More Confusion about Intelligent Design
by MikeGeneA few months ago, I demonstrated a fundamental point of confusion on the part of many critics of ID: conflation of intelligent cause with supernatural cause. Bilbo shared this essay on another forum and it elicited a couple of replies from GalapagosPete and kElvi. Since these two individuals essentially do nothing more than repeat objections floating about in the anti-ID memosphere, I suppose it's a good idea show again where such objections go astray.
GalapagosPete writes:
If Wise is at fault then so is Michael Behe, who admitted that IDC is as scientific as astrology.
This is not an issue of fault, but whether or not a design inference necessarily entails that we assume or conclude the designer was supernatural.
The supernatural is implied because of the explicit claim of _intelligent_ creation. Where does this creator come from? If it's an alien (race), then where did they come from? And so on. At some point you either have abiogenesis or a supernatural creator. Unless you have a third option.
Once again, the critic is focused on Ultimate Reality. Sure, in a metaphyical sense, the Ultimate Explanation is "abiogenesis or a supernatural creator" (Matter or Mind; Non-teleology or Teleology). You either take a pick or opt for Thought Provoker's Third Choice ( which, if I understand him correctly, means we can't use any scientific analysis to invoke such an Ultimate Explanation).
Whatever the choice, the ID inference is far removed from the Ultimate Explanation. ID is not about coming up with any Ultimate Explanation, nor is it focused on Ultimate Reality. Its focus is far more modest. If the data signal some form of intelligent cause behind the origin of life, then we infer an intelligent cause. You don't simply erase or ignore the data because you are not quite sure how to process it in an Ultimate Reality.
Right now, we have consistent, natural explanations for many things we once thought were magic. Our experience tells us that the things we don't yet understand will also have natural explanations.
I have never argued, "we don't undertand this, therefore we must infer supernatural ID." Neither, as far as I can tell, do the mainstream proponents of ID. Again, GalapagosPete is just repeating talking points that are easily picked up in our tabloid culture.
kElvi's criticisms are no stronger:
Mike Gene is once again using a v.weak argument and making no difference at all.
As some of you know, if I think my argument is weak, I admit it. But I don't think this argument is weak at all. Wise conflates an intelligent cause with a supernatural cause. It's that simple.
Wise does not assume that ID invokes supernatural agents (not causes), that is what ID spinmeisters talk about.
No, even the "ID spinmeisters" understand this basic point of logic; ID does not invoke the supernatural.
And that is why the ID-janata peddles this meme about intelligent causes.
Here we can see that kElvi does not even understand the very basic idea behind ID. To him (or her), it's all just a "meme." IMO, one of the reasons why ID continues to interest many people despite all the shenanigans of the ID movement is that people recognize the basic questions and some of the basic points (such as ID does not invoke supernatural causes) are valid.
The term intelligent itself means nothing other than 'human' and if extended further non-human-animal.
Are we really to believe "˜intelligent' means the same thing as "˜human?'
That is the only 'intelligent' things we know. And everyone of them is natural, nothing unnatural/supernatural about it.
Yes, there is nothing unnatural/supernatural about intelligent things. That is the error in conflating intelligence with the supernatural. Otherwise, are we supposed to invoke a supernatural explanation to explain the arrangement of letters that come from "˜kElvi?'
And if there is something supernatural, there is by definition no natural - scientific - way of detecting it.
Not so fast here. I would agree with this, but there are a significant number of mainstream scientists who don't agree, including such notable figures as Richard Dawkins. These scientists are so impressed with their ability to scientifically detect the supernatural that they have interpreted the lack of evidence for the supernatural as evidence of lack. kElvi should be arguing with Dawkins, not me.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Mike:
LOL!!! I wish they'd make up their minds. Humans, they tell us, are stupid sheep, completely moronic zombies, IDiots. "Intelligent" means supernatural.
So which is it? Are people intelligent? Does intelligence demand supernatural abilities? Are humans supernatural?
Talk about internal inconsistency! Maybe humans aren't so intelligent after all… §;o)
Comment by Joy — September 30, 2007 @ 10:58 am
September 30th, 2007 at 11:05 am
I think this highlights the vacuous nature of mainstream ID. Did it happen 6000 years ago, or 4 billion? ID has no position. Was the creator an infinitely powerful, supernatural entity, or a human-like ET? ID sits on the fence. If ID (the movement, rather than the fringe here at TT) wants to be taken serious as a science, it has to settle on something with just a bit of substance.
Comment by The Pixie — September 30, 2007 @ 11:05 am
September 30th, 2007 at 11:11 am
That there is no natural means of detecting a supernatural entity is an argument by definition. Assume it and you still have no argument against the idea that if a supernatural entity existed, it could interact with the natural world and leave behind evidentiary footprints of having done so.
Comment by Bradford — September 30, 2007 @ 11:11 am
September 30th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Hi Pixie,
I think you have missed the entire point of mainstream ID. It is premised on the assumption that fingerprints of design can be detected without knowing such things as who designed or when the design occurred. To come back and argue that we must first know who designed and when the design occurred is just a denial of the original working assumption behind ID. That point is defensible, but it misses the point of ID.
This is how many people miss the whole point of Behe's Mt. Rushmore analogy. Yes, if we look more closely, we can find evidence that point to the designers and their methods, and even tell you when it was formed. But do we really NEED that information to surmise the design of this particular artifact?
Hi Bradford,
Yes, but would such fingerprints be evidence of "˜supernatural-ness?'
Gotta run….
Comment by MikeGene — September 30, 2007 @ 11:28 am
September 30th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Mike Gene:
No. Such fingerprints would be evidence for ID. Apologists could and would use the evidence to support theological concepts. But that does not alter the non-metaphysical nature of the evidence itself.
