Detection All Around
by Steve PetermannIntelligent design proponents claim that intelligence can be detected in things like the fine tuning of the cosmos and biotic reality. Most ID critics resoundly reject both that an intelligent cause is the best explanation for the emergence of the cosmos and biotic reality and also that it can be empirically detected. Dembski's explanatory filter has met with continual rejection as also his informational approach to detecting ID. If critics are so adamant in rejecting ID attempts at detection, one would think then that these same critics would refrain from making detection statements themselves. Ironically they don't.
One the one hand they reject ID attempts and then on the other they proceed right ahead with the own detection assertions. Here's couple of examples of detection statements made recently(my emphasis):
In particular, while there is no empirical evidence that would lead one to believe that mutations are produced by an "intelligent designer," it is also not true that mutations alone must supply the variation necessary for evolution by natural selection
In particular, while it is true that any given mutation is random (as far as we can tell), a series of mutations which are then preserved as the result of natural selection aren't really random at all, at least not in the way that is often depicted by critics of evolutionary theory.
Within the realm of scientific inquiry, as far as we can tell, it is unguided and purposeless, just as, as far as we can tell, Katrina did not intend to flood New Orleans or destroy Gulf Coast casinos in Mississippi.
Of course there are many examples of detection assertions coming from prominent ID critics such as Dawkins, Dennett, and others. Here's a famous one from Stephen Weinberg:
The more the universe seems comprehensible the more it seems pointless
A deeper irony is that these same critics who reject ID's empirical and mathematical attempts to support the claim of design, are apparently unwilling to provide any formal support for their own detection assertions. This is understandable because once a critic opens the door to formal detections methods for non-design this would validate ID attempts as well. Perhaps these critics should avoid making detection assertions altogether or they will be called to apply their criticisms of ID to themselves.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Since when does using the disclaimer "as far as we can tell" equal an assertion of design detection???
Both Allen and Aagcobb are asserting the negative, that design cannot be detected, which makes this entire post a misrepresentation of them.
Comment by Daniel — July 6, 2006 @ 3:47 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Hi Daniel,
Then why make the statement at all? The "can tell" says they are detecting something, comparing the data to something that is different from non-random or guided.
No, they are both making a positive statement. They aren't saying design can't be detected. What they are saying is that "as far as they can", they can tell that mutations are random or unguided. This means there is some extent to which they can tell something. And what that something is, is that mutations are random or unguided. How they do that I don't know. They would have to explain how they can tell and what method they are using.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 6, 2006 @ 4:48 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
You're kidding, right?
Sure they are.
Just look at the quotes you yourself provided:
and
See the "-n't", "un-" and "-less" additions to the words? Those are negations.
Comment by Daniel — July 6, 2006 @ 5:15 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
This assertion looks positive to me, even though its propositions are negative. "Is" is a positive, not a negative. "We don't know" would be a negative assertion. Thus the assertion of what *is* (a positive conclusion) would have to be accompanied by evidence that demonstrates mutations *are* unguided and purposeless. Remember that appeal to ignorance for support of a positive assertion is fallacious.
Comment by Joy — July 6, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Joy,
Wow. Go back and look at it this way, if you have to:
Allen and Aagcobb are saying(emphasis mine):
How can any of that be read to mean that mutations are guided, purposeful, or directed in any way whatsoever? Clearly, they're arguing the very opposite.
Thus, this comment:
is completely backwards - and in fact a non sequitur - neither Allen nor Aagcobb are talking about design at all - they're talking about the sources of mutations and variation.
But regarding "unguided" and "purposeless" - those are the absense of guidance and purpose, not the presense thereof - and the burden of proof clearly lies on the side of proving the guidance, purpose or direction.
… I can't believe I'm showing you two this much patience…
Comment by Daniel — July 6, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Daniel,
So let me get this straight. You are saying that when someone makes a negative statement with "-n't", "un-" and "-less" they are not detecting some alternative state of affairs different from the positive state of affairs? So if you said something is unfair how would you detect it?
The individuals I cited seem to think they can tell when something is random or purposeless, don't they (at least as far as they can tell)? When they make that accessment my guess is they are comparing the data they see with some sense of non-randomness and guidedness. That's legitimate, in my view, but its also the same sort of thing that IDer's do. The difference is that ID proponents are trying to formalize that detection methodology. ID critics aren't. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to burden themselves with formalizing their detection scheme while at the same time rejecting ID attempts.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 6, 2006 @ 6:05 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
Sorry about the double-post… I was trying to go back and edit it using the 30min option, but having trouble with it.
Steve,
"Unfair" is defined as the inverse of fair, correct. Just as unguided is the inverse of guided. The point here is that you were originally, for some reason, using their negations of guided or directed mutation as argumentation for Design, when they were clearly arguing against it.
