very dumb is still "intelligent" in the way IDists use the term.)
Comment by don provan — December 19, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
dp:
Yet IDists have proposed an alternative to the purposelessness of the evolutionary mechanism you cite. Mike and Guts have often cited front loded evolution (FLE) as the alternative. It is telic and consistent with the evidence. The most common critique of it is that it is superfluous. But superfluous would not make it a bone headed, atelic paradigm. To the contrary. purpose is found in deep homology.
Comment by Bradford — December 19, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Joy banned me from the "IDers and Multis and Flexis… oh, My!" thread…
Comment by island01 — December 19, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
As always, the point is that evolution as biologists had unravelled it cannot be ruled out, not that other possibilities might not also work.
For me, that's saying enough, and I'm happy to discuss the merits of front loading with telic thinkers. But for the mainstream, that means the proposal of front loading must, first and foremost, distinguish itself from the accepted theories by explaining what we might find that would suggest front loading over the existing concensus. Front loading has been considered for a while, of course, but so far nothing's set it apart. Mike offers some ideas, and I have and will continue to consider and discussion them impartially, but there's been nothing that convinces mainstream biologists that front loading is an improvement over existing theories. (In fact, there's been nothing to convince them that any front loading theory has risen to the level of being scientific yet.)
Interestingly, I've found that front loading suffers the same problem of definitions that we were talking about with "intelligence". I believe it was Guts that I had an extended discussion with about what made something "front loaded" as opposed to being "the initial conditions". I'm not sure I ever really did get a crisp definition of "front load" that would allow me to know one when I saw it.
Comment by don provan — December 19, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
I hope that's what you meant by "post to… …that thread".
Comment by island01 — December 19, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
No, post to the Multi-flexis thread. If you're banned, it'll go to spam. Once there's something in the spam filter (I'm not sure I'm getting it, but one of us should), we can go there and un-ban you by approving you again. I didn't mean to, honest.
Comment by Joy — December 19, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
No, it says,
"You are not allowed to comment on this thread. You are welcome to comment in others."
And there is no comment box…
Comment by island01 — December 19, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Aw, man! I'm so sorry, island. I'll put a plea in to Guts immediately to have him rectify the situation. Apparently new software updates have cut spam access off, or he's another method. I used to be able to correct these problems by going to the spam filter and approving. Now it's not available to me.
Please, please feel free to post your responses to things in that thread here until we manage to get the glitch situated, okay?
Comment by Joy — December 19, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Oh, the drama…
I didn't mean to, honest.
I know that, and FYI, I sent you an email before I messed up this thread for others, so, "others", don't hate me just because I'm not wanted elsewhere…
sorry
Comment by island01 — December 19, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Jeez! What was I saying about just turning the key or riding in the darned car???!! I have a way of messing things electric/electronic up just by looking at them or being in their general vicinity. I can't tell you how many 'pooters I've blown. I'm hoping one of these days I'll get one that's immune…
Comment by Joy — December 19, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
December 19th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
I'd like to respond to "olegt", and to others later, as I am running out of time.
olegt said:
Can you summarize in a paragraph or two what the challenge is?
My challenge would be for physicists to quit this crap and face reality:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2462
My other point being that the observed “appearance” for a strong anthropic constraint on the forces is also the most ignored avenue of exploration in science, since the AP only exists for string theorists, who only view it as a selection effect.
I know how these guys look at it, because they make no secret of their utter disgust and disdain for what they are **most apparently** faced with. If we get rid of the landscape then the AP melts to become a “fine-tuning” problem that is only expected to be “explained-away” by some imagined structure principle that disassociates anthropic relevance from the physics. Nobody, except Paul Davies, (now that John Wheeler is gone), gives two seconds worth of thought about a "life-principle", even though that's the strongest indication of bio-oriented physics.
I have no doubt that physicists will give it another twenty or thirty years of staring at unexplained, yet meaningful numbers that are scribbled on paper that’s stuck on a wall in the office, and then maybe we’ll actually consider a solution that includes the guy who is standing over the dead body holding the smoking gun.
Of course, real natural, meaningful theoretical plausibility is very important to any solution that connects carbon based life or intelligent life, to the *reason* for the initial conditions, but given the falsifiable “goldilocks” knowledge, that we very-probably share our “privileged position” with an entire time-slice of similarly evolved life-forms, the most natural question arises as to what we might do that constitutes a grand scale need for life to appear at a specific time and region of the evolving process.
olegt said:
The principle of relativity is a bit more than a mere refutation of geocentricity.
I don't disagree with this, of course, as you should not disagree with the assertion that Copernicus' observation was "a bit less" that a universally applicable refutation of bio-preference.
Even if it's only Entropic Favoritism:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/New...
Comment by island01 — December 19, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
December 21st, 2008 at 12:13 am
Computerist wrote:
Last summer, in another discussion on a related topic, I argued that SETI researchers unwittingly committed themselves to a telic perspective when it came to the origin of life, and the origin of consciousness and mind in the universe.