Comment by Bradford — September 30, 2007 @ 11:38 am
September 30th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Theism is not the only alternative to materialism. Yet we agnostics are denounced as "creationists" for questioning materialism. What kind of "creationist" does not even believe in a personal god? Let us hope Ben Stein's movie brings the wide spread attempted suppression of ideas to the attention of the public. Non materialism is as legitimate a religion as materialism is, and both are equally deserving of respectful consideration in the world of ideas.
http://myauthorsite.com/
Questions about Materialism (with some pretty funny stuff about Freud.)
Comment by Bert — September 30, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
September 30th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
You can try to use scientific analysis to deternine an Ultimate Explanation, it just won't do you any good, IMO.
As you know, I reduce this to how different people react to the concept of Gould's NOMA. However, even that isn't straight forward.
While Dawkins and most Young Earth Creationists firmly reject NOMA, others tend to dance around it. I might be an exception in how I tend to fully embrace Gould's NOMA.
It gets interesting when people treat NOMA only one way. Of course it is usually done to protect specific interests. For example, consider the concept that science can declare certain philosophical suggestions as impossible while totally rejecting that philosophical suggestions might make certain scientific hypothesis unlikely. There is also the concept that philosophical suggestions can and should be taken seriously for scientific considerations but science has no say in determining the validity of philosophical suggestions.
Let me put it… provocatively…
A pox on both houses if you don't enforce the NOMA division. You don't get to complain about just the NOMA violations you don't like. If you violate NOMA you get to live with the consequences when the other side does too.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 30, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
September 30th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Hi Bert,
I not only question materialism, I have to restrain from laughing out loud whenever it is mentioned seriously.
Not many people accuse me of being a creationist.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 30, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
September 30th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Pixie:
Actually, your comment highlights the vacuous nature of your prejudice against ID. You've been serving in this 'culture war' for a long time - at least as long as I have. You've participated at ARN and here at TT, where you know that support for ID is only occasionally associated with some particular brand of religious apologetics. You know that most contributors here are not YEC - some are agnostic, some might even be atheists - yet you continue to pretend (to yourself and others) that it's all about YEC fundamentalist-style creationism.
If it were to turn out in the end that evolution isn't such a 'random walk', but contains front-loaded 'evolvability' elements present from the beginning and keyed to adaptive response to environmental stresses (the better to shape life for its particular niche), would it truly cause you great existential distress per your chosen metaphysics?
I ask because I've often warned religiously motivated ID supporters that pinning their beliefs on provisional science is a big mistake. If you're pinning your beliefs on provisional science, it's just as big a mistake. IMO. Dawkins and PZ have embraced this mistake and invested all their faith in it, so such stupidity is not unheard of even among the self-identified "intelligensia."
Comment by Joy — September 30, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
September 30th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
TP:
Depends on whether or not you die before science decides differently. Still, metaphysical faith in science is scientism, no matter who's investing the faith.
Suppose at some point in your life you were to physically encounter The Impossible. A genuine miracle of monumental proportions, for which there is absolutely zero scientific explanation (even though many science-types got to encounter it too, and admitted in open court that it indeed was a miracle). You go looking for the MOST science might know about such things, even in its most esoteric corners, and find they're just barely scraping the surface of larger questions that might someday relate to such things…
Meanwhile, whenever you mention this, you get pretenders insulting and berating you at every turn for 'believing-in' such obviously insane things (as what you have personally experienced). They tell you you're hallucinating. They tell you you're crazy. They call you names in public, insist that you're simply lying…
Are their opinions likely to change your experience or your beliefs about your experience? Will they succeed in stopping your quest for answers? Will you retire to your easy chair in front of the television so you'll never raise your voice to ask such stupid questions in public again?
…or will you tell them to f*ck off, and become more convinced that the reason they behave in this ridiculous manner is FEAR that what you experienced might mean they're wrong?
NOMA is all about fear. On both sides, so it has to be mutually agreed upon in order to count. Culture warriors on both sides have rejected NOMA in order to try and force their metaphysics on others. Because they ALL believe that if they can force you to believe what they believe, what they believe will magically become more true.
It's really kind of sad, all this investment of faith in magic. I'm married to a magician. I've known many others. Some are better than others, but it's all just illusions and skill. The audience implicitly agrees to suspend their disbelief for the price of a ticket - they pay to be entertained. In science and in religion they take themselves way too seriously for implicit agreements to pertain. They'd be a joke in show biz.
Comment by Joy — September 30, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
September 30th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
This all turns on the the word supernatural. What does it mean? I am not sure - but it is something on the lines of an agent that is not bound by the laws of nature. i.e. an agent whose powers cannot be predicted. But that is exactly where ID falls down. It refuses to grapple with "how". It effectively assumes there is an agent that can achieve whatever ID is attempting to explain and places no restriction on that agent. All ID ever does it try to show that life or whatever cannot be achieved without an agent. It never tries to show whether life can be achieved with an agent. That's assumed. Whether you call that supernatural or not - I am not sure.
Comment by Mark Frank — September 30, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
September 30th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Hi Joy and all,
As I was reading Joy's comment my knee-jerk reaction was to say this is my sun-rising-from-the-west thought experiment. Joy went beyond that, but let me explain this first.
What would you do if one morning you woke up and noticed the Sun was rising from the West instead of the East? You spend the day (as the sun slowly traverses from West to East and sets in the East) pointing it out to everyone and verify to yourself and some others that it is really happening. No explanations can be found. The next day everything goes back to normal.
This would probably be the equivalent of a crisis of faith for me.
Many people have pointed out the inconsistency of NOMA. If NOMA is true, it is both a scientific truth and a philosophical Truth. So why do I embrace it? Because it is the only way to make sense of the inherent paradoxes.
Supposedly, we have at least 6.6 Billion different realities existing. My reality isn't the same as your reality. But I can't even know that. There may be only one reality, mine. It is the only one that actually matters to the individual that may or may not be typing these words (it may be all a dream). Of course, out of politeness, I will make the presumption that others exist just like I make the presumption the sun will rise from the East tomorrow.
I have noticed these entities I presume exist tend to do and believe just about anything to avoid having a crisis of faith. This is extremely difficult in a universe that seems bent on exhibiting paradoxes. While my, and possibly everyone else's, existence may very well depend on these paradoxes, it is still frustrating.
