Inferring Design from Technology
by BilboI've written previously on what I thought the problem was with Paley's watch: The person finding the watch in the heather would already be familiar with complex machines and metallurgy, and from that evidence would easily infer that the watch had been designed.
A better example would be the hypothetical case of a caveman, who knew nothing about complex machines and metallurgy, finding the watch. I concluded (correctly, I think) that the caveman wouldn't be able to infer that the watch had been designed.
But let's take a third example: A society that has invented large, crude complex machines (such as wheels and axles), and has recently discovered metallurgy. Now imagine people from this society stumbling across the watch on the heather. Even though their technology is not advanced enough to design and make the watch, it is advanced enough to let them know that with further technological progress, they could design this watch. Further, by this point they know enough about the world to reasonably doubt that the watch was a product of blind, non-intelligent processes. So would they infer that the watch was designed? I think so. And because of the discovery of the watch, they would now be inspired to develop the technology needed to make one of their own.
Is there a lesson for us? I think there should be. We're finally understanding the workings of the cell. It's made up of complex machines and automated factories, directed by coded information. Technology we're familiar with and still developing ourselves. But the cell's technology is at so tiny a level that we would need to call it nanotechnology. We've only scratched the surface of developing nanotechnology, much of it inspired by observing and mimicking the workings of the cell. But many are confident that sooner or later we'll be able to develop nanotechnology to point that we might be able to design cells ourselves.
But does that mean that the original cells were designed? There is still the question of whether blind, non-intelligent processes could produce a cell. Many are betting on the RNA world scenario. But if Robert Shapiro and other chemists are right, the RNA world is a dead-end. At this point in time, the design hypothesis is at least a reasonable alternative. And for my money, it's the best hypothesis.
December 19th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
But here I think you are wrong. It is not in the materials, or in the way those particular materials cooperate, it is in the way that any complex of materials cooperate towards an end.
If course, Paley's watch can only be recognised as such by someone having a certain level of technological sophistication. One has to be able to recognise the function of the watch and the participation of it's parts towards</b< that function.
And this is why his argument is considered to be a teleological argument.
But humans have been able to recognize the purpose or function inherent in things. We're asked to believe that there's no reason for this, and that there are no ends, in spite of all appearances to the contrary.
Comment by Mung — December 19, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
December 19th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
[...] them know which with serve technological progress, they could pattern this watch. Excerpt from: Inferring Design from Technology – Telic Thoughts Share this [...]
Pingback by Inferring Design from Technology – Telic Thoughts — December 19, 2009 @ 9:46 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 12:52 am
Hi Bilbo,
As I read through your links, I was wondering if Shapiro's view and the RNA World needed to be mutually exclusive. Why couldn't both have happened?
So I did a quick look and found the idea of coevolution has already been seriously proposed. From THE PROBLEM OF THE “PREBIOTIC AND NEVER
BORN PROTEINS"…
"This brings us back to the issue of whether life first began in the form of creatures capable of rudimentary metabolism coupled with replication or, as put by Dyson in his delightful little book Origins of Life (Dyson 1985), whether “life began twice, with two separate kinds of creatures, one capable of metabolism without exact replication, the other kind capable of replication without metabolism”. There is also the coevolution theory of the genetic code (Wong 2005) based on the postulate that prebiotic synthesis was an inadequate source of all twenty protein amino acids, and consequently some of them had to be derived from the coevolving pathways of amino acid biosynthesis."
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 12:52 am
December 20th, 2009 at 1:20 am
Why can't anything at all have happened, including a miracle!
I can't image why through steps of slight successive modifications any living system could not have come about, and if anyone could demonstrate how any such systems could not have possibly come about by successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down, but personally, I can think of no such prohibition. Ergo, it must have happened.
Comment by Mung — December 20, 2009 @ 1:20 am
December 20th, 2009 at 10:22 am
"It was a miracle" … end of discussion
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 10:22 am
December 20th, 2009 at 10:34 am
You are incorrect "It was a miriacle" is never "end of discussion"
The next questions are usually something like?
Who did it?
What does it say about the miracle worker?
How was it done?
What does it mean?
Besides, fear of the end of the discussion is not a valid reason to deney the truth is it?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 20, 2009 @ 10:34 am
December 20th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
Good Morning.
You wrote…
You have the floor.
Please enlighten us.
Especially for the "How was it done?"
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 10:49 am
December 20th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Thought Provoker,
If you want an "end of discussion" just ask an evolutionist to support their claims.
Ask them how to test the claim that a flagellum can "evolve" via selected random mutations (how was it done).
"It evolved" (end of discussion).
Comment by ID guy — December 20, 2009 @ 11:03 am
December 20th, 2009 at 11:17 am
As to "how was it done" for Flagellum…
From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella
Evolution of the Bacterial Flagellum
Divergent evolution and purifying selection of the flaA gene
sequences in Aeromonas
Ok, your turn, please provide links to your "How was it done?" suggestions.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 11:17 am
December 20th, 2009 at 11:57 am
I'll give you an honest answer. I dunno.
Comment by Bradford — December 20, 2009 @ 11:57 am
December 20th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
End of discussion?
