The Designer's Identity Revisited
by BradfordMike Gene authored The Designer’s Identity at The Design Matrix. The piece addresses an old objection to ID which appears an opportunistic one in my view. Those posing the objection do not complain for example, that SETI cease and desist unless and until an intelligent designer of a signal is identified in advance. But let's look at what Mike has to say on this. Quoting:
There is nothing arbitrary about the constraint of remaining agnostic when it comes to the identity of the designer in ID. It’s the intellectually honest thing to do. If someone has a method for reverse-engineering the identity of a designer from the artifact, I am all ears (been so for years). But no one seems to have such a method.
That being said, there are forms of inquiry that can get us closer to the identity issue.
I think it is quite fair to ask an ID proponent what was designed. And the answers may not be as neutral with regard to the designer’s identity.
What was designed is a reasonable first question. Why is it believed that x was designed a reasonable follow-up. More from Mike:
For example, if someone proposes that the Universe itself was designed, ETI, which are part of the Universe, would not be a plausible candidate. Or, if someone proposes that a bacterial feature, a vertebrate feature, and a human feature all came into existence through intelligent intervention (due to the insufficiency of natural cause), this entails a designer who intervenes across great spans of deep time, and again, ETI do not appear to be a plausible candidate.
Mike points out that an answer to the what question can indicate our options with respect to the designer's identity. Mike again:
Yet I propose a single event of intelligent intervention – the origin of life, and that this act of design had an eye to the future, such that these original life forms front-loaded the outcome of evolution (the echoes of design). The logic behind all of this is laid out in The Design Matrix. In this case, ETI remains a very plausible candidate (their origin is of secondary concern when focused on the origin of life on this planet). In fact, as I explain in my book, front-loading is the solution to a design problem – how does one design the future if restricted to a single act of intelligent intervention (as in seeding a planet)? This is only a constraint for beings limited by time and space.
Mike adds a link to his article The Rational Essence of Proteins and DNA which is recommended reading. An original thinker, Mike adds this caveat:
What’s more, I have come to view front-loading as a means to guide/design while retaining freedom. In fact, might it be the optimal balance between control and freedom?
November 18th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Too often we find Christian apologists, and even ID proponents, overstating their case, confidently drawing conclusions which are insufficiently supported by the data offered. I find Mike Gene a refreshing exception. Humility and understatement are his trademarks. When I read the vitriolic reactions of his detractors (on both sides), I am puzzled. He is simply asking that we open our minds to the possibility of front-loaded evolutionary design. And he has offered some mechanisms for testing the hypothesis. Is that really such a dangerous notion?
Comment by Cliff Martin — November 18, 2008 @ 11:09 pm
November 19th, 2008 at 6:26 am
I thought SETI made some very definite predictions or assumptions about their intelligent designer, and search for a particular signal type based on that (eg see here).
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 19, 2008 @ 6:26 am
November 19th, 2008 at 11:01 am
One of the themes of Mike's essay is that options for an intelligent designer can be constricted by the point at which design is imputed. A cosmological argument would require a divine source. The origin of life would not. At least in theory life can be constructed from scratch by intelligent but non-divine beings.
Comment by Bradford — November 19, 2008 @ 11:01 am
November 19th, 2008 at 11:48 am
I can only speak for myself, but that is the sort of thing I am demanding when I ask about the identity of the designer. I am not asking for his shoe size and phone number, but his general qualities. There is a huge difference between an all-power God and an advanced alien race, and those differences wioll have a huge impact on what designs we see.
What ID needs to start becoming a science is a working hypothesis about what acually happened. What sort of creator did what and when. Once you have that, you can think about predictions and testing. To his credit, Mike has gone some way along that.
What I object to is the likes of Dembski who seems to feel he can call ID science, without the slightest hint about what his working hypothesis is.
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 19, 2008 @ 11:48 am
November 19th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Would you agree that asking what is NOT designed would also be a reasonable question?
For example, is the moon designed?
A usual battle for Culture Warriors is over the default position.
Dr. Dembski's UBP argument is fundamentally based on the presumption that if random chance is eliminated then design wins by default.
Universal quantum mechanical interaction is neither chance nor design.
Science presumes naturalistic explanations for all things found in the observable universe. God, and other non-naturalistic (supernatural?), explanations are not automatically ruled out, however they are either considered outside of the scientific magisterium (embracing NOMA) or are subjected to the same fact-finding, scientific investigations as everything else (rejecting NOMA).
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 19, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Pixie wrote:
There is a form of theology called “natural theology”. Unlike normal theology which builds its theology upon some kind of propositional revelation (the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon etc.) natural theology begins with the world we live in and asks how it and everything in it came to be. In my opinion, ID in is present form, is really a form of natural theology. Furthermore, I think that science itself sometimes strays into areas that would be better classified as natural theology or if you prefer natural philosophy.