In spite of all of this (and maybe to return the spitefulness) I embrace a paradox to deal with the paradoxes.
I don't know the Truth so let's do science stuff and pretend it is consistent.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 30, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
September 30th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Mike
Sure. But that is why mainstream ID will never be science. You need more than an inference (even if we allow that you can detect design without discovering anything about the design process). You need to use that inference to generate a hypothesis, which is specific enough to produce testable predictions.
Joy
I am not sure where you get this from what I posted, but I was talking about mainstream ID, the likes of Dembski, Wells and Johnson, and the rest of the Discovery Institute, which I would say is creationism in disguise. We can argue that point if you want, though I am not sure it would be on topic.
No. Front-loading by ETI would not really change my metaphysics that much at all. Front-loading by God would, but I am a "weak" atheist; I am not that commited to the atheist position. It would have less impact on my life than it would on a YECer (or Dawkins if you like), I imagine.
Comment by The Pixie — September 30, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
September 30th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
The Pixie wrote:
Let's say you were a Spanish explorer who came across some Mayan ruins in 1568, but had no idea how they were built, by whom, or when. Would you say that would make the supposition that they were intelligently designed vacuous?
I think ID covers a number of theories about that, just as there are a number of theories about human origins within mainstream science.
If by 'creator' you mean 'creator of the universe', then presumably it wasn't a human-like ET.
Does this mean that if some evolutionary scientists agree with Gould's theories and some do not, that evolutionary science sits on a fence too?
Since when are social movements scientific enterprises?
We need not detect a designer in order to detect evidence of design. There is a very large body of evidence for the fundamental physical entities and interactions being exquisitely structured according to rationally intelligible and highly elegant mathematical principles. There is a very large body of evidence for the universe being very finely 'tuned' for life. There is a very large body of evidence that all observed cases of coded information arising are the result of intelligent and intentional processes, with no observed cases of coded information arising unintentionally from non-coded information. There is a very large body of evidence that biological processes are vastly more complex than even the most complex known human artifacts, and that this complexity is generated by coded information. And there is a very large body of evidence that rational effects–"”such as various kinds of output of human minds—"”such as the Empire State building and Microsoft Word—-always have rational causes and never have non-rational sufficient causes. The hypothesis that best explains this body of data is that the universe and life were intelligently designed by non-human rational agency.
Do you think any mind is empirically detectable? If so, what is it precisely that licenses that kind of judgement?
Comment by stunney — September 30, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
September 30th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Mark Frank wrote:
Could an alien visitor to Earth 39,000 years ago have predicted that modern humans would be able to compose piano concertos, send spacecraft to Saturn's moons, prove Fermat's Last Theorem, and discover quarks? If not, would that entail that modern humans are supernatural entities?
How do minds do anything? Do you know how your mind was able to compose your post and get your fingers to type it?
Since science regularly comes up with things that nature is apparently capable of that nobody thought nature was capable of—for example, dilating time, and quantum tunneling, and quantum entanglement, and preventing light from escaping a sufficiently massive body, and mechanically computing difficult mathematical problems in a remarkably short time—-in what way is the appeal to natural law distinguishable from the appeal to agency, both generally, and along the dimension of possessing unpredictable powers?
Of course, it simply isn't; and the idea that it is distinguishable is not empirical, since no natural law has ever been empirically observed any more than conscious agency has been empirically observed. Laws and mental agents are equally invisible. They are theoretical entities.
Were Microsoft Word and the Empire State building achievable without agents? If they weren't, would that entail that something supernatural was going on in their production?
Well, surely we know that life was achieved either with or without an agent, since there is life. One of its more interesting features is that it operates with a genetic code, and all other codes we know of were designed by intelligent agents. We've never seen codes arising from non-code precursor stuff spontaneously and unintentionally.
According to classical theism, God is the most natural reality there is, indeed the most natural reality there could be, since God alone exists by metaphysical necessity, whereas everything else that exists would not exist without God, since they are logically and metaphysically contingent.
Do you think any mind is empirically detectable? If so, what is it precisely that licenses that kind of judgement?
Comment by stunney — September 30, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
September 30th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Oh, TP. When this miracle happened for us my hubby was all about rejecting it because it violated his comfortable black-and-white version of reality. He's a believer (once slated to go into the ministry, but gave it up for physics because his draft number came up and he wouldn't go to VietNam or run away to Canada). He was a Junior in college at the time, they footed the bill for the rest.
A scientific believer who was also a religious believer. Thought (just as I always have) that those silly Creationists were so darned stupid! But then it happened to us, and there we were. The darned Vatican sent investigators, for goodness' sake! We were right in the middle of it, no way out, with our only son on the line.
His (only) brother the Baptist preacher showed up and started leading prayer meetings in this Catholic Medical Center's ICU waiting room. Including all the EMTs and nurses involved, and other people's relatives who were completely convinced of a miracle-in-process (and were enjoying the incoming energy - there were several miracles in that ICU that week). He scoffed, resisting with the last ounce of his worldview, until I called him on it. There were prayer groups all over the world, from Catholics to Baptists to Quakers to Buddhists to Native Americans (who were walking medicine wheels) focusing in on the situation. Hell, we even had large enclaves of evangelical atheists putting serious energy into the beam, not to mention 3 whole cars' worth of the Ringling trains, Red and Blue. Our son was beloved of a great many people, not just us.
Even worse, our son was telling me on a regular basis that he was SEEING and HEARING the people who were praying for him. I kid you not. And he was definitely cognitively compromised enough at the time not to know anything at all, much less say to me that "Grandpa was here with a bunch of people and they were singing and crying and really high!" Especially when Grandpa was a thousand miles away leading a prayer group at the time.