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Would, using Bilbo's example, the society with rudimentary technology who found the watch say "It's a miracle – end of discussion"? Or would they pursue the questions of "who did this?" and "how?"?
ID needs to A) assume design (a reasonable assumption given the makeup of biological life), and B) pursue the questions of "who did this?" and "how?".
Leave the questions about how blind material forces built ultra-advanced nanotechnology to the materialist God-deniers.
Comment by Daniel Smith — December 20, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Thought Provoker:
Not a very thought provoking thought.
And let's take note, as fifth points out, that it is for you that "it was a miracle" constitutes an end to discussion.
I have to wonder why it is that "it was a miracle" can never suffice as an explanation. In Fox News last night they covered the case of a guy who lifted a vehicle off a child. He try to repeat the feat and hasn't been able to do so.
So here's a thought provoker for you:
Does every explanation have to lead to an infinite regress of explanations?
Or can there be, dare we say there must be, an end to explanations? End of discussion.
Comment by Mung — December 20, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
No. It's where speculation based on rational inferences begins.
Comment by Bradford — December 20, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
So you're jumping on "it's a miracle" can never suffice as an explanation because it "brings and end to discussion" bandwagon as well? What rational grounds do you have for this belief?
Here's what I think about Bilbo's Watch. They would examine it, and in the course of doing so they would break it. Having broken it, they would probably never determine it's function. Not finding any function for the thing, they would never conclude that it was designed, and they would have no reason to think it miraculous. They would probably think it was a pretty rock.
Comment by Mung — December 20, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Hi Daniel Smith,
You wrote…
I agree, especially on the "how?" part.
Please enlighten us as to your hypotheses on this.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Hi Mung,
Oh, I don't necessarily agree with that.
My one line comment seems to have provoked quite a number of other comments. I would hope some independent thinking went in to at least some of them.
See there, a thought my comment provoked.
Does that mean my statement may be correct?
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Hi Bradford,
Please, please enlighten us with your speculations on how life on Earth began.
It's not like I haven't ask you for this before.
I presented my general hypothesis on this a while ago. Have you managed to put one together yet?
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Hi Mung,
When did I say that?
In fact, if you search my previous comments, you will find I have suggested GodDidIt was a valid hypothesis to be considered.
This is some parallels in the Quantum Consciousness model. Observation appears to change reality in Quantum Mechanical experiments (see Wheeler's Delayed Choice experiment).
I happen to think conciseness and reality are linked in space-time and, therefore, observation DOES change reality. Of course, I have been called a Quantum Quack because of it. A label that isn't totally inappropriate.
What's your hypothesis?
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
I do not believe the laws of nature and organic compounds on prebiotic earth are a sufficient causal reservoir from which plausible pathways to life will ever be found. Life's information storage molecule provides a rational reason to think advanced intelligence preceded life on earth rather than having arisen from simpler life forms.
Comment by Bradford — December 20, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
I'm not saying that they couldn't. I'm just saying that with our present state of knowledge and technology, the design hypothesis is at least as reasonable as any non-design hypothesis. I think it is the most reasonable for additional reasons, which would include things such as Mike Gene's additional criteria of foresight and rationality.
I have all thumbs, but I know that there are some people who can examine things without breaking them. But even if they broke it, I think enough of the broken pieces would remain to allow a reasonable design inference.
Comment by Bilbo — December 20, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Hi Bradford,
But you accept the possibility biological material from space "seeded" the Earth (intentionally or not), correct? And, yes, I'm talking about nanobacteria/nanobes.
And I suggest with Quantum Consciousness being connected in both space and time of the MinKowskian Geometry that is our universe, "preceded" has limited meaning.
However, it would seem rational if this alleged "advanced intelligence" was real in the classical sense (i.e. not taking advantage of quantum retrocausality) then it would be subject to classical logic.
Examples of classical logic would include if the "advanced intelligence" was on the Earth at one time, either it/they are still here or not.
If it/they are still here then it/they would be subject to classical detection. At the very least, it/they could let their presence be known if it/they wanted to. If if/they are not here, we will have to do our best to explore the classic clues available to us. If it/they are here but aren't telling us then, once again, we will have to do our best to explore the classic clues available to us.
Classic clues include RNA/DNA evidence of the existence of an RNA World plus evidence of rudimentary metabolism in things like nanobacteria.
But that is my suggestion as to HOW it was done (regardless of "advanced intellegence" or not).
What is your suggestion on how it was done?
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Hi Bilbo,
And I am suggesting design verses non-design makes little difference in exploring the evidence. An RNA World is just as likely (if not more so) under a design presumption as under a non-design presumption.
Unless, of course, the presumption is that "It was a miracle" and can never be understood.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Watches are no longer the best analogy here. Both Michael Denton (Evolution Theory in Crisis) and Michael Behe (Darwin’s Black Box) compared the replication of the cell with a hypothetical self replicating von Neumann machine. Has anyone designed and built a such machine? Essentially cells are such self replicating machines. But how do they self replicate? Do really understand the process that well?
Personally I doubt that we do. If we did, we could simply scale up the process to create self replicating machines on the macro level.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 20, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Hi John,
You wrote…
I have.
In software it is rather easy.