Yes, however, we can tell that because of lack of evidence for guidance or direction, sources of variation appear unguided, undirected, and not designed. No contrary evidence has ever been identified, and no design has been detected, making your statement a non sequitur:
IOW - you can logically assert some observations, while simulteously asserting the absense of other phenomena.
There is no irony there, no logical inconsistency. Why do you display their quotes and interpret them falsely?
Comment by Daniel — July 6, 2006 @ 6:15 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Daniel,
No I had no arguments for design. My argument is that ID critics use detection as well. They just don't want to be scientific about it.
You made my point for me. So what is it that you detect in their appearance that suggests that they are unguided?
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 6, 2006 @ 6:21 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
ROTFL!!!!!! Ok, now I get it, but you're still badly misrepresenting ID critics.
For one, ID proponents haven't successfully "detected" any design - CSI is full of false positives, the EF is a circular argument, IC structures keep becoming reducible, etc.
For another, you would say that the dozens of evolutionary biology papers every week aren't being scientific about their "detected" patterns????
That there's no detectable guidance, of course. Wow, This is hilarious!
Comment by Daniel — July 6, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
None of this is true. I have no idea where you are getting this from. Look these issues up for yourself and stop reading pandas thumb maybe.
Comment by Guts — July 6, 2006 @ 7:13 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Daniel, if you can control your boldness for a moment… Can you affirm that there's no detectable guidance (design) in nature while simultaneously affirming that there's no formal way to detect guidance (design) in nature?
Comment by Marty — July 6, 2006 @ 7:20 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
This seems to me to be a ludicrous strawman.
I don't think that any scientist would suggest that it is never possible to identify design. For example, human design can often be identified by comparing an object to other objects known to be designed by humans, and contrasting it to objects that are known not to have been created by humans. Thus, an archaeologist can reasonably assert that a piece of pottery is almost certainly the product of human design, because humans are known to exist and to produce similar artifacts, and such artifacts are never detected where humans are known not to have been present. That is a far different thing from asserting that there is some general method of identifying design by an unknown designer. So the qualifier "as far as we can tell" is appropriate, because we know how to identify design in some cases (e.g. when the designer has been identified, its capabilities are well understood, and we can compare things produced by that designer to things not produced by that designer) but not necessarily in all cases.
Comment by trrll — July 6, 2006 @ 7:20 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I rarely read the PT. Those conclusions I got on my own, from reading a few books, and endless hours of banging my head against the wall trying to talk about what CSI, the EF, IC, etc. could prove with the Cornell IDEA club, and coming up empty-handed.
Asserting that they are valid arguments doesn't make it so.
Comment by Daniel — July 6, 2006 @ 7:23 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Marty -
sorry about that… it was an unclosed bold tag that I couldn't go back and edit (where's the 30min edit function, it wasn't working) - but if one of the admins could just go back and delete this first one of a double-post, it'd be fixed.
But I'm not claiming that there's no formal way to detect guidance in nature, in principle, only that it hasn't been detected. this about a 1990-ish study done by John Cairns that he royally screwed up, was about the closest that science has come to a demonstration of such guidance. If cells had any such Lamarckian capability to direct their own mutagenesis, surely it should have been detectable in the bacterial experiments that Cairns undertook.
Comment by Daniel — July 6, 2006 @ 7:34 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Has anyone besides me noticed the irreducibly complex arguments put forth by the anti-ID'ists? On the one hand, they cannot be reduced to logic, while on the other hand, if you pull out any one part of their argument the whole thing ceases to function. Carry on.
Comment by Mung — July 6, 2006 @ 8:51 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
Models of design detection that require an identifiable designer-candidate or even a specific design mechanism are easily refuted by thought experiments. For instance, if suddenly the stars of the milky way realigned to form a giant dot matrix reproduction of The Da Vinci Code, we would immediately infer design without the foggiest idea of who the designer was or how they could possibly acheive such a massive feat of engineering. Obviously the 'we need a designer candidate/scenario to infer design' principle doesn't hold.
Such models of design detection are ad-hoc and employed specifically to avoid design inferences in biology and cosmology.
Comment by BenK — July 6, 2006 @ 8:59 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
You're kidding, right?
You are asserting the equivalence of the following two propositions:
1. As far as we can tell it is unguided and purposeless.
2. We cannot tell whether it is unguided and purposeless.
Why is it that you all cannot admit the simple truth, which is that in your view science is fundamentally incapable of discerning intent or purpose in nature, whether any given process is guided or unguided, or, to paraphrase Allen, there is no empirical evidence that could even conceivably lead one to believe that mutations are produced by an "intelligent designer."
You wish to be able to decry claims that purpose and design can be detected while at the time making assertions that there is no purpose nor design. It just ain't flying any more. The gig is up.
LOL!