Personally, I don’t like using the term “God” in discussions like this. Chiefly because in English the term God has a wide variety of meanings. For example, some people have a pantheistic concept of God, that is, God is the sum total of everything that exists not some kind of transcendent intelligence. So, I begin trying to define as precisely as I can the concepts I wish to define.
I think there are two basic ways to explain our universe:
The first, is that the universe self explaining, or causally closed. In other words, everything that is needed to explain the universe exists within the universe. There are no causes outside the universe that are necessary to the universes’ existence.
The second explanation is that there is something that transcends the universe that is the cause of its existence. This transcendent something could be either impersonal or personal (self aware and intelligent.)
The question is of these possibilities which is the best explanation of our universe as we presently understand it?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 20, 2008 @ 12:08 am
November 20th, 2008 at 5:00 am
With all due respect, I think this sums up exactly why ID is not science (and is just like the identity of the designer question as well). This lumping together of disparate theories into two sets makes no sense to me. Your "second explanation" would include the universe created 6000 years ago by the Christian God, the universe being a computer simulation (which could have started at the Big Bang or last Tuesday) and the universe created by some extra-universal laws in the multiverse. What benefit or insight do we gain from group such disparate theories together? The only benefits I can see is that (1) it allows you to sneak your prefered explanation into the discussion, as it happens to be in the popular group, though it bears no relationship to the popular theory beyond inclusion in that group; and (2) politically, it unites supporters of thse diverse theories against a common enemy. Neither of these are science.
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 20, 2008 @ 5:00 am
November 20th, 2008 at 6:15 am
JOHN_A_DESIGNER
Bingo. Of the type described in Romans 1. And I would add that at the moment the cosmological variety is, in my opinion, more compelling.
Comment by David Heddle — November 20, 2008 @ 6:15 am
November 20th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Mike Gene is a bit confused. That's not what is proposed by the Theory of Evolution.
A variety of amino acids occur naturally. With only a single amino acid, we might have a more efficient molecular replicator. From there, other amino acids or derivatives could provide additional capabilities. Amino acids form families, and evidence is consistent with an historical process of amino acids being over time to the genetic code. So to return to Mike Gene's statement.
The actual answer is that evolution provides the palette by a process of diversification and adaptation of existing structures.
Comment by Zachriel — November 20, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
I love the way Mike spins ID's core error as impartiality.
First, let's make it clear that "identification" is misleading here. The request isn't to identify a specific designer or class of designers. The request is to say something. The current ID theory is of the form, "X created life on Earth, but we know nothing at all about X. Oh, except we know it was intelligent." This makes the position useless: even if ID theory were valid, it tells us nothing we didn't know already because it's what we observed to begin with in order to "confirm" ID theory.
Mike is correct that one should be open minded, but that's different then being empty headed. (To Mike's credit, he is one of the few ID supporters I've encountered that actually will consider whether an intelligent designer will have this or that characteristic, although he typically doesn't get too far: in this article, for example, he boldly considers whether the designer might not exist in this universe. Not exactly narrowing it down to something science can verify.)
Here's an example of the problem:
ID tells us intelligence played a role in the origin of the species. Scientists find that evolution appears to be responsible for the origin of the species. The obvious conclusion is that evolution is intelligent. ID cannot rule that out because it provides no characteristics about the intelligent designer, so there is no reason to reject evolution.
Now I'm sure some people are jumping up right now to tell me that evolution can't be intelligent because it's just "natural processes", but the human brain, so far as we know, is nothing but natural processes, and it is intelligent. The ecology of the Earth is vastly more complex than the human brain, so there's no logical reason at all to think it couldn't also be intelligent.
The lack of characteristics beyond intelligence also prevents even considering verifing the intelligent designer hypothesis independently. There's really no difference between "we know nothing about how this happened" and "we know nothing about how this happened except that it must have involved intelligence because we don't know what else it could be". "Don't know" is "don't know", it isn't "don't know plus whatever possibility I want to throw in," even when I am careful to make sure the additional possibility is so vague that it cannot be ruled out.
But I think the most important part about not considering what the designer is like is that it reveals a stunning lack of curiosity. Anyone that was really doing science and had managed to demonstrate an entirely new force would immediately set off to find out more about that force. There'd be an endless flood of hypotheses about whether it had this or that characteristics. In the ID world, nothing like that happens. Why? For a couple of years, this "well, we haven't gotten started" might have seemed a reasonable excuse, but there's now been extensive pondering about ID, and still not a single hypothesis about the characteristics of the designer, only more and more verbage based on the same logical assertion.
In the end, I think this shows us the fundamental truth about ID. Real science gathers confirmed hypotheses together and then forms a broader theory because the evidence demands it. ID starts with the theory and