Here is a mechanical version I found.
Biochemists do it all the time.
The standard ID argument is examples like these involve conscience intelligence (although the word "conscience" is often simply implied).
As interesting as this is, it still doesn't help very much with explaining HOW life originated on Earth.
Do you have a suggestion as to how it happened?
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I've seen things like this before. It is not truly self-replicating as the article itself states:
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 20, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Hi John,
Any port in the storm, huh?
While it might be interesting to pursue the details of what is truly self replicating (meat-eating animals?), it is a distraction.
The part of my comment you seemed to have avoided…
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
The reason I don't agree is that the most powerful argument for design, perhaps even the only real argument for design, is from teleology. A non-functioning watch shows no evidence of having been designed for anything.
It is functioning objects, things which appear to be directed towards some end and out ability to discern those ends which leads to the intuition of design. No end, no goal, no purpose, no function, no teleology, no design.
So what is it about a non-functional watch that could lead one to see purpose where there is none? This is why I find arguments about "the man in the mountain" or the shapes of clouds irrelevant as examples of apparent design.
Comment by Mung — December 20, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
"Anything at all might have happened" can be even less understood than "it was a miracle," which is why I brought it up.
If anything at all might have happened doesn't include "it was a miracle" what does it include? What does it exclude?
Comment by Mung — December 20, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Ok lets see,
My money is on a triune entity called Yahweh
For starters it says he is not constrained in the same way as his physical creation
One possibility is fine-tuning of the properties of the universe at the big bang,
Another one would be the expression of information into the material universe through a communication channel similar to what we do when we convert our immaterial thoughts into a material substrate via language
It means that the world is a far richer place than the materialist believes.
Keep in mind my answers are not the last word just my off the cup speculation.
If modern “science” could bring itself to entertain the possibility of a universe that is not closed all sorts of avenues are open to us.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 20, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
The designer (God) had to possess a way to manipulate molecular structures – I'm thinking perhaps light waves or sound waves strategically directed (no idea if that's even possible). We know this because he was able to arrange molecular structures in order to encode information, (and not just a little information – a LOT of information), to build cellular machinery (very complex, self-replicating machinery) and to utilize and distribute energy and its byproducts (in a myriad of ways and forms).
If you think about it, all you need to create life is A) a way to manipulate molecular structures as you see fit, B) sufficient knowledge, C) sufficient foresight and D) sufficient ingenuity.
"A" may be the easiest part to acquire.
Comment by Daniel Smith — December 20, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
TP:
The OP cited an analogy– Paley’s watch. I was simply pointing out what I thought was a better analogy– a self replicating machine. In fact, I would take it one step further and argue that the cell is self-replicating because it is made up of several biochemical machines that working together in a coordinated and purposeful fashion are able bring about the replication of the cell relying only on raw materials available to it in the environment.
Therefore, the analogy is only between the materials the machines are made of– plastic and metal in comparison to organic molecules.
Biochemical machines are in every sense machines.
To understand how life originated we have to first understand the problem. In this case the problem is daunting because of it’s complexity. People who don’t understand that, don’t understand the problem.
Do I have any ideas of how life could have started by natural causes alone? No.
Could life have originated by natural causes alone? I can’t say that it is logically impossible, but neither are unicorns logically impossible. On the other hand, I can see how unicorns are possible. I don’t see how life could have originated by natural causes alone. I just can’t say that it is logically impossible.
Is there any reason to prefer a natural explanation for the origin of life?
None that I can see.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 20, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Hi Mung,
You wrote…
I didn't say "Anything at all might have happened", you did.
Not excluded, but if your answer to "How was it done?" is "It was a miracle" then not more needs to be said.
Of course, some people consider the Big Bang itself, if not a miracle, mighty close to it. However, that puts us right back to where we were discussing RNA Worlds and nanobacteria with rudimentary metabolism.
Design or non-design doesn't enter into it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
There is if you're an atheist!!!
Comment by Daniel Smith — December 20, 2009 @ 9:27 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
Thank you for your responses.
I suspected I could count on you forthright.
You wrote…
This sounds very close to the possibility of consciousness working at the quantum level.
Do you think this communication is restricted from retrocausality?
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
I don't see any reason to say that an effect can not be before it's cause in time but I will say that it seems to be illogical to say that an effect can be it's own cause.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 20, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Hi Daniel Smith,
Thank you for your honesty to actually name the designer we all know was the presumed identity all along.
I will give you a hint. If you say God works at the quantum level it is highly improbable anyone could prove you wrong.
The only possibility of actual randomness in the universe is at the quantum level. I previous posts on TT I have suggested there is no such thing as being truly random.
Think of it as God's power to affect every dice roll.
Creating life undetected would be a piece of cake.
Especially if God's existence transcends time.
Of course, that still means we can still use science to discuss RNA Worlds and nanobacteria with rudimentary metabolism.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Hi John,
Still holding your cards to your chest?
Are you suggesting
God… err… um… the designer is supernatural?If it/they can't be detected and doesn't want to be detected, we are left with examining the evidence we have in front of us.
