Maintaining an Open Mind
by MikeGeneAs many know, I do not think ID qualifies as science and neither do I think it functions well as apologetics. I view it is a potential explanation that merits investigating. But an investigation should be open-ended and the investigator should be as unbiased as possible (I speak about this in the book). Otherwise, the investigation is just an attempt to prove or disprove what one already believes and is thus prone to confirmation or disconfirmation bias.
Yet I am also a theist. So how can a theist investigate something as big as ID in a truly open-ended, open-minded manner?
The key question a person should ask him/herself about ID is this "“ does the result of the investigation have profound metaphysical implications for you? If you are a theist, would the disproving of ID cause you to abandon your faith? If you are an atheist, would the proof of ID mean you now have to deal with the reality of God?
If the answer if yes to these questions, then you will have great difficulty approaching this issue as an investigator, as the investigation carries deep metaphysical risk and significance for you. In other words, you are deeply invested in the answer and this will color your perceptions and thinking. The key to avoid all of this is to rid oneself of the notion that the designer in ID must be God.
I myself have long been able to think about these issues without making the God = designer equation. One thing that has helped tremendously is that I came to this ID debate as a theistic evolutionist. In other words, just as a denial of ID has not caused a metaphysical crisis for people like Ken Miller, Francis Collins, and Simon Conway Morris, so too would an abandonment of ID carry no religious or metaphysical significance for me. My faith is in no way dependent on some evidence for or against ID.
Furthermore, I have my own unique version of theology that allows me to approach this whole issue in a truly open-ended manner, where everything from directed panspermy to the raw reductionism of someone like Richard Dawkins poses no metaphysical threat. My theology can absorb any of it. But that's a sprawling rabbit hole that runs much deeper than anything I have talked about publicly.
Finally, one should always remember that ID is about detecting design. In essence, ID may be testing our ability to detect non-human design more so than the reality of non-human design. So what would a failure to detect really mean?
No, there is no religious or theological bias on my part that is trying to force a design inference. There's just a sincere, nagging suspicion that maybe it's there. And that leads to Keeping My Eye on the ID Ball.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:51 am
I must say, this is the only puzzling statement in your, otherwise good, book. While I agree that ID is not a theory (just as forensic science is not a theory), and may never be, I certainly think the "investigation" and "looking for clues" and considerating a "consilience of clues", as you say, is a scientific activity. If it isn't then we're all wasting our time.
Do you think SETI qualifies as scientific?
Do you think "forensic science" is scientific?
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 15, 2008 @ 10:51 am
February 15th, 2008 at 11:03 am
This doesn't seem to me to be a possibility, even hypothetically. How do you prove such a huge negative?
While I think that proving ID to hardened atheists is a virtual impossibility, at least it's a real possibility hypothetically, because despite any lack of capability of humans of demonstrating a designer, the designer could always show up and announce his/her/its/their existence in a way that no sane person could question.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 15, 2008 @ 11:03 am
February 15th, 2008 at 11:08 am
People are notoriously bad at assessing their own biases and subconscious motivations. Let's just say that, you really believe you have no biases driving your quest for ID knowledge.
I think it's a non-issue anyway. Humans indeed have biases, and biases are not necessarily bad, since any of your biases are cancelled out by the opposite biases of others in the same field of interest. "Iron sharpens iron."
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 15, 2008 @ 11:08 am
February 15th, 2008 at 11:17 am
No, it's exploration, but it's not science anymore than Henry Hudson was a scientist.
I would distinguish between forensic science and the practice of forensics. The first is an attempt to find and test reliable methods to gather information, the second is primarily using methods that have been verified.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 11:17 am
February 15th, 2008 at 11:39 am
SETI takes a scientific approach to the task before it. Whether or not results accrue is a different matter. The nature of Henry Hudson's actions were qualitatively different.
Comment by Bradford — February 15, 2008 @ 11:39 am
February 15th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Then was Hudson or SETI involved in some "nascent proto-science" as they gather data? It certainly is not religious or philosophical.
Scientific theories are subject to all the Popperian scrutinizing and Occam's Razoring, but collecting data at very least is certainly part of a scientific enterprise.
Collecting data about these "carbon based nano machines" is certainly part of a scientific enterprise, whether ID or not. The question of whether a given feature is designed or not is certainly a scientific question if the blindwatchmaker thesis is a scientific question, since they are really the same question stated two different ways.
It would be rather odd to call palaeontology "science" and yet refer to data gathering of the primary evidence as not part of a scientific enterprise.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 15, 2008 @ 11:40 am
February 15th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Perhaps. I'm not sure that lack of bias is essential in the process of developing ideas.
Quite so. But that only happens when a scientific theory is proposed that is subject to empirical testing.
Comment by Zachriel — February 15, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
kornbelt888,
I like your emphasis on data collection. We tend to put science on some kind of pedestal so that if you say you are "doing science" or that your results are "scientific" then you are somehow above the fray (You can't argue with Science). Maybe we should begin to think of ourselves as data collectors instead of scientists.
Comment by 0112358 — February 15, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Collecting data can be considered part of the scientific enterprise, but only if it is to be used for the scientific purpose of hypothesis-testing"”at least in principle. I don't want to set off another semantic storm, but just counting falling stars on a warm summer evening may not in itself constitute a scientific enterprise. Like most categorizations, there are going to be things clearly within the set, some clearly outside the set, and some in the gray zone.
Comment by Zachriel — February 15, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
The problem with investigating possibilities is that nearly everything is possible. Pretty much anything we can imagine is a possibility and its only a very small set of possibilities that we consider utterly absurd based on conflicting evidence or instinctive belief. The whole flaw of Inductive Gradualism is that even a million possibilities are not enough to form a basis for belief, they really don't move us out of the "possible" range. Possibilities don't just add together in some linear fashion to create plasuability. Also this approach looks only for the positive evidence but to move through the Explanatory Continuum you need a balancing scale and not just a pile of clues.
As to your question, if proof of ID was discovered I don't think that would challenge my metaphysics. I don't even think it would support the notion of a God. But further, even if the existance of God was proven I would suspect that God was subject to evolutionary forces. Anything complex, be it God or the Cell or the Universe itself, needs some sort of crane to construct it.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 15, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Mike Gene,
What kind of theology can absorb the notion of being inherently delusional?
Comment by chunkdz — February 15, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
So an infinite series of regresses is more satisfying in your view? Where do the cranes needed for cranes originate?
Comment by Bradford — February 15, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Indeed. Something has to exist without contingent, atemporally. Some might say the process is without beginning, but what is the process of? Still we have a non-contingency. Seems like a lot of people are content to sweep this under the rug.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 15, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
A crane is a process, not a "thing." Processes don't exist in any physical sense, they simply occur. Also note that I don't purport to have any answer to the question of why anything at all exists in the first place, I'm just trying to deal with the question of how and why complexity arises. If you want to say God created the first "anything" then I can't argue with that.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 15, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Perhaps even science is not real science, as science comes with ideals (such as Popper's falsification principle) that are not realistic when applied to the big picture? And if science cannot get at the big puture then science must remain empirical and otherwise silent on the questions of philosophy?
If ID is not science, then can Darwinism be considered science? No!
The reality that we find ourselves in relates to the union of the rabbit and duck, and the justification of this view comes from philosophy that looks at the big picture. Science is not separate from ontology, but when the ontology is on a firm foundation (determined by philosohy) then it is that this better science can approach the big picture.
Comment by Stephen — February 15, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Let me ask you this: would the falsification of RM+NS as an explanation for a given organelle substantiate ID in your opinion?
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 15, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Ah! There we have that wonderful word "scientific" again. So solid and reassuring.
Yes, lets collect data and test our hypotheses but make sure we remember that we never really prove or disprove any hypothesis we just minimize Type I and Type II error rates.
