Design Is NOT A Mechanism
by JJS P.Eng.This thread began as an off-topic offshoot of Bradford's post, Guided Pathways. Please discuss here instead.
Earlier comments to set the scene:
JJS: I'll keep repeating this until you kiddies get it right: there is NO mechanism for design. Engineers make use of mechanisms in their designs. The design action of an engineer cannot be reduced to a mechanism. IMO, FLE concerns itself with investigating the (potential) manipulation of natural mechanisms to achieve a desired result (design objective).
Raevmo: This kiddie respectfully disagrees. There are computers that design stuff — even "unexpected" designs since the computers use random number generators. Are you saying that there is no mechanism for design in that case?
JJS: Let me address the two cases you presented separately:
1. Computers "designing" stuff: This "design" is based on a program that was developed by software engineers who programmed the parameters of the search of options so that a human engineer can eliminate various options in a workable timeframe. The computer ends up being a tool to examine different design directions. It's really no different than me creating a spreadsheet to go through the myriad of different steel section options in the time span of a few minutes instead of hours.
At the end of the day, it is a human engineer that must check the details of the design to ensure it functions in the real world properly. Thus you have human engineer(s) at both the start and the finish of the design process. The computer merely facilitates the search for options. It does not design.
2. Accidental design: this sounds a lot like "designoids" as expressed by Dawkins and Gene. This is not design, but tinkering or evolutionary noise. In order for tinkering to occur, it needs something to tinker with. In most cases, that something is purposely designed.
Raevmo (in response to #1): I would say it does. The human (or computer) who checks the design merely evaluates it, it doesn't do the designing. In case of front-loading: the environment checks the design.
Raevmo (in response to #2): Again, I disagree. Evolutionary algorithms can design stuff, and they rely on (pseudo) random numbers to generate new designs. Perhaps in your brain there is also a (pseudo) random design generator, and another part of your brain selects the one that meets certain requirements.
Bradford (in response to Raevmo [2]): Or perhaps in his mind there exists a capacity for analysis which makes assessments independently of brain biochemical determinism and that is further evidence of design.
January 26th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Raevmo, the computer does not set the initial boundary conditions of its design search; the human engineer does. The computer's search is also confined by parameters set by humans. The "evaluating" that is done is really "detailed engineering". The design search thus reduces to a tool used by the engineer to make an efficient use of the limited amount of time given.
I do not trust a computer to do the design for me. This lesson was painfully learned by engineers with the 1978 collapse of the Hartford Civic Center. From the linked site:
The adage "Garbage In, Garbage Out" applies here.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — January 26, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
January 26th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
JJS P.Eng.
You are assuming your conclusion when you declare "Design Is NOT A Mechanism".
Ergo, you logically conclude mechanist processes can't produce design.
No surprise (as you said "Garbage in, Garbage out")
Out of curiosity, do you assume Quantum Physics is mechanistic?
If so, explain why.
If not, couldn't QM be responsible for the existence of design in the universe?
Comment by Thought Provoker — January 26, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
January 26th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
TP, not being an engineer, my take is that mechanisms are the means by which design is effected. Do you disagree?
Comment by Bradford — January 26, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
January 26th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Good day TP. Thanks for your response. I assume you either had very limited time in generating your response, or I touched a nerve (inadvertently).
QP's role in the evolution debate intrigues me. I confess I have very limited knowledge of QP, something I hope to address in the near future (time permitting). So any answer I give is merely speculation on my part, so be gentle in correcting any errors on my part.
My hunch is that QP involves mechanisms at the quantum level (stochastic or otherwise) that could be used by a front-loading engineer to design the first life forms.
IMO, deliberation implies a mind at work, and that mind has the freedom to go where it wants (free will). The mind may be influenced from outside sources, but the free will aspect remains unchanged. Mechanism implies automation. I have great difficulty in seeing how a mind deliberately exercising its free will to achieve a desired objective is an automation of any sort.
hmmm, maybe I should "Philosophy" as a category to this thread…
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — January 26, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
January 26th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
No, it doesn't, at least not in English. Perhaps we need to start with what you mean when you say "mechanism", because it seems different than normal usage. In the original context, "mechanism" was being used in the sense of "physical description of how something happens" and implied nothing at all about automation or machinery.
Comment by don provan — January 26, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
January 26th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Hi JJS P.Eng,
Excuse the abrupt response, I am sick as a dog today.
I actually was trying to inform the debate.
As a debator, you get to define you own terms.
As a debator, I get to point out your choice is self-fulling.
I am not saying your assumption is wrong, just that is makes most of the discussion moot.
It's not like we haven't gone around on this merry-go-round thousands of time before on TT.
I thought I would remind people I believe there is experimental data showing QM is NOT mechanistic. At least not mechanistic unless you concede Quantum Information (not classical information) flows forward and backwords in time.
I would not be surprised if Oleg decided at this time to "clarify" some of my remarks.
Comment by Thought Provoker — January 26, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
January 26th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
JJS P. Eng,
On that note…
The Reason and Reality series by John Lucas is worth reading, and there are specific sections devoted to quantum physics, the question of mechanism versus human agency, and some other interesting ideas. Just to sweeten the pot, I believe Lucas is the one who most developed the Godelian argument that Penrose/Hameroff picked up and ran with regarding human consciousness.
Though I'd agree with what I take to be your response so far – a (and any) mechanism can be a tool for a designer, so discovering a mechanism involved in a design doesn't help answer the question.
Comment by nullasalus — January 26, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
January 26th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Let me use friction, as an example. Friction is a mechanism that can enable objects to remain immobile (structural engineers like this), or can enable objects to move (mechanical engineers are interested in this). Depending on the materials involved, the magnitude of friction varies (the friction between say steel and teflon is much lower than between steel and steel), but it is still there. Engineers use friction in their designs to achieve desired objectives.
While not machine-like, friction is always there, "waiting" to be utilised. One could almost say it is automatic that friction will be there (in "normal", non-vacuum circumstances).
Does this explanation help demonstrate where I'm coming from?
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — January 26, 2009 @ 7:05 pm
January 26th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
What does this mean? The mind is influenced; "free will" is impacted accordingly. If we're fed nothing but false information designed to induce us to make a wrong decision, in what sense are we exercising "free will" when we make that wrong decision?
Comment by don provan — January 26, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
January 26th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
TP, I hope
your immune system evolves quicklyyou feel better soon.I do have some background reasoning that leads to my conclusion that design is not a mechanism, but I am receptive to contrary evidence. It makes a debate more fun. That is also part of the purpose for this thread.
On this specific topic? If so, I'd like links to those debates.
Any clarification of QP/QM is welcome.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — January 26, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
January 26th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
don, are you equating free will to the "right" decision? Decisions made under duress are still an exercise of free will.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — January 26, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
January 26th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
JJS:
You can call it a "tool" as much as a you like. Fact is, the computer does the designing. You simply choose among several computer-generated designs. It's like I invite several engineers to give me a design, and then I decide which design to accept. But instead of me it could have been another computer.
Comment by Raevmo — January 26, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
January 26th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
The Magic of Intelligent Design
A Voice from the Middle Ground
In summary of these very long threads is that it is a metaphysical assumption to presume randomness exists and is the design mechanism.
Likewise it is a metaphysical assumption to presume the purpose of the universe comes from a conscious entity.
Comment by Thought Provoker — January 26, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
January 26th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
According to Joe G, "Yes, Design is a mechanism".
Don provan pinpointed the problem. By mechanism, we typically refer to energy and forces and their effects. When JJS P.Eng. says "Design Is NOT A Mechanism", I believe he is referring to mental abstractions not being an implementation, which would be the manufacture. When Joe G says "Design is a mechanism", he is trying to avoid having to specify the actual implementation.
As you say, computers can design. But not always very well.
Comment by Zachriel — January 26, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
January 26th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
No, of course not. I thought I provided a perfect case: if the information I'm provided is controlled by someone else to drive me to a particular choice, how can I be said to be exercising "free will"? I'm performing to their will.
Comment by don provan — January 26, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
January 26th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
No, not really. It just confirms you're using "mechanism" in your own way. I'd say friction is a force which I might refer to in a description of a mechanism, but I fail to see how it could be a mechanism in itself.
And nothing about a mechanism implies any termporality of existence. The mechanism that took someone from one side of a river to the other could be a bridge they build specially for the crossing.
You explanation also suggests you're making up your own meaning for "automation", as well.
I suppose I should say that I hope this doesn't demonstrate where you're coming from, because what I'm seeing is someone that appears to be warping words to fit their argument rather than using them to convey their argument.
Comment by don provan — January 26, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
January 26th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Consider the statement: the result of the effect was due to accident, not by design.