Evidence of the existance of an RNA World and nanobacteria with rudimentary metabolism.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 9:46 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Hi Daniel Smith,
I believe it is possible that the God of the old testament exists but it's about as likely there are fairies at the bottom of gardens.
I believe it is likely that Quantum Consciousness exists.
I would say I am not a theist.
Am I an atheist?
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
TP, the evidence for an RNA world is in our cells. You're putting the cart before the horse.
Comment by Bradford — December 20, 2009 @ 10:00 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
I see you are still having problems with square circles.
Time does not exist outside the space-time geometry that is our universe.
If the existance of the universe depends on time folding back on itself, and the universe exists, then an effect has been its own cause.
I presume you have no problem with space folding back on itself (think of a ribbon loop in 2D).
If space can fold back on itself then time can to (time is just another dimension).
If space does fold back on itself, time probably has to also.
Quantum Consciousness wrapped up in all of this could reasonably be thought of as God.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
And the evidence for the existence of ancient druids exists in a modern English field today.
Care to try rephrasing your argument.
(hint, I will probably respond with something about great, great grandchildren being evidence of the existence of ancestors).
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
I'll rephrase the question your honor. What is your evidence for an RNA world other than modern cellular structures which would not have existed on prebiotic earth?
Comment by Bradford — December 20, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
hey TP,
Glad to see you are back. You and AIGuy make it TT fun.
I think we've just conclusively proven that determining that something was a miracle in no way ends the discussion.
That is quite an accomplishment given this is the major reason for the exclusion of ID from science.
I don’t have a problem with impossible geometric figures. I have a problem with folks who abandon logic yet aren’t consistent with that choice.
I have no problem with anything you say about time. I’ve already said that an effect does not have to be after it’s cause in time.
However an effect can’t be it’s own cause regardless of how a universe is configured. Logic forbids it. It is that simple
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 20, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
You are confusing a necessary condition with a cause.
The existence of life as we know it depends on carbon but carbon is not the cause of life.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 20, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Hi Bradford,
You asked…
Come on, that isn't even an argument. It is a question.
You know full well I could find multiple scientific sources arguing for a pre-RNA World leading up to an RNA World leading up to DNA.
However, I am not going to get sidetracked by you for the umpteenth time in a one sided argument.
It's been over three years since I started commenting here. Here is one of first comments I made to you
http://telicthoughts.com/congratulations-are-in-order/#comment-32079
and for three years you have been asking me to state and provide evidence for my point of view while refusing quid pro quo.
Now would be a good time to present your hypothesis, or even just a suggestion, as to how the designer originated life on Earth.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
Logic is a metaphysical concept. Consistency is an assumption.
I saw an internet film clip a while back where someone was arguing God had to exist because God made the universe consistent.
I have even had theists argue that God transcends logic.
Obviously, we need to assume logic holds in order to have a meaningful debate. However, I do not see an inherent problem with an interconnected universe in which cause and effect form a never ending loop.
It is the ultimate chicken and egg situation
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
You know how I hate to argue.
An argument is not a sound science theory. I have an imagination too.
The world is looking for authenticity and here I am. I told you I dunno. I could make up a theory about this biochemical evolving to that… But it would be false since I'm already on record about the reservoir.
Comment by Bradford — December 20, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
good so far
This would have a cause "caused" by it's effect.
This is illogical and is therefore an abandonment of your first statement.
You could I suppose say that the entire universe with its never ending cause effect loop is itself an effect.
That is at least logical but it puts us back to square one.
What is the cause????
And don't say the universe or I'll have to alert spock
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 20, 2009 @ 11:21 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
I disagree that it is inherently illogical. Once time can be in a loop, the cause and effect relationship can also be in a loop.
The only reason it seems illogical is because in the classical world cause precedes effect. In the quantum world I'm suggesting effect actually pulls cause as much as cause pushes effect. It is all interconnected.
The moon pulling the Earth as much as the Earth pulling the moon is what happens in space dimensions. Time is just another dimension in space-time.
Call Spock if you need to. You can call the men in the white coats too if it makes you feel better.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 11:42 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Hi Bradford,
I guess that is the end of discussion for you then.
After three years, it makes no sense to try comparing hypotheses with someone who won't forward one.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2009 @ 11:47 pm
December 20th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
I can and have put forth hypotheses relevant to the origin of life. But they are deemed outside the rules. My contention is that there is a minimal level of cellular function below which proto-cells cease to be viable. This can be approached by reference to gene number, enzyme efficiency or a combination of both.
Comment by Bradford — December 20, 2009 @ 11:52 pm
December 21st, 2009 at 8:10 am
This is not true at all. I just finished Dembski’s newest book. In it he makes the convincing theological case that an effect (death) was before it’s cause (the fall) in time. This sort of thing is perfectly logical.
However he would never argue that death is it’s own cause. Do you see the difference
I have no problem with that as long as you don’t say effect causes itself.
No need for that. The rest of your conversation demonstrates you have a hold on reality it’s just the glaring contradictions we need to work on.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 21, 2009 @ 8:10 am
December 21st, 2009 at 8:27 am
I asked:
Ask them how to test the claim that a flagellum can "evolve" via selected random mutations (how was it done).
Each one is nothing more than mere speculation.