Comment by 0112358 — February 15, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Falsification of one theory doesn't demonstrate the validity of another. To scientifically substantiate ID, you have to propose a specific theory, deduce appropriate and distinguishing hypotheses from the theory, and then test them.
Comment by Zachriel — February 15, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
There is an inescapable intersection of science and theology here (Gould was just wrong with his NOMA proposal). I think it's quite possible to pursue the investigation of ID from the science direction without committing to the identity of the designer. If non-human intentional design is identified, however, then those of us who believe in the Biblical God will not be able to shed the notion that this designer is God.
How then to rid oneself of the bias you mention? It's in the answer to your question about what it would mean if we never detect design. Christian theology is absolutely committed to the fact that God is creator/designer. It is not committed to the necessity that God left unmistakable and unambiguous marks of his creative work, where we could find them in nature. That is to say, while I and other Christians see His handiwork in every person we see, and in all of creation, we do not have a theological burden of proving that every naturalistic explanation, including evolution, can be shown to be false.
Cosmological fine-tuning is a great illustration of this. The case there for divine activity is mighty strong. It's so strong that objectors have had to resort to history's greatest imaginable violation of Occam's Razor–the Many Worlds hypothesis–to get around it. But that's just what they have done. I think it's exceedingly unlikely that biological design could ever be proved so certainly that the skeptics won't come up with an evolutionary analogue to Many Worlds. There will always be a way out of theism for those who are absolutely determined to find one.
Anyway, to me, a (hypothetical) failure to detect design would really mean that God didn't leave his unambiguous fingerprints behind in nature. And that's okay. He didn't have to. Therefore we do not have to detect design unambiguously in order to continue to believe in God. We're free to go where the evidence leads.
Comment by TomG — February 15, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
TomG:
First, not all objections against against fine-tuning resort to the many worlds hypothesis. It's conceivable that the cosmological constant will pop out of a future mathematical model by necessity. Second, you're saying that God is simpler than many worlds. Why? Surely, an infinite omniscient being such as God has imagined infinitely often infinitely many worlds in infinite detail? Thus, He is not necessarily simpler.
Comment by Raevmo — February 15, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
You cannot claim that "cosmological fine-tuning" is required for life to arise. As we cannot observe any universes where these values are tuned differently we can only speculate that the values we see are required for life to exist. In fact this is a biased sample, we only have one set of conditions under which we know life has arisen so based on this sampling of one data point we make grand assumptions. You can't prove a discontinuity from one data point. If there is no discontinuity then you don't need any theory to explain the discontinuity.
Science will not and can not disprove concepts like Design and God. Science doesn't even attempt to disprove these things, although many people errantly use it to claim that result. Science only cares about explaining observable phenomenon. The reductionist nature of science means there will always be room for theology and philosophy to explore possibilities. This is what NOMA is about, the reductionist nature of science intentionally makes it unable to explore certain questions that we humans can pose, questions such as ultimate purpose.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 15, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I think other categories exist besides the three.
If by the "blindwatchmaker thesis" you mean ruling out that foresight is any part of the creation of life or species, I woud say that is not science, either. However, if by the "blindwatchmaker thesis" you mean that the methods of mutation we observe do not have any apparent connection to the needs of the population in which they arise, that would seem to be science. Of course, most IDers would not argue the second version, as far as I can tell.
Yes, it would. Just as not everyone who trains with a gun is a soldier, not everyone who collects data is a scientist.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Small cranes can be used to build taller cranes.
However, as an assumption, infinite casual regress is not inferior to an assumpiton of a supreme being on strictly logical grounds. Personal preferences will differ, of course.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
That depends upon your definition of Darwinism.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
No, for three reasons:
1) Evolution has at least fifteen different mechanisms, of which RM and NS are only two. You falsifying a subset of evolution is not falsifying evolution.
2) The falsification of one process is not the support of a different process.
3) The argument offers no positive support for ID.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I think the same can be said about your definition of intelligent design.
Comment by Doug — February 15, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
True enough. While I certainly think that laying on your back, gazing up at the stars is not a scientific activity, per se, I think that somebody gathering evidence with even the hope of formulating a scientific hypothesis or theory is certainly what I would consider to be part of a scientific enterprise, regardless of the final form of the hypothesis. I think it depends on motive and intent.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 15, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
The other mechanisms you allude to aren't random?
Is it falsifying a subset of evolution or falsifying a premise – no foresight, no ability to plan, random changes being subjected to a selective filter?
Comment by Doug — February 15, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I am trying to be consistent with MikeGene's definition on this board, to the best of my ability.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
NS is not random, for that matter. Some are, some aren't. Click on my name, and there is a post on the front page where I list them.
I think you would find that premise as difficult to falsify as I would find the premise that there are no ghosts, unless you can provide positive proof for the opposite.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
By RM in mean any sort of variation at the sub-cellular level.
At any rate, I would agree with your response. Falsification of random variation contra selection as an explanation of a particular feature is not positive support for ID. But it is scientific, of course. This is why I agree with MikeGene that ID is not a science is the sense of being a scientific theory, but the activity of ID proponents, such as Behe and his experiments as detailed in Edge, is scientific, since, at very least, it pertains to attempts at falsification of random variation (particularly at the sub-cellular level) and selection being the source of a given, say, organelle, or additional CSI.
Now, considering the motive for "looking for evidences of design", what if by the act of looking for such evidence, someone stumbles upon a coded message in a genome that is a compressed JPEG-like image of the animal that the genome generates? And perhaps the message also says, in some language that was impossible to misunderstand, "this entity was designed." Would you consider that scientific evidence that favors a design hypothesis? If so, then the way I see it, the motive and activity of ID proponents was a scientific pursuit all along. (That any such evidence fails to turn up doesn't mean it was not a scientific pursuit.) If not, then what sort of evidence would be required to establish the object as designed?
At any rate, I think it is interesting that the assertion, "this object is designed" is not falsifiable. But the assertion "this thing is not designed" is falsifiable, if deliberate signals have been placed in the object that no reasonable person could deny.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 15, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
RM typically means random mutation. You probably mean random variation, but randomness is not an intrinsic property of the Theory of Evolution, but something discovered and integrated with the Theory well after its introduction. It's important to note that randomness refers only to randomness with respect to fitness. Biological variation is not otherwise random by any means, but highly constrained.
Now suppose someone stumbles on an invisible pink unicorn that talks… Then you'll see!!!
Comment by Zachriel — February 15, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
That's not the point. NS shouldn't be considered a mechanism in this context.
You said,
NS is a selective filter. It works with whatever it is handed. NS works at the level of the whole organism, not at the level of an individual gene.
So, NS shouldn't be considered a mechanism by which novelty is generated.
So, stating NS is not random isn't the point…. since it's not the source of randomness, merely that which selects the randomness it is handed. But again, it only works at the level of the whole organism. Not at the level of a particular gene – not at the level of a particular nucleotide substitution.
Comment by Doug — February 15, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
There is a difference between your example and mine. Intelligent entities are known to leave "signatures" in their creations. And I don't think it would sound far-fetched to the average person that such a signature might exist in designed genomes. Pink unicorns that talk and flying speghetti monsters on the other hand come to the discussion loaded with all sorts of notions that are not germane to the question, and seem to me to be manifestations of an emotional or ideologically driven attitude, not a scientific one.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 15, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Provide proof that there appears to be foresight at a molecular level?
LexA, enolase, p53, RecA, trp attenuation, IFT system.
So no, I don't feel that it would be the same as proving there are no ghosts.
Comment by Doug — February 15, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Raevmo,
By far the most common naturalistic solution for fine tuning, at this point, is the many worlds hypothesis. Your future "popping out" of mathematical necessity is a matter of conjecture, or dare I say, of faith. It's not at all scientific hypothesis at this point..
God is understood in Christian theology to be "simple" in the sense that He is not constructed of parts or divisible into them. That He is omniscient does not tell against that. Do God's thoughts exist as parts of God? No. (Do your thoughts exist as parts of you?)