Design and accident tend to evoke opposite meaning in peoples' minds. They do in mine.
When computers "design" it is the matter of scanning a search space, with the purpose of coming closer to a goal. The computer have come up with a derivative goal on its own, but the ultimate goal comes from animal minds (humans, but possibly others as well. I think I could train my dog to give a computer some input that would alter a computer program's goal.) Computer "design" is really just "computer aided design."
Goals, purpose, design, insight, these words go along together. It is what minds do. Whatever a mind is, "insight" seems to be one of the main ingredients. (Where is aiguy when you need him to stir the pot?)
At any rate, to the degree that humans are operating as a mechanism when they have insight and invent goals, why then, design is a mechanism. But nobody knows to what extent that is true.
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 26, 2009 @ 10:48 pm
January 26th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Yes your willingly performing their will.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — January 26, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
January 27th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
But not freely. I am just making the decision they made me make. There's nothing free about my actions.
Comment by don provan — January 27, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
January 27th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Which is exactly why anti-evolutionists tend to present evolution as a series of "accidents". If evolution is instead presented as a series of trials with error correction, suddenly the dichotomy disappears and the relation to design is much more apparent.
Comment by don provan — January 27, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
January 27th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
The assertion that evolution proceeds by the pattern of causation known as natural selection misses the distinction between causation and the acausal. It is an irrational dualism that asserts that every feature of life can be explained by known causes; the implication is that every aspect of life can be caricatured by Darwin's theory and we end up with such silliness as evolutionary psychology. But the acausal relates to a boundary condition that is discovered fundamental. Design that cannot be evolved by way of natural selection implies the boundary again. It is possible that design is evolved by way of the acausal, even if it is not a mechansim.
Comment by Stephen — January 27, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
January 27th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
If a mechanism is a way or means of doing something then design is a mechanism. Buy a dictionary and look up the words- design and mechanism.
Zachriel stated that avoids specifying something or other.
Well take a look at random muations and natural selection. Nothing is specified, yet THAT pap passes for a mechanism.
And just how can we specify the design's implementation without first identifying and then studying it?
don, according to evolutionists ALL mutations are accidents, ie they were NOT planned. So evolution, that is YOUR version of it, is a series of accidents.
Error correction is nonsense because it implies a direction and evolution doesn't have one.
Comment by ID guy — January 27, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
January 27th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
mechanism- a process, technique, or system for achieving a result (merriam-webster)
design- to conceive or execute a plan or devise which is to plan to obtain or bring about
I am also an engineer and we do things by design or bad things usually happen.
Comment by ID guy — January 27, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
January 27th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Stephen:
You've lost me here. To miss the distinction between causation and the acausal (whatever that is) is an irrational dualism?
Comment by Raevmo — January 27, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
January 27th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
I'm regularly reminded that just about everyone here understands evolution as a mechanism and accepts it as proven, so I'll leave others to debate this with you.
By "it" do you mean the design or its implementation? Normally one studies something in order to identify it.
The opposite of "planned" is not "accident". And "design" does not imply "planned" to begin with.
Error correct does not imply direction.
Comment by don provan — January 27, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
January 27th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Don't bad things happen if you don't plan ahead even when you design? Surely as an engineer you recognize that not all designs are good, and not all designers are intelligent, don't you?
Comment by don provan — January 27, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
January 27th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Joe G:
Nope. You overlook that a population evolves in a specific environment, which determines (up to some noise) which mutations will get fixed (by natural selection) and which won't.
Comment by Raevmo — January 27, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
January 27th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Design, conceive and produce a design for.
Mechanism, the way in which something works or is brought about.
I have no idea what that means. Though the word "design" has several related definitions, your definitions draw a distinction between the conception and the implementation.
Mutation and natural selection can be directly observed, so there is no problem with specification.
Go for it. If you say life was intelligently designed, what scientific evidence can you marshall concerning the implementation?
Comment by Zachriel — January 27, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
January 27th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Raevmo, it is the burden of science to define causation and all related boundary conditions. And "acausal" is a term used to describe non-locality in quantum mechanics.
It seems to me that irrationality is near when we pretend that everything must have a "cause," when it is clear that some things just are. The caricature-mode thought is a big weakness coming out of Darwin's theory when evolutionary psychology gets its turn to exlain reality. It is really sick!
Comment by Stephen — January 27, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
January 27th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Stephen wrote:
I don't think so.
Comment by olegt — January 27, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
January 27th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Stephen:
You were using the term. I think it is the burden of the user to define her terms.
I see. Can you give an example of acausality?
Again, can you give an example of something that "just is"?
And again. what specifically bothers you about evolutionary psychology?
Comment by Raevmo — January 27, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
January 27th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Evolution is a result, not a mechanism.
And just how can we specify the design's implementation without first identifying and then studying it?
"It" refers to the design. Normally one has alrteady identified what it is tey are investigating.
don, according to evolutionists ALL mutations are accidents, ie they were NOT planned. So evolution, that is YOUR version of it, is a series of accidents.
I said that in your scenario all muations are accidents, which means they were not planned.
However:
accident:
1 a: an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b: lack of intention or necessity : chance (met by accident rather than by design) emphasis added
Only that "plan" is in the defintion of design in every dictionary.
Yes it does- to the state of error free.
Comment by ID guy — January 27, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
January 27th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
according to evolutionists ALL mutations are accidents, ie they were NOT planned. So evolution, that is YOUR version of it, is a series of accidents.
You say "Nope" but your reasoning doesn't support it.
The mutations are accidents. Perhaps what gets kept isn't.
Also the mutations occur in individuals and natural selection acts on the individual.
Populations basically stay static, with a little oscilation around a means.
And by observation natural selection doesn't really account for that much of the variation. Basically whatever survives to pass on their genes survives to pass on their genes.
Comment by ID guy — January 27, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
January 27th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
You cannot specify what mutates other than "the genome". And natural selection hasn't been observed to produce much of anything.
IOW you don't have anything but a bald assertion
And just how can we specify the design's implementation without first identifying and then studying it?
Answer the question.
More than you can concerning the non-telic approach to the OoL issue.
Comment by ID guy — January 27, 2009 @ 8:39 pm
January 27th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
I would say there are several- as in there are at least several ways to conceive and implement a plan/ design.
Manufacturing processes are usually (if not always) designed- meaning design is not limited to that which is being designed.
All this means is that design is a way or means of doing something. And a mechanism is also a way or means of doing something.
Is this strong overlap just a coincidence?
Comment by ID guy — January 27, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
January 27th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Raevmo, the assertion that everything has a "cause" is an irrational assertion!
Comment by Stephen — January 27, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
January 27th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Stephen,
I'm not sure you're correctly understanding 'acausal'. An acausal system can still be deterministic, it simply has inputs that come from the future in addition to the past and the present. Those inputs can still be said to be the cause of whatever effect is observed. Nothing about this in itself justifies the claim that some things must 'just be'. So I guess I'm not following the connection you are trying to make.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 27, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
January 27th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
When humans "design" it is a matter of scanning a search space, with the purpose of coming closer to a goal.
Other than metaphysical assertions concerning dualism there is no solid reason to think the human brain and the computer are different by anything other than degrees.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 27, 2009 @ 9:54 pm
January 27th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
This is shooting from the hip. Computers are designed by humans who understand their capacities and limitations. Humans can act so as to funnel the input needed to further enhance their capabilities. Humans have some control over the design of their own intellects subject to DNA parameter limits. They can become very adept at abstract mental machinations or allow deterioration of the same by acts of will (and putting in the hours).
Comment by Bradford — January 27, 2009 @ 10:21 pm
January 27th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Tod, something that is determined that comes from the future is still only one issue that leaves the acausal without any consideration.
Retruning to the issue, causation is a poor concept as Hume noted. But looking at science, the issue of causation without any consideration of its boundary condition is also a poor consideration. Science has action principles that apply within symmetry conditions, but none of these laws of nature say anything about the assertion of cause. The only place we might be able to assert a cause is within the confines of the second law. But this is also misleading. The second law while real only pretends to be explained by statistical arguments. A close read of the statistical arguments reveals them to be incomplete. Science finds itself unable to give an absolute status to either determinism or causation.
Comment by Stephen — January 27, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
January 27th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
They made you make the decision
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — January 27, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 12:23 am
Yes, we are all aware that they differ in origin and mode of manufacture. We are aware that humans and computers use different hardware to accomplish their tasks. What grounds do we have for thinking their computations are fundamentally different? Sure the computer was programmed by a human, but children are also programmed by humans.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 28, 2009 @ 12:23 am
January 28th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Well, yes. And the genotype helps determine the phenotype. Mutations are (generally) random with respect to fitness, but they are not necessarily random. We can make statistical predictions about mutations.