Ok, let's cut to the chase. On what rational basis were they arguing against design? They know it when they see it, and here, as far as they can tell, they don't see it?
And yet, somehow some way, ID critics have managed to detect NOT design! Pray tell, how did they do it? What was their methodology?
Comment by Mung — July 6, 2006 @ 9:00 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Wow. Go back and read the assertions, take note of the verb and predicate modifier: To know. Not to know. You don't have any authority to change parts of speech to your personal convenience, Daniel. I honestly don't care much what Allen and Aagcobb assert to be true. I think they're wrong too. My post was to your assertion that a positive is a negative, not theirs.
I didn't say they [when did I address 'them'?] assert that mutations are guided, purposeful or directed. I said YOU asserted mutations are not guided, purposeful or directed. We aren't dealing with double negatives here, we're dealing with a positive assertion about what *is*. It's not scientific if you can't demonstrate evidentially that the assertion holds valid. Your assertion does not hold valid, because the truth is that you don't know. Neither do Allen or Aagcobb. Neat how that works, isn't it? §;o)
I'd appreciate it if you'd just rephrase or clarify your remarks instead of appealing to "authorities" I don't (and never did) consider to be authoritarian. If you've nothing but ridiculous fallacies to offer, I could give you some links to forums where they might fly for awhile. Just let me know…
Comment by Joy — July 6, 2006 @ 9:54 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Yes, there's been some misunderstanding and some unnecessary boldness in here.
So the point of the OP is that descriptions of nature such as…
- "there's no detectable guidance here," and
- "we haven't detected any guidance,"
…imply that we have some kind of guidance-detector for nature that works, and that it reads 'negative.'
If one denies that such a working detector is available, then those kinds of statements look overstated at best.
That said, it does seem valid to say, "there may be some indicator for guidance in nature, but I sure haven't seen it." Is that closer to what you're saying Daniel?
Comment by Marty — July 6, 2006 @ 10:24 pm
July 6th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
When a scientist uses the phrase "as far as we can tell", s/he is usually asserting that the phenomenon in question is statistically indistinguishable from the phenomenon it is being compared with. In the specific case of the variation that provides the raw material for natural selection, over a hundred years worth of genetic research all points to the conclusion that the underlying sources of variation (i.e. mutation, recombination, horizontal gene transfer, etc.) are non-directional, a conclusion that can (and has) been repeatedly tested statistically.
By contrast, the ID "explanatory filter" that supposedly "detects" design does nothing of the kind. Rather it simply indicates that we currently do not have enough information to assign probabilities to some phenomena, thereby making any discrimination between "moderately probable" and "highly improbable" impossible. To an IDer, the default assignment is to the category "highly improbable" => designed, whereas to a scientist the default assignment is to the category "unknown probability" => cause currently unknown (and ripe for investigation). Which is why scientists keep looking for natural causes, whereas IDers assert that to keep looking is futile.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — July 6, 2006 @ 11:16 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 12:02 am
That's an admission of ignorance about the understrate, Allen. As well as an admission of the limitations of our tools. It's fine in science to be limited by ignorance and a lack of tools that allow us to clarify the situation - science is always provisional. But in this particular case, the understrate is indeterminate by nature. If the theory explaining that understrate accepts indeterminacy (as it does at this point in time), no 'scientific' assertions to the actual "randomness" of the effect is scientifically valid. It's an interpretation by appeal to ignorance. It has nothing to do with what's real.
So you just can't legitimately make positive assertions about the phenomenon in question, either way. A theoretical framework can make a priori assumptions, but it can't assert that its a priori assumptions represent reality. In fact, they represent beliefs, and theories are designed to be tweaked or overthrown. Science is a progressive, intelligently designed pastime. Its purpose is FAPP - For All Practical Purposes. We can't predict a danged thing with actual randomness, and putting a brick wall of "orthodoxy" around proximate cause doesn't help. All mutations have proximate causes, not all of them are certifiably random wrt the end result.
…so you can't argue legitimately against an upstart idea like ID by appeal to the theoretical framework it challenges. That's like asserting that the universe is eternal because Steady State says it is, so Big Bang has to be wrong. You wouldn't be arguing the science or the evidence, you'd just be arguing an already non-explanatory "is so" against a challenging "is not." All based purely on belief and resulting loyalties.
When theories reach a point where they fail to explain incoming evidence, they get relegated to a questionable status. People start looking for something more explanatory. That is how science was designed to work, and this is where Neodarwinism is right now. Whether or not the next big thing is ID is irrelevant to the point. NDE is proving inadequate to explain incoming evidence. That's enough to invite challenge, and appeal to "orthodoxy" won't stop it. I personally don't much care what comes next, so long as it is usefully predictive. Something NDE has never been because it only post-dicts. It's all about fitting facts to theory rather than theory to facts. I personally find that situation terminally tedious and offensively non-scientific, though it does generate some entertaining just-so stories.