Further, God is not just proposed as an hypothesis for this purpose; He is not just some ad hoc construct invented to answer the fine-tuning problem. The fact of God makes sense of a huge number of other questions and problems in history, philosophy, existential experience, and nature.
Comment by TomG — February 15, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
But this is the whole point to ID investigation, the source of the variation, and in particular to my primary interest: is natural variation and selection sufficient to construct all the sub-cellular objects and processes? I believe this is an extremely difficult question to answer at present, but possible in theory, nevertheless, given enough computing power. Therefore I have to conclude the question is a scientific one, unless someone can convince me otherwise. Maybe ID, in part, is a scientific hypothesis after all.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 15, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I've never cared for the description of God as "simple." Probably better to describe the Ultimate Reality as non-contingent. Whatever the Ultimate Reality is, it would neither have parts or no-parts. Parts is simply not an issue. It is "wholy other", which is just another way to say that We Don't Know What It Is, and probably cannot know.
Our own consciousness is a clue, I think. Does consciousness have parts or no-parts? Seems like the question doesn't apply at all. Smell is not sight, but to call them parts is a stretch in my way of thinking. At some level the experience is unified while not being the same experience.
Wierd stuff.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 15, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
There are 8 of those, at least.
Does Behe address all the various mechanisms and each set of interactions? EVen if you just deal with the 8 causes of sub-cellular variations, that's 255 possible combinations to examine (2^8 – 1).
Of course, that does not even address the issue that there is no objective criteria or test to determine or measure CSI.
That depends upon the method used. Are you familiar with the Bible Code, and it's follow-up the War and Peace Code? You can find patterns if you look hard enougn in any sufficiently large string.
When we look for evidence of design today, we do it with the understanding of who the designers are and how they work. Sans that, I'm not sure any method will ever reliably detect design. Certainly, no one is close now to some other method.
The issue is identifying whether they are signals at all.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Todd:
Is it necessary that that crane be at least as complex as the thing it is constructing? That seems to be Dawkins' argument against the existence of God, anyways.
Raevmo:
The argument here is not that God is simpler, it's that God is a simpler explanation. Occam and all that.
It's interesting that Dawkins' argument against the existence of God boils down to "who designed the designer." One would expect better.
There are at least two problems with the arguments that are appearing here:
1. The assumption that God must be complex.
2. The incoherence underlying an argument which relies on complexity arising from simplicity to explain life, claiming that complexity can only be generated by things equally or more complex.
Comment by Mung — February 15, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
NS should not be considered a mechanism in the question of whether falsifying RM+NS proves ID? What context did you have in mind?
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Now, all you need to do is prove (if you prefer, provide evidence) that foresight was needed in the creation of any of these.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
It's an important question. We have strong evidence to support common descent and natural evolution of most taxa. The earliest aspects of evolution have left scant evidence, but there is significant evidence supporting the natural evolution of even the earliest transitions.
Comment by Zachriel — February 15, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Hi Mike,
I don't think you are as impervious as you may think
.
Are you helping to advance the perception that belief in God is a "blind faith," or have simply not really thought of how "ID detection" is applied to, or a foundational aspect of, your faith, however unconsciously?
Comment by Mung — February 15, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
"Many worlds" certainly seems to be an inferior counter-argument against the invalid fine tuning argument.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Huh? In information theory, CSI is measured by lossless compressibility: the least amount of instructions required to produce the object. Snowflakes are highly compressible. Snapshots of your grandmother sitting in a rocking chair much less so. Byte consumption on your hard drive of various ZIP files is an objective criterion, for example.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 15, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
kornbelt888:
Well, humans have been designing biological entities for some decades now, and patenting them as novel creations. The extent of their design signature being a gene (or more) that doesn't normally occur in a species, the viral DNA used to defeat natural boundaries to horizontal transfer, and promoter sequences to make the inserted genes express whether the plant would normally do it or not.
Since all natural genomes we've sequenced also carry horizontal transfers, viral inserts and promoter sequences, we have no way of knowing what's designed or not designed beyond the patents on something like Bt corn, industrial e.coli and glow-in-the-dark house cats. An alien looking around at our biodiversity would have no reason whatsoever to suppose any of it was unnatural (if their theory of biology looked a lot like Neodarwinism).
I asked a gene-splicer once if he would be able to tell if humans had been engineered – using his same techniques and newer synthetic ones – from, say, great ape stock. He finally had to admit that no, he wouldn't be able to tell unless the patent was on file.
Comment by Joy — February 15, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
At the sub-cellular level? Do tell.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 15, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Again you are assuming that fine tuning is some real thing that requires explanation. The fact that we perceive various universal constants when applying our human understanding to the universe does not create any sort of exceptional situation that justifies the need to explain anything. Even if life as we know it is completely dependent on those constants that doesn't imply some other form of life couldn't be dependent on other values of those constants. We only have one data point and you're demanding an explanation for why that data point is a discontinuity.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 15, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Are you using Shannon information theory, or Kalmalgorov-Chaitin? As far as I know, neither uses a formulation for CSI as you just described it.
Either way, the picture of grandma might actually be far more compressible than a snowflake, depending upon the instructions in the decompressor, what it is designed to do, and the degree of resolution for each structure.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Kornbelt888,
"Simple" is indeed a jarring word to apply to God, unless one understands it in just the specific sense of not being composed of or divisible into parts. It certainly needs that qualification. Is it better to describe God as non-contingent? Actually, both are true. No need to set one up against another.
Todd,
No, it's not me doing this; it's all the scientists who have proposed the Many Worlds hypothesis. It's certainly not my invention! I trust you're aware of the reason they consider it a problem. In short, they (again, not I, but they) recognize that it's just not true that some other form of life could exist under even slightly different physical conditions.
I'll leave the rest of that issue for you to explore. It's rather a side issue to Mike's main discussion here anyway. I brought it up not as my main point but as an illustration of my point.
Comment by TomG — February 15, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
A agree that synthetic life would look just like normal life at many scales, but it would still display a discontinuity that classical evolution would have a hard time explaining. Lets say we were studying the genome of the glow-in-the-dark house cat and discovered a gene that also appears exactly the same in a phosphorescent bacteria. No earlier ancestor of the cat has a gene anything similar to this gene and the cat itself has no other similar genes. If I understand things correctly, this would represent a "system-dependent irreducibly complex" system as Mike talks about in the book. That would, in fact, be evidence of design. So the glow-in-the-dark house cat should, if I understand Mike's arguments correctly, display evidence of design.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 15, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Why not start with evidence of how the genomes containing the relevant genes came about?
Comment by Bradford — February 15, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
If Doug has such evidence, that would be a great place to start.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Here's a better example: On a 1000 x 1000 monochromic grid, and using lossless compression, a specification for a 999 x 999 solid square is going to be less than the specification for a human face that is framed by the entire surface, or a typical crossword puzzle. The instructions for the face or puzzle cannot be compressed as highly, i.e, as few instructions, as the block.
Of course, various random sequences of dots may be less compressible than a human face. More CSI does not equal more meaning. Meaning implies a send/receiver relationship with intent. Looking at sub-cellular processes, we find very computer-like processes of instructional execution going on. The CSI in the DNA is interpreted by the ribosomes, etc. There is a message-sender/receiver relationship, as per Shannon.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 15, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
one brow,
are you doing this deliberately or do you honestly not understand my point?
I'm being sincere when I say this. It's hard having a conversation with you because it seems like either you forgot what you were initially saying or you don't understand how my comment relates to yours.
I don't think there's any need to repeat what I was saying regarding NS.
Again, you either don't understand how my post relates to your 'ghost' comment or you forgot what you were originally saying.
one brow, you're all over the place. Do you know what you're arguing?
Comment by Doug — February 15, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Really now? Everytime I have that discussion, the definition keeps changing.