That's a handwaving argument that doesn't address your claim. We can observe the process by which mutation and selection lead to changes in populations. Indeed, we can make many valid scientific predictions, such as in the Lederberg Experiment.
Sorry. By now I thought you understood the scientific method. You take your claim of "design" and use it as a tentative assumption, the hypothesis. Then you deduce empirical implications *entailed* in your hypothesis that will *distinguish* it from competing theories. Then you *test* those empirical implications and modify your hypothesis accordingly. The most obvious implication is the existence and presumed characteristics of the designer.
Comment by Zachriel — January 28, 2009 @ 9:18 am
January 28th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Science doesn't give absolute status to any of its conclusions. As a philosophical matter, we can never be sure of causation. But as a practical matter, each of us can repeatedly push a lever and observe a rock move. We reach the (albeit tentative) conclusion that pushing the lever causes the rock to move. This is called the Experimental Method.
No, you don't have to know anything about thermodynamics to reasonably conclude that pushing the lever causes the rock to move.
Comment by Zachriel — January 28, 2009 @ 9:26 am
January 28th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Reader’s Digest Oxford Complete WordFinder defines design as 1a a preliminary plan or sketch for the making or production of a building, machine, garment, etc. b the art of producing these. 3 a plan, purpose or intention
And has way, means, method, procedure, approach, technique, medium, process and agency included in the list of synonyms for mechanism
Planned is an antonym of accidental
Evolution is NOT a mechanism:
Mechanisms: the processes of evolution
(the proof is in the title) AND:
Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution.
Comment by ID guy — January 28, 2009 @ 9:36 am
January 28th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Joe:
Artificial selection (such as Darwin with his pigeons) is different from natural selection (in the respect that the result of artificial or natural selection is differential survival of alleles) in what way exactly, that would invalidate it as a form of modelling for the hypothesis of natural selection?
I see you have been polishing your prose, lately.
Comment by Alan Fox — January 28, 2009 @ 10:29 am
January 28th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Of course I did. The Lederberg Experiment.
Your claim was "Well take a look at random muations and natural selection. Nothing is specified, yet THAT pap passes for a mechanism." I pointed to specifics, and you merely waved your hands.
It's a laboratory experiment, but antibiotics occur in nature, and the evolutionary response is the same.
The Lederberg Experiment shows that at least some mutations for antibiotic resistance are random with respect to fitness. That's a testable, and tested, hypothesis.
It depends on the definition, but we usually think of the design as the abstraction that is then implemented through some mechanism. But don't let the words distract from the fundamental problem. If life was manufactured by some intelligent agency, we would expect a physical mechanism of that process; a link of causation from the artifact to the art to the artisan, with all the associated characteristics.
Comment by Zachriel — January 28, 2009 @ 10:43 am
January 28th, 2009 at 11:03 am
I find it interesting the sort of specifics you demand. I guess you likewise think gravity is a bunch of bunk because we don't know when the next meteor will strike the Earth? You must also think quantum mechanics is a bunch of bunk because all of its predictions are stochastic too.
Mike Gene, in the Design Matrix, talks about types of evidence. You should go re-read that section. The kind of evidence you demand for evolution is equivalent to inviting God to your tea party and only believing in him if he shows up on time and introduces himself. And yet I doubt you're asked god for that sort of proof.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 28, 2009 @ 11:03 am
January 28th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Or that dropping stones off La Torre pendente di Pisa doesn't tell us anything about gravity in nature because the experiment is aRTIFICIAL.
Comment by Zachriel — January 28, 2009 @ 11:08 am
January 28th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Poseur
Comment by Alan Fox — January 28, 2009 @ 11:14 am
January 28th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
So you're saying that I exhibit free will even when I'm compelled to make a specific decision? Does it matter that I'm being compelled by being fed specific information rather than by nature of the material events that led to the decision?
Comment by don provan — January 28, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Noting a recent comment in the "memory hole", I found myself reviewing holed comments and had to go back to May last year to find a comment by an ID proponent; all subsequent examples being from ID sceptics. In none of them could I find anything that matches ID guy's comment containing
Is this not somewhat of a double standard?
Comment by Alan Fox — January 28, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Alan Fox:
You're leaving one thing out of the mix. It is generally in adversarial situations that holing occurs. IDists generally agree with each other. Agreement does not usually give rise to harsh language, one liners, trolling, insults or other such displays.
Comment by Bradford — January 28, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Remember viewpoint bias, Bradford. But you make the rules, don't you? If you can't see my point merely by looking at what I quote, well, never mind.
Comment by Alan Fox — January 28, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Alan, I holed the comment you highlighted. It was the first time I read it. I don't follow all the exchanges even within my own threads.
Comment by Bradford — January 28, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Sorry for the absence. It looks like some people got carried away (thanks to Bradford for the assist).
A quick reminder to keep it clean.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to catch up on the 40+ comments I've missed…
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — January 28, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
OK Bradford. Though I was kind of thinking more tolerance for sceptics rather than more holed comments.
Comment by Alan Fox — January 28, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I think I do have tolerance but one-liners with mocking references to fairies or ghosts will find their way to the hole every time. I want substance in comments even if I disagree with it. Ridicule, insults etc. impair open exchanges.
Comment by Bradford — January 28, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Alrighty then…
At the risk of sounding evasive, I am going to set the philosophical side of this debate aside. I plan on concentrating more on aspects raised by Raevmo, Zachriel and ID guy (BTW, keep the good comments coming. I am enjoying this part of the debate).
First, let me address this comment of mine:
Upon further reflection, I need to re-phrase: "I do not blindly trust in a computer's analytical results and low-level design." Analysis is different from design. Analysis requires there be an object (conceptual or real) to exist while design does not.
For the case of a (structural analysis) computer program, the human engineer conceives of the shape and size of the structure. Based on theory, the program analyses the structure and determines the most likely load path and the resulting member loads and deflections. The computer doesn't select the initial shape, boundary conditions, etc. It merely takes what is given to it and spews out numbers based on its programming.
That said, some programs I've worked with attempt to design individual structural members based on loads, geometric configuration and material properties input by the engineer. However, this "design" is contingent on the proper interpretation of the design code (developed by human engineers) and the proper input from the human engineer. Also, designing solely for strength and stability does not convey the whole picture of designing. Other issues, such as aesthetics, constructability and general usage, need to be looked at. It is relatively easy to program a computer to design for strength and stability as compared to other issues. That is why I call it a "low-level design". However, humans are ultimately behind this low-level design as humans create/designed the program using theory (developed by humans) and engineering codes (developed by humans).
I would also argue that computer as engineers would not have the capability of innovation that human engineers do. Human engineers can think outside of their parameters.
IMO, this makes computer useful tools for the engineer to utilise during the design process, but they are not replacements for human engineers. After all, if something goes wrong, who are you going to sue?
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — January 28, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
According to Wikipedia
Compare that to what nullasalus wrote:
Fits the definition of ghost almost perfectly. Of course it was a bit tongue in cheek, but compared to Joe G's standard insults which are never holed (except this once)…
Anyway, I forgive you.
Comment by Raevmo — January 28, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
It would appear that there is agreement between Zachriel and IDguy on the definition of design and mechanism, and correlates closely with the definition proposed by Del Ratsch:
So if everyone agrees, let's proceed with the dictionary definitions of mechanism and design while keeping the above quote in our back pockets.
But there are defined mechanisms that bring about evolution, agreed? Allen MacNeill has a blog post listing the various evolutionary mechanisms (my apologies for not having the link on me). Mike Gene even references these mechanisms in The Design Matrix.
Both the manufacturing process and the end product were designed. The design process is separate from the mechanisms governing the manufacturing process. While there are general steps an engineer takes in the design process, but that doesn't mean it is mechanistic. IMO, Zachriel came the closest when he said:
"Mental abstractions" are a crucial part of design and separates it from (natural) mechanisms (perhaps that's another clarification we should make: natural mechanisms as opposed to artifical/man-made mechanisms).
IMO, the mental abstractions of the engineer physically manifest themselves in the manipulation of the mechanisms to obtain a design effect. This is at the heart of design detection: finding the physical effects of mental abstractions. (I'll go more into detail with this when I finish reading Design, Nature and Science by Del Ratzsch)
After all that, I stand by my assertion that design is not a mechanism.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — January 28, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
JJ,
I'm losing your original point. You concede that that computers design, just within the contraints laid out by a human designer. That sounds like mechanism, both in that the computer design is a mechanism in itself as well as in that the human designer is using the computer as a mechanism to accomplish her design. I'm not seeing any room left for "design is not a mechanism" Perhaps that means that those words aren't the best way to express your point?