Speculations about unknowns don't rise to the level of theory. And they should never be described by in-house practitioners as "orthodoxy." Re-examinination of gratuitous assumptions often leads to newer, better theories.
Comment by Joy — July 7, 2006 @ 12:02 am
July 7th, 2006 at 12:25 am
Hi Allen,
And what undirected phenomenon are you referring to as being compared with? Can it be demonstrated that it is undirected?
Ok, sounds like you unlike others do not think that detection research (which would include ID) is vacuous. In fact what you are saying is that ID critics are in the business of detection as well. They just come to different conclusions from those of ID. Sounds like the game is afoot in the scientific arena.
So apparently according to you there are those who have studied biological systems for over a hundred years and who have come to "the conclusion that the underlying sources of variation (i.e. mutation, recombination, horizontal gene transfer, etc.) are non-directional, a conclusion that can (and has) been repeatedly tested statistically" have some formal method for detecting that which is non-directional. Can you point to any such research? If that exists, I think it would be very important for the ID critics position. It's just not enough to say its so. At any rate your apparent admission that detection research is going on, on both sides could be considered progressive. It would seem to validate ID research in this area.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 7, 2006 @ 12:25 am
July 7th, 2006 at 1:05 am
I didn't say that we always need a designer candidate to detect design–I said that it is because we have a great deal of additional knowledge about humans and the nature of human artifacts that we are able to infer design by humans. I can certainly envision extreme situations scenarios in which additional evidence might become available to suggest nonhuman design. If we were to discover a crashed space ship four billion years old with complete design blueprints for the construction of life, we might reasonably guess that aliens were responsible for designing life. But barring such wishful-thinking fantasy scenarios, we still have no reliable general method of identifying design other than by human beings.
Comment by trrll — July 7, 2006 @ 1:05 am
July 7th, 2006 at 2:34 am
If we can even conceive of scenarios where we ought to infer design without evidence of a human designer, then we must drop the principle 'you ought not infer design without evidence of a human designer.'
Comment by BenK — July 7, 2006 @ 2:34 am
July 7th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Marty:
Can you affirm that there's no detectable guidance (design) in nature while simultaneously affirming that there's no formal way to detect guidance (design) in nature?
Try rearranging those statements, thus:
There is no formal way to detect guidance in nature
There is no detectable guidance in nature.
It seems to me that the second follows logically from the first, and that there is no problem with affirming both simultaneously. If there is no way to detect guidance, then there is no detectable guidance. It's formally possible that there is guidance in nature, but if we have no way to detect it, then it isn't detectable guidance. Hence, the use of the phrase "as far as we can tell…"
Mung:
So the point of the OP is that descriptions of nature such as"¦
- "there's no detectable guidance here," and
- "we haven't detected any guidance,"
"¦imply that we have some kind of guidance-detector for nature that works, and that it reads 'negative.'
If one denies that such a working detector is available, then those kinds of statements look overstated at best.
No, if one denies that a working detector is available, then the first statement is true. There might or might not be guidance, but there certainly is no detectable guidance, in the absence of a detector.
The second statement is equivalent to a blind person saying that he can't see anything. Not an overstatement so much as a redundancy.
Comment by Nick — July 7, 2006 @ 9:40 am
July 7th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Yet another misrepresentation of ID from Allen MacNeill. Yet another indication of a lack of appropriate scholarship. Why should anyone engage in dialogue with someone who refuses to speak truthfully and who continually misrepresents the position he is arguing against?
Comment by Mung — July 7, 2006 @ 9:48 am
July 7th, 2006 at 10:00 am
So who says that is a general principle? I read science fiction, so I can think of a lot of scenarios in which such an inference could be made. All of them are ridiculously improbable, and all of them involve the unexpected discovery of some additional dramatic evidence (like BenK's cosmic plagiarizer). What we don't have, at the present time, is any reliable method of distinguishing the products of design from natural processes. We can identify things designed by man–sometimes–by similarity to other things known to be created by man, and that never are never found in the absence of man, but even that is not perfectly reliable. Archaeologists still sometimes argue about whether a particular stone is a tool or just a rock, and I've sometimes puzzled over a piece of wood wondering whether it was carved into such an interesting shape by a human artist or by the action of wind or wave. Which is why scientists tend to qualify conclusions with phrases like "as far as we can tell."
Comment by trrll — July 7, 2006 @ 10:00 am
July 7th, 2006 at 10:01 am
Honest question; If I am myself a designed object with some apparent ability to design, wouldn't my designs resemble, at least primitively, design characteristics of my designer and wouldn't I be able to recognize that?