By that measure, a random pattern or string has maximum CSI.
Comment by Zachriel — February 15, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Don't you personally have thresholds of plausibility? Wouldn't a high resolution JPEG image (or something similar using DCT and huffman tables), of the animal in situ (say, a few giraffes picturesquely standing around eating from a tree), encoded in a genome be strong evidence to you? If not, what would?
I suggest computational power in the form of quantum computers in the future. It is conceivable in theory that we could take an E Coli and run it thru all the permuations that could occur in, say, a billion of years, including any process disruptions from viruses and cosmic rays that have logical pathways into the process. (There is a finite number of possibilities even with that kind of interference.) That would reasonably tell us what an E Coli could do in a billion years. We could then move on to all other known cell types.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 15, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Zechriel: "By that measure, a random pattern or string has maximum CSI."
Correct. CSI does not imply meaning. What counts is CSI that has meaning. And that what we find at the sub-cellular level. "Sender/receiver" relationships with "intent." Codons interpreted by ribosomes, etc. (See previous comment above.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 15, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Not even if you are using facial recognition softwaer to decode the sequence for both the face and solid square? You might be surprised there.
Then you are using a definition for CSI with which I am unfamiliar. The whole point of the "specified" of CSI, by Dembski's work, is that the information is meaningful.
Shannon is the wrong theory to apply to DNA, it much better fits Kamalgorov-Chaitin.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
I probably don't understand. I was still responding to the whole "does refuting RM+NS provide evidence for ID" context, which I am sure you can see from the thread. If you intended to change the context, I apologize for missing that. I do get stuck in a rut sometimes.
Quite possibly. My understanding is that a question arose about falsifying the notion there was no foresight. I said that would be as hard as showing there are no ghosts, unless you had evidence of foresight. You listed a string of chemicals, and I asked how they constituted evidence of foresight. I might have easily missed something.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
What type of encoder is used? How were the settings determined? Do you understand why I brought up the Bible Code?
Along these lines, what would convince me is if the same decoding settings worked on 50% of the mammalian species.
I don't think quantum computers will be *that* powerful.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
TomG:
Oh, and the many worlds "hypothesis" is scientific? The God "hypothesis" is scientific? The fine tuning "hypothesis" itself is quite untestable at the moment, since we know of no universes with other constants.
That is pure conjecture. You don't know God.
You're just making that up.
Yes. My thoughts are in my brain, which is part of me.
God explains everything and therefore nothing.
Comment by Raevmo — February 15, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Doug:
Two comments:
(1) NS is creative since it changes the composition of populations.
(2) NS can work at multiple levels – both below and above the individual level. May I recommend: Evolution and the Levels of Selection (2006), by Samir Okasha.
Comment by Raevmo — February 15, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Not a fair comparison. (Pun intended.) Face recognition software (like fingerprint recognition) compares only portions of the image, such as hair color, shape of certain features, matched against a database. That is not the same thing as lossless compression where the post-decompression image is exactly (lossless) the same as the pre-compression image.
Compressors like JPEG are lossy to varying degrees depending on the parameters, and take into consideration human visual processes to further compress certain elements of the image, such as the fact that human vision is much less sensitive to chromatic loss vis-a-vis monochromic loss. In lossy compression, the post-decompression image is not exactly the same as the pre-compression image. CSI is degraded in lossy compressors.
ZIP, BZIP, GZ, etc, are lossless compressors. The post-compressed data is identical to the pre-compressed data, since exact fidelity is required.
Not sure why this matters in this discussion, but what the heck.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 15, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
I said "JPEG or similar…DCT and huffman tables", etc. And maybe even the JFIF header!
I think so. I've read books on the subject. About as reliable as astrology, which isn't very impressive. Finding "evidence" of events in the past seems pretty easy for the adherents to do. But when they try to predict the future based on the "codes", their track record is bad. I think the Bible Code is a dubious concept overall.
The Bible Code nowhere comes close to a JPEG, with perhaps a JFIF header, if that makes you happy.
Fair enough. Would this be scientific conclusion?
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 15, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Todd B.:
A discontinuity… you mean like the abrupt appearance of whole new kinds of plants/animals in the fossil record and how that doesn't mesh with "classical evolution" gradualism? Or the lack of more recent fossils for gradual transition from chimp-human ancestor to homo sapien sapien? Or the fact that the only arguably sapien species we ever demonstrably shared the planet with is not related to us by blood or marriage? That's at least some DNA evidence to work with. The whole rest of it's rock, and rock doesn't have DNA.
NDS has no problem with discontinuities. It just makes up Anazi Tales and tells us they're 'Science' – even if there are a dozen 'scientific' Anazi Tales by a dozen research teams that all contradict each other (see the evolution of trichromatic vision in primates for example).
Not if I understand NDS correctly, it wouldn't. It could just be a recent, selection-neutral mutation or horizontal transfer (by some natural mechanism, including a virus – this one came from jellyfish or deep fish, I think – that got popular because it allowed the tom who had it to get more girls in the alley than the louder and meaner toms. Or the female who had it got the most attention because the toms think she positively glows… See how easy evolutionary Anazi Tales are to tell?
NDS explains the striking homologies Mike talks about as "Front Loading" as simply the independent development of identical genes or gene families in divergent kingdoms /phyla /genera /clades (whatever) through the usual RM-NS means. By this generalized explanatory framework that can explain anything and everything, there's no such thing as a "system-dependent irreducibly complex" system. Every system can do whatever any other system does (and have the code to build it) at any time, with the same coded instructions to accomplish it, inherited by CD, horizontally transferred, or independently developed. Under this framework there can never be any evidence of design. Outside the patent courts, that is.
* Note that human-designed transgenes are promiscuous in the wild, readily transferring from species to species and among relatives. Because they're designed to transfer. Right now we have the information on file to determine that these wild plants obtained the transgene package, and we know they didn't get them by design (nobody has designed wild mustard to contain Bt toxin genes, there's no patent). Of course, we are allowing patents on natural genes and genomes now too, so pretty soon not even the patent court will be able to tell a designed organism from a natural one.
Comment by Joy — February 15, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
One Brow:
If he does, then I would have to disagree with him. I can specify complex random garbage all day that has zero meaning to anyone.
Perhaps. Shannon deals with intent and shared meaning on both sides of a transaction. Codons and ribosomes, etc, certainly do operate on a code-execution basis similar to computers, but whether or not the codons were an "intended message with meaning" is what telic thoughts is all about. CSI without meaning is still nonsense. But one could certainly argue that the CSI within cellular processes has meaning in the sense that its result is not chaos, but performs highly specialized functional work within the sub-cellular "community." In a sense, codons that code for a particular object has "meaning" to the life and well-being of the cell and it's productions.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 15, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
You seem to understand the point: the degree to which information is compressible is dependent on the coder/decoder. Different decoders work better in different circumstances.
To refocus this on the main point: you can't arbitrarily determine the meaningful amount of information in a string until you can decide what you use to get meaning out of string.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Aren't those designed to work with binary codes, while DNA is quaternary?
No, it wouldn't. But it would sure convince me anyhow.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Agreed. In the case of DNA and codons, that "meaning" is determined by the internal machinery (and I use that term deliberately) of the cell with respect to the health and fecundity of the cell. When someone says "this codon codes for this protein" that's meaning-talk.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 15, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Shannon is also highly concerned with compression and minimal transmission streams. This is not a concern for DNA.
I appreciate you are not referring to Dembski's entity, but in the future, you might want to find another term to use, such as Complex Denoted Information.
In virtually all eukaryotes, there is acutally a considerable amount of chaos that the cellular machinery has one or more processes for excluding, such as ignoring extrons, start codons, etc.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
This is much closer to Dembski's CSI notion. However, by this defintion of meaning, many eukaryote genomes have a very small percentage of meaningful information.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Maybe just CS for complex sequences. When a given CS can be demonstrated to contains information/meaning to some system or process, then I think it is proper to graduate it into the CSI category, in Dembski's sense. It does not necessarily imply designed intent, of course.