Not one demonstrates that a flagellum can evolve where one was not present.
And not one paper demonstres that random mutations had any part in it.
Is that what you accept as science?
Comment by ID guy — December 21, 2009 @ 8:27 am
December 21st, 2009 at 8:30 am
Thought Provoker,
What would the hypothesis be for a flagellum evolving via selected random mutations?
Can you produce one?
Comment by ID guy — December 21, 2009 @ 8:30 am
December 21st, 2009 at 8:39 am
It was done by design.
If you want any more than that you have to wait on the scientists.
And before scientists start working on that ID has to be accepted.
IOW TP you want answers before ID even gets going.
How long did it take until we "figured out" how Stonehenge was possibly constructed? Decades, perhaps centuries.
Is a living organisms more or less complex than Stonehenge?
How were living organisms designed- well for starters I am sure the designer(s) had to figure out what it takes to get a living organism.
Then the parts have to be designed and produced.
Then those parts have to be assembled/ configured.
Then software has to be added to that hardware- to make the hardware "go".
Comment by ID guy — December 21, 2009 @ 8:39 am
December 21st, 2009 at 11:32 am
But someone familiar with rudimentary complex machines, such as wheels and axles, would recognize that many of the parts in the watch are similar. Further, now that they are familiar with metallurgy they would realize that there is a way to make such parts, and they're pretty sure that there is no way to make them without design.
Further, are you admitting that if they were able to examine the workings of the watch without breaking it, then they would infer design?
TP, am I mistaken in thinking that you're not arguing about whether intelligent design occurred, but when (was it at a simpler level than the cell?), and how (future cosmic consciousness, God, aliens?)?
Comment by Bilbo — December 21, 2009 @ 11:32 am
December 21st, 2009 at 1:01 pm
That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not biological life is consistent with the product of a rational mind. (I'll give you a hint: It is.)
Why do you equate a creative supernatural being, considered by rational humans throughout history as a necessary reality, and to whom all evidence of a rational, purposeful world points; to a mythical creation of man that has never been seriously considered?
Define "Quantum Consciousness".
Yes. You don't believe in God.
Comment by Daniel Smith — December 21, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
December 21st, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Please excuse my responding to comments in reverse order.
Hi Daniel Smith,
You wrote…
A google search will quickly send you to…
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org
Alternatively, you can do a search of Telic Thoughts.
Many of the Guest Host posts were authored by me.
Most of my Guest Host posts discussed quantum physics.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 21, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
December 21st, 2009 at 3:32 pm
TP:
If you're not being irrational.
What is quantum consciousness consciousness of.
Make up your mind.
Sure I did. But why can I not say things which you mean, or which you believe to be true?
Comment by Mung — December 21, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
December 21st, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Bilbo:
It depends on whether they are able to discern functions, purposes, or ends, iow, teleology.
It's not what a thing is made of, it's whether the part cooperate in some way to bring about an end.
In the case of a watch, they might be able to see how the wheels, etc, work together to move the hands at a constant rate that correlates in some way to their understanding of the passage of time. If so, they might well infer design. But not just because it was made out of some strange stuff.
Comment by Mung — December 21, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
December 21st, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Thought Provoker,
I went to that site, plus did a google search of my own. From this I gather that Quantum Consciousness is basically a proposed explanation for man's consciousness (i.e. the soul).
But you said: "Quantum Consciousness wrapped up in all of this could reasonably be thought of as God".
I don't know how you've arrived at the "reasonable" connection you're proposing. Nor do I understand what this Quantum Consciousness had to do with the creation of life.
Comment by Daniel Smith — December 21, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
December 21st, 2009 at 3:56 pm
A non-functioning watch stills shows evidence of design.
Comment by ID guy — December 21, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
December 21st, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Hi Bilbo,
You asked…
You probably know most of the following from my past comments, but I haven't been around for a while, so I'm using your question as an opportunity to summarize my position.
I feel the term "Intelligent Design" (capital I, capital D) is a marketing handle created as a religious movement by the Discovery Institute whose objectives were clearly spelled out in the Wedge Document.
I noticed you used "intelligent design" (little i, little d) in your question. To me, "intelligence" means the ability to learn and adapt. In the past, I have offered that, by this definition, a holistic view of the descent-with-modification model can be thought of as “intelligent”. The extremists on both sides of the Culture War are generally not amused by this.
It has been my experience the term “conscious design” is closer to what is meant, which is what I presume you meant in your question to me.
I believe RNA and DNA are quantum computers and, therefore, subject to a quantum consciousness effects.
I suggest significant evidence exists there is a quantum/conscious link which is the direct cause of the “observation problem” in Quantum Mechanics (see Schrödinger's Cat). Whether consciousness effects quantum events or the other way around is probably immaterial. However, it brings us to the question of first cause (FFM’s main concern).
In the Quantum Mechanical equivalent of a coin flip, what or who decides which way to go. Is there a single Cosmic Quantum Consciousness (e.g. God)? Are there multiple, independent Quantum Consciousnesses (e.g. Souls)? Is there a combination of both?
I suggest Quantum Mechanics marks the “end of exploration” (ala Mung’s comment). Therefore, we may never know (at least until we die).