Comment by samohth — July 7, 2006 @ 10:01 am
July 7th, 2006 at 10:10 am
The second statement is equivalent to a blind person saying there is nothing there because he has no way of seeing it.
What you need to tell me is, why do people not state, "as far as we can tell, it is guided and purposeful." By the same logic, it's just as valid to say that as it is to say, "as far as we can tell, it is unguided and non-purposive."
What is wrong with what I said?
Modify that to add:
…in your view science is fundamentally incapable of discerning intent or purpose in nature, or the lack of intent or purpose in nature…
You can't have it both ways.
If you were to tell me that as far as you can tell, there are no pink unicorns in nature. Would I not be justified in asking how you arrive at that conclusion? And suppose you were to tell me, well, no one really knows what a pink unicorn looks like. Then would I not be justified in asking how then you can assert that you haven't seen one?
The fact is, "pink unicorn" conforms to a specification. That's how you can rationally say that as far as you can tell there is nothing in nature which meets that specification.
Figure the rest out yourself. From there the logic isn't all that difficult to follow.
Comment by Mung — July 7, 2006 @ 10:10 am
July 7th, 2006 at 10:38 am
Consider the following four propositions:
1. There is no guidance as far as we can tell.
2. There is guidance as far as we can tell.
3. Mutations occur randomly as far as we can tell.
4. Mutations do not occur randomly as far as we can tell.
Those four statements are all on the same epistemic level. Whatever your claim on the detectibility of design, or lack thereof, if one of those statements is acceptable within that paradigm, then so must be the others.
Comment by Deuce — July 7, 2006 @ 10:38 am
July 7th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Mark:
I don't see an "ID methodology" at work here, and you have not defined this supposed "ID methodology" for us even though I asked specifically that you do so. I'm sure that you must have something in mind here, I'd like to know what it is. Request #2: Please define "ID methodology" and how you're using it.
Comment by Joy — July 7, 2006 @ 12:05 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
That does not follow. There is no logical reason to expect some kind of undefined resemblance to carry through like that, nor is it in agreement with experience. Humans sometimes design computer programs that use logic based upon natural selection to design things. The products of these programs tend to be quite different from the kinds of things that humans design directly. Humans have also utilized other mathematical algorithms to create art (e.g. fractals, cellular automata), the results of which often look quite different from artwork created directly by man. Some of them, examined by a naive observer, seem to look more like the kinds of things found in nature (e.g. snowflakes) than like human artwork.
We are able to recognize the products of human design–sometimes–because we have numerous clear examples of things designed by humans and of things not designed by humans. Many things not designed by humans do have "primitive" resemblance to things designed by humans, either because there are natural constraints (e.g. physical constraints, availability of materials) or because human designs are sometimes inspired or suggested by things observed in nature.
So we might reasonably hope to be able to discriminate products of nonhuman design if we had unambiguous examples of artifacts designed by that nonhuman agency, and also examples of artifacts not designed by that agency.
Comment by trrll — July 7, 2006 @ 1:48 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
We have the blueprints already (DNA). We're looking for the other things right now.
Comment by Lurker — July 7, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
It is certainly true that people have some sort of idea what rational design looks like. There are many things in nature that seem to be done in an awkward way that is very different from the way we imagine that an intelligent designer would have done things–for example, the way a good solution to a problem is found in one species, while an apparently inferior solution is found in another species. The way cephalod eyes are designed with the neuronal "wiring" behind the photoreceptors, while mammalian eyes are designed with the wiring running across the light path is a classic example. SJ Gould's panda's thumb is another. So the products of nature do not resemble design as we understand it. No human-like intelligence would design individual species the way they are (although a human might well design a process like natural selection and use it as a tool for design). But we qualify that with "as far as we can tell," because our experience is necessarily limited to our knowledge of human design, and we cannot therefore be confident in our ability to recognize design by some kind of alien creature who thinks very differently from the way that we do.
Comment by trrll — July 7, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Oh really. But didn't you just give examples?
"…the way a good solution to a problem is found in one species"
"The way cephalod eyes are designed with the neuronal "wiring" behind the photoreceptors…"
The problem isn't the lack of design, it's the overall pattern of the designs that you are struggling with, and that's a different issue, wouldn't you say?
IOW, you're restating the old theological argument without making it explicit. It's not a scientific argument.
Good design.
Poor design.
Single designer.
Multiple designers.
Pointing out poor design is not an argument against design. Pointing out conflicting designs isn't an argument against design.
Sure they do.
Comment by Mung — July 7, 2006 @ 2:47 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
trrll:
Huh. Oddly enough, my experience isn't limited to knowledge of human design. I can easily recognize a bird's nest, a fox hole, a beaver dam and such as artificial constructs serving specific purpose for their non-human designer/builder[s]. Why, I can readily perceive 'unintentional' design in nature too - seashells, flowers, dune ripples, the symmetry or asymmetry of a tree… All these percepts of design can then be synthesized by my own mind for the purpose of creating artificial constructs of my own.