Comment by don provan — January 28, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
don, I think your definition of mechanism is erroneous. According to you, almost everything is a mechanism, and that has the effect of diluting the meaning of mechanism. Let's stick to the dictionary term as it relates to the natural realm.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — January 28, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
If we do that it becomes clear that design is a mechanism, ie it is a way or means of producing a result.
Mechanism is not always a noun- meaning it is not always something mechanical.
With that in mind:
Artificial selection and non-rando, ie directed, mutations are two design implementation mechanisms.
1- "Evolution" is a fuzzy word because it can mean several different things.
2- Direcetd vs undirected evolution is more to the debate
Now to Zachriel:
You didn't point out any specifics. That you think you did just further exposes your agenda.
Wrong. Variation ensures survival, which ensures fitness. It is not random with respect to it.
Is design a mechanism?
I have provided several definitions which show that design is a mechanism and it doesn't matter what you think people think.
\What experience do you have with designing? I have over 40 years worth.
on to Todd:
With gravity we can and do make specific predictions. IOW you are clueless.
Yes he does. Can you provide any evidence which would show our existence is due to non-telic processes?
To Alan Fox:
I asked Zachriel a specific question. Did he answer it? No. He tried to change the subject and the topic of the thread.
Not only that he lied about providing specifics.
But that is OK because that is all your position consists of. So I understand.
Comment by ID guy — January 28, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
So we can only identify a pattern by correlating it to a mind. That eliminates ID altogether, doesn't it?
Comment by don provan — January 28, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I stand by the commonly accepted definitions of the words design and mechanism, that design IS a mechanism:
Reader’s Digest Oxford Complete WordFinder defines design as 1a a preliminary plan or sketch for the making or production of a building, machine, garment, etc. b the art of producing these.
de·sign
to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan
to devise for a specific function or end
mech·a·nism
: a process, technique, or system for achieving a result
So yes design is a way for achieving a result.
With that in mind we may be able to ascertain some specific method used, but only after studying the design and having the resources to move on.
So we would have to prioritize. Is knowing how soemthing was designed important enough? Or is a better understanding more important?
But we certainly do not have to know how something was designed before inferring it was. And in the end we may never know the exact process that was used.
If I gave a laptop computer to my tribal friends in Colombia they wouldn't know what is was or have any clue as to how it was made. But they would know it didn't come from nature.
Comment by ID guy — January 28, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
No. Mind correlation is part of it.
The design inference does have a strong correlation to mind.
That being every time we observe information-rich systems and know the cause it is always some agency.
So when we observe information-rich systems and do not have direct knowledge of the cause we infer- mind correlation- that it was due to some agency.
To throw off that correlation Del says that if nature, operating freely can be shown to do it- in this case produce information-rich systems- then the correlaion falls.
Comment by ID guy — January 28, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
I am sure Zachriel will respond to this.
Joe, calling someone a liar is a serious charge. It is not enough that they are wrong, they must also know that what they are saying is wrong when they say it. Do you want to reflect a little here?
Other than being an ID sceptic, I have no position about the topic of this thread as yet.
I am still wondering about your comment about the Lederberg experiment being artificial selection, and why that would be an invalid way of modelling natural selection. Clarification, when you have time, would be appreciated.
Comment by Alan Fox — January 28, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Give me an example where you are compelled to choose something by being fed specific information and lets go from there.
My guess is that we will probably have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a free will choice. Actually as I have stated before I really hate the term 'free will" because the will is never free from that which determines it. I much prefer talking about free choice which is what I gather people mean when they say free will.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — January 28, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Jim, my name is Jim.
In that experiment penicillin was applied to one or more colonies.
Humans applied those anti-biotics. Humans chose what colonies to apply them to.
IOW we selected which will survive and which will not.
And in the end all it really did was show the correct anti-biotic(s) was not applied.
Another example of artificial selection is corn. As in it would not exist in its current form had it not been for humans selection.
Artificial selection can do what natural selection would not or could not do.
And that is why I listed it as a design mechanism.
And when I said "your position" it was not in reference to this thread. It was in reference to your position regarding ID. As in it is obvious your position on that topic is "non-telic processes rule and ID is nonsense". And that position is held up with nothing but lies.
As for Zach's lie- go back and read Zachriel's comments. If you can find an example of specification in his comments- he says he provided it- please reproduce it so we can take a look.
If not that would be the lie.
Comment by ID guy — January 28, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
"Mechanism" was being used in the original context to mean the description of a physical process behind an explanation. So, of course, anything could be a mechanism, but the term relates it to an explanation.
If that's not how you're using the term, then this entire conversation seems to be just a misunderstanding.
Comment by don provan — January 28, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
We start with a single strain of bacteria. Mutations occur whether or not they are beneficial. Being non-correlated means random with respect to.
In any case, you stated that mutation and natural selection is "pap that passes for a mechanism". Yet, now you seem to be saying it is a *mechanism* that "ensures survival".
The Lederberg Experiment demonstrates that mutations will occur regardless of the environment the organism finds itself in, whether beneficial or not. Genetic mutation is a *mechanism* that generates variation in populations.
Comment by Zachriel — January 28, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
They were all exposed, ID guy. You clearly don't understand the experiment. Read it again. They stamped the colonies onto a new plate, then exposed the new plate to antibiotics. Then they exposed the original plate to antibiotics. The same colonies were resistant. That demonstrates that the antibiotic resistance did not evolve due to exposure to the antibiotic. It was there when they were stamped.
In any case, it is sufficient for our purpose that genetic mutations are a *mechanism* that generates variation. That answers your original claim.
Comment by Zachriel — January 28, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
JJS, quoting Del Ratsch:
I find this a rather strange definition. The author seems to assume that patterns (and therefore design by ii) do not exist without the presence of a "mind". Does that mean patterns didn't exist until the first "mind" evolved?
Comment by Raevmo — January 28, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
RANDOM mutations (and NS).
And again because nothing is specified.
What mutations will occur in which generation? Whatever happens, happens. And if we don't expose it to stuff that will kill it we really have no idea what to expect.
And of course things are going to die when exposed to stuff that kills them.
If you call that a "prediction" then you are out of your mind.
I asked Zachriel a specific question. Did he answer it? No.
Of course the question I asked was:
And just how can we specify the design's implementation without first identifying and then studying it?
His first response wasgo for it
I then said Answer the question, to which he responded, not by answering it, but by rambling irrelevant nonsense.
And now he says in respoinse (remember the question):
Genetic mutations was A) never the issue and B) has nothing to do with the QUESTION:
And just how can we specify the design's implementation without first identifying and then studying it?
But what we have learned is when people expose others to toxic gases and some die and some live, just remember, by Zachriel's logic, if the gas came from natural sources, it was natural selection and no one should be charged.
Comment by ID guy — January 28, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
All this brings us way off topic. I stand by my claim and have backed it up.
Design is a mechanism.
Specific design mechanisms include but are not limited to-
Artificial selection
Non-random mutations (meaning changes occur and the only reason we think they are random is our ignorance borne from the materialistic bias placed on science)
Comment by ID guy — January 28, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Raevmo,
Read the book. That is if you really care about what is being debated and (some of) the reasoning behind it.
Poking and stabbing at blog posts is not a way to learn…
Comment by ID guy — January 28, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Joe:
What book?
Comment by Raevmo — January 28, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Dick,
The book that talks about mind correlation and d-esign "Nature, Design and Science" by Del Ratzsch
Comment by ID guy — January 28, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
And another design mechanism would be directed chemistry.
Directed in the same sense that computer programs direct the 1s and 0s on the various busses to effect some result- intermediate of final.
This program would reside in each and every cell.
And this program is why we will never be able to create life until we learn how to download that information- that is interface with the cell(s) and program them.
Comment by ID guy — January 28, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
With evolution we can and do make specific predictions. IOW you are clueless. This has been pointed out to you numerous times with numerous examples. For example, we can use evolution to predict what fossils will be found in a given layer of rock. My example of predicting the next meteor impact with the Earth is a perfect analogy or your example of predicting some specific future mutation. We can predict the frequency of meteor impacts and we can predict the rate of mutations, but we don't know what meteors will land where or when nor do we know what mutations will occur where or when.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 28, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
In other words, you don't understand the experiment. But no matter. Genetic mutation is a *mechanism* that generates variation in populations.