In his book, The 5th Miracle: the Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life, Paul Davies makes the same point. He argues that there two basic points of view. The first is that evolution is some kind of “drunken walk” or “cosmic lottery.” The second is that evolution is a “ladder of progress.” The first is a dysteleological view; the second is very obviously teleological.
For example, in a debate with SETI advocate Carl Sagan biologist Ernst Mayr argued: “On earth, among millions of lineages or organisms and perhaps 50 billion speciation events only one has led to high intelligence; this makes me believe its utter improbability.”
Mayrs point is that if intelligent life exists anywhere else in the universe it is indeed very, very rare. How long have we (humans) been around as self conscious intelligent beings? How long has the earth been in existence? The universe? Try your hand at those percentages.
On the other hand, Davies points out that, “SETI researchers generally subscribe to the ladder-of-progress concept, accepting that not only life but also mind is in some sense predestined to arise in the universe.”
“The viewpoint” continues Davies, “conceals a huge assumption about the nature of the universe. It means accepting, in effect that the laws of nature are rigged not only in favor of complexity, or just in favor of life, but also in favor of mind.”
Or, he continues, “To put it more dramatically, it implies that mind is written into the laws of nature in a fundamental way.” (p271)
He concludes the chapter that he entitled: “A Bio-Friendly Universe?” with this observation:
“The search for life elsewhere in the universe is therefore the testing ground for two diametrically opposed world-views. On one side is Orthodox science, with its nihilistic philosophy of the pointless universe, of impersonal laws oblivious of ends, a cosmos in which life and mind, science and art, hope and fear are but fluky incidental embellishments on a tapestry of irreversible cosmic corruption. On the other, there is an alternative view, undeniably romantic but perhaps true nevertheless, the vision of a self-organizing and self complexifying universe, governed by ingenious laws that encourage matter to evolve towards life and consciousness. A universe in which the emergence of thinking beings is a fundamental and integral part of the overall scheme of things. A universe in which we are not alone.” (p272)
I realize that some, perhaps most, SETI researchers are very hostile to the concept of ID. Ironically, however, I think they are closer to ID’ist point of view than they are willing to admit.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 21, 2008 @ 12:13 am
December 21st, 2008 at 4:56 am
Sorry: strawman. IDists say intelligent life is very unlikely. Science recognizes that we cannot calculate the probability with any reliability. In fact, scientists are somewhat adverse to the idea of a unique event; they're much more inclined to think that since we know it happened once, it probably has happened lots of times.
Comment by don provan — December 21, 2008 @ 4:56 am
December 21st, 2008 at 6:42 am
Thats news to me.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — December 21, 2008 @ 6:42 am
December 21st, 2008 at 7:32 am
DP spouts more nonsense:
Where? And what is this "IDists" thing? I think intelligent life is quite likely.
More nonsense talk. You speak of "scientists" as if they were a uniform entity. But there are plenty who are skeptical of SETI and its presumptions. Typical of Don Provan, pick a particular view which suits his argument and then pretend this is the default point of view.
Comment by Jean — December 21, 2008 @ 7:32 am
December 21st, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Of course I was speaking of specified complexity.
No, I was just speaking in general, not categorically. Sorry if that was unclear. And the fact remains that scientists are prone to view everything as some kind of regularity.
Hey, put me at the head of the list. I observe that SETI is a big, big step above ID, but I still don't consider it very interesting.
Comment by don provan — December 21, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
December 21st, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Am I the only one that's looked at Dembski's probability calculations? I would have thought more people here were familiar with them.
Comment by don provan — December 21, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
December 21st, 2008 at 6:53 pm
A couple of problems. First, the same issue exists for abiogenesis, at least as Dawkins describes it.
Second, the only people running around stating that the existence of God is an hypothesis subject to scientific evaluation are Dawkinites. The existence of God is an axiom.
Third, the same problem also exists in some of the supposed experiments that would falsify the theory of evolution–the precambrian rabbit canard, for example. If discovered, the pre-cambrian rabbit would not cause evolutionists to discard the theory of evolution, it would merely cause them to rework the tree of life.
As far as I can tell, there is no objective standard. If you know of an objective standard, let me know. It is one of the biggest hurdles that ID has to overcome–an objective way to differentiate design from RM+NS.
Comment by William Wallace — December 21, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
December 21st, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Where does Dembski state that intelligent life is unlikely?
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — December 21, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
December 21st, 2008 at 7:08 pm
To say a pre cambrian rabbitt would falsify evolution is no different than saying we can falsify triangles all you have to do is find one that is not three sided.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — December 21, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
December 21st, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Its specified complexity tells us that life itself is unlikely.
Comment by don provan — December 21, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
December 21st, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Without intelligence behind it. That has nothing to do with the how likely life is throughout the univere. Seems to me it makes life more likely. Sheesh I thought you were an objective non partisan observer?
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — December 21, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
December 21st, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Comment by Jean — December 21, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
December 21st, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Not my problem. We can assume abiogenesis is nothing but junk, if you like.