Yep. There sure is. But codons don't generally code for chaos.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 15, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
That may be true by percentage. But the amount of meaningful information that is there is incredible to me.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 15, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
kornbelt888:
An oxymoron in terms. If a specification exists, it's not random.
Joy:
Not that it matters. If i develop and patent an algorithm, and someone else uses it without permission in an application, the question before the court isn't likely to be whether the application is designed.
Comment by Mung — February 15, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
If I create a file of random garbage, for use as a key in cryptography, and pass the file to another on a diskette or some other means, I have provided randomly generated complex specified garbage. Useful to a process, but containing no meaning in itself. What am I missing here?
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 15, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Hi Mung,
Let me try another example.
I have a deck of cards. The first five cards are…
five of clubs, seven of hearts, jack of clubs, two of spades, four of clubs
…in that order.
These are five "random" cards but now that I have announced them, they are specified. Think what your reaction would be if you went and found a deck that had exact the same sequence for the first five cards.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 15, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Open mind/closed mind; science requires a delicate balance, which is hardly ever seen in these discussions.
What say you, Mike Gene?
Comment by Rock — February 15, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Hi kornbelt888,
I don't think of SETI as science.
This is a good one. While forensic science can be part of a police/historical investigation, I don't think it turns the investigation into science.
Well, over the years, I have seen a few ID advocates who have become disillusioned with ID and become atheists.
Like everyone else, I clearly have biases. They are just not theological/religious. On the contrary, I think my theological views actually help provide me a less biased outlook.
Comment by MikeGene — February 15, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Hi Todd,
Of course, there is a sliding scale of possibilities. One could say it is possible that the Earth is really 6000 years old, but this would fly in the face of massive scientific evidence and require a complete rewrite of our understanding of science. Or one could say it is possible that life was designed and this would not contradict any massive body of scientific evidence.
Yet I do not see myself as investigating mere possibilities. I view of the design of life as a plausibility. And my exploration of front-loading has long been about strengthening the plausibility of such a mechanism.
Exactly. Which is why it perplexes me when so many insist that ID be equated with God. This is also why my refusal to identify the designer is not some political trick; it is recognition of the logic that "if proof of ID was discovered"¦.I don't even think it would support the notion of a God."
Comment by MikeGene — February 15, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Hi Chunkdz,
I don't think Dawkins' reductionist views of evolution entail that a theist would be delusional.
Comment by MikeGene — February 15, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Hi TomG,
Well stated.
Comment by MikeGene — February 15, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Hi Mung,
Do you really think it is a choice between "blind faith" and having Science support our views? I think there is a huge chasm of middle ground between the two.
Comment by MikeGene — February 15, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Hi Rock,
I think you hit on a very good point. The history of science shows the error of both ways. There have been people who have refused to throw in the towel and therefore got left in the dust. But there have also been people who refused to throw in the towel and, because they stubbornly held a view, were ultimately vindicated. This is why I think science works best as a community, where a diverse array of personalities are sampling reality.
Comment by MikeGene — February 15, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
TP:
Hi TP,
I like your example, it highlights a couple things. In the first case you mention, the cards are not specified in the sense Dembski uses specification.
In the case where the same five cards are found in the same five locations, you now have a specification, because the pattern is independent.
That's not what makes for a specification, ala Dembski =P.
I'd probably infer design, and rightly so.
Imagine an even more improbably case, where I open a deck of cards and lay them out and find them separated into four distinct suits, with each sorted in ascending order.
I open a second deck and find the exact same pattern.
Does chance suffice as an explanation? Do natural laws? Some combination of the two? Or would it be reasonable to infer design?
Take them and toss them both into a separate shuffling machine. Shuffle each for x amount of time. Pull the decks out and find that while neither retains their original order, each is still in the same identical order as the other.
What is the probability of that happening? Any the period of shuffling lasted ten seconds. Assuming that we could instantaneously re-order the decks after each shuffle, and that we could do an instantaneous comparison of the deck order, what are the probabilities that we'd see an identical order given the age of the universe?
kornbelt888, hopes this answers your questions about specifications as well.
Comment by Mung — February 15, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
No, I'm trying to get you to consider that your faith isn't as divorced from your views about ID as you might think. If there were not evidence for an intelligently designed universe, what evidence would there possibly be for your faith? Would it then be the "blind faith" that atheists are so wont to ascribe to theists?
I don't know if you're a Christian, but let's assume so. You must think your faith is coherent, else I can't imagine why you hold it. I would also think you might consider the resurrection to be the sort of discontinuity that we can't explain by evolution. You can probably tell, I'm trying to relate your faith to your DM, and at least propose that your beliefs are not as amenable to a disconfirmation of ID as you might hope.
But that doesn't mean you can't still have an open mind
.
Comment by Mung — February 15, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Dembski: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?
Of course, but your inference depends on your knowledge of playing cards and card players.
You look at a face and it is exactly like your own. Perhaps it is your twin. Perhaps it is a reflection. The pattern alone is not sufficient to reach any determination.
Comment by Zachriel — February 15, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Well said, sir.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Hi Mung,
It's what I have seen in my life, Mung. In fact, it's even deeper than that – it is what I "see".
Comment by MikeGene — February 15, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Hehe, I still don't think you're grasping what I am getting at, but it's ok. Can be my fault for not explaining it well.
So let me try to put it differently. If you were to apply matrix scores to the things you've seen in your life, and to what you see, what sort of scores would they receive? Would they lead you to a strong or weak suspicion of design, or are they totally inapplicable?
Hope you don't think I am challenging your faith at all, or trying to belittle it. I just have this sneaking suspicion that "the design inference" plays a larger role than we may think, because we haven't really thought about it, yet, hehe.
Cheers
Comment by Mung — February 16, 2008 @ 12:39 am
February 16th, 2008 at 6:14 am
Mike,
Will you be going into depths about this anytime in the future? Future volumes perhaps?
Comment by Guts — February 16, 2008 @ 6:14 am
February 16th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Mung:
Over the last decade Monsanto has been extorting farmers, suing them into bankruptcy and letting ADM sweep the easy pickings, across the US breadbasket and Canada. Because their transgenic cultivars keep spreading their transgenes promiscuously, as they were designed to do. In the last few years they've been showing up in wild relatives miles from where the transgenics were raised. The important seed bank corn varieties grown in central Mexico are now contaminated too, and no GE corn is allowed to be grown within hundreds of miles.
The transgenes seem to be a hot item for the plant kingdom – they're readily uptaken. Because they're not contained, they're threatening non-target insects – including important pollenators. Perhaps you've heard about the bee problem…
You're right that there's not much to be done about that at this point. Nature will adjust or not. At some point the liability issues per design vs. contamination will balance out just like the radiation/contamination from our nuclear toys – transgenes will be declared entirely "natural" for all practical legal purposes.
And we should no doubt breathe a sigh of relief that Monsanto and USDA were persuaded not to deploy their alternative design – "Terminator Technology" that would have sterilized the crops.
Comment by Joy — February 16, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Todd B said,
This oft-parroted argument always boggles the mind. What would you say to all those atheistic, anti-ID physicists/cosmologists who are seeking an explanation of the fine tuning? Hey guys, quit wasting grant money, this here fine-tuning thingy is only a problem because of your Carbon chauvinism?
Please note: "other constants" doesn't mean other "kinds" of planets. It means: no stars, no galaxies, no heavy elements, no life at all, of any kind. Unless you think life can form without molecules to store information, from dilute Hydrogen and Helium gas–in which case intergalactic space should be teeming with beings.
The physical-constant house O' cards that results in the synthesis of heavy elements is why serious scientists are interested in the fine tuning problem, and do not dismiss it cavalierly, as you do.