As I said,
Sorry. By now I thought you understood the scientific method. You take your claim of "design" and use it as a tentative assumption, the hypothesis. Then you deduce *specific* empirical implications *entailed* in your hypothesis that will *distinguish* it from competing theories. Then you *test* those empirical implications and modify your hypothesis accordingly. The most obvious implication is the existence and presumed characteristics of the designer. But the specifics will depend on the quality of your hypothesis.
That is in response to your false claim that the Theory of Evolution doesn't propose mechanisms. Genetic mutation is an observed mechanism that generates variation in populations.
Comment by Zachriel — January 28, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
January 28th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
We normally think of design as the idea or plan that is then implemented. Of course, the creation of a design may consist of its own mechanisms, e.g. paper and pencil; or the process of design and its implementation may be inextricably linked, e.g. clay sculpture. But it's a reasonable distinction.
When ID guy says design is a mechanism, he is referring to the implementation. When JJS says, "there is NO mechanism for design. Engineers make use of mechanisms in their designs. The design action of an engineer cannot be reduced to a mechanism," he is making a claim about how the human mind works. We're working with different levels of analysis.
ID guy is proposing mechanisms for implementing the design. Unfortunately, we have no evidence of these mechanisms being used by anyone other than humans.
Comment by Zachriel — January 28, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 2:06 am
Zachriel, since mechanism is a noun, it would be better to refer to design's noun description. I wouldn't call a design a mechanism either. I would say that a "pattern" is more synonomous with a "design" than a mechanism is. Mechanism gets it root from "machine", and primarily connotates the working of physical machinery (I said primarily). I'd also say that you can design a mechanism, and also I would say that you can mechanize a design. But you can't say that a verb is a noun. I'm curious, was this just an honest slip, or are you this devious?
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — January 29, 2009 @ 2:06 am
January 29th, 2009 at 8:17 am
Name the predictions based on non-telic processes or admit that you are clueless
How seeing that evolution does not have a direction? And are these alleged predictions based on non-telic processes?
If they are not then you are being dishonest.
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 8:17 am
January 29th, 2009 at 8:19 am
And just how can we specify the design's implementation without first identifying and then studying it?
But what you say does NOT answer the question!
I will get to the rest of your diatribe a little later…
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 8:19 am
January 29th, 2009 at 8:20 am
AnaxagorasRules,
Design can also be a verb…
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 8:20 am
January 29th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Design is a mechanism.
We? Is that you and the mouse in your pocket?
As an enginner and one who both designs and implements the design, design is a mechanism.
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 8:58 am
January 29th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Except I NEVER made that claim.
The following is what i said:
Well take a look at random muations and natural selection. Nothing is specified, yet THAT pap passes for a mechanism.
IOW just as saying design is not a mechanism because it does not specify an exact process, RM & NS cannot be a mechanism because there are'nt any specifics.
You provided the Lederberg experiment but didn't provide any specifics- as in what generation will the resistance appear.
With random mutations there is no way to tell what locus or loci will mutate. And with NS there is no way to tell what will selected for at any point in time.
However if we add a substance known to kill an organism to a population of those organisms we can predict that some/ most/ all of those organisms will die.
That is what the Lederberg experiment did.
they took a known quantity- a strain of bacteria known to die in the presence of penicillin, cultured it, and then added the penicillin.
Some survived. Survival can come in a variety of ways- the survivors did not get exposed, the exposure wasn't enough to kill it, or the organism has some resistance to the added substance.
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 9:19 am
January 29th, 2009 at 9:23 am
I was working with the definitions provided in order to draw the distinction between the idea and the implementation. In the case of Intelligent Design, we are certainly concerned with the Design as an intention of the Designer, though it may not be written down, but just held in the mind. Just change "conceive and produce a design for" to "that which is conceived and produced for".
Yes, but mechanism also denotes causation, "the fundamental processes involved in or responsible for an action, reaction, or other natural phenomenon".
Comment by Zachriel — January 29, 2009 @ 9:23 am
January 29th, 2009 at 9:32 am
The Lederberg Experiment shows that the tested mutations are uncorrelated with the environment.
Those of us who share a common language and a desire to communicate ideas.
You pointed to mechanisms that implement a design. The design typically refers to the idea or plan. The design of a building is the blueprint. The concrete and cranes are not the design, but the implementation of the idea held by the architect.
As to relevance, you directly addressed me with your comments about whether mutations and selection qualify as mechanisms.
Mutation is a well-studied mechanism that introduces variation into populations.
Comment by Zachriel — January 29, 2009 @ 9:32 am
January 29th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Name the predictions based on non-telic processes
That doesn't mean those mutatiopns were due to non-telic processes.
As I said variation ensures survival which ensures reproduction. So variation is not random with respect to fitness, it ensures it.
That you continually refuse to understand that just further exposes your agenda.
Design is also a verb and can be used as a way or means to implement a plan.
Zachriel said:
So when you say that RM & NS are mechanisms YOU nare trying to avoid specifying what exactly gets mutated and what is going to be selected for.
My point is if yopu are going to deny "design" as being a mechanism because it avoids something, then RM & NS cannot be a mechanism for the SAME reason- it avoids specifying anything.
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 9:40 am
January 29th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Pap is something lacking substance, not real food. Mutation is a very real phenomena, and has very real effects.
The question about whether design is a mechanism is just a matter of semantics. Design usually refers to the idea or plan, not the construction of the artifact (though an improvisational process intermixes the design with the construction). Mutation and selection, on the other hand, are mechanisms that have clear empirical definitions.
And that is exactly how you are using the term. The design is the idea or plan in the mind of the Designer that is then implemented through the posited mechanisms you provided.
Comment by Zachriel — January 29, 2009 @ 9:41 am
January 29th, 2009 at 9:44 am
We? Is that you and the mouse in your pocket?
That is false and besides I have provided the commonly accepted definitions of both words.
And by those commonly accepted definitions design is a mechansim.
To deny that is to deny the comon language you speak so highly of.
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 9:44 am
January 29th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Except I NEVER made that claim. The following is what i said: Well take a look at random muations and natural selection. Nothing is specified, yet THAT pap passes for a mechanism.
Yes I know. However once again you have failed to provide any specifics.
It is a matter of being able to read and understand definitions- commonly accepted definitions.
As in some mutations cause something to occur (a change) and some do not.
We still don't have any specifics.
For example we do not know what mutations afforded organisms their hearing. I doubt we even know what DNA sequence allows us to hear.
Therefore we do not know is mutations can accumulate to give us a hearing system.
And do NOT tell me how I am using a word.
Design can be a noun- meaning the thing that wass designed or is being designed, and design can also be a verb- as in build it by design.
Try reading the following as opposed to ignoring it:
Reader’s Digest Oxford Complete WordFinder defines design as 1a a preliminary plan or sketch for the making or production of a building, machine, garment, etc. b the art of producing these.
The art of producing these! IOW design is a mechanism!
So either you are willfully ignorant or on some agenda to overthrow commonly accepted definitions.
Which is it?
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 9:52 am
January 29th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Empty indeed…
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 10:07 am
January 29th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Like all scientific experiments, it tests a specific claim, that the mutations are in response to the environment. A vague claim of teleology has no scientific significance.
Yes, mutation is a mechanism that generates variation.
When we say that mutations are random with respect to fitness, we mean that the mutations are uncorrelated with the particular need. They occur whether or not they are needed. You are correct that variation is important to the long term success of organisms, and the *rate* of mutation has evolved (primarily to reduce mutation).
Yes, it can be used that way. Design, "to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : devise , contrive." But when used that way, it is too vague to answer the question as to how the designer implemented the design, which is normally what people mean when they ask what was the Design mechanism.
The mutations occur regardless of selection. I can't help it if you can't understand the experiment.
Comment by Zachriel — January 29, 2009 @ 10:32 am
January 29th, 2009 at 10:57 am
The Lederberg Experiment makes very clear predictions. The particular mutations are for antibiotic resistance. And the results show that the mutations occur regardless of whether or not the organism has been exposed to the antibiotics. This shows that the mutations are not in response to such exposure.
The Lederberg Experiment does not predict or test for hearing in bacteria.
The definition clearly distinguishes the design as separate from the production.
Yes, producing a written "plan or sketch" can be considered a mechanism, e.g. paper and pencil.
Quote mine much? As Will Provine will tell you, natural selection can be a somewhat vague appellation, but that it encompasses very specific mechanisms.
In the Lederberg Experiment, selection is defined by antibiotic resistance.
Comment by Zachriel — January 29, 2009 @ 10:57 am
January 29th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Then the experiment is irrelevant to this discussion.
And a vague claim of non-teleogy also has no scientific significance.
As I said variation ensures survival which ensures reproduction.
The debate is about the cause of the mutations- telic or non-telic.
So variation is not random with respect to fitness, it ensures it.
