Doubts About Intelligent Design
by bipodDo you have doubts about ID? I do.
While I think that intelligent design is a worthwhile intellectual and scientific pursuit (worthwhile does not mean that I think it will succeed), there are some reservations that I have concerning its truth and the discernability of the relevant facts concerning the truth. Maybe you can help my doubts.
1. It seems like the more sophisticated forms of ID that I've seen require the concept of derived intelligence: processes that carry the intentions of the intelligent agent. This is all well and good, and there are many mechanical processes that carry out the intentions of human beings (computers come to mind), for which we can reliably reference an original intelligence. However, I have lingering questions as to how far removed the original intelligence can be from the observed effects, to accurately refer to an intelligent agent.
2. Machine/Information analogies. Two concerns. First, humans have the tendency to reference current technologies for use in explanations and this seems suspect. It seems very much like the attempt to explain the mind-brain relationship by reference to the hardware-software relationship (a failure, no doubt). These analogies end up just being sexy with no content. Now I am impressed that non-ID biologists consistently reference "molecular machines" but what are the relevant aspects of the analogy. Well, molecular machines function to enable living cells and organisms. Ok, so human technology enables human beings. For human design, the functionality is designer-centric. Humans design things to enable humans. But most IDists assume that the designer of molecular machines is not the organism for which the machine operates. Intelligent design theorists need to explore the relations between design, functionality and designer. Information analogies also make me hesitate. It seems a little too odd that the concept of biological information has pretty much run in parallel with the growth of information theory. Is there any reason to be worried that in our 20th century exhuberance, we were too eager to see the world in our own image?
3. Would Aristotle really have been an ID theorist? The concern is that Aristotle's conception of intrinsic teleology is very far removed from the notion of a rational intelligence. Aristotle and some of the Greeks, as far as I know, acknowledged the existence of an ordering force in nature (the stuff that brings form to things), but I'm not so sure that Aristotle viewed this as intelligence qualitatively like human intelligence. The intelligence that we use as a paradigm case in intelligent design is human intelligence. Any design inference method is going to have to infer something similar enough (whatever that is) to human intelligence in order to be useful. But is Aristotle's intrinsic teleology in the same ballpark?
4. Another, poorly formed concern, is aesthetic. Do biological systems *really* look like, operate like and seem like designed systems?
Ok. So those are some of my doubts about ID. There are more, but this'll do for now.
August 30th, 2005 at 7:56 pm
Bipod,
Let me take a quick stab at these.
1. This is a great question, especially for those of us that contemplate front-loading. Just how far out can a front-loaded state reach before it loses significant contact with the design events? However, I view these as fascinating research questions rather than reasons to doubt.
2. More good questions and legitimate reasons to doubt. I'm just itching to address such things head-on, but it'll have to wait until I can really dig in to it.
3. I view current ID thinking as just one expression of teleological thinking. In fact, you can take the three perspectives on the front page of TeleoLogic and view them as extrinsic design, intrinsic design, and the interplay between the two.
4. Same answer as #2.
Comment by MikeGene — August 30, 2005 @ 7:56 pm
August 30th, 2005 at 8:39 pm
"˜I think' that ID (or the classic Design Theory) comes down to a simple question of, "˜Can material consciousness ultimately come from mindlessness?'
But than who am I to doubt mindlessness : )
Comment by Heartlander — August 30, 2005 @ 8:39 pm
August 31st, 2005 at 8:23 am
Hey bipod- Read this essay on ID. It may help you understand why ID is scientific:
Why ID is scientific
Comment by Joe G — August 31, 2005 @ 8:23 am
August 31st, 2005 at 8:34 am
Joe G. My doubts are not whether ID could be something that looked like a scientific pursuit. I fully believe that ID could be developed into a research program (perhaps misguided, but many research program have been misguided). My doubts are concerning the truth of ID and whether there are some fundamental errors being made.
I'm looking forward to Mike Gene "scratching his itch." If only he'd write a damned book already or at least post an essay on his web page. He's such a lazy bum, you know…making all these promises about future essays or future considerations…that's the sign of a lazy mind if ever there was one
Comment by bipod — August 31, 2005 @ 8:34 am
August 31st, 2005 at 11:23 am
Good thought provoking questions. Respectfully, here are my nitpicky comments …
"Is there any reason to be worried that in our 20th century exhuberance, we were too eager to see the world in our own image?"
"Do biological systems really look like, operate like and seem like designed systems?"
I think you are asking the same thing in those two statements. What does a designed system look like? Anything that is irreducibly complex and or satisfies the definition of specified complexity. A clear convincing answer to that question would settle the ID issue.
"However, I have lingering questions as to how far removed the original intelligence can be from the observed effects, to accurately refer to an intelligent agent."
I'm not sure what you mean by "how far removed". Engineered spores sent across the galaxy by a life form that evolved naturally would be quite far removed. On the other hand, the celestial bureaucracy might delegate the task to the Angels on the spot. You can make up a story to please yourself.
"Would Aristotle really have been an ID theorist?" I assume this is a purely academic question. Knowing Aristotle's opinion on ID is not really important for you to form your own, right? People gave up blind faith in the giants of the past shortly after the middle ages. Unless you want to take a pot shot at the darwinists and say, "You folks really missed the boat, Aristotle knew the truth long long ago."
"But most IDists assume that the designer of molecular machines is not the organism for which the machine operates." I don't know about most IDists but I think the most likely intelligence behind the development of life on earth is the civilization of human souls from whence we came at birth and that we will rejoin after death.
Comment by herrkartoffelkopf — August 31, 2005 @ 11:23 am
August 31st, 2005 at 11:53 am
Bipod says:
My doubts are concerning the truth of ID and whether there are some fundamental errors being made.
I am not sure what "the truth of ID" is, but if humans are involved there are bound to be fundamental errors. But only by attempting & failing can we come understand and hopefully correct those errors.
For example possible false positives by the EF is not a good reason to scrap the EF. If the EF ever produces a confirmed false positive then we investigate- was it the process or the people using it?
My view is that scientists do scientific research which may or may not lead to a design inference. However if we exclude the design inference a priori then we should also scratch out the objective in objective science.
Once we reach a design inference, for example, then like forensic scientists handing off to the detectives, someone else will figure out what to do with that data. Perhaps that is your concern- where does the design inference lead? Hopefully to a correct understanding of our existence…
Comment by Joe G — August 31, 2005 @ 11:53 am
August 31st, 2005 at 11:59 am
I've had doubts about ID from the start, but they slowly melted away over time.
My position is that the theoretical case is sound, the emprical case hangs on a thread. This is a situation ripe for further scientific exploration.
Showing the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution was a necessary but not sufficient conclusion to establish ID. What would be a sufficient condition to establish ID? Seeing the Designer in action. Short of that, I'd like to see Dembski's dream of the "Rosetta Stone" of biology decoded where we discover user manuals to understand and use the software of life. That would be slam dunk, imho.
I have a background in computer languages, and I sense Bill is right on target.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 31, 2005 @ 11:59 am