Thus my experience of design very much includes my perception of design in nature. I have some talent and training in the elements of design as well as the synthesis involved in creating designed objects, which I understand that not everyone has. So perhaps experience of design in nature is subjective - I can see a flower and paint a work of art depicting its pleasing form (ala Georgia O'Keefe), whereas an unimaginative, unperceptive person might perceive a flower as an indistinguishable 'thing' on a stem with no discernible pattern, and think my painting is atrociously ugly. IOW, a person with no appreciable knowledge from experience of design natural or artificial.
But the unimaginative, unperceptive person couldn't legitimately prevent any other human being from appreciating - or buying! - my intelligent design, or recognizing the natural design it depicts. It appears to me that this is precisely what you are attempting here by insisting that 'our' [humanity's] experience of design must be limited to ourselves. Since humans have been incorporating natural designs into their artificial designs ever since humans have been around, it seems obvious to me that our experience of design includes way more than just experience of ourselves.
Comment by Joy — July 7, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Not really. Running the connections in front of the photoreceptors appears to be just plain bad design. The cephalopod is relevant merely because somebody might argue, "Maybe there is some fundamental biological reason why it is impossible to grow an eye with the connections behind the photoreceptors." But once it is clear that good design is biologically possible, we are left with the question, "Why would a designer intelligent enough to create life use such bad design?" Certainly, no competent human designer would use such design, so it is inconsistent with the only kind of design that we know. But who knows what a non-human designer might think?–perhaps an alien designer might somehow think that running the wires in front is prettier, or it might be some kind of alien joke.
Comment by trrll — July 7, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
I thought that we were talking about intelligent design. I certainly agree that non-intelligent mechanisms such as wind, crystal formation, or natural selection are capable of creating a type of profound design of their own, however different they may be from the products of human intelligence.
Comment by trrll — July 7, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
trrll:
Natural selection doesn't "create" a single thing in this world. It simply sifts the viable from the non-viable, then kills off the survivors by means of happenstance, inescapable disaster or individual stupidity/slow reaction time. Life is a 100% fatal condition - death is universal in all generations. Differential timing is mostly the luck of the draw for existing life, and more often than not has nothing whatsoever to do with genes or biological 'fitness'.
Comment by Joy — July 7, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Don't forget Richard Dawkins. In "The Blind Watchmaker" he said:
Obviously Dawkins can detect design. He just brushes it aside and chooses to say it's an illusion.
Comment by Lurker — July 7, 2006 @ 4:49 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Natural selection includes a novelty-generating mechanism, random mutation, which constantly creates new combinations. It is an efficient form of randomized search, in its crudest form known as trial and error, which is one of the most effective methods for discovery. Indeed, it may well be the only mechanism for creation. What we are now learning in neuroscience suggests that our own creativity may arise from similar randomization/selection mechanisms operating within our own brains. Indeed, the use of genetic algorithms based on natural selection is one of the more promising directions in artificial intelligence, and such algorithms have already created novel designs in a number of fields. So at this point, I think that it is absurd to suggest that natural selection is inherently incapable of creating novel designs.
The notion that natural selection merely "sifts the viable from the nonviable" is a misunderstanding, an unfortunate consequence of the wide use of the misleading expression, "survival of the fittest." In fact, even a slight difference in reproductive success of two quite viable strains can alter relative gene frequencies substantially over time.
Comment by trrll — July 7, 2006 @ 6:01 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
??? Yikes! Since when is RM a "mechanism" of NS? That's the oddest thing I've seen a DD claim in a long, long time. Were you taught that at a public school, or is it some 'secret' doctrine of advanced Darwinian Theology you don't learn until grad school?
Comment by Joy — July 7, 2006 @ 6:15 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
It wouldn't necessarily follow but it is logical that it would if you presume design. If I wrote a computer program that designs other computer programs then my programming and design techniques would be reflected in that design unless I purposely designed it otherwise but I'm pretty lazy and my techniques are of course prefect. But then, you presume no design but I'm not sure what makes your presumption better than mine.
So far I'm unconvinced of this
Okay the programs were designed to design random things. Would that be what they call front-loading around here?
Now we have random art (in fractals) generated by designed, precise, mathematical formulas randomly seeded (I could be off base here but isn't that what a fractal is?) Speaking of random, as a low-level programmer (no, I don't have pustules or gonorrhea or hang out at PT), I know it is hard (if not impossible) to generate true random numbers. In fact, someone suggested that randomness has to be designed. Hmmm.
You know this even more suggests design to me. I remember the first time I saw some graphics generated by fractals that looked like clouds to me. It made me wonder if cloud formations were not actually controlled by precise mathematical formulas with G-d seeding the random generator.