The need is for the population to survive. And variation aids in that need.
And random mutation and natural selection are also too vague to answer any questions.
So when you say that RM & NS are mechanisms YOU nare trying to avoid specifying what exactly gets mutated and what is going to be selected for.
I never said anything to the contrary.
And I can't help it if you cannot understand what I post.
I explained the experiment. Perhaps you should go back and read that explanation. That way you wouldn't post such ignorance.
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 11:02 am
January 29th, 2009 at 11:11 am
And those are?
What are those muations and in what generation can we expect to see them?
But the question is are those mutations directed or not?
I say they are for the reasons provided.
For example we do not know what mutations afforded organisms their hearing. I doubt we even know what DNA sequence allows us to hear.
Funny I never said anything about bacteria nor the Lederberg experiment.
Reader’s Digest Oxford Complete WordFinder defines design as 1a a preliminary plan or sketch for the making or production of a building, machine, garment, etc. b the art of producing these.
The art of producing these! IOW design is a mechanism!
Because you cannot read nor understand what was written:
THE ART OF PRODUCING THESE – meaning design is a mechansim.
Mechansim is a way or means of doing something. We can do something BY DESIGN or by wim and chance.
Specific processes perhaps, but very vague in any specifics pertaining to those processes.
Artificial selection. Otherwise you are saying that if someone knowingly spread anthrax that is natural selection as anthrax is found in nature.
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 11:11 am
January 29th, 2009 at 11:18 am
mechanism:
a process, technique, or system for achieving a result
Again- we can do things by design, that is by a specified process or technique, to achieve a desired result.
When building a house, the builders do things by design. They do not just go off cutting and nailing hoping they will reach the result.
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 11:18 am
January 29th, 2009 at 11:20 am
You directly addressed this point when you said, "Well take a look at random muations and natural selection. Nothing is specified, yet THAT pap passes for a mechanism." I have addressed those comments.
Specifics include the Lederberg Experiment. And the experiment is considered a landmark because it answers a very important question. Do the tested mutations occur as an adaptive response to the environment?
You said "Humans chose what colonies to apply them to" when, in fact, they were all exposed.
When we say that mutations are random with respect to fitness, we mean that the mutations are uncorrelated with the particular need. They occur whether or not they are needed. You are correct that variation is important to the long term success of organisms, and the *rate* of mutation has evolved (primarily to reduce mutation).
Did you have any evidence to support the claim of teleology in biology?
Comment by Zachriel — January 29, 2009 @ 11:20 am
January 29th, 2009 at 11:24 am
And Galileo dropping objects (or rolling them down inclines) is just artificial falling and tells us nothing about nature. I doubt anyone is convinced by that sort of tactic.
Builders follow the design. Again, this is an example where a clear distinction exists between the plan and the implementation.
Comment by Zachriel — January 29, 2009 @ 11:24 am
January 29th, 2009 at 11:46 am
But you haven't provided any specifics.
And random mutation and natural selection are also too vague to answer any questions.
So artificial selection and the inability to provide any specifics as to what mutations will occur in what generation, are in your mind a refutation of my claim? LoL!
But that does not answer anything really. For all we know the mutations do occur due toi environment, just on a micro scale. As in the bacteria can sense what variations exist and then do something to add to the existing variation, within the limits of survival of course.
I explained the experiment.
Selective reading:
That is what the Lederberg experiment did.
they took a known quantity- a strain of bacteria known to die in the presence of penicillin, cultured it, and then added the penicillin.
Some survived. Survival can come in a variety of ways- the survivors did not get exposed, the exposure wasn't enough to kill it, or the organism has some resistance to the added substance.
IOW if someone exposes a population of organisms that will kill them, the prediction is some/ most/ all will die.
So variation is not random with respect to fitness, it ensures it.
And the only "need" is to survive and reproduce. Variability ensures that.
That is the assertion anyway.
The debate is about the cause of the mutations- telic or non-telic.
I was hoping that you could provide some to support the claim on non-teleogy in biology. That is supposedly the current "consensus". So I was wondering whether or not the "consensus" was based on data or belief.
It appears it is based on belief. Thanks.
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 11:46 am
January 29th, 2009 at 11:52 am
I will be quoting you on that.
I never said that artificial selection does not tell us anything about nature.
That you would jump to that absolute and erroneous conclusion just further exposes your agenda of confusion by deception.
When building a house, the builders do things by design. They do not just go off cutting and nailing hoping they will reach the result.
As I said they do things by design:
That DESIGN being:
a process, technique, or system for achieving a result
So what is your problem?
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 11:52 am
January 29th, 2009 at 11:56 am
After taking a step back from the (lively!) debate on this thread, IMO, Zachriel is the closest to putting his finger on the meaning of the thread title.
In fact, I appreciate everyone's contributions to this thread. However, I need to step back and ponder the excellent points brought up here and possibly refine my statement "Design is not a mechanism". One thing that is apparent is the need for more clear definitions of the words used. IMHO, mechanism as referred to by ID guy and don are too loose. It doesn't mean
theirthey're wrong; it means I need to refine my statement to include a more rigorously definition of mechanism and design.As for the debate on this thread, keep on going without me. I'll be watching every now and then for any interesting comments (and those that need to be flushed down the Memory Hole).
Again, thanks to everyone. This is one of the reasons I joined TT.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — January 29, 2009 @ 11:56 am
January 29th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Yes I do. The directed chemistry in living organisms that is not reducible to matter and energy.
Now if you can show that non-telic processescan account for this observed directed chemistry, ie they are reducible to matter and energy, I will stop advocating ID and go back to engineering.
And I will stop by each and every non-telic supporting blog I can find and extend my congrats and apologies.
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 11:58 am
January 29th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
I just want to say that when I say "design" is a mechanism I understand it is a loose meaning.
IOW I understand that does not specify the exact "how".
But I ask you, given just the object, structure, event to study, just how does one expect to come to the EXACT process used?
House all have building standards. Yet I can watch two houses that will look the same, being put up in different ways.
And unless you watched you wouldn't know exactly how either was built, even given the plans.
My point is that if you are going to disqualify "design" as a mechanism because it is too vague, then the same rules applied to evolution disqualify some/ most/ all of those mechanisms.
I have also been told that natural selection is a result of some processes.
I believe Allen MacNeill posted that on Telic Thoughts.
Can a result be a mechanism?
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
When I say I do something by design, what I mean is I do it by a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.
Therefore if I can do something by design, then, by definition, design is a mechanism.
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
ID guy wrote:
This is the bait-and-switch tactics of creationists (IDers included).
Mainstream biology does not say anything about telic agents directing the evolutionary process. Being a branch of science, it simply does not operate in these terms because until such agents are observed, it can't do any experiments with them. It's the creationists who claim the reverse: unguided evolution is impossible. This is a very strong claim and they have no proof of that, try as they might. So they turn around and say it's the burden of evolutionary biologists to prove that unguided evolution is possible. Which is what biologists have been doing all along even without the cheering on the sidelines.
Comment by olegt — January 29, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Yes I do. The directed chemistry in living organisms that is not reducible to matter and energy.
Now if you can show that non-telic processescan account for this observed directed chemistry, ie they are reducible to matter and energy, I will stop advocating ID and go back to engineering.
Why, because it lays bare the non-telic position?
Neither does ID nor Creation.
Do you see a telic agent directing your computer's programs? If you do please go see someone quick.
But ID doesn't say anything about the agent(s). ID is about the DESIGN.
Talk about bait and switch.
What creationists? And what is the SPECIFIC claim?
I know YECs that accept unguided processes can do something. Even Behe makes the claim in "Edge of Evolution".
It's just that when pressed unguided processes never appear to do very much and when it comes to origins basically nothing at all.
But that is how science operates- by providing positive evidence/ data to support the claims being made.
So if one wants to claim that unguided processes can lead to the evolution of a flagellum, for example, then it is up to them to find supporting evidence/ data/ observations.
Except that they haven't done very much.
Science still shows that only life begets life and that the deeper we look into the details of living organisms the more difficult it becomes to explain in terms of non-telic processes.
If not you would have provided some data.
That is all it would take. But bald declarations are not to be confused with data.
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
And olegt,
if the only data for ID or Creation that you will accept is to meet and study the designer (or God in the case of Creation), then it is you who isn't interested in science.
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
I would revise the remark that this is how the human mind works to this is how analytical minds work. There is no need to artificially exclude induction from analytical dynamics.