So to finally answer your question, Bilbo, I suggest whatever conscious design that might be happening has always happened, is happening now and will continue to happen to all time because all quantum events are connected in the space-time geometry that is our universe.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 21, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
December 21st, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Hi ID Guy,
You wrote…
Why? According to the Discovery Institute there are plenty of scientists already puplishing significant peer-reviewed material on the subject,
Biologists are learning more and more every day. DNA from lots or animals are being sequenced. We are learning more and more about the Tree of Life. This is valuable information regardless of whether or not the tree was designed by some cosmic conciousness.
Do you want biologists to accept ID or is it that you want them to reject common descent and quit doing what they are doing?
Actually, I would settle for some specific, workable, testable suggestions beyond "reproduce what actually happened over millions of years".
BTW, the scientific method tends to rely heavily on hypotheses. You need suggested "answers" before it can even start to get going.
"possibly constructed"?
That happened immediately. It took a while to figure out who and how through testing hypotheses.
More. This makes it even more important to have detailed hypotheses.
Good start.
I like that you said "figure out".
Many ID proponents tend to balk when I suggest the designer(s) needed on-the-job training.
The evidence suggests the "software" (DNA) and the "hardware" (metabolism) started out relatively simple and evolved into more complexity.
Mike Gene has suggested the smaller cells were Front Loaded with functions that encouraged and supported this evolution. Mike is indicated he is expecting the more biologists discover the big picture that A Consilience of Clues will point to the existance of a designer.
But that is Mike Gene's hypothesis. You need to decide for yourself or develop your own.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 21, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:37 am
ID guy:
That's a statement without an argument. How and why? I've tried to provide arguments for what I think about what leads to an inference to design.
To me, for an inference to design, one must identify some teleological aspect of a thing. What sort of teleology is to be found in a non-functioning watch? It seems to me that teleology is precluded from such a thing by definition. No telos, no teleology. No teleology, no design. That's my argument, and I'm sticking to it
Comment by Mung — December 22, 2009 @ 1:37 am
December 22nd, 2009 at 8:14 am
Reference please.
And before scientists start working on that ID has to be accepted.
What tree of life? The tree they imagined?
And what does the alleged tree of life say about a mechanism?
And what does any of what you said have to do with what I posted?
My point is that until ID is accepted scientists won't be looking for the things they should be.
ID doesn't say anything about Common Descent.
Dr Behe accepts Common Descent.
Again until scientists start working under the design inference they will be looking for the wrong clues.
IOW TP you want answers before ID even gets going.
TP the non-telic position doesn't have a hypothesis.
I asked you to provide one and you have failed to do so.
Why is that?
How long did it take until we "figured out" how Stonehenge was possibly constructed? Decades, perhaps centuries.
That is incorrect.
It took quite a bit of time to make a determination as to "how" Stonehenge was constructed.
At first some thought it was via giants or Merlin's magic.
I didn't say anythonmg about OJT.
Except that DNA is hardware.
You do know what hardware is, don't you?
Comment by ID guy — December 22, 2009 @ 8:14 am
December 22nd, 2009 at 8:16 am
Mung,
The only way to determine teleology is by first determining design and then studying it to figure out what, if anything, it does.
Comment by ID guy — December 22, 2009 @ 8:16 am
December 22nd, 2009 at 8:19 am
Thought Provoker,
You bring up the "Wedge documnet".
That alone is proof that you are on some sort of agenda.
See Wedge doc- so what?
Then you say:
That is not the only definition of "intelligence".
Comment by ID guy — December 22, 2009 @ 8:19 am
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:02 am
You're saying that unless we know what the purpose of something is, we can't know that it was the product of intelligent design. That sounds rather implausible. I'm sitting in a library, surrounded by computers, thinking that if someone were transported in time from two hundred years ago, they would know that the computers were intelligently designed, even though they would have no idea what their purpose was.
TP: If I understand your reply, you're saying that every event is the result of conscious design. So for you, the answer to the question whether the cell was designed is no different than the answer to the question whether an asteroid impacting the earth tomorrow was designed. And your answer is, yes.
Comment by Bilbo — December 22, 2009 @ 11:02 am
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Hi ID Guy,
You wrote…
If you are still maintaining this attitude after reading my comments in this thread and my past Guest Posts on this blog, I see little value in continuing to try explaining my positions to you.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 22, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Hi Bilbo,
You wrote…
Very good. I agree that would be a fallout of the hypothesis I have outlined.
The example I have used in the past is to ask whether or not the moon is designed.
If the assumption is "yes" then it is practically a given that life was designed.
I think this is close to the position held by Theistic Evolutionists like Ken Miller. However, I am not a theist.
Technically, I am an agnostic but many theists consider me to be an atheist.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 22, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I agree that sounds implausible, but that's not what I am saying, so it doesn't matter.
We don't have to know the purpose. Nothing as strong as that.
It depends. Is this some aboriginal from the Australian outback? What mental categories are available to the person? Are the computers powered on?
Things made out of unfamiliar stuff aren't enough, imo. Even complex things made of unfamiliar stuff. It's the teleological aspects of a thing that lead to a design inference. And to see teleology, one has to have concepts available which would allow the recognition of that teleology.