If you can't detect design you can't detect bad design. It could only be awkward compared to human design. Personally, I'm in awe of a designer that could design a bad eye and I wouldn't attempt to critique it.
Comment by samohth — July 7, 2006 @ 7:53 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
It's pretty basic. I think that I first encountered the concept in Junior High School. Indeed, although Darwin did not know about genes or mutation, he predicted that something of the sort would have to exist, because the theory would not work without them. Confirmation of this prediction was only one of the first of many tests of Darwin's theory.
Comment by trrll — July 7, 2006 @ 9:53 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Another argument for intelligent design!
You didn't follow the logic, did you. I have to wonder if you even read my post, sicne I stated it explicitly. What makes you think there was only one designer, or that the designer of life also designed whichever "bad design" you think you've discovered.
Comment by Mung — July 7, 2006 @ 10:06 pm
July 7th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
But in fact, that is not the case. As noted, computer programs have been written that design other programs using genetic algorithms based on natural selection. The programs generated do not resemble the programming techniques used to write the genetic algorithm.
The way this is done is to create a population of programs that mutate, recombine and reproduce, with their reproductive success determined by how well they accomplish a task. Remarkably, although randomization (mutation) is used, and no direction is provide other that linking reproductive success to the task, the overall behavior of such a system is creative rather than random; such genetic algorithms have frequently created novel approaches that had not occurred to their designers.
No, random seeding can be used, but is not required. There are nonrandom as well as random fractals. There is nothing particulary random about Mandelbrot patterns for example. But the point here is that the artwork created by a program designed for that purpose by humans does not much resemble the artwork directly designed by humans. So once again the assumption that design characteristics will "carry through" turns out to be wrong.
Most computer programs use pseudorandom numbers, which are actually products of a mathematical algorithm. While they are not truly random, in the sense that the entire sequence can be predicted in advance, a good pseudorandom number generator will generate values that follow the same kind of statistical distribution as a physical random number generator (e.g. one based on radioacitve decay). For most purposes, it is the distribution, not the unpredictability, that turns out to be important.
In the sense that clouds are generated by physical mechanisms that are described by mathematical formulae that have chaotic dynamics, there is some truth to this. Of course, with chaotic dynamics, you don't need anybody to "seed" the RNG–pretty much any input works.
We can certainly detect what would be bad design if done by a human. Creating an optical sensor with an unnecessary blindspot and the wiring obstructing the light path is poor design by just about any conceivable standard.
Comment by trrll — July 7, 2006 @ 10:27 pm
July 8th, 2006 at 12:56 am
trrll:
Variation is not a mechanism of selection because it pre-exists the action of selection (the never born don't count). Darwin didn't predict particulate inheritance or a code either. His view of variation was quite Lamarckian.
Neodarwinism was invented in the 1930s when Mendel's work was "re-discovered" after nearly 80 years, and incorporates particulate inheritance [genes] as the mechanism of variation. The coding structure of DNA was discovered in 1953, more than 90 years after 'Origin' was published. There have always been two distinct and separate mechanisms proposed for evolution - mutation [variation] and selection. Neither is a mechanism of the other.
If in fact you were taught in junior high (and had it reinforced thereafter by other science teachers) that mutation is a mechanism of selection, you had some lousy teachers. You might want to do some self-reeducation before engaging this debate. There are informative sites out there, just google "Darwinism" or "Neodarwinism" or "Evolutionary Theory."
Comment by Joy — July 8, 2006 @ 12:56 am
July 8th, 2006 at 2:04 am
So you have no general, principled objection to Dembski's 'specified complexity' model of design detection? Then you should be able to provide a false positive. In what case do we find SC where we know that SC has developed unintelligently?
Comment by BenK — July 8, 2006 @ 2:04 am
July 8th, 2006 at 2:04 am
Funny, I have exactly the same reaction to your post.
I haven't seen evidence for any designers. But I'm not surprised that you feel the need to add "epicycles" to your designer hypothesis. Life seems so obviously inconsistent with a single, intelligent designer that to rescue the designer hypothesis one ends up having to postulate multiple designers who don't communicate too well, some of which either apparently aren't particularly intelligent. Or else some creature whose idea of design is so different from human design as to render it essentially incomprehensible.
Once again, I am not claiming that it is possible to exclude all design hypotheses. With no constraints whatsoever on the nature of the designer, one can "explain" anything whatsoever in terms of design. It is certainly possible for me to to imagine a sufficiently alien designer whose idea of esthetics requires it to design organisms so as to be indistinguishable from those that evolved on their own. Or our entire universe could be the product of an alien programmer interested in simulating evolution. I could easily come up with dozens of hypotheses of the sort, all completely untestable, and thus useless for scientific purposes.