Biological implementation cannot be separted from the information storage and retrieval system which makes implementation possible. When implementation is contemplated so is a theoretical implementation of a genetic code. If implementation does not implicitly entail this then conceptualizations of biological realities are a dead end. One thing stands out at this juncture. It is not just IDists who lack a physical candidate for implementation at a core level. It is biology itself. While critics may object to ID inferences as gapping, ID is actually an appropriate term for the level of analysis required to construct solutions to unknowns.
Stepping back though does the design alluded to by JJS correspond to realities of natural history? Would the analytics of a mind be relevant? It's been my view that in the absence of a force whose action generates a specified result (e.g. gravity) causes for a code resulting entail causes intelligible only from a perspective that is intrinsically cognitive; chemical pathways or not. In the end it may not be possible to separate the physical from the epistemological when origins are discussed. But from an epistemologiccal perspective there are rabbits abounding in the field.
Comment by Bradford — January 29, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
ID guy, I happen to know that my computer, its operating system and programs have been designed by "some kind of fruit company" in Cupertino, CA. And I have a hunch who designed the OS of your computer. Some guys in Redmond, WA. Did I get it right? Tell me you don't know.
Design implies a designer. Here is how Discovery Institute defines ID:
If an intelligent cause is not an agent, what is it?
Comment by olegt — January 29, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Olegt:
Please. Spare us the heroics. There is always some "cheering" for research that is well done- and paychecks too.
Comment by Bradford — January 29, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
And ID guy, why would an ID book written on a grant from Discovery and endorsed by Dembski and Behe be titled Agents under fire: Materialism and the rationality of science if intelligent design did not involve agents?
Comment by olegt — January 29, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Bradford, you're right, I shouldn't have said cheering from the sidelines. The right term is Monday-morning quarterbacking.
Comment by olegt — January 29, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
That has nothing to do with what I asked:
Do you see a telic agent directing your computer's programs?
That is because the directing in biological organisms can come in pretty much the same form as the directing done in your computer- meaning an agency is not required to be present.
But ID doesn't say anything about the agent(s). ID is about the DESIGN.
Yes, but that does not mean that ID has to say something about it/ him/ her/ them.
"Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature
that are best explained as the result of intelligence."– William A. Dembski
STUDY of PATTERNS best explained… and yes that intelligence is most likely some agency/ agencies.
All we have is the traces left behind. And that is how scientific investigations start- with an observance and trying to explain it.
And as I said:
if the only data for ID or Creation that you will accept is to meet and study the designer (or God in the case of Creation), then it is you who isn't interested in science.
So yes or no- are you interested in science?
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
ID does involve agency. It's just that ID was not designed to say anything about them/ it/ he/ she.
That is because we don't have to know anything about the agency involved to observe, and study the thing in question.
1- make an observation
2- determine design (or not)
3- study it with the hope of understanding it
4- the who, how blah, blah all come AFTER.
But if we did know the who and how then we wouldn't be sitting around trying to determine if…
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
MikeGene has addressed the designer-centric approach (I also find it useless):
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
You forgot a few steps between make an observation and blah, blah.
Make an observation. Propose a hypothesis. Make entailed and distinguishing predictions. Test your predictions. Modify the hypothesis accordingly. Publish so that others can verify your results.
Comment by Zachriel — January 29, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
1- make an observation
2- determine design (or not)
3- study it with the hope of understanding it
4- the who, how blah, blah all come AFTER.
It appears that you did.
Great. Please show that non-telic processes went through that process.
What hypothesis is used to test that living organisms exist due to non-telic processes?
What hypothesis was used to determine that the directed chemistry observed in living organisms arose via non-telic processes?
What predictions are borne from non-telic processes?
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
ID guy,
Speaking of science, what would be an empirical check that an object has been designed? Not a mathematical proof (a la Dembski) but an empirical check?
Comment by olegt — January 29, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
In order to clarify what you mean, perhaps you can suggest an experiment to show that gravity is non-telic.
Comment by Zachriel — January 29, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
1- See if it is reducible to matter & energy
2- See if it has any signs of work, or as Del Ratzsch put it counterflow
What would be an empirical check that an object is the result of non-telic processes?
Do proof-reading, error-correction, editing and alternative gene splicing strike you as being due to non-telic processes?
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Please show that non-telic processes went through that process.
That is YOUR problem, not mine.
If YOU cannot figure out a way to test your claims I would say your claims are nonsense, not based on science and have no place in a science classroom.
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
In other words, you refuse to clarify what you mean. The distinction you are trying to draw appears too vaguely defined to form a valid scientific hypothesis. There is no scientific evidence to support a claim of Intelligent Design.
Comment by Zachriel — January 29, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
ID guy,
Neither evolutionary biology, nor physics make claims about "telic" or "non-telic" nature of their subjects. Creationists do. If they want to research the subject as philosophy, they're welcome to do so. But questions of that sort are not in the realm of science because there is no way to engage a hypothetical, but unreachable designer in experiments. If you don't like it, tough luck.
Comment by olegt — January 29, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
(S)he can correct me if I've misunderstood, but I believe Zachriel is saying just that. As an example as to why I think (s)he thinks that:
Therefore, according to Zachriel, evolution is non-telic. But, as you just pointed out, 'evolutionary biology doesn't make claims about "telic" or "non-telic" nature of their subjects.' That's how I always understood it, too. I figured Zachriel was doing his (oft-practiced) intelligent trolling schtick, and I wasn't interested in playing. (there's an old thread around here where (s)he even managed to un-design the Mona Lisa with similar semantic games.) Perhaps you two can hash it out?
Comment by Rob R. — January 29, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Not so good at scare-quotes? Why do you suppose I would use them in that manner?
Comment by Zachriel — January 29, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
1- Ernst Mayr in "What evolution is" makes such a claim- as in telic processes have no place in biology.
2- One of the MAIN questions science asks is how did it come to be this way. Either via agency or not are pretty much the options.
3- That you continue to insist on a designer-centric approach proves you are not interested in science. Thank you for that admission.
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Zachriel,
If YOU cannot figure out a way to test YOUR position then that is YOUR problem.
It also proves that your position is not based on science, rather it is based on belief.
That you would try to turn that loss into something else demonstrates your desperation.
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Rob R.,
You can speculate whether a river has a purpose when it flows down, but you cannot determine that empirically.
ID guy,
Mayr is exactly right: the concept of purpose has no place in science. Aristotle thought that all objects have their appointed places, to which they tend. Needless to say, physics has long abandoned that viewpoint replacing it with Newton's theory of gravity. You want to go back to Aristotle, be my guest.
Comment by olegt — January 29, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
I don't know. My original question was unclear? You were trying to score rhetorical points and left yourself a backdoor exit? Why indeed, when the very context of the question I asked and you chose to answer was purpose(telic) -versus- non-purpose(non-telic) as it relates to evolution. You could have simply answered that 'science can make no such determination. It's a philosophical question' or any other version of an honest answer. The question was asked honestly and in good faith.
So, I'll apologize for misrepresenting you're view/comment. Perhaps you can elaborate and set me straight. Minus the scare quotes and obfuscation of course. How do you (or do you) know that evolution is a non-telic process? (or mechanism if that keeps us on-topic.)
PS (To the TT powers that be),
The search function here is abysmal. I have to use Google's site-specific search to ever find anything.
Comment by Rob R. — January 29, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
That is just wrong. That is if science is really about determining the truth behind what it is investigating.
Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Linneaus, Pasteur, et al. all saw science as a way of understanding God's work. ID doesn't even go that far.
And Planck had some interesting words on the subject also.
IOW it is you who has gone back to before Aristotle. And still nothing to show for it.
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 6:57 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Joe:
Of course ID goes that far. Just check out the UD website; the regulars who toe the party line (or they are banned) cannot help but bringing up Jebus. The only people who deny that ID is not about God's work are the dishonest politicos who want to subvert public education.
Comment by Raevmo — January 29, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
On to a design hypothesis-
I basically laid it out in my responses to olegt. That is what has him all riled up and proclaiming- as opposed to providing the data for- the telic position has no place in science.
I started with:
Step 2 involves:
The hypothesis would be if we observe signs of work or counterflow we infer it was from some agency, ie it was designed.
The test would be to see if such signs are in fact reducible to matter and energy.
That is how ID is tested, if X can be accounted for by non-telic processes a designer need not apply.
Saying "we don't know" is OK but saying "we don't know but we know it wasn't via any agency" is plain wrong.
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Dick,
Of course it doesn't. ID doesn't say anything about the designer.
What IDists do is irrelevant to ID.
I am not religious and I know many people who accept ID who are the same.
The only reason that you take your position is due to some warped and dishonest agenda.
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Joe:
OK, but what are your definitions of "work" and "counterflow" and how do we measure them?