Comment by David Heddle — February 16, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
raevmo,
Thus you begin a comment, directed toward me, with a series of questions you don't analyze and assertions you do not support.
No, it's the fruit of many very competent thinkers' work, down the course of many years, beginning long before I was around. If you think you can dismiss it in three sentences totalling thirteen words, I would consider that to be a grievous thing–tragic, actually–for what it says about your interest in pursuing a question properly.
Again, there is a considerable body of literature on this problem (not all of it terribly technical). Even those who would tend to agree with your conclusion would probably say that your answer doesn't begin to address the question properly.
One place it begins is here: if your thoughts are part of you, can you remove them? Can you install them? Can they be located within the brain they way neurons and dendrites and synapses can? Where is the proposition, "My thoughts are in my brain" located? Can you distinguish between the proposition and its symbolic expressions? Do you recognize that this is an important question?
That's a common slogan, so common that many people parrot it without having thought through what it means. In view of the above, I have to wonder…. And I strongly invite you and challenge you not to take the short, facile road you took here.
Comment by TomG — February 16, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
P.S. to Raevmo: the title MikeGene put on this post is "Maintaining an Open Mind." Over-simplifying and dismissing the way you have done is not generally a mark of such a mind. I say this not because I need to win any argument here, but because it saddens me when people think their position is so easy and obvious, when they just haven't dealt with the complexities. Maybe you have dealt with them–but it's not plain to see from what you wrote this time.
Comment by TomG — February 16, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Not sure if this is even topical…
Evolution has at least fifteen different mechanisms, of which RM and NS are only two. You falsifying a subset of evolution is not falsifying evolution."”One Brow
I perused the list of the 15 mechanisms of evolution, One Brow, and observed an omission. (Can you actually do that? Observe something that isn't there?! LOL)
Anyway, the omission I observed was of The Interminable Etceteras.
Adding infinitum to the list seemed problematic to me.
Noticing the redundancy in the list, if you'll allow, I compressed the list:
Variation + Selection = Evolution.
There is something to be said for theoretical or conceptual conciseness. And, after all, what has been lost in the compression? Nothing! As we are assured compression is lossless! (LOL)
But you are way behind me (You're new.): A long time ago (@ARN) I suggested that everyone cooperate to compile a list of all the factors, all the "mechanisms," that contribute to biological evolution. I predicted that the list would grow w/o bounds and therefore be incomputable and therefore not properly a part of science. (Maybe that is why Mike Gene thinks ID isn't science either? It's uncomputable.)
[My example was from Darwin's own very personal notes: He was listing all the relative (dis/-)advantages to getting married.]
Comment by Rock — February 16, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
"The history of science shows the error of both ways."–Mike Gene
It also shows the correctness of both ways, Mke Gene, as you know.
Ya know, science is a bitch, its this and that and both and all at the same time!
Comment by Rock — February 16, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Rock on.
Comment by Bradford — February 16, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
TomG:
I asked some questions in response to your unsupported assertions. You said:
Brilliant analysis.
There have been many competent and admirable thinkers that were totally wrong. You're just making an argument from authority. I could cite many competent thinkers that reach the opposite conclusion. It's also interesting that you presume to infer my interests from thirteen words.
Oh yes. But can you explain to me how this relates to your claim that God's thoughts are not part of him? What does that even mean? I suspect that you have been brainwashed for many years with religious nonsense, and that this somehow makes sense to you. Now that I find tragic.
Comment by Raevmo — February 16, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Raevmo:
… and I suspect that you've been brainwashed for many years to not think about or research these matters yourself.
Simply put … If God is the ultimate foundation of reality, He must logically be eternal (nothing, including "time" can exist apart from him or be more foundational than Him). If He is eternal, He can't have parts, for to have parts is only possible if there is a deeper foundation of reality with which to relate these parts.
Ie: a machine can only be separated into its parts in relation to a larger more foundational space. If the machine couldn't be separated in principle, then it wouldn't have parts for parts are by definition separate constituents which make up a whole. That isn't a perfect representation but I do hope it helps to provide a context for understanding the concept of what constitutes a "part." The basic concept is that God can't be separated into "parts" for if He could, He wouldn't be self-sufficient, eternal, and foundational to all of reality. If He wasn't, then the foundation which caused Him would really be God (ad infinitum).
As such, if God is foundational to reality then He can't be broken down into parts, and He is not complex. God's thoughts are not a "part" of Him — they are Him and have always existed as His nature which of course is Him just as your nature is you — your nature cannot exist apart from you. Yes, hard to understand when we ourselves are not used to concepts such as eternity. however an eternal intelligence is the most logical conclusion based on a combo of philosophy and science IMO.
Comment by CJYman — February 16, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Aw lighten up Raevmo. I went back in the thread to find out what provoked this and sure enough it is not as depicted. Here is the exchange:
Note Raevmo's reference to God's intellect as the means of assessing simplicity. Tom responds:
Ha! Tom does not understand that thoughts are a mere manifestation of a biological property arising from brain cells. Reductionism explains everything Tom.:wink: And Raevmo needs to ponder the downward causation that would flow from God's creativity. We're not looking in that direction so is it any wonder we see nothing.
Comment by Bradford — February 16, 2008 @ 8:33 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
I would have difficulty speaking to figments of your imaginaiton, unfortunately. I'm sure there are millions of physicists/astronomers who explore what other people call fine-tuning, but I doubt most of them let the philosophical baggage of is there/isn't there fine-tuning affect their research.
We don't know anthing at all about what could form under those circumstance, so why not a different form of life?
Comment by One Brow — February 16, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
That would replace many items, but it seems a little small. Which one does Random Drift fall under? Speciation? Puntuated Equilibrium?
In any case, the post I responded to did not discuss V + S, but RM +NS. If they set the level of granularity, why corrrect my response at the same level?
I catch on quickly.
How long did the list on ARN get? Anything I'm missing?
Comment by One Brow — February 16, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
The constants relate to physical phenomenon. Fluctuations in mathematical values would affect physical realities. Effects related to their values or possible values are not a function of human understanding.
David knows what he is talking about.
Comment by Bradford — February 16, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Can we safely say that it is legitimate to replace your "God has imagined" with a statement to the effect that "God thought about," so that we can both be sure we're talking about thoughts and not imaginings, and therefore what you wrote can be more clearly related to Tom's response?
It means, when you make a statement about God's thoughts (imaginings) you are assuming that there is a relationship between thoughts and complexity, as if thoughts can be conceived of as parts of something. The more parts a thing has, the more complex it is. The more thoughts God has, the more complex God must be.
Tom is challenging the unstated assumption you're making that thoughts are analogous to parts, such that one can judge the complexity of a thing by a count of it's thoughts the way one might judge the complexity of a thing by counting it's parts.
Brainwashing has nothing to do with it, and the tragedy is that you would set forth such a claim before understanding the argument.
Comment by Mung — February 16, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Mung:
Is that what centuries of great theological thinkers came up with?
If someone (or God) has a detailed "mental picture" (let's call it Y) of some object X (many worlds for example), there must be a one-to-one correspondence between Y and X. I think it follows mathematically that the mental picture has the same complexity as X. Analogous to the way Cantor proved the set of rational numbers has the same number of "parts" as the set of integers: you can set up a one-to-one correspondence between them.
Comment by Raevmo — February 17, 2008 @ 7:29 am
February 17th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Raevmo:
Many worlds advocates have shown a willingness to accept multiple, even an infinite number universes have they not? So why would one think a complexity argument against the existence of God is plausible? It looks like more of the same. Complexity to the nth degree is believable as long as there is no God.
Comment by Bradford — February 17, 2008 @ 9:11 am
February 17th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Bradford:
Did you write this before drinking your Sunday morning coffee? What does it mean?
Comment by Raevmo — February 17, 2008 @ 9:40 am
February 17th, 2008 at 10:00 am
It means the objections you raise to the possibility of God's existence are unrelated to your actual reasons.