Comment by trrll — July 8, 2006 @ 2:04 am
July 8th, 2006 at 2:13 am
Variation was an inherent part of the theory of natural selection from the beginning, and Darwin realized early on that natural selection required some mechanism of generation of diversity, to prevent it from being "used up," as well as some mechanism for keeping variants discrete, to prevent them from being diluted and averaged out by the "standard type." Mutation satisfied the first prediction, and genes the second. I don't know where you get the "Lamarkian" notion.
Nonsense. Both are integral parts of the theory of natural selection, and have been since its inception.
My teachers directed me to the original literature, which is where I learned about Darwin's ideas regarding variation and preservation of traits through the generations, which effectively predicted mutation and genes (which had actually been already discovered by Mendel, although Darwin didn't know about it when he predicted them).
Comment by trrll — July 8, 2006 @ 2:13 am
July 8th, 2006 at 6:39 am
Sigh. Since you keep repeating this canard. Don't you think it's time you brought your understanding of the eye and why it is the way it is up-to-date? You look foolish bringing up this tired old argument.
You people just don't seem to be able to grasp such a simple concept. Why is that? I don't have a designer hypothesis. That's you. And I am pointing out how foolish your designer hypothesis is. You just don't seem to get it.
What I have is a design hypothesis. Designer hypothesis. Design hypothesis. There's a difference, you know. Or maybe you don't know, but you should.
Comment by Mung — July 8, 2006 @ 6:39 am
July 8th, 2006 at 11:13 am
trrll:
This is getting silly, trrll. Variation is entirely evident in life and selective breeding of livestock and crop plants had been practiced for thousands of years before Darwin was born. Variation is the "raw material" that selection acts upon (when it acts), thus it is not a mechanism of natural selection. Both variation and selection are mechanisms of evolution. This really isn't that difficult to grasp. Every textbook mentioning evolution lists these two distinct mechanisms, neither of which is a mechanism of the other.
Mechanisms of Evolutionary Changes: Lamarckism vs. Mendelism -
"Darwin did not publicly agree with Lamarck but was more or less influenced by his theory in his formulation of a hypothesis to account for the transmission of parental variation. He believed that different parts of the body sent particles into the blood as messengers to the gonads, the sexual reproductive structures. As the body organs change under environmental influences, so would the messenger particles. Therefore, the new variations transmitted by these particles would be constantly replenished. However, Darwin's hypothesis was not really satisfactory because it could not account for the patterns of inheritance of parental characteristics."
In discussions of evolution with people who are familiar with the details, mechanisms and sub-mechanisms, sloppy and imprecise language is distractive. As illustrated by this diversion all the way back to high school biology (we're a bit past that here). I'm trying to be helpful, but I'll waste no more time on it if you keep insisting that your conflation of mechanisms is correct.
Comment by Joy — July 8, 2006 @ 11:13 am
July 8th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
From an evolutionary perspective, it is quite easy to understand why the eye is the way it is. If the eye evolved from a layered neural structure, and the type of cell that initially developed photosensity happened by chance to be at the back, the natural selection is likely to be stuck with that arrangement, because there may not be any way of reversing the order of layers that does not cause worse problems elsewhere. It may be bad design, but it is perfectly good evolution.
Seems like splitting hairs. Doesn't design imply a designer? How do you have design without a designer?
Comment by trrll — July 8, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 9:33 am
From an evolutionary perspective, it is quite easy to "understand" why anything is the way it is. From an evolutionary perspective, there is no correlation between understanding and truth.
Do you even know what the differences are between the two types of eyes you have chosen as your proof of design by happenstance? (Of course, by your same reasoning,the cepphalopod eye is also easily "understood" by saying, it just happened that way that's all.) Seriously, you consider that understanding? I don't.
Comment by Mung — July 9, 2006 @ 9:33 am
July 9th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
Yes. Do you?
Comment by trrll — July 9, 2006 @ 6:29 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
As you point out, both variation and selection were known before Darwin. Darwin's major contribution was pointing out who these features together, operating in nature without human intervention, could account for evolution of species.
Lamarck's theory of evolution required a source of directed change, whereas Darwin's theory required only that variation be present, as it was selection that provided the direction. This is a pretty key difference, so it is clear why Darwin did not publicly agree with Lamarck (although Darwin remained open-minded on the subject, speculating that Lamarckian mechanisms could contribute to evolution along with natural selection). Although Darwin's early speculation as to the mechanism of variation was pretty far off the mark, he nevertheless appreciated the need for some mechanism of generating new variation, as well as a physical substrate for variation, anticipating the concepts of mutation and genes. Even his speculation about the environment being a source of variation is not entirely incorrect, as many source of mutagenesis are environmental.
Comment by trrll — July 9, 2006 @ 6:41 pm