Comment by Raevmo — January 29, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
No, it's because of ambiguity in the use of the term 'purpose'. We might define 'purpose' in terms of an agent effecting change. Humans are known to be capable of intention, and science can certainly study this phenomena (assuming valid, operational definitions).
A river could be an agent who intends to flow to the sea. Even if we construct a robust atelic explanation, perhaps the river is just a small part of some grand plan and the purpose is found elsewhere.
Some people believe rivers are spiritually alive and that rivers act according to their own purposes, akin to a religious belief. But if someone says that they have scientific evidence to support this claim of 'purpose' (as most of the ID Community does), then that immediately requires that the 'agent effecting change' have testable empirical implications.
Unlike scientific claims, vague metaphysical beliefs are not subject to scientific verification—nor are they necessarily meant to be. Conflating these concepts is a fallacy of equivocation.
If an evolutionary change is selectable, then our observations indicate that the change will tend to occur without regard to the long range ramifications. Just like a river doesn't have an empirically demonstrable 'purpose' for flowing to the sea.
The Mona Lisa was designed and painted by Leonardo Da Vinci. (Indeed, if a statistically significant bitmap of the Mona Lisa were found in a genome, it could be evidence of purposeful insertion.)
Comment by Zachriel — January 29, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
ID guy wrote:
That's a grand declaration, but let's look at the scientific legacy of these people that survived the empirical testing. Go ahead and point out where the concept of God (or design) is used in Galileo's law of inertia, Kepler's laws of planetary motion or Newton's laws of motion and theory of gravity.
Comment by olegt — January 29, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Zachriel:
Unless of course it afforded some utility to the relevant organism. In that case it would be presumed to have arisen through a purposeless process.
Comment by Bradford — January 29, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Olegt:
It's relevant to their motives and a refutation of the notion that God is a science stopper.
Comment by Bradford — January 29, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Bradford,
I don't think ID guy is talking about inspiration, he means to change the methodology of science.
Comment by olegt — January 29, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
I'm resisting the urge to cry obfuscation here but, I appreciate the elaboration so I'll let this limp-wristed slap be it (just so you know, that I know, that you know what you're doing with an answer like that). However, the idea being clarification (for my own sake), let me try this again…
Is then the claim, evolution precedes by non-telic processes also a vague metaphysical belief? If not, How do you (or do you) know that evolution is a non-telic process? I've often seen you write something along the lines of, 'there's no need (or evidence?) for teleology in nature/evolution.' IOW, if I have you pegged, you believe there is such evidence and that evidence is anti-teleology. Is that correct? Do you see why I'm confused with regards to you position? If the confusion is of my own making than I apologize for assuming the worst and not asking for a clarification last time 'round. Tried simply asking you where you lived once ('cause you seemed to be interested and informed wrt U.S. politics) and got your 'angel schtick' for an answer instead… so I try not to ask you much about anything. Been dying to hear you elaborate on your 'I'm not an atheist' statement awhile back but figured the answer would be more tap-dancing. Probably agnostic, which would have been a bummer, so I just like to assume you're an undercover evangelical Christian. Makes what you write (about how there's no evidence for purpose in Creation) more interesting.
(of course, that says more about me than you.)
Unless you're the greatest poseur to ever travel the inter-tubes, I've always assumed you're a scientist (otherwise, you have some serious issues). I've read most of your stuff here, your blog, ISCID, UD, etc (you've been at this for years!) and have no doubt that you're more informed and educated about the subject than I am. To be sure. Never-the-less, you do come across as being intellectually dishonest and facetious (as in the above quote) when it comes to the hard questions especially when you know you're answering a layman; you're killing me.
So, short-n-sweet: teleology in nature – yes; no; don't know; can't know?
Comment by Rob R. — January 29, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
No I don't.
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Dick,
I provided links to both. I then linked to my comment in which I provided a link to both.
So what is your problem?
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Proof-reading, error correction and editing capabilities are observed in living organisms.
Each one is evidence for intelligent design.
And if we ever observe non-telic processes putting together such mechanisms then the design inference would be refuted.
IOW ID is testable and can be refuted.
The design exists in the physical world and can be studied. It is and can be subjected to empirical testing.
The laws themselves are evidence for a designer!
What do you have to explain them besides "They just are the way they are" ala Stephen Hawking?
Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Joe:
Yes, I failed to notice your earlier links. Thank you. According to your ISCID link:
Can you explain what this means? It sounds like hogwash to me. How does one determine whether nature operates freely, whatever that means?
Comment by Raevmo — January 29, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
ID guy wrote:
It depends on which laws you are talking about. Take Kepler's laws of planetary motion. They were discovered empirically and for some time had no explanation. But then Hooke hypothesized and Newton proved that they follow from Newtonian mechanics and Newton's law of gravity. Are Kepler's laws evidence of a designer? Maybe, but they clearly have a naturalistic explanation, which makes design superfluous in this case.
Newton's law of gravitation used to be a fundamental law of nature, but it has been superseded by Einstein's general relativity. Is Einstein's theory evidence of design? Only on a metaphysical level.
Comment by olegt — January 29, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
As I said, it depends on the context. If we are talking within the scientific paradigm (which concerning evolution is nearly always the case), we have a robust scientific theory comprised entirely of non-telic components, so the statement would be a correct restatement of the current scientific understanding. It's no different than saying that a fair lottery is random with respect to the character of the winners. Perhaps Fortune handpicks the winners, but the results are empirically indistinguishable from chance. However, this doesn't speak to some unutterable notion of ultimate purpose.
I have no problem with religious beliefs, but the ID Movement depends on false scientific claims, conspiracy theories, and accusation of deception towards scientists.
What I've said is that there is no scientific evidence of design in evolution. The Designer is an extraneous theoretical entity of no scientific utility.
The Theory of Evolution is atelic in the same sense as the science of the flooding of the Nile. Maybe it's the tears of Isis, but it looks just like the rains of Africa.
Comment by Zachriel — January 29, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
January 29th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
The problem with ID is that it is not science. It pretends to be, but it isn't constrained by the evidence. And I wasn't being facetious.
An IDer on news:talk.origins claimed that the designer might have put a message into the primordial genome, such as a standard bitmap of the Mona Lisa. I responded that any such bitmap would have already been noticed. He disagreed, of course, because from his point of view, if they weren't looking, they wouldn't see it. Of course, he wouldn't bother to look himself.
In fact, bioinformatics is a highly advanced science that uses supercomputers and state-of-the-art data analysis. A computational biologist tried to explain it to him—to no avail.
Using the E. coli genome, I demonstrated that even a trivial pattern detection algorithm would find most any standard bitmap of most any image. I then showed that a standard encoding of a list of primes would also be anomalous. Finally, I showed there were no statistically significant sequence of the leading digits of Pi in the genome tested.
Of course, none of this changed his mind.
Comment by Zachriel — January 29, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
January 30th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
“When JJS says, "there is NO mechanism for design. Engineers make use of mechanisms in their designs. The design action of an engineer cannot be reduced to a mechanism," he is making a claim about how the human mind works. We're working with different levels of analysis.”
Insofar as my thoughts are translated into actions and my actions are mechanical, then my actions are the mechanical reproductions of my thoughts.
Comment by Rock — January 30, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
February 13th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
The object of designers (with practical purposes in mind) is not to prove that all human thought may be reduced to materials and mechanisms.
That’s exactly what he doesn’t want to do! Even if he could do that, what would be the purpose?
Other than the pointless reproduction of a system that is already oversupplied (thinking humans), the only purpose would be to prove some philosophical point. It is no more the object of designers than it is natural scientists to prove a philosophical point. Proving that point would be of no practical benefit for the designer, because its not his object to reproduce human thought. The designers object is to reduce to mechanisms human thought processes proven effective in solving certain classes of problems.
One can see the benefit here, besides taking advantage of the inherent effectiveness and efficiency of mechanics. Mechanical problems represent a very general class of problems we must solve. Mechanical problems, admitting mechanical solutions, and those by mechanical means or methods. Which we seek to reproduce. By our own thought processes.
Even if all my thoughts are materially grounded and operate mechanically, the content of my thoughts are not only about matter and mechanics. I can easily imagine “things” with immaterial properties and mechanical impossibilities.
That is the problem exactly! Limited knowledge and unlimited imagination! LOL
If I fully understood the operation of mechanical laws in any situation I may find myself, and if my thoughts and actions under those conditions are mechanically determined, wholly consonant with the operations of those laws, then I have no problem!
The very existence of such a problem (of my continued existence) suggests a deficit in (the commonly understood) solution of mechanical problems.
No such problem would exist if my thoughts and actions are purely mechanically determined.
Comment by Rock — February 13, 2009 @ 5:52 pm