Comment by Bradford — February 17, 2008 @ 10:00 am
February 17th, 2008 at 11:36 am
one brow,
you're avoiding the point again. You're not too good at this.
I've said it before – do you not understand what he's saying or do you not understand the topic? David addressed what you just said in the very same blurb that you quoted.
one brow, you talk about philosophical baggage. You are the one with phil baggage, because you respond to so many posts with incoherent ramblings…. usually overlooking the quote you pulled out of the person's post.
I have the hardest time following what you're saying. But, I think it's a product of you not being open-minded. You see you're worldview getting attacked and it's 'respond at all costs'.
Comment by Doug — February 17, 2008 @ 11:36 am
February 17th, 2008 at 11:37 am
one brow,
I beg to differ.
Comment by Doug — February 17, 2008 @ 11:37 am
February 17th, 2008 at 11:54 am
By all means, feel free to differ. You have my permission.
Comment by One Brow — February 17, 2008 @ 11:54 am
February 17th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Neither. I just happen to recognize presumptive nonesense.
Yes, he dismissively postulated that, if we believe life could arise in a different universe undifferent physical constants, some small subset of which changes might results in a sea if diffuse hydrogen and helium, we should then expect life to arise in the interstellar hygrogen and heliium of this unverse under the physical constants we currently have, as if he had any experience at all with the geniune effects of a universe with altered physical constants (I am reasonably sure he does not). What part of that do you think I missed?
Gosh, Doug, I'm sorry you have trouble understanding my posts. I'll try to improve on that for your sake.
I guess that explains why I react to antagonistically to MikeGene.
Comment by One Brow — February 17, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
I have confessed that my mind is closed (and make no apologies for it). Nothing that I've ever heard in these discussions has planted a single seed of doubt in my mind. Does that make me a bad person? Or just a bad scientist?
But maybe I should open my mind! [Insert sound of a creaky door here.] There is the extremely remote possibility I am wrong. LOL
So, One Brow, what you are telling me is that in order to properly calculate the probability of the fixation of a single mutant allele I must include 32,768 dependent factors in my equations.
Holy shit! When you put it that way, maybe doubts about evolution are not so unreasonable.
Maybe I was wrong!
(Who knew that opening one's could be so painful! I think I'm having a stroke!)
Comment by Rock — February 17, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Well, if you are talking about the fixation of a single allele in a single population, a most of those factors will be zero, of course.
No doubt there are reasonable and unreasonable doubts.
Comment by One Brow — February 17, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Raevmo:
Can you conceive of something which does not actually exist in reality? If so, where is the one-to-one correspondence?
If one-to-one correspondence is required, can a finite mind possibly conceive of infinity?
You seem to be arguing that there must me a one-to-one correspondence between a thought and what is being thought about. What I fail to see is how that makes your point. In your example, Y is the "mental picture" and X is what, the thing being pictured? So what is the difference between X and Y? IF there is no difference, what sense does it make to speak of a correspondence?
To approach your correspondence theory of thought from another perspective, think of the numeral zero. What does it correspond to?
Comment by Mung — February 17, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Mung:
Good one Mung.
Comment by Bradford — February 17, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Mung:
I certainly can. I can conceive of threads where Bradford does not bring up OOL. But are you saying that God does not actually exist in reality?
It's quite possible to discuss one-to-one correspondences between entirely hypothetical sets.
Do you not know the difference between you and your mirror image? My point was simply that I fail to see why the God hypothesis should be considered simpler than many worlds hypothesis (if you can call them hypotheses). So far I haven't seen any justification for that view.
It can correspond to many things. Like the number of dollar bills in my wallet, or zero degrees Kelvin etc.
Comment by Raevmo — February 17, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
You're calling Heddle's response to Todd B. nonsense?
All this nonsense from Mr. Evidence?
one brow, where's the evidence that shows that life could be supported in a universe consisting solely of H and He?
You only concern yourself with the need for evidence when someone is making a claim contrary to your beliefs.
For my sake? For your sake. One brow, your responses are usually off mark. Your standards are inconsistent.
Not at all. It explains that your claims of being open-minded and interested in the evidence are fraudulent. Don't go blaming Mike for your deeply ingrained tendencies. And don't shift the focus (again…. and again…. and again).
Comment by Doug — February 17, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Where is the one to one correspondence between your conceptualization and the imagined threads? If it does not exist for an imaginary concept then your view of how thoughts are conceived and its relation to complexity may be skewed.
Comment by Bradford — February 17, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Raevmo:
Of what physical substance are thoughts constructed? Do thoughts about complex things contain more of that physical substance than thoughts about simple things, or are their physical parts just fit together in a more complex fashion? If I think about something simple (say, "water is wet") does it mean I am physically equivalent to water or wetness? Does it mean my thoughts are liquid?
I am having some trouble following this diversion. I suspect it is because I can't put my thoughts on the desk and examine their pieces-parts to see how complex they are or are not. Nor, if I could hold my thoughts in my hand, do I have a thought-o-scope that resolves the physical parts of them for me. In fact, I am beginning to suspect my thoughts have no physical substance at all, thus cannot be characterized as physically complex (no matter what they are about).
That could just be me and my immaterial thoughts. What are your thoughts made of, Raevmo?
Comment by Joy — February 17, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Joy:
Wow, lots of questions. All irrelevant and mostly ridiculous though. A diversion actually. It doesn't matter (no pun intended) what thoughts are made of for my argument. I'm simply suggesting that if a mind contains a fully accurate representation of an object (even if that is strictly speaking in violation of the uncertainty principle), then that mind is at least as complex as the object, by any reasonable measure of complexity.
I saw that. You sneaked in "physically".
If you mean that thinking on your part is undetectable by material means, then you might be on to something. I have no reason to believe that my thought processes are not entirely confined to the matter inside my skull. But, as I said before, that is immaterial (pun intended) to the complexity discussion.
Comment by Raevmo — February 17, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
I think I've probably mentioned Carl Woese's HGT Field once or twice when the subject of universal common descent is asserted as absolute, unassailable fact by some DarwinDefender. CD isn't the subject of this thread, but maintaining an open mind is. Some great excerpts from Woese's 2004 A New Biology for a New Century may be useful here (emphasis mine)…
First Woese takes Darwinism/NDS to task for reliance on "dogmas" that simply no longer apply now that we know what we know:
Then Woese launches an appeal to the thinking of David Bohm in the attempt to understand physics holistically, again bemoaning the imprisonment of biological science in an antiquated framework that can only serve to stifle its progress:
What does it mean for biology to be freed of the intellectual shackles of misguided absolutism (a.k.a. "dogma")? Woese has some ideas about that, related to his own attempts to understand biological evolution despite the strictures of imposed dogma that cannot explain what he sees:
There is an apparent "Unitary Crisis" in biology that seems to mirror the one in physics. Though of course we don't see any dedicated DDs here or anywhere else in the 'Culture War' that are willing to admit this in public. Rather, we get endless hash re-hash of the same old same 19th century reductionism as if it were not now a full century and a half later, as if we've learned nothing in all that time. Woese says in his conclusion:
Wow. Imagine a biology that doesn't seek just to control life or design evolution. A biology that seeks to understand – and help humanity to understand – what life is, how it fits into a complex whole, and how we might learn to use such understanding for the benefit of the whole (and ourselves as part of it) rather than just bending it to our short-sighted and ultimately destructive will.
Of course this can never happen so long as we destructive, short-sighted humans frame our sociopolitical disagreements in terms of warfare or coddle our greed with the pretense that what we do to foul our nest doesn't matter to nature or to ourselves.
I can imagine such things, and do not insist that my imaginings have some mysterious sort of complex substance. I just think they're flights of mental fancy, and I do not expect we'll ever become something more than we are right now – Suicidal and Proud of It.