The Dover school board thought that "intelligent design" is a hypothesis appropriate for a science classroom. And I recall a lot of people supporting them, and none of them where "Dawkinites".
Exactly. And science has found it to be an unnecessary and useless axiom, which is why science rejects it even as many people, some of them doing science, embrace it for reasons outside of science.
Well, first of all, again, it's not my problem how good evolution is. I'm not defending evolution, I'm just pointing out why your arguments don't hold water.
At the same time, it's rather interesting to consider why something as astonishingly unexpected as a precambrian rabbit wouldn't overturn evolution. The reason, of course, is that evolution is based on many lines of thought and has been confirmed by a huge amount of evidence from a wide range of angles. All of this theory and evidence doesn't suddenly disappear because of a single, unexpected anomaly.
But while we can predict that evolution would survive, we can also recognize that there'd be a lot of carnage. After all, something would clearly be wrong if a mammal could exist in the precambrian, and a lot of existing theory would be overturned and a lot of evidence would have to be reinterpreted. In contrast, even if we can imagine a counter example to ID — what, exactly, would tell us that no intelligent intervention occurred? — nothing interesting would happen: ID would just pull up stakes there and move somewhere else. "7000 years ago"; "Oops, I mean the pre-Cambrian"; "Oops, I mean when life began"; "Oops, I mean when atoms were created".
Me? My point is that there is no standard. That's why ID doesn't hold water: it claims that there's a significant — pivotal — logical difference between Mount Rushmore and Monkey Watching Sea, but even people as sympathetic to the idea as you or I cannot actually explain the difference.
The demonstrable difference is that we know Mount Rushmore was made by men and that Monkey Watching Sea was not. There is no inherent difference in them.
Comment by don provan — December 21, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
December 21st, 2008 at 10:50 pm
You appear to have forgotten the original context of my comment. The argument was that SETI assumes ID because without ID, life, including intelligent life, is unlikely. My response was that it's only IDist that claim that life, including intelligent life, was unlikely without ID. SETI scientists, in general (for Jean), have no problem thinking life is quite likely even without ID.
By the way, for some reason I keep getting this "impartial non-partisan observer" stuff brought up, so I'll comment on it. I do claim to be impartial and non-partisan. I do not claim to be infallible. Do you understand the difference?
The amazing thing about the impartial claim is that almost every ID proponent scoffs as if it's impossible.
Comment by don provan — December 21, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:32 am
No this was not your response although it may be what you meant when you stated
You then complicated matters by appealing to Dembski. If by saying" IDists say intelligent life is very unlikely" you meant "it's only IDist that claim that life, including intelligent life, was unlikely without ID" I would not have commented.
We all state things in a way that doesnt convey what we mean..no harm no foul I accept your clarification. Thanks
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — December 22, 2008 @ 12:32 am
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:08 am
Thank-you.
Comment by don provan — December 22, 2008 @ 4:08 am
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:33 pm
While there may be some debates in archeology whether some find or other was man made or not, for the most part, there is no objective standard there, either. Common sense, and not science, rules the day.
When a biologist discovers a new complex system, he is likely to just assume it evolved. It fits the narrative.
When an engineer learns about a highly complex biological system, he is often likely to see parallels to man made systems, and sees evidence of design.
The difference is perspective.
Comment by William Wallace — December 22, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Are you sure?
When a molecular biologist discovers a new gene (complex or not), does he just assume that it evolved, or does he directly test one of Darwin's hypotheses with the new sequence?
Comment by Stinky — December 22, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Yes, but you aren't viewing a highly complex biological system, you're viewing an animation of several of them in which things like the hesitations and backward steps of the processes have been omitted.
Like you say, it's perspective that counts.
Comment by Stinky — December 22, 2008 @ 11:24 pm
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:04 am
Learning about and observing are two different things. The animation is a teaching aid, and a simplification. I "knew" that it was a simplification in that I have heard before that it was. Upon learning that the real interactions are not as discernably purposeful as portrayed did not change my view. Engineers are used to finding signals among noise, and sometimes even buried in the noise.
I don't think the perfect choreography of the animation is what leads engineers to see design.
I don't know. Is a new gene a system?
Comment by William Wallace — December 23, 2008 @ 12:04 am
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Well, first of all, there's a very clear objective standard, and this fact isn't diminished by observing that there are examples where there's insufficient information — perhaps even too much wishful thinking — to meet that objective standard.
But my point is that ID provides no standard. You see it or you don't. And if your don't, you're immediately labeled a lackey of the evolutionary establishment.
It fits the theory, yes. One of science's powers is that it directs research into effective paths based on previous successes. But not all of science works that way, and we can point to many obvious examples where evolutionary theory has been overturned in fundamental ways. So using the fact that most biologists will follow script is not evidence that biology never questions evolution or that ID was rejected without being considered.
Yes, evolution results in amazing designs.
Comment by don provan — December 23, 2008 @ 12:57 pm