Say some culture has no concept of a machine. They've never seen a mechanical thing in their lives. And they stumble across some mechanical device. HOw on earth would they be able to discern teleology?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws
Comment by Mung — December 22, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Or an irrational agnostic. Or someone who suspects God exists, but doesn't want to assent to what they believe to be true.
Comment by Mung — December 22, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
December 23rd, 2009 at 3:59 am
Hi Mr. Thought Provoker,
I don't follow quantum physics but you do seem to have an interesting point of view. As you may know, there is always that opposite side of the coin of unorthodox, for that you may like to visit here
Comment by computerist — December 23, 2009 @ 3:59 am
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:32 am
Thought Provolker,
You were the one posting articles by Matzke.
He holds to the non-telic position.
So do you have a testable hypothesis for "your" position?
Comment by ID guy — December 23, 2009 @ 8:32 am
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Hi Mung,
You wrote…
I'm curious as to the details of behind your "Irrational" adjective.
Two things come to mind as to why you would have that opinion. One is because you think the existence of God is obvious. The other is because it is irrational to risk being socially ostracized when the effort to conform is trivial and easy.
Frankly, I think irrational anti-social behavior is the stronger argument.
I find it interesting to watch psychiatrists and psychologists base their diagnoses on popular opinion. If everyone was wearing tin hats, those who weren’t would be the ones questioned about their antisocial behavior.
So why don’t I want to “assent” to believe what others profess to believe?
A main motivator is that I like to argue. Another biggie is that I think it is dangerous to have too many people joining in Group Think coupled with a belief in absolute righteousness.
But what about the Truth (capital "T")?
In order to minimize the length of this comment, I will avoid getting on my NOMA soapbox. Instead, I will admit to suspecting consciousness is something more than an emergent property of meat and synapses of brains. This leads to the possibility of some kind of cosmic consciousness. Whether it is called God, Allah or Cthulhu is mostly a matter of semantics.
As for my belief, my logic is rather simple…
If a cosmic consciousness wanted me to know it exists, I would know.
Therefore, either the consciousness doesn’t exist or doesn’t want me to know he/she/it exists.
Either way, I suggest the best course of action is to focus on thinking for oneself.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 23, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Hi ID Guy,
You asked…
I think I do.
If you are interested in details, then read my past guest posts.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 23, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Hi computerist…
I like it a lot.
I would recommend any and all people interesting in debunking science to understand what this guy is saying. It's important to actually understand it to truly comprehend what this guy is trying to do.
Here is the link again…
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 23, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Don't bother. The long story short is that Joy left TP some breadcrumbs, TP followed them and discovered retrocausality and quantum weirdness.
Read Penrose instead. He's smarter, a good story teller, and you won't have to wade through the boring hubris.
Comment by chunkdz — December 23, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
December 23rd, 2009 at 3:10 pm
The reason I hold the opinion is that I expect someone to have a rational reason for believing in the existence of God. I expect someone to have a rational reason for believing that God does not exist. Holding a position for no reason is, to me, the very definition of irrational.
How is it that you expect that you would know? Do you think you should be born with a belief in the existence of God?
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.
Of course. So you've thought about whether God exists, and concluded what? That you cannot know?
Comment by Mung — December 23, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
December 23rd, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Hi Mung,
You offered…
Is the reason "my best guess based on what I know verses what I am told" good enough for you?
Actually, I would probably be delighted. I would love to find out that God is like a George Burns character (link). Better yet, God as a supernatural science student and our universe is some kind of science fair project.
If there was a Cosmic Consciousness it would be omnipresent or very nearly so. I suppose it is possible that he/she/it is incapable of communicating his/her/its presence. But results would be the same. My only course of action is to think for myself.
I suggest that if I could know and God wished it, I would know.
Some people have relayed personal experiences to me. I even trust and believe some of them.
However, since it appears these experiences can't be reproduced, I will just have to wait to see if God or some cosmic consciousness decides to clue me in. Meanwhile, I have been studying up on Quantum Physics. It presents some interesting possibilities.
It's my nature not to let others do my thinking for me.
God made me that way.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 23, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Chunkdz wrote…
I agree, Penrose's book The Road to Reality is very well written and extremely informative.
It's 1000 pages explaining everything you wanted to know about space-time geometries but were afraid to ask.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 23, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Hi Mr. Thought Provoker,
Since the article provoked some thought perhaps you may like a link to his personal blog. Personally I would love to see a correspondence between your ideas and his. I have been following his ideas on physics for the past few months and they seem logically sound.
blog link
Comment by computerist — December 23, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
December 24th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Hi, Daniel. You said:
It began with the primarily AI quest (and funding with computer industry billions since the 'explosion) for a firm scientific quantification [definition with details] of what consciousness *is*. Because one of their biggest dreams is to fashion a conscious computer, and/or one into which a human consciousness can be downloaded.
It grew as the funders discovered and started theoretical work on quantum computing. Which then brought in the theoretical physics old-timers, hence Sir Roger Penrose.