Comment by Joy — February 17, 2008 @ 6:24 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Woes:
Biology has already entered that world. See Robert May's 1976 "simple mathematical models with very complicated dynamics" (Nature 261, p459). See "the origin of order" by Stuart Kaufmann (1993). I could go on.
Comment by Raevmo — February 17, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Raevmo:
So… you have no problem with discussing saltation (punk-eek, rapid adaptive morphogenesis in populations) in terms of "phase transition" opening expanded "phase space" in biological evolution, right?
Comment by Joy — February 17, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Joy:
Should I? Hell, I'm preparing lectures for tomorrow, in a course on self-organization and evolution. Tomorrow's topic: chaotic dynamics. Talk about non-linear.
Comment by Raevmo — February 17, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Raevmo:
Cool! Glad to hear you're up for the concepts. Do let us know how the lectures go, sounds interesting.
Comment by Joy — February 17, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
A little theology can be a dangerous thing, but here goes:
Quoting Arminius:
You'd almost think that Christian Theology knew Dawkins was coming…
Is there evidence of fine-tuning in Theology?
Comment by Mung — February 17, 2008 @ 10:36 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Some people open their minds one day a week. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, hope an egg doesn't get laid in there.
Comment by Mung — February 17, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Hi Raevmo,
You wrote…
What are you doing wasting time on real work?!? You are supposed to be reading Penrose's The Road to Reality so you can argue with me!
Actually your lecture does sound interesting.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 17, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Hi TP,
Are you familiar with:
Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time?
Comment by Mung — February 17, 2008 @ 11:48 pm
February 18th, 2008 at 12:47 am
I don't think he got it.
If it does not exist in physical reality, then it must exist strictly in "the brain."
But in that case, both the idea, and it's correspondence, exist in "the brain."
So the alleged complexity never materializes, if you'll pardon the pun.
Comment by Mung — February 18, 2008 @ 12:47 am
February 18th, 2008 at 12:59 am
One Brow:
I think it is safe to say, that there are no other life forms which are dependent on other values of those constants in this universe. Wouldn't you agree?
Which part do you disagree with?
The reality, the need for explanation, or both?
On this view, nothing at all justifies a need to explain anything at all.
And why are you taking the position that it is only exceptional situations that can justify a need to explain them?
Comment by Mung — February 18, 2008 @ 12:59 am
February 18th, 2008 at 2:28 am
A finite mind can conceive of the concept of infinity as an abstract notion, but a finite mind cannot conceive of, say, infinite specific hydrogen atoms. In other words, if a finite mind wanted to give infinite hydrogen atoms each a unique identity it would fail. Information is Complexity. Complexity is Information. The information needed to precisely conceive of something is thus equally complex of that something. We tend to think of things using simplified abstracts in order to reduce the complexity required to "understand" that thing.
What a silly question. The general consensus is that universal constants are, well, universal. Based on that axiom your statement is a tautology.
That doesn't follow at all. Even if I think its meaningless to ponder theoretical universes with altered natural laws does not imply that it is meaningless to examine and understand our universe where real natural laws are directly observable. The part that I claim is meaningless is the claimed discontinuity between our universe and all these other theoretical universes with different laws where life cannot exist. I mean, its only a theory that these universal constants are adjustable and not set to the only possible value. Any argument rooted in an area where we have such little knowledge is bound to be an Argument from Ignorance.
I'm not saying theoretical physics is all bullshit, just that I think that level of "theory" is far beyond the ability to prove or disprove and thus belongs in a philosophy class more than a science class. I haven't claimed this to be anything more than an opinion however, which leaves the "millions of physicists/astronomers" who disagree with me free to pursue their interests.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 18, 2008 @ 2:28 am
February 18th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Bradford: Good one Mung.
Comment by Bradford — February 18, 2008 @ 8:09 am
February 18th, 2008 at 10:45 am
I'm calling the assertion that we have even an inkling of what might or might not be possible in the hydrogen soup of a universe based on different values of the universal constants nonsense, absolutely.
So, it turns out I didn't miss anything after all, apparently.
I don't recall claiming that it could be, only that we had no way of knowing.
I do try to be critical of all ideas, even when the nominally support my opinions. If you spend any time on the Skeptic's Annotated Bible Discussion Board, you'll see that for yourself. However, I sometimes fail to meet this goal.
Since we are on this topic, let's have you take a turn: do you think Heddle has more evidence for his claim on the possibilities of life under other conditions than biologists have for their abiogenesis studies?
I have no doubt that's how you see them.
I shall try to remember to include sarcasm tags in the future for you.
What is it you think you have evidence for?
Comment by One Brow — February 18, 2008 @ 10:45 am
February 18th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Mung,
The original comments were by Todd Berkebile, but I'll address what I can.
Certainly.
I would disagree with the human-centered point of view that leads people to think the universe is tuned for us, rather than the other way around.
I believe Todd Berkebile was saying that there is no need to go a justification outside of the universe to expain phenomena inside the universe.
Comment by One Brow — February 18, 2008 @ 10:57 am
February 18th, 2008 at 11:36 am
One Brow,
Of course neither I nor anyone else presented any such claim. Instead, the claim is that the universe is fine tuned to synthesize heavy elements (heavy meaning anything beylond Lithium) and that any kind of life would require such heavy elements to store information, process energy, have metabolism, etc.
Nobody said nything about human life. You are confusing fine-tuning arguments with privileged planet arguments, a common mistake.
Comment by David Heddle — February 18, 2008 @ 11:36 am
February 18th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Mung:
ROTFLOL!!! What a great laugh for a Monday morning! Man, I think we've got some of this heavy, heavy matter just up the road in my neck of the woods… §;o)
Comment by Joy — February 18, 2008 @ 11:54 am
February 18th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Sorry, its heavy-metals-centric or carbon-based-life-centric instead of human-centric. I'll try not to repeat that error. I'm not sure how that would rescue it from being an invalid probability/likelihood argument, though.
Comment by One Brow — February 18, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
February 18th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
TP:
Don't I know it. It's just that The Road *in* Reality is jammed up.
Comment by Raevmo — February 18, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
February 18th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Mung:
Awesome. Thank you.
Comment by Raevmo — February 18, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
February 20th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Well, we weren't talking about his views of evolution. Don't you think that Dawkins himself would disagree with your original assertion?
The ultimate substrate of Dawkins' reductionism appears to be "blind, pitiless indifference." Is your theology one of a blind, pitiless, indifferent god? If not, I submit that Dawkins' "raw reductionism" is completely at odds with your theology.
Care to get more specific about your theology, now that you've tickled our palates?
Comment by chunkdz — February 20, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 5:05 pm
>Comment by kornbelt888 "” February 15, 2008
While I think that proving ID to hardened atheists is a virtual
impossibility, at least it's a real possibility hypothetically, because
despite any lack of capability of humans of demonstrating a designer,
the designer could always show up and announce his/her/its/their
existence in a way that no sane person could question.
Comment by kornbelt888 "” February 15, 2008
TomG said:
Christian theology is absolutely committed to the fact that God is
creator/designer. It is not committed to the necessity that God left
unmistakable and unambiguous marks of his creative work, where we could
find them in nature.
Comment by TomG "” February 15, 2008
Comment by kornbelt888 "” February 15, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
Intelligent
entities are known to leave "signatures" in their creations. And I
don't think it would sound far-fetched to the average person that such
a signature might exist in designed genomes.
Comment by kornbelt888 "” February 15, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
kernest135:
SETI looks for a simple signal such astransmitted prime numbers to prove intelligent life.
We have highly complex DNA with a computer type program, and ATPase motors and Kinesins (robots) in the simplest cells and all cells. Isnt this a clear signature of the creator? One that no sane person could question.
Regards
kernest135.
Having trouble with this internet PC it locks up.
Will be away in the wopwops for a few days befor I can read the replies.
Comment by kernest135 — February 21, 2008 @ 5:05 pm