We'd held our faith in reserve for a lot of years. But it was always still there, just ignored most of the time getting by in the world. "Jaded," to use that apropos term. But this simply couldn't be ignored, by us or anybody else. Why did it hit us, when we could have gotten that 'other' phone call in the middle of the night, and just grieved like so many other parents? I DO NOT KNOW. We certainly didn't "deserve" it. Though maybe our son did. But if he did, why did he die 3 months later of gross medical malpractice? I DO NOT KNOW.
I told my husband to just shut up, stop berating all the religious fervor people were pouring our way even though we weren't religious. I told him I'd take whatever prayers I could get, from whoever cared to give them, since they appeared to be working. And I told him that if God wanted to give us a miracle, I'd be more than willing to happily accept it for what it was. And bend my knees forever toward His altar in gratitude…
But it didn't last, it was just that one-in-a-bazillion freak of nature weirdness nobody's got any sort of explanation for. Our son died anyway, and for all the suffering in between, would likely have been better off if he'd just died in the first place. Lesson? Can't be for him (he's dead), might be ours. How do we display that we 'learned' it?
Pretend it never happened? Ix-nay - I sued the shit out of the doctors who killed him on purpose, and filed enough complaints to the state BOM that 4 out of 5 lost their licenses. The lawyers got paid. We did not. It's a matter of principle. THEY are the ones who testified in court to a miracle. We were just establishing that they'd diagnosed treatable injuries, then refused to treat them (and lied to us about it).
It's the only legally adjudicated miracle I know about in the US judicial system. A dozen 'experts' testified to it, using that very word, and it became an official "finding of fact." A precedent. Imagine that.
It was a miracle - most of all - of consciousness. So I went looking for what science knew about consciousness, and found a black hole. Hell, that singularity wasn't even naked! I've followed ever since. I've taken the graduate courses, I've conversed with researchers in many countries, I've tried very hard to understand what they think they know. If there is a God, He surely knew I would. If there is no God, then of course I will.
There's something afoot here. Something more going on. Once you know it - have seen it with your own eyes, held it in your arms, shared it with so many…
I could just watch mindless television for the rest of my life. Grow my grapes and pumpkins and praise God with my every breath. In which case I wouldn't care at all what science thinks, and they'd never stop me from believing or knowing. But I know there's more going on. I'm still seeking answers.
Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers and all their acolytes can call me names from here to Kingdom Come, it won't change a thing that's real. In truth, a 'real' scientist would be intrigued, want to know more, would seek answers almost as avidly as I do. Matti did that for me through a year's worth of data back and forth, and I'll always love him for it even if he's wrong. At least he gave it the good ol' college try.
The good ol' college try. Why does America's (and Britain's) collegiate class no longer try? They've already decided what their answers are. Now it's a religion, all they have to do is convert the rest of us. That IS NOT SCIENCE. I know because I was born and raised in science, spent most of my life doing science.
Comment by Joy — September 30, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
September 30th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
stunney:
And therefore it didn't happen. Even though it supposedly happened billions of years ago in the case of the genetic code. How very convincing. But then again, I've never seen God intervene in anything at all, whereas I have witnessed countless things happening without God's intervention. What am I to conclude?
If you tell me exactly what a mind is, then I'll tell you how it is empirically detectable, or not.
Back to work now.
Comment by Raevmo — September 30, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
September 30th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
The Pixie wrote:
Is AI science? If so, what are its testable predictions?
You test hypotheses by formulating specific, distinguishing, empirical predictions deriving from the theory which would turn out false if the theory is false.
Now of course, the theory of evolution lays heavy stress on adaptation. But whatever is observed must be, or have been, adaptive somehow or other. Naturally. So the theory of evolution is always right, somehow or other. It just needs to be endlessly refined, that's all. But you can bet your bottom dollar that it will always yield the correct explanation if you just keep at the task of teasing out one speculative story after another of how the behavior might be, or could have been, adaptive. Somehow. Maybe. Possibly. And, indeed, perhaps.
What specific and distinguishing empirical predictions does the hypothesis that natural law sufficiently explains all biological phenomena make which cannot equally derive from a hypothesis of intelligent agency? In other words, in what way is the 'natural law' hypothesis empirically distinguishable from the 'intelligent agency' hypothesis?
It strikes me that the latter hypothesis has been quite fruitful historical in terms of looking for elegant mathematical equations and theories to describe and explain physical phenomena. Einstein thought so.
Comment by stunney — September 30, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
September 30th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Mark Frank:
Think about what you wrote. If an agent operates outside the boundaries of nature then the how part might be impossible to pin down but that does not, of necessity, require that either the agent did indeed operate outside the boundaries of nature or that if the agent did so the evidence of such would be invisible.
You are overlooking the possibility that life could have arisen or evolved through multiple theoretical pathways but that the most plausible ones implicate design. That is a theme of another active thread discussing random vs. non-random mutations.
The point remains that a conclusion of agency must be supported by physical evidence. Otherwise it remains within the realm of the metaphysical.
Comment by Bradford — September 30, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
September 30th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
OK, not back to work then.
stunney:
How has the "intelligent agency" hypothesis been helpful in looking for elegant equations? Did Einstein devise two sets of equations and then thought "hmmm, which set is more likely to have been devised by intelligent agency? Ah, I see, I'll pick that one then." Is there a difference between Occam's principle and the criterion of the "most elegant" equation? By the way, Einstein didn't have much good to say about your ideas of a personal God and savior.
Comment by Raevmo — September 30, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
September 30th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Raevmo wrote:
So much for pinning one's theories to the epistemic gold standard and sine qua non of observation.:lol:
Or are you in fact:
a) billions of years old
or
b) a time-traveler
or
c) psychic
or
d) the designer
or
e) all of the above:?:
Yes, it is, isn't it? Only seen codes being designed. Never, ever seen them arising without being designed. Only seen suicidal jumpers falling from the Golden Gate bridge. Never seen them rising. Only seen the Sun rise in the east, never seen it rise in the west. There's a pattern there.
I have.
That's odd. I haven't ever witnessed anything happening without God's causal involvement. Has this been observed in a controlled laboratory experiment? Refereed scientific journal article citations, please.
That you're wrong.
Comment by stunney — September 30, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
September 30th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Bradford:
How would you determine which one is more plausible, and how do you know it implicates design?
Comment by Raevmo — September 30, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
September 30th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
stunney:
Yeah, there is a pattern. You are referring to periodic phenomena, whereas the current genetic code seems to have originated only once. The history of the world is replete with such unique occurrences of major importance.
Really? How odd. I believe that brother Occam's principle puts the onus on you to cite the relevant studies. Or just tell us how God directs your fingers when you type your response.
Comment by Raevmo — September 30, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
September 30th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Raevmo wrote:
Yes, as a matter of fact. So I'm delighted you asked that question. I was recently, just the other day, re-reading The Great Beyond: Higher Dimensions, Parallel Universes, and the Extraordinary Search for a Theory of Everything, by Paul Halpern. At page 171, we have this:
The quote is sourced to Nathan Rosen's reminiscences, and I believe similar recollections and quotes are recorded elsewhere.
Yes. Ockham's Razor is about the number of entities that are necessary to explain phenomena. Prior to the advent of nuclear physics, only two forces were postulated. Now, four are, and quantum physics doesn't cohere well with relativity. So we postulate more entities and have less coherent, and in that sense less elegant, physical theories now than we did 100 years ago.
It's worth remembering that Ockham himself believed that one omnipotent agent was more economical than postulating a bunch of laws with their reference to a variety of 'universals'.
He did not think God was capricious or irrational. Neither do I.
Not that Einstein was right about everything. He appears to have been wrong about quantum mechanics, though perhaps we won't know for sure until we have the right GUT or TOE.
Comment by stunney — September 30, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
September 30th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Raevmo, you made the claim that you have seen lots of things happening without God's involvement. How do you know that something you saw happening lacked God's involvement? To test your claim one would have to satisfy two simultaneous conditions:
1) Ensure no relevant divine activity is taking place
and
2) Observe lots of things happening
Since I have myself never seen condition 1 satisfied, I conclude that I have never seen anything happening without God's involvement.
As for non-periodic, one-time occurrences, the question which you are sliding over is whether the alleged case at issue—the origin of the genetic code—-was observed. It wasn't. At least, not by non-time-traveling humans (unless they are future humans).
It's time for my brain stimulant, or 'large Scotch and soda' to use the technical expression.
Enjoy, er, work.
Comment by stunney — September 30, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
September 30th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Oh, I missed a bit. Raevmo wrote:
As they say in New York, "Buddy, if you don't know, I can't tell ya."
It's like asking what exactly mass or energy or charge or space or time or some other fundamental physical thing is. It is best to have an operational conception. What does the fundamental thing do? What phenomena does it explain?
Minds think and will; and they explain a variety of phenomena, such as blog comments, the fine-tuning data, moral judgments, etc.
Comment by stunney — September 30, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
September 30th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Pixie wrote:
Mainstream ID makes the "strong, broad, basic" prediction that simple natural processes (i.e. RM&NS) cannot make any large complex molecular machinery, you need intelligent design for that. ID theorists would then (presumably) go around testing this very basic prediction with specific examples.
Comment by Guts — September 30, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
September 30th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Guts:
The specifics tested would reflect what theory would predict. From a starting point of no life at all to a point where highly complex eukaryotic organisms exist on earth, a definite directional arrow to the historic development of genomes is evident. Mainstream theories predict that relatively simple ones come into existence and then evolve by becoming ever richer in genetic information. The means by which this would be accomplished are at least partially understood. If the developmental direction is understood and a mechanism suggested then a pattern should emerge. Deviations from the pattern could document a directed alternative. Randomness could be a gauge. Any prebiotic process capable of generating nucleic acids should at some point establish a preferential pattern of nucleotides that favor genomic function. Random patterns would suggest otherwise. A different expectation of randomness could be expected at the point where functional genomes exist. Randomness with respect to fitness would be consistent with mainstream theories and deviations from this could signal design.
Comment by Bradford — September 30, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
October 1st, 2007 at 2:25 am
Stunney
I wrote:
Stunney
As I said - supernatural is not a clear concept. If the alien had the technical sophistication to visit earth then I think it might well have predicted those things - or that type of thing. A human at that time if confronted with these accomplishments would very likely have put them down to magic of some kind i.e. they would have effectively abandoned the attempt to understand "how". This is what ID does.
You wrote:
The difference between ID and Science is not the difference between an appeal to agency and an appeal to natural law. If is the difference between the appeal to agency as a general concept and a particular set of natural laws. If Darwin had said that the explanation of life is natural law not God, and left it at that, he would rightly have been dismissed as not contributing anything. Imagine if I argued: "There is no agent with the power to have created life - therefore the cause must be entirely natural law. But I am not going to fall for the trap of investigating what those natural laws are."
Comment by Mark Frank — October 1, 2007 @ 2:25 am
October 1st, 2007 at 3:24 am
Mike wrote:
Hi Mike,
Have you noticed that prominent ID supporters are responsible for the "confusion"
Bill Dembski (from Intelligent Design, section 8.5):
Bill Dembski (Intelligent Design, section 4.6):
Michael Behe:
Phillip Johnson:
Jonathan Wells:
Stephen Meyer, in The Return of the God Hypothesis:
Paul Nelson debated Sahotra Sarkar on the question:
Paul took the negative position.
___________________________________
Comment by keiths — October 1, 2007 @ 3:24 am
October 1st, 2007 at 3:57 am
Now this is funny.
Bradford wrote:
Compare this to Bradford's reaction whenever the topic of the soul comes up. Then he tells us that science cannot properly test "metaphysical" claims, such as the idea of an immaterial soul. As he put it in one thread, "When was the last time you tested something immaterial?"
So which is it, Bradford? Can immaterial entities, such as God and the soul, interact with the world, leaving behind "evidentiary footprints", or can't they?
Comment by keiths — October 1, 2007 @ 3:57 am
October 1st, 2007 at 8:26 am
Keiths:
Read this exchange in this same thread:
Any existing fingerprints would be empirically visible as indications of intelligent design. Any conclusions beyond that stray into metaphysics. One can argue that thoughts and emotions, which are detectable and measurable, are aspects of a soul which is not a measurable entity. The nature of the argument signifies whether the scope is physical or metaphysical in nature.
Comment by Bradford — October 1, 2007 @ 8:26 am
October 1st, 2007 at 8:40 am
Keiths:
Keiths:
You are confused Keiths. A belief in the supernatural is not an indicator of conflating the natural with the supernatural. A failure to distinguish one's metaphysical views from empirical evidence or misrepresenting one as the other leads to confusion. That applies to both atheists and theists. When Sagan claimed matter and energy accounted for the totality of reality he was revealing his non-scientific views.
Comment by Bradford — October 1, 2007 @ 8:40 am
October 1st, 2007 at 9:01 am
Bradford wrote:
Bradford,
Mike is talking about "conflation of intelligent cause with supernatural cause", not "conflating the natural with the supernatural." You even quoted him. Didn't you read what you were quoting?
Regarding the quotes I supplied: again, did you even bother to read them? Those quoted are not merely asserting a belief in the supernatural; they are talking about how science supports such a belief, or about how methodological naturalism prevents ID from succeeding.
Comment by keiths — October 1, 2007 @ 9:01 am
October 1st, 2007 at 9:10 am
Bradford wrote:
One could also argue that length and width, which are detectable and measurable, are aspects of a table which is not a measurable entity. But that wouldn't make sense either.
If you study thoughts and emotions scientifically, you learn something about the entity that produces them — whether that be the brain or the soul.
Comment by keiths — October 1, 2007 @ 9:10 am
October 1st, 2007 at 9:25 am
stunney
I am not sure AI is science, actually.
Thinking just about adaption, the theory of evolution says that a species is stuck with what it has available. There are plenty of examples in nature of things being poorly adapted from something else. There are bats in New Zealand that forage on the forest floor, and have adapted to do so (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/668.shtml). But they are still bats, so they are not going to be as good at it as a mouse. Evolution predicts there will be a wide spectrum of adaption successes.
Ah, I see. You are trying to frame the question in a way that presents ID as the default alternative. Interesting debating strategy, but not really science. For science, you need more than a vague 'intelligent agency' hypothesis. You need to say when it happened, what happened, how often it happened, perhaps why it happened and more besides. You need enough to be able to generate predictions.
If Einstein thought so, it must be true. But how did an 'intelligent agency' hypothesis help him dream up relativity?
Guts
A prediction goes along the lines of: If hypothesis X is true, then it must necessarily follow that prediction Y will be observed. Mainstream iD makes the claim that simple, natural processes cannot make any large complex molecular machinery, and uses that claim to infer a hypothesis.
Bradford
Now that is what I am talking about. Of course, if you could predict the deviations before hand, you woyuld really have something.
Comment by The Pixie — October 1, 2007 @ 9:25 am
October 1st, 2007 at 10:58 am
Keiths:
And the problem is what- IDists claiming that scientific evidence supports beliefs in the supernatural or the fact that the quotes were not of Dawkins et. al. claiming that science supports the opposite? Like Dawkins IDists are entitled to their personal viewpoints.
Comment by Bradford — October 1, 2007 @ 10:58 am
October 1st, 2007 at 11:18 am
Bradford wrote:
One can argue that thoughts and emotions, which are detectable and measurable, are aspects of a soul which is not a measurable entity.
Unlike a soul a table is amenable to measurement and length and width are measuring expressions. If you cannot put your hands on a soul it is not subject to measurement or empirical testing. Why are you having difficulty with the concept that science has limitations?
Comment by Bradford — October 1, 2007 @ 11:18 am
October 1st, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Intelligence, the ability to evaluate alternatives and make subjective choices about their relative merits, is something we do constantly. Animals can be observed making such choices and they even override instincts when circumstances warrant. Single cultured cells be observed making simple choices. Observable creative response to stimuli is a defining characteristic of life. The ability to make choices cannot be measured and is only statistically predictable. Yet few of us regard free will as "supernatural". The ability of living systems to design themselves utilizing this non supernatural force is an alternative to RM&NS. If the organizing force of living systems happens to be internal, rather than an outside agent, it is no less intelligent. Possible participation by gods can be neither confirmed nor denied. "Evolutionists" in their zealous juvenile battle against religion have painted themselves into a corner. They can't even acknowledge an internal organizing force, and seem to be stuck with "natural selection" somehow organizing genetic accidents into rational biological systems. I assure you one doesn't have to be religious to be skeptical of that silly notion.
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
Comment by Bert — October 1, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
October 1st, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Bradford,
The point of the quotes was to show that if critics associate ID with the supernatural, as Mike complains, there's a good reason: ID's leaders have told them so.
Now you're really being absurd. By your logic:
If you can't put your hands on electricity, it is not subject to measurement.
If you can't put your hands on a photon, it is not subject to measurement.
If you can't put your hands on information, it is not subject to measurement.
If you can't put your hands on an emotion, it is not subject to measurement.
Somehow science manages to subvert Bradford's Law and measure all of these.
Limitations I have no problem with. It's the false limitations I object to.
Physics studies mass, elemental composition, charge, etc. These are aspects of matter. They are measurable. Physics is a science.
Psychology studies thoughts and emotions. These, according to you, are aspects of the soul. They are measurable. Psychology is a science.
Comment by keiths — October 1, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
October 1st, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Pixie:
If mainstream ID is true, then it must necessarily follow that we will never see an example of simple natural processes making a large complex molecular machine but that intelligent agency can readily accomplish such a feat. This is the implication that the ID hypothesis has for nature.
Comment by Guts — October 1, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
October 1st, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Keiths:
Some of those quotes are completely irrelevant, one is even taken out of context. For example the second Dembski quote:
you snipped a couple of sentences in this paragraph, which would have cleared up any confusion (by the way, does the S in your name stand for "snipper" you sure do it an awful lot for sentences you find "inconvenient"):
The Paul Nelson quote is completely irrelevant. The addendum on the Wells quote cannot be found on the ARN version of the article , and I find it odd that it is in brackets when it is reprinted elsewhere (but it usually means it's an interpolation).
Comment by Guts — October 1, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
October 1st, 2007 at 1:32 pm
As I see it ID is not "supernatural." Materialism is subnatural. When science and scientists change their views in response to new evidence the subnatural materialist core hypothesis becomes more and more outdated. Cosmic ID, its replacement, is the new scientific paradigm — the new scientific naturalism. I used to be a materialist (and a darwinist) but I have since looked into the matter and have changed my position. No religion was involved in my "conversion."
Comment by William Brookfield — October 1, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
October 1st, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Hi Bert,
You wrote…
Discussions about the definitions and implications of the term "intellegence" is sometimes a touchy subject around here regardless of how important definitions are to critical thinking.
Don't be overly surprised if your thoughtful comment is overlooked.
Consider this my attempt at pointing it out to others and complimenting you on it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 1, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
October 1st, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Keiths:
Photons and the rest either directly or indirectly lead to quantifiable descriptions of nature under specified conditions. "Putting hands on" was clearly figurative language.
Study them and reveal the results in terms of familiar biological systems or sensory data. It ceases being science when a scientifically unspecifiable soul is added to the mix.
Comment by Bradford — October 1, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
October 1st, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Mark Frank Says: This all turns on the word supernatural. What does it mean? I am not sure - but it is something on the lines of an agent that is not bound by the laws of nature. i.e. an agent whose powers cannot be predicted.
I wouldn't be inclined to attribute unpredicted results to the "supernatural." (IDers maybe, but not me.) If predicting the actions of an intelligent agent is any test of a "theory of design" then we would have to conclude that there are no good scientific theories about intelligent design. Intelligent agents are notoriously unpredictable. Some people think that is one of the definitive characteristics of intelligent agency"”its unpredictability. In which case the failure to predict (according to some reasonable scientific standards) would itself be a confirmed prediction.
But notice what I just said: The actions of an intelligent agent cannot be predicted from the "laws of nature." (I'm not so sure myself.) I think there are (at least) two reasons for that, none "supernatural" (although I don;t know what that means): 1) Intelligent agents are not restricted to either think or act in accordance with those laws (admitting the possibility of error"”seems basic to science to admit the possibility of error) and 2) Because those laws are themselves bounded in the scientific determination of the range over which they are tested.
That a designer may test and further extend those previously determined bounds should be quite evident from the history of science. Yes indeedy folks, those lowly engineers (those guys who get to steer the train), have made fundamental contributions to natural science. Do you know what they are? Everything! LOL Everything that has ever been added to science (knowledge) has been added by a designer.
How? By scientifically investigating their own designs.
Golly, there's a novel idea: Scientifically investigate what you know to be a design and the design process.
Golly! That's just science!
The "laws of nature" are not bounds upon designers, even thoroughly material and perfectly mundane (non-supernatural?) designers like me.
The "laws of nature" are productive heuristics for scientists. Nothing more.
Comment by Rock — October 1, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
October 1st, 2007 at 4:32 pm
I am finding it hard to express exactly what I mean when I say "not bound by the laws of nature" but I think it is actually intuitively quite obvious. We know that Newton's laws are approximations and break down under extreme circumstances. But magic or supernatural means the ability to completely the ignore well established laws under the circumstances where they normally apply. A poltergeist is reputed to be able to move objects with applying any force thus creating kinetic energy in any ordinary room. A witch is reputed to able to make an object change shape - again without applying any force. These are not failures in the heuristics which we call laws - they are outright contraventions - if true.
Comment by Mark Frank — October 1, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
October 1st, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Well said Rock.
That's a point I have tried to stress repeatedly. Intelligently designed objects do not violate natural laws. They merely indicate results that are not explained by such laws.
True.
Comment by Bradford — October 1, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
October 1st, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Mark Frank, I agree with your comment but would emphasize that laws of nature do not have to be contravened to leave an evidentiary trail indicating that object x was designed.
Comment by Bradford — October 1, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
October 1st, 2007 at 5:12 pm
The Pixie wrote:
Strange, then, how AI is not vehemently panned as anti-scientific gibberish the way ID is, but more often hailed as the cutting edge of the wave of the future, even within much of the scientific establishment. But feel free to color me unsurprised.
[Emphasis added]
Really? So much for the 'engines of variation'. Just the other day Zachriel was regaling us with how mutation rates could and do speed up in response to selective 'hotspots'.
And birds build nests on people's houses using external light-fixtures. I know this because some birds did that on my house. And some people build homes from mud, and others from sandstone. Some cats hang around homes where they're regularly fed the finest canned cat food. Others forage in trash bins. As I said, whatever is observed has to be, or have been, adaptive somehow. So I'm not sure why you think your example rebuts that point.
And birds won't be as good as farmers at growing wheat, though they forage in wheatfields without evolving to form agribusiness corporations and to lobby Congress for Federal subsidies.
So?
This is just another way of saying what I said, which was, again:
Now of course, the theory of evolution lays heavy stress on adaptation. But whatever is observed must be, or have been, adaptive somehow or other. Naturally. So the theory of evolution is always right, somehow or other. It just needs to be endlessly refined, that's all. But you can bet your bottom dollar that it will always yield the correct explanation if you just keep at the task of teasing out one speculative story after another of how the behavior might be, or could have been, adaptive. Somehow. Maybe. Possibly. And, indeed, perhaps.
The predictions of evolutionary theory about adaptation are vacuous because if some trait is observed it must have been adaptive in some way or other at some point or other, otherwise we'd still all be single-celled organisms. Or inanimate ponds of water, for that matter.
Ah, I see. You are trying to avoid answering the questions.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
In terms of origin questions, one is often in the business of of postdiction rather than prediction. Nonetheless, there are predictions one can make on the basis of intelligent agency—for example, I predict new car models and new laws and new computer programs will appear in the next ten years. But in terms of origin questions, I'd say that a specific ID hypothesis, Christian theism, postdicts a variety of specific moral and rational phenomena more plausibly than evolutionary theory. In particular, the fact that human minds are unique among animals in a large number of striking ways and across a variety of independent dimensions. I say more about this here and here.
Talking of which, what are the predictions that evolutionary theory makes regarding how and when we can expect the next new body-plan phylum to appear and why and what it will look like phenotypically? And when, how, and why will the next species of homo appear? Christian theism predicts we're it as far as homo, because of the unique incarnation of the Logos in Christ.
Oh, I notice you also failed to answer these questions: Do you think any mind is empirically detectable? If so, what is it precisely that licenses that kind of judgement?
Comment by stunney — October 1, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
October 1st, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Mark Frank wrote:
I don't disagree. But you had said, " it is something on the lines of an agent that is not bound by the laws of nature. i.e. an agent whose powers cannot be predicted."
I guess I disagree that an agent whose powers can't be predicted need be something which is not bound by the laws of nature. For one thing, we don't have perfect knowledge of the laws of nature, and there might be some aspects of nature that don't reduce to the laws of physics and chemistry. Indeed, the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, and the incompleteness of formal systems proven by Godel's theorems suggest that rational, intelligent conscious human agents transcend what can be described by wavefunctions and by formally computable processes. But I would not, simply on that account, regard humans as not 'bound' by natural laws, since some such laws may not reduce to physical laws. In other words nature may be more than physical. Indeed, I believe it is.
I think it might too. I also think it might not.
But either way, it's not clear to me that the survival requirements of humans living 40 millenia ago explain the development of these abilities. In other words, I think that even if the alien could predict these abilities, it could not have done so simply on the basis of natural selection.
I disagree that ID does this. ID, as I conceive of it, is a branch of the study of mind. This involves the mind-body problem, and the problem of other minds, as well as other aspects of mind.
Your claim that ID abandons the attempt to understand 'how' strikes me as probably betraying a misguided mechanistic bias. I say 'misguided', for such a bias doesn't even work in physics. Let me give two examples: electromagnetism, and gravitation. With the first, it was a mechanistic bias that led to the wrongheaded idea that electromagnetic energy must propagate by means of a material aether. Now such an aether notion is regarded as misguided. We posit now, not just material particles, but 'fields'. It thus makes no sense nowadays to ask, how do electromagnetic waves propagate through a vacuum? They just do. That's simply a fundamental fact about the physical universe. Similarly, it makes no sense to ask how massive bodies curve spacetime, in the sense of asking for the material mechanism by which this is accomplished. How does a graviton affect time? It just does.
I'm not sure Darwin is your best example here, since apparently he knew next to nothing about the sources and engines of variation.
However, it is not fair to draw the contrast the way you do. One can easily say evolution, or descent with modification, is also a highly general concept, and one can easily say that Young Earth Creationism is quite a specific hypothesis. So might be the notion that life on Earth was brought here by a non-human intelligently designed robotic probe. I've not read anything by Behe, but I believe his work has pointed to quite specific biological phenomena as indicative of design. Note that these three examples strike me as being falsifiable by scientific criteria.
My own preferred 'edge of evolution' is the human mind; and my choice of designer is the God of Christian theism. Note that many things would not be compatible with this hypothesis. For instance, this designer would not command that all Chinese people should move to the Haiti by the end of 2007 on pain of Mars being destroyed. Nor would this designer ensure 94% of humans becoming schizophrenic on their first post-puberty encounter with a member of the opposite sex. Nor would this designer have dogs burning kittens for fun. And so on. As for the mind part, see the links in my preceding reply to the Pixie for specific examples of things which unintelligent evolutionary processes can't plausibly account for, and which Christian theism can plausibly account for.
Lots of atheists don't investigate natural laws, of course.
But you are ignoring the vast amount of study devoted to the agent with the power to create life by large numbers of ID theorists who are theists. Centuries of it, in fact. It's called theology. The anthropic fine-tuning evidence has been extensively explored by theists too.
But let me give three examples of things which theists were facing 100 years ago—the continued march of physical determinism, the apparently beginninglessness of the physical universe, and the prospect of mathematical knowledge being reduced to formalizable algorithms (the Hilbert program). Within 30 years, the scientific evidence was striking two mighty blows against these ideas. And the evidence from Godel's results showed that mathematical truth transcends finite mechanical computation.
I notice you also failed to answer these questions: Do you think any mind is empirically detectable? If so, what is it precisely that licenses that kind of judgement?
Comment by stunney — October 1, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
October 1st, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Guts
Mainstream ID claims that we will never see an example of simple natural processes making a large complex molecular machine. Therefore, if mainstream ID is true, we will never see an example of simple natural processes making a large complex molecular machine.
On the other hand, if "real ID" (for lack of a better term) is true, then that does not follow. It is entirely possible that God created the universe in such a way that there are many examples of simple natural processes making a large complex molecular machine. If you prefer front-loading by ETI, there it would seem entirely possible that the ETI is itself the result of simple natural processes making a large complex molecular machine.
stunney
I can only give my opinion, but I would say AI is design/engineering. I would not call computer game design science, I would not call bridge design science. But neither would I call them "anti-scientific gibberish".
It is a stepwise process. At each step, the species is "stuck" with what is already there. At the next step, it is stuck with what it has at that increment. I see no contradiction to Zachriel's comments.
I think I am missing your point. Yes, evolutionary theory says every trait that is observed must have been adaptive in some way or other. So what?
And I was pretty successful. It was a nonsense question.
You can make predictions about what you expect to observe. Darwin predicted geologists would find fossil remains on intermediate species. A postdiction is making the "prediction" after the observation, and are a little suspect.
The theoery of evolution makes predictions, but that does not mean it can predict everything you want it to. I w