Hameroff had developed a theory of human consciousness – something that as an anesthesiologist he is an 'expert' on – that consciousness is mediated by mocrotubule/actin/MAP constructs, as these are what the most effective anesthetic agents affect. He postulated that the MTs were basically quantum information processors.
Penrose had a theory of cosmology postulating that the graviton is the agent of wavefunction collapse whenever a superpositioned 'reality' separates to Planck degree necessitating collapse. Their combined theory of consciousness is "Orchestrated Objective Reduction" or Orch-OR.
This is (as described by Penrose/Hameroff) a panentheistic position – that consciousness is a fundamental parameter of the universe, just like electromagnetism and gravity and such.
If consciousness is a fundamental parameter of the universe, the existence and evolution of life on this planet indicates that life as dynamically aware vehicle for the concentrated expression of this parameter was/is "inevitable," as if the universe were positively designed to enable its existence and journey through time toward ever more concentrated expression. All the way to high level self-awareness and to even higher level 'other' awareness.
Which, given time as just another dimension among many (only four of which we automatically perceive), could well mean there's more to existence and experience of things universal than our personal little hops through micro-time. Again, if consciousness is fundamental, it cannot be created (ex nihilo) or destroyed.
Comment by Joy — December 24, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
December 26th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
"…the existence of God is the best explanation for finite examples of consciousness in creatures such as humans and various animals. Finite consciousness provides strong evidence that God exists."
– J.P. Moreland
http://www.amazon.com/Recalcitrant-Imago-Dei-Persons-Naturalism/dp/0334042151
Comment by Mung — December 26, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
December 26th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Hi Joy,
I'm sorry I didn't remark earlier. I think your comment was excellent.
So well done, in fact, I couldn't think of anything to add.
Thanks
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 26, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
December 26th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Hi Mung,
I agree the consciousness problem is a hard one.
I would also agree it is compelling evidence for the possibly of a cosmic consciousness.
However, that doesn't automatically lead to the God from the Old Testament, or a Trinity so named by a Nicean council, or even a supernatural kid with a chemistry set.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 26, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
December 26th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Mung, the whole point of my caveman example from this thread was that a culture unfamiliar with complex machines and metallurgy probably wouldn't recognize the watch as a designed object. The point of this thread is that just as a culture familiar with rudimentary complex machines and metallurgy would recognize the watch as designed — even if it is broken, or even if they don't recognize it's purpose, so we are able to recognize the workings of the cell as designed. Your counter-example of Aborigines isn't really a counter-example, is it?
Comment by Bilbo — December 26, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
December 26th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
TP,
You seem to think ID is only doing science if it is trying to figure out who the designer is and how it designed life. I agree that is certainly one way for ID to do science. But it isn't the only way. Discovering rationality and foresight are also ways of doing ID science. Discovering that the cell is more and more like nanotechnology and less and less like something non-designed is another way, such as Mike Gene's thread on bacteria being exquisitely organized.
Comment by Bilbo — December 26, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
December 26th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Hi Bilbo,
You do know that Mike has stated he doesn't believe ID is science, don't you? He made it clear in the forward of his book and got a lot of grief from ID proponents for it.
However, I give him more credit than that.
He, at least, tries to make positive contributions and arguments. His Design Matrix method can be understood by proponents and critics alike. It provides fairly repeatable results on a design inference.
There are several things I don’t agree with Mike on his Front Loading hypothesis, but at least he has a positive hypothesis that I can mostly understand.
I am biased when it comes to Mike because practically all of his evidence for Front Loading is also evidence for Orch OR influencing life (my Quantum Quackery).
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 26, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
December 27th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Yes, I realize that Mike does not regard what he is doing as science. But it's not clear to me why. At one time or another he's alluded to different reasons:
1. ID is not science, because the scientific community has ruled out intelligent causes when there is no independent evidence of a designer.
But this wouldn't necessarily mean that what Mike is doing isn't science. Just that most scientists wouldn't consider it science. Further, if SETI ever received the wished for radio signal, that would be considered sufficient evidence of a designer, even though we had no other independent evidence for one. And even if Mike wouldn't consider SETI to be science, I think most scientists would.
2. ID is not experimental science. You can't go into a lab, perform an experiment, and get empirical evidence of a designer.
But there are other kinds of science, such as historical science, which looks for the best explanation for historical events. Stephen Meyer and Bradley Monton (both philosophers of science) argue that ID fits into this category. And I think they're correct. Further, Mike has come up with specific hypotheses that could be tested in the lab.
3. ID is subjective, and science is objective.
But since ID is offering an inherently subjective answer — some kind of mind or consciousness — of course it will be subjective. That does not mean that it can't be reasonable. Going back to SETI's radio signal, it's not clear how we establish objectively that it was intelligently designed. But if sufficiently long and containing enough specified complexity, I think most reasonable scientists would accept it as designed.
So I don't think Mike is justified in rejecting what he does as science. Modest. Humble. Honest. But mistaken.
Sorry, but what is Orch OR, again?
Comment by Bilbo — December 27, 2009 @ 11:00 pm
December 30th, 2009 at 11:07 am
[...] I disagree. As I explained in a comment at another thread: [...]
Pingback by Is Mike Gene Doing Science? - Telic Thoughts — December 30, 2009 @ 11:07 am