Neglecting Designer-Centrism
by MikeGeneOne of the most common objections to Intelligent Design is the belief that we must first have independent knowledge and evidence of the designers "“ their identity, their motivations, their psychology, and their methods, in order to infer design. Yet, as we have just seen, scientist Mac Johnson is convinced that design does not apply based upon considerations that have nothing to do with independent knowledge and evidence of the designers. Apparently, designer-centrism only becomes essential when it comes to thwarting a design inference.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:52 am
Mike
Johnson attacks design in two main ways:
1) By pointing out that current evolutionary theory is plausible.
2) By assuming an objective and powers for the designer: the designer can make any species be whatever it wants and wants humanity to be as successful and pain-free as possible. He can then point to the retina and the birth canal as counter-examples. If ID theory were to include these assumptions then there would be the beginnings of a theory to start to test. However, it usually avoids the issue by saying we have no idea of the designers objectives or abilities. Maybe the designer wants us to sufferPerhaps the Design Matrix says something different?
Comment by Mark Frank — December 9, 2007 @ 3:52 am
December 9th, 2007 at 5:48 am
Quite fitting that the article was named, "Intelligent Design, and Other Dumb Ideas.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 9, 2007 @ 5:48 am
December 9th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Hi Mark,
You write:
This attack only works for those who buy into the misguided notion that ID = Creationism. For those of us who are ID evolutionists, this attack is impotent.
An assumption is not the same thing as independent knowledge and evidence. Johnson has abandoned the designer-centric position, which informs us that we require such knowledge/evidence to evaluate a design inference.
Johnson is also identifying the designer as God. As such, his proposed objectives would have to be evaluated in the light on someone's theology.
There is no such thing as ID theory. But you will be happy to know that The Design Matrix does indeed make two key assumptions about the designer and they are spelled out in the beginning of chapter 7.
Indeed. But don't take my word for it:
Comment by MikeGene — December 9, 2007 @ 10:35 am
December 9th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Rather, the claim of agency *entails* various characteristics of the proposed agency. The lack of evidence for such characteristics weakens confidence in the claim. The lack of motivation in the ID Movement to study these characteristics, to propose reasonable tests of these characteristics; or in many cases, to even consider these characteristics in any manner whatsoever, weakens confidence in the entire ID Program.
hypothesis, a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.
Quite the contrary. Johnson is taking the assumption of agency and trying to fit it to the data.
"My belief in Him is not dependent upon his being the motive force in developing shorter dandelion varieties for lawns and longer varieties for roadsides."
That appears to be his general assumption. The vast majority of the ID Movement makes the same assumption, though they sometimes pretend otherwise.
We are in agreement on this point.
"”
Addendum: Please notice that my use of "ID Movement" and "ID Program" are as proper nouns and refer to the current social, political and quasi-scientific campaigns of Dembski, Behe, et al. ID, in this sense, is not merely a working hypothesis, or speculation, but a claim of nonexistent scientific support.
Comment by Zachriel — December 9, 2007 @ 10:40 am
December 9th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Hi Zachriel,
Yet this does not entail that all the various characteristics would be detectable billions of years after the design was implemented.
Sure. If we have independent evidence/knowledge of these characteristics, our confidence could be high enough such we could start demanding that scientists and you embrace ID. But, as with any inference, the level of confidence can exist on a sliding scale.
No, assumptions are not the same as independent knowledge and evidence of the designers. My point stands. Johnson helps us see that this demand for independent evidence and knowledge of the designers is needless. Either his critique fails or the need for independent knowledge/evidence fails.
Comment by MikeGene — December 9, 2007 @ 10:52 am
December 9th, 2007 at 10:58 am
HI Zachriel,
Forgot one.
What would this independent evidence of characteristics look like? What would count as independent evidence of such characteristics? Where might an investigator begin looking to uncover this independent evidence of such characteristics? You go into the lab and you"¦"¦.?
Comment by MikeGene — December 9, 2007 @ 10:58 am
December 9th, 2007 at 11:00 am
True. So the suggestion could be true, but undemonstrable. Perhaps aliens did tamper with human inheritance. But we may never know. (Unless astronauts find something on the Moon.) Meanwhile, the scientific evidence strongly implies a spontaneous origin.
That's correct. As there is no scientific support, there is no valid reason for scientific confidence. But there are substantial reasons to believe that life on Earth evolved spontaneously from primitive beginnings.
There is no fit between the purported designer and the evidence. There are no empirical predictions that distinguish between such agency and the null case. I have no idea why you continue to make this claim. Perhaps you could restate it.
Comment by Zachriel — December 9, 2007 @ 11:00 am
December 9th, 2007 at 11:15 am
I am not making any scientific claims about a purported Agent. If I were, I would certainly propose testable characteristics. Perhaps, an angry Sky-God hurling lightning bolts at the wicked in the Vale of Témpi.
Typically, you follow the clues. All the clues point to a spontaneous origin. It is certainly possible to speculate broadly and hope to find a clue"”as a bloodhound will often circle until it finds the scent. If you think you've found such a scent, then you are welcome to make those specific and distinguishing empirical predictions. Meanwhile, the clues strongly point in another direction.
Comment by Zachriel — December 9, 2007 @ 11:15 am
December 9th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Zach:
??? "Spontaneous origin" for what? Life from non-life? Or things like lungs, hearts and kidneys? I suspect you mean the latter. What is the scientific evidence that "strongly implies" magic poofs?
…and are you sure it's evidence, or is it just the baseline assumption of the theoretical framework?
Comment by Joy — December 9, 2007 @ 11:59 am
December 9th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Hi Zachriel,
That depends on the suggestion and the level of demonstration that is expected. While many critics may need a personality profile and video-taped interview of the designer, I do not.
You are trying to change the topic. My original blog focuses on this demand for independent evidence and knowledge of the designers. My conclusion stands:
Assumptions are not the same as independent knowledge and evidence of the designers. Johnson helps us see that this demand for independent evidence and knowledge of the designers is needless. Either his critique fails or the need for independent knowledge/evidence fails.
So which is it?
Comment by MikeGene — December 9, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Hi Zachriel,
Of course not, as you see the world through a non-teleological prism.
It's a good thing you approach the world as a non-teleologist; you'd never cut it as a design theorist. It should not surprise us that you demand teleologists put silly claims on the table.
I asked you some sincere questions to better clarify your demands:
You reply with, IMO, vague hand-waving and silly answers. As far as I can see, you have noting to contribute to the investigation except nay-saying and ridicule. So like I mentioned above, let's simply stick with the way the demand for independent evidence and knowledge has collapsed. Can we agree that we should all now abandon this demand?
Comment by MikeGene — December 9, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
The many lines of evidence for Common Descent strongly imply that life spontaneously descended from primitive ancestors. All the 'arrows' have the same (or nearly the same) origin.
I have provided my rather orthodox level of demonstration: specific and distinguishing empirical predictions that are entailed in the hypothesis.
Nor do any scientists of my acquaintance or knowledge.
No, they're not. But assumptions are integral to the scientific method.
hypothesis, a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.
I had asked you to restate why you thought it would help me see that. Perhaps I missed something somewhere. But I just don't get your point. You might consider Johnson's particular hypothesis clumsy. His critique might very well fail, but that doesn't imply that no independent knowledge of Agency is possible, or that the assumption of Agency doesn't have empirical implications.
Comment by Zachriel — December 9, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
But some of my best friends are Telic Entities.
You had asked me about evidence of a vaguely conceived Telic Entity that was involved in the origin or evolution of life on Earth. I have proposed no such scientific hypothesis. That's the whole point. Unless the proposal is specific, there is no way to predict its characteristics.
Comment by Zachriel — December 9, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
I said: "…and are you sure it's evidence, or is it just the baseline assumption of the theoretical framework?"
Zach responded:
Again your words are confusing. What in the world is "spontaneous descent?" Last I checked, neither asexual nor sexual reproduction is 'spontaneous'.
Now, since the advent of HGT (complicated by symbiosis and endosymbiosis and evidence for site-specific mutagenesis, "natural genetic engineering" per genomic rearrangements and storage, etc.) things are not quite as cut and dried as you seem to believe. Woese's "HGT field" is still a viable alternative to common descent back in the early days, and epigenetic expression modifications and suiting as well as chromatin dynamics/histone codes have rather specific and surprising effects on phenomes [i.e., voles, mechanical-assist heart remodeling, etc.]. Then there's the 'neutral theory'. Things are not so simple as RM-NS anymore and it's misleading to assert 80+ year old baseline assumptions as if new technologies and new evidence can never challenged them.
Biogenesis isn't spontaneous, and no species of life ever gave spontaneous birth to a whole different species of life. Vertical inheritance is quite reliable even if occasional accidents happen. You can make the faith-based assertion that abiogenesis was spontaneous, but that assumption is even less evidence-based than the RM assumption was. It's a pretty good idea to have some understanding in your own mind of the difference between baseline assumptions and evidence interpreted TO those baseline assumptions (which could as easily be interpreted differently). Just for clarity's sake in your arguments if not for scientific honesty.
Comment by Joy — December 9, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Spontaneous, not contrived or manipulated, natural.
Then you're not doing it right.
Comment by Zachriel — December 9, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Hi Zachriel,
You write:
The point is a very simple one.
First, over the years, many critics of ID have insisted that we must first possess independent evidence/knowledge of the designer(s) to evaluate a design claim.
Second, Johnson evaluates a design claim without relying or invoking any independent evidence/knowledge of the designer(s).
Either Johnson's critique is fundamentally flawed or the demand for independent evidence/knowledge of the designer(s) is fundamentally flawed.
So which is it?
Comment by MikeGene — December 9, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Zach:
That'll probably work for bonobos and other species that don't practice sexual selection. Still, the process requires some activity by the agents, even if they aren't particular about what agents they mate with. I had two children from my body. Neither of them were "spontaneous" virgin births.
Comment by Joy — December 9, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Joy:
Bonobos do practice sexual selection. Why do you think bonobo balls are four times the size of gorilla balls?
Comment by Raevmo — December 9, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
The bonobo pairings aren't all that "spontaneous," are they?
Comment by Joy — December 9, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Joy:
I don't know what you mean by that. However, it's a fact that there's a lot of so-called cryptic mate choice going on, i.e. sperm selection.
Comment by Raevmo — December 9, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
A scientific claim necessarily entails empirical consequences.
Johnson is evaluating a specific type of ID, God of the Gaps. "God chose green because he was feeling a bit green that day… It can no longer seek to understand so much as a sniffle or a dandelion seed without endlessly recycling the same useless answer: must be how God wanted it!" A type of ID with no distinguishing empirical consequences.
Johnson's point seems reasonable. He explains how a vague claim is scientifically vacuous.
A scientific claim necessarily entails empirical consequences.
Comment by Zachriel — December 9, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Sorry, couldn't resist the straight line.
Please substitute "spontaneously evolved", meaning evolved without involvement of a Telic Entity.
Comment by Zachriel — December 9, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
First it looked like you've been arguing that descent (as in 'common' descent) is "spontaneous." I can't see where you indicate how complex multicellular life "spontaneously" decended from primitive parents, and the Neodarwinian Synthesis doesn't actually claim that it did. Neither does modern evolutionary theory. That includes evo-devo, epigenetics, neutral theory and something a lot like punk eek. Life does not spontaneously generate under any conditions we've ever observed, and species don't just pop into being. Good evidence (from Louis Pasteur forward) strongly argues against it.
Probablistic distributions and stochastic processes on the prediction end is population dynamics - statistics, not causation. We don't get to examine cause on an individual basis much at all. Like half-lives in radioisotopes, we don't have to, so long as the stochastic model is useful enough. FAPP.
Now you want to subject the generational time scales of evolution to your "spontaneous" label. Evolution's not spontaneous either. Why are you avoiding the subject - YOUR subject? You want to argue that variation is spontaneous. Some of it is. But most of the evolutionarily significant of them weren't so accidental. They arose because the organism was under serious stress, and adaptation was required. Filtered over generational time in a stochastic manner making allowances for relative luck on the Wheel of Fortune (offspring). Neither probability nor statistics speaks to cause. They speak retroactively to effect.
Comment by Joy — December 9, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Is it not perfectly possible for objects to be designed, yet behave "spontaneously" (even according to Zach's rather loose, catch-all definition)? I design, build and fly kites. But the behavior of my carefully designed kites when flying is often utterly unpredictable (spontaneous). I have in fact designed them to be able to behave according to the dictates of wholly natural forces. It makes flying kites more…..interesting
Comment by Anton — December 9, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Oh, and of course their behavior is at least partially constrained by their design. They generally must behave like kites, and NOT like 747s!
Comment by Anton — December 9, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Yes, common descent is what happened and the evidence indicates that it happened without intervention by some outside Telic Agency.
Ah! So, we're confusing "spontaneous" with "spontaneous generation". I apologize for the confusion.
spontaneous, developing or occurring without apparent external influence.spontaneous generation, origination of complex, living organisms from non-living matter.
Generally, we would use spontaneous to describe something that happens naturally, that is, without being forced. For instance, a chemical reaction that occurs without any energy input from the surroundings is called spontaneous. A star may form spontaneously from the collapse of nebula. A gas will spontaneously fill a vacuum.
In this discussion, I am using the term "spontaneous" to mean that is occurs without Telic Intervention, that is, without regard to some purpose of a geologically distant future.
Comment by Zachriel — December 9, 2007 @ 11:23 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Depending on context. We might quite purposefully dissolve salt in water in a laboratory beaker under stringent controls and still call the reaction spontaneous. That's because the salt will dissolve in water because of their intrinsic properties.
The word "spontaneous" has several senses. In science, spontaneous does not generally equate to unpredictable. Helium balloons spontaneously and quite predictably rise in the atmosphere. Spontaneous people tend to be unpredictable, but that's because the restraint in question is social expectations.
I suppose we would normally understand the sense from context. I'm sure your kites have enormous spontaneity. They have a mind of their own! But the term is commonly used in science to indicate something intrinsic and unforced. And that is how I have been using it on this forum for many months without incident.
Comment by Zachriel — December 9, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Hi Zachriel,
Every argument has a hundred tangents. The issue here is not whether a scientific claim necessarily entails empirical consequences. The issue is whether one must first have independent evidence/knowledge of the designer(s) to evaluate a design claim. I have shown that we do not. Nothing more, nothing less.
Comment by MikeGene — December 9, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
To scientifically "evaluate a design claim" means forming and testing scientific hypotheses.
Well, you've certainly said it several times.
Comment by Zachriel — December 9, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 12:34 am
Hi Zachriel,
Sure. But as Johnson has shown, independent evidence/knowledge about the designers is not necessary here.
Comment by MikeGene — December 10, 2007 @ 12:34 am
December 10th, 2007 at 1:18 am
I think when people stoop down to saying "ooh you can't name the designer, its not science" I think all they want to do here is have you name a faith so they can chop it down a notch rather than argue the science facts. This is a weak argument. Like Mike said, how would we be able to go into the science lab and test that? I think this type of thinking we should close down SETI because if we do have reason to detect intelligence we don't know who they are so it doesnt matter…
Comment by gore — December 10, 2007 @ 1:18 am
December 10th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Zach said:
Not quite right, Zach, and the difference is important. In science we refer to something as "spontaneous" if it APPEARS to be intrinsic and unforced.
Comment by Anton — December 10, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
I'm curious how Zachriel would address the issue of the face on Mars (if high resolution photography had in fact revealed a detailed face).
Comment by chunkdz — December 10, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
I agree with you, gore. I think the whole argument is a facile and vacuous subterfuge, because no one, not the IDers or their critics, ever infers design without prior knowledge of design and designers. (There is a scientifically testable hypothesis for ya.) And what in the world could it possibly mean "that we must first have independent knowledge and evidence of the designers." That's just plain stupid! How in the world could we have knowledge and evidence of a designer independent (first) of a design!
The very idea that IDers aren't "designer-centric" in their outlook is nonsense. Most of them worship The Designer! Just how much more "designer-centric" could you be?!
Comment by Rock — December 10, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Unless you are equivocating on the word "appears", then "spontaneous" refers to phenomena which are determined by the evidence to be intrinsic or unforced, e.g. many exothermic chemical reactions.
My guess is that scientists would urge a mission to collect additional data in order to test their hypotheses. That's how it is usually done. Indeed, that's what was done.
Comment by Zachriel — December 10, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
So we can investigate design without any independent evidence of a designer. Indeed, that's what was done.
Comment by chunkdz — December 10, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
You can investigate anything. (See 'bloodhound' above.) The question is when it is scientifically reasonable to "infer design". That requires forming and testing specific and distinguishing empirical hypotheses.
In the case of the Martian Face, specific hypotheses were put forth. Most had to do with natural formations creating an illusion. Consequently, the illusion hypothesis was tested by new observations from other angles and in different lighting conditions.
Those that suggested "design" were a decided minority, but even these people posited Martians or other some such natural entity using somewhat conventional techniques of construction. These claims could have been investigated by a direct examination of the site.
A scientific claim necessarily entails empirical consequences and it is the testing of these consequences that leads to valid scientific inferences.
Comment by Zachriel — December 10, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
chunkdz wrote:
A better example: crop circles
Some very stubborn materialist scientists seem to think they are all natural phenomena, even the ones that look like the Mandlebrot set.
Of course, you have the loonies who think that flying saucers from another star system did them, as if they wouldn't have better ways of communicating with us. The aforementioned scientists hold up these people as the prime examples of those who doubt the all-natural hypothesis.
All of it sounds awfully familiar.
Comment by angryoldfatman — December 10, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Zachriel:
I appreciate you entertaining my hypothetical. How about taking it one further?
Imagine the photographic evidence merits a further investigation, as you suggested.
A manned mission is launched and the face is examined close up. The detail is stunning, right down to the hairs inside the nose. There are no tools left behind, no evidence of machining or chiseling or molding, no trace of whatever created the face. Just Martian rock in the shape of a face.
Is it reasonable to infer design at this point?
[infer: To derive as a conclusion from facts or premises.]
Wait…Don't answer. Let's say they run more tests on the rock and determine that the face is made of some of the hardest rock available - ensuring the optimal durability of the face.
Is it reasonable to infer design at this point?
Wait… don't answer. They run even more tests and determine that the face was at such an elevation as to prevent it from water wear during Mars' watery age.
Is it reasonable to infer design at this point?
Wait…well, you get the point. Investigation could go on and on. If your requirement for infering design is "independent knowledge of the designer", then we can all agree that NASA would look awfully silly trying not to infer design at the news conference.
What's your best guess for when it's reasonable to infer design?
Comment by chunkdz — December 10, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Every scientist of my acquaintance thought they were pranks probably by a variety of ape known for such behavior. Other suggested explanations were poorly supported.
Comment by Zachriel — December 10, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
A dead man stabbed in the back. In a windowless room with all the doors bolted from the inside.
Bilateral symmetry. Respiratory nasal structure. Mammalian hair. Mars' watery age. You're trying to imagine a situation where such a structure was manufactured, yet all the evidence has inexplicably disappeared. But, in fact, we already know a lot about the purported designer.
It would be helpful if you actually tried to correctly represent my position. Meanwhile, the hypothesis that the Martian Face was an illusion was confirmed through the usual methodology–hypothesis testing.
Comment by Zachriel — December 10, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Zachriel,
The only thing we might "know" about the purported designer(s) is that it possesed some "human-like" intelligence, which is the working assumption of ID in general anyway so we're still left wanting an answer.
I wasn't aware that you had taken a position. That's why I wanted you to answer your own question, if you're able.
Comment by chunkdz — December 10, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Zachriel wrote:
I agree with your acquantances here, but what makes them think this?
How can one determine if a crop circle is designed by an intelligence or if it is a naturally-occurring phenomenon?
Do reports of other strange accompanying phenomena or the claim that some of these circles are much too complex to have been done by humans in one night (thus leading to a large non-telic event as an explanation) affect your opinion?
Perhaps we haven't observed the "wind vortex" or "plasma vortex" that creates these circles yet and we need to keep trying until we do.
Comment by angryoldfatman — December 10, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Hi Zachriel,
Sure, but as we have now seen thanks to Johnson, such testing does not require independent information or knowledge about the designers.
No need to make it more difficult that it is "“ all you needed was another photo, this time one with higher resolution.
That would only be testing for a method of construction and not design. We would not need a photo of the scaffolds and construction equipment to infer design. A higher resolution photo of the Face would have been sufficient.
Sure, the empirical consequence in this case would be that a higher resolution photo would show a Face.
Comment by MikeGene — December 10, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Wait a minute, we finally have video evidence!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Comment by angryoldfatman — December 10, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
It's got nose hair!
Again. A scientific claim necessarily entails empirical consequences and it is the testing of these consequences that leads to valid scientific inferences.
Comment by Zachriel — December 10, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
HI chunkdz,
Great question.
Comment by MikeGene — December 10, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Much closer. If the object was "designed", then we can infer there was a mechanism of implementation. The art is the causal link between the artist and artifact.
Comment by Zachriel — December 10, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Zach said:
Again, Zach, both wrong and playing with the "senses" of the word (as you said earlier). You can't have it both ways…
Comment by Anton — December 10, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Zachriel
And…!?
Comment by chunkdz — December 10, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
As I have repeated several times, I am using the term "spontaneous" in the usual scientific sense meaning intrinsic or unforced. Is there a point to this semantic exercise?
Comment by Zachriel — December 10, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
A dead man stabbed in the back. Alone. In a windowless room with all the doors bolted from the inside.
That's more than I know about you.
Comment by Zachriel — December 10, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Zachriel
I know the Mars face has nose hair-like features. But for all we know the designer could have spaghetti tentacles coming out of it's 12 reticulated nostrils. We just don't have that information, and we may never know.
You must know that I'm not expecting the perfect answer to your question
But there's no harm in venturing a guess. We know the boundaries:
- The first image of the face was not enough to infer design.
- Discovering such high detail as nose hair in the rock seems certainly enough to infer design.
So somewhere in between those two levels of investigation design inference became reasonable. What, in your opinion, is the threshold of inference?
Comment by chunkdz — December 10, 2007 @ 11:10 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Hi Mike Gene
I agree - in fact I tend to think it's THE question for ID, subjective though it may be.
Comment by chunkdz — December 10, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Ain't the Matrix fun?
Comment by MikeGene — December 10, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 1:57 am
Yes. And delicious!
Did you know that bleu cheese scores a -4 in the matrix, and stilton scores a -3, but Velveeta scores a +3 and Cheese Whiz is a +5!
I swear I've gained 20 lbs. since I read your book, Mike! Thanks!
Comment by chunkdz — December 11, 2007 @ 1:57 am
December 11th, 2007 at 7:48 am
Hi,
I think one issue to the discussion what the goals are of the designer is to look at the whole. Did a designer aim to develop perfect entities or did a designer want to design ecosystems that are highly resilient to the given climatic changes on a planetary systems like ours. When you take the latter position lots of so-called design errors simply fall away. Viruses would suddenly become useful, simply because a ecosystems is not pressed against its feed boundaries all the time, since viruses kill living beings before they would die off due to hunger.
If there would be no build-in correction systems, all animals would eat as much as they need during their lifetime, and they would get off-spring as much as their environment would allow. Thus pushing their local ecosystem to its feed-maximum all the time, making it very unstable if other unsettling factors kick in.
A designer would take a systems approach, looking for long term stability of the whole (my assumption), viruses would fit in, micro-evolution would be a requirement, and weaker animals/plants would fit in easily, they might become stronger again in other circumstances (buffering the system). The poorly designed retina is not a problem, in fact without it several of us would suffer from too much light, which can be very annoying when you look at your computer screen, but also when hunting and looking for prey far away.
Really, when looking at a designer take a systems approach, as most engineers would do and make the assumption that several of these ecosystems should be enduring and capable of surviving large changes in environmental factors. That solves a lot of riddles.
Comment by dusschoten — December 11, 2007 @ 7:48 am
December 11th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Actually, you said a close examination revealed "hairs inside the nose". You also indicated we didn't know anything about the builder.
Again. A scientific claim necessarily entails empirical consequences and it is the testing of these consequences that leads to valid scientific inferences. Just as importantly, science is a process. Inferences are always tentative and we continue to question and refine our hypotheses with new predictions and observations.
In the instance, we have a versimilitude of an organism. A bilaterate with a respiratory nasal structure. Mammalian hair. Mars' watery age. You're trying to imagine a situation whereby such a structure was manufactured, yet all the evidence has inexplicably disappeared.
A dead man stabbed in the back. Alone. In a windowless room with all the doors bolted from the inside.
But, in fact, we already know a lot about the purported builder. Further investigations would undoubtedly reveal more despite your protestations. That's because such a structure is not only "designed", but manufactured. There is causation.
Comment by Zachriel — December 11, 2007 @ 8:46 am
December 11th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Zachriel
I hope you didn't think I meant real hairs growing out of the rock's nose.
Right. No trace of the designer whatsoever, except the object.
Inferences ARE tentative. But you indicated that there is a point in an investigation where an inference at least becomes reasonable.
What if we restate your question as:
Would that help you to nail down a good guess?
It's a hypothetical situation, but a very illustrative one if you are willing to go along with it. I hope you haven't lost your imagination just because the questions get tough.
We can surmise that the designer must have known what a human looks like, and that their intelligence is "human-like". That's about it.
I didn't protest further investigation. In fact I pointed out that further investigation would reveal greater detail - right down to the nose hairs. So all we would learn about the purported designer is that they knew what a human looked like in great detail.
No argument here. But why is it so difficult for you to imagine that it is only a rock, no tool marks, no serial number, no heiroglyphics to decipher, no blasting caps left behind.
Come on. It's hypothetical.
Imagine you are the director of NASA at the news conference.
You say that we have tentatively inferred that the face is designed. (If for no other reason than you don't want to look ridiculous).
A reporter asks you:
"Mr. Zachriel, at what point in the investigation did your team decide to tentatively infer that the face was designed?"
What would you say?
Comment by chunkdz — December 11, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
You keep wanting to posit a disembodied creation. A dead man stabbed in the back. Alone. In a windowless room with all the doors bolted from the inside. But that's the whole point. We still know more than you have allowed. For instance, you said there are indications that the structure dates to the Martian Deluvian Period. And further investigation will more than likely uncover links to the builders.
That's Zachriel. No Mr. Or just Z.
Well, some people jumped to that conclusion from the first blurry images. But when high-resolution photography revealed the image of Roddy McDowall in an ape suit, well our excitement was palpable. At first, we thought it was a paean to simian life forms. But it turned out that the Martians are big fans of Charlton Heston. We subsequently found a complete collection of his films within the lithic monument. This led to a broad cultural exchange and the opening of the famed Planet of the Apes Tourist Center"”the Planet of the Apes referring to Earth, of course.
The rest, as they say, is movie history.
Comment by Zachriel — December 11, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Zachriel
Actually, the elevation of the face could just be a coincidence. It's just a clue. We don't "know" that it was designed to survive a deluge. The waters could have happened before the face or after the face. We don't know.
Maybe. But this is irrelevant. We can reasonably infer design now - before any further investigation happens.
I'd say your reply is the internet equivalent to knocking all the pieces off the board.
Let's play again sometime!
Comment by chunkdz — December 11, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Zach:
LOL!!! Oh, that's definitely going down as a classic in my book.
chunkdz:
Yeah, but it was certainly worth a laugh and another round of beer! §;o)
Comment by Joy — December 11, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Joy,
Agreed, my dear! As usual, Joy draws the pearl out of the slimy oyster!
Hey everybody, Zach's buying the next round!:smile:
Three cheers!…Hip Hip…!
Comment by chunkdz — December 11, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I wrote:
Zachriel replied:
How a design is implemented is of secondary consideration (discused in chapter 9 of my book). Unless we have reason to suspect or infer design, there is nothing to implement and no reason to test for implementation. It is silly to expect that everyone hold a design inference hostage to implementation evidence. You may choose to, but don't expect others to think like you.
For many of us, a high resolution photo, without any evidence of implementation, would be sufficient to infer design. We would certainly not be unreasonable for doing so. Of course, this doesn't mean hardcore skeptics would disappear. So at that point, a closer look would yet be called for "“ send people to Mars! It is in this part of the investigation that we could find a place for your implementation quest.
If evidence of implementation was found, the design inference would be confirmed. If no evidence of implementation was found, things would get even more interesting.
Comment by MikeGene — December 11, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Hi Rock,
I agree. The key word is *the*. I have run across many people who insist that in order to infer design for the original life forms, for example, we would first need knowledge and evidence about the designers of the original life forms.
Designer-centrism is not making assumptions about the designer or making use of our previous knowledge about design. Designer-centrism is the notion that we can only detect design after first uncovering the designers, their methods, their history, their motives, etc. That is nonsense.
Comment by MikeGene — December 11, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Isn't it interesting that the only people that have ever tried to quantify the threshold of design inference (that I know of) are Dembski, Behe (sort of), Mike Gene, Orgel and Wickramsinghe, and possibly SETI.
The critics seem to be unwilling to even entertain any working assumptions for the purpose of clarifying a perenially muddy subject.
I say chalk one up for the Matrix!
Comment by chunkdz — December 11, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
A detailed lith of Roddy McDowall in an ape suit would be strong evidence that it was manufactured. However, we would then already have significant clues concerning the builders (as noted above). Amazingly, they purportedly build lithic monuments just like organisms on the Planet of the Apes. Imagine that!
Not at all. The entire discussion centers around a fanciful discovery. Your disembodiment only works because your example is devoid of detail (except apparently nose hair). Need I also remind you that you said, "I hope you haven't lost your imagination just because the questions get tough."
As there are robust mechanisms to explain the historical patterns in biology, no evidence of telic manufacture, and no known images of Roddy McDowall or the Mona Lisa embedded in the human genome, there is no reason at this point to suspect so-called Intelligent Design"•and very substantial reasons to believe otherwise.
Nevertheless, there is nothing stopping the testing of a well-defined hypothesis, or even just looking to see what you can see.
The way you resolve such issues is with the scientific method. Propose hypotheses, make predictions, perform observations. Yes, science is often muddy. Sorry, there is no simple formula.
Comment by Zachriel — December 11, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Hi chunkdz,
Well, I wrote most of that late at night, meaning that it probably took months of sleep out of my life. So you may have hit on a true criticism of the book "“ The Matrix is bad for your health!
Comment by MikeGene — December 11, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Hi Zachriel,
Thank you for the description of yourself. But we already know that critics need something evolution could not possibly explain or some powerful evidence of the designer.
Comment by MikeGene — December 11, 2007 @ 9:08 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Mike,
Maybe, but I will not rest until I have Matrix Tested every single cheese known to man. (and a few fine wines).
Call it my sacrifice in the name of Science.
(Update: Brie scores a 0, Feta, -3, Cottage cheese -3, Mozzarella +2, Provolone +1, and Limburgher -5 (No designer in his right mind would design Limburgher!!))
By the way, the book is very good - well worth the sleepless nights, IMHO!
Comment by chunkdz — December 12, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Zachriel says (over and over again!):
Your hypthesis then about the next significant mutation in the human genome that will be be the first step to the next species in our branch of the tree of life? Your prediction as to when and where that will happen? Please be specific.
Comment by Anton — December 12, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Consider that it is not known if the Solar System is inherently stable. Even if we assume a perfectly deterministic Newtonian universe, the general multi-body problem is inherently chaotic. Yet, we can make reasonable predictions within the limited domain of the Theory of Gravity.
Consider the weather. In many parts of the world, we can't predict whether it will be rainy or sunny next month. Yet, we can make predictions within certain parameters. And we can investigate mechanisms, such as the causal relationship between pressure and storm cloud formation.
Evolution concerns a large number of interactions, including stochastic elements. But to say that you can't predict the "next significant mutation" reveals more about your understanding of science and biology than it does about the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution makes predictions in many varied fields of study.
To understand the Theory of Evolution, you have to start with Common Descent. From Common Descent, we can predict what fossils we will find in various strata. Take a hike and have a look yourself. It's easy to find fossils, verify your local geology, and help confirm the fossil succession. (For the more ambitious, from the hypothesis that land vertebrates evolved from fish, we can predict the existence of organisms with intermediate characteristics. Then it's just a matter of spending a few years in the Arctic digging in rocks where there once was a tropical stream bed"”Tiktaalik.)
Evolution occurs rapidly in many organisms, such as bacteria. The Lederberg Experiment, showing that the mutations are random with respect to fitness, is replicated every day in universities around the world.
In metazoans, significant change can take millions of years, but careful observation can reveal the process occurring in real time. The specific quantitative prediction is that the observed rate of morphological change must be equal to or greater than the rate found in the historical record (Gingerich 1983). Indeed, it is far faster than that!
NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES: The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested.
Comment by Zachriel — December 12, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
December 20th, 2007 at 11:00 am
I have answered this question many times and in many different ways. Chunkdz posited the image of a face on Mars. Upon closer examination, we might see relevant details to help make a reasonable determination. But for some reason, whenever we look closely at chunkdz's scenario, the details disappear.
Comment by Zachriel — December 20, 2007 @ 11:00 am
December 20th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Thanks Zachriel for addressing this. Sorry for being such a nag. But the hypothetical question I was really talking about was this one:
This is the crucial question, as it entails some kind of answer to the other question.
Your answer so far seems to be that if you found an extremely detailed giant human face on Mars you would NOT infer that it was designed.
Is this really what you believe, or are you just being a little overly circumspect?
Comment by chunkdz — December 20, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
December 20th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
That's contrary to my position. But you keep using "infer" as an end-point, rather than part of a continuing process of scientific investigation.
And now it's an actual human visage. Consider that you have placed the monument in a geological age from billions of years ago, and yet it has a modern human face. The artifact may raise many questions, but that's normal in any scientific investigation. We still expect a link of causation to the builders and would attempt to establish those links, including their capabilities and motivations. Maybe it's a mirror image of some sort. Who knows. Indeed, the investigation would be very important, which is why the details would be so crucial.
We would remain skeptical of any conclusions because of the apparent contradictions. But we could certainly reach a tentative inference which we would then subject to scrutiny and further testing.
But keep in mind that it's easy to *imagine* a detailed human face built on primordial Mars. It's easy to *imagine* Centaurs or Griffins. But it is a far different thing to actually find such a thing. A primordial monument to humankind would contradict much of what we know about the history of our Solar System. Most scientists would want as many details as possible, because it's the details that would help us resolve these contradictions, details we don't have except in the imagination.
Comment by Zachriel — December 20, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
December 20th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Zachriel,
All evidence to the contrary.
No. I said "tentatively infer".
Always was.
No, I didn't. That's simply a guess on your part.
Yep.
Yep. Questions like "was it designed?"
Maybe. But why go through all that trouble unless you have tentatively inferred design?
It's a rock.
Detail down to the nose hairs is not crucial enough for you?
Can you imagine the laughter from the press room? You just found a giant face on Mars, with nose hairs for Pete's sake!
Ok, but the question was "At what point in the investigation did your team decide to tentatively infer that the face was designed?"
Why is it so easy to *imagine*, yet so difficult to *imagine* an answer to the question?
Contradictions are a normal part of science.
Nose hairs?
You still didn't answer the reporter's question. Do you know why?
(I think I know)
Comment by chunkdz — December 20, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
December 20th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
An inference can be very weak. The strength of the inference will depend on the quality of the evidence. This use of the word "inference" is quite different from "conclusion".
(And this conversation is apparently all semantics.)
Just having a face doesn't necessarily imply a human face. Indeed, the original images of the Face on Mars were seemingly not quite human.
You said, "They run even more tests and determine that the face was at such an elevation as to prevent it from water wear during Mars' watery age." The problem is that your evidence is nebulous and changeable, not detailed as you claim. However, the date of the purported monument is no older than the rock, and aged by the Martian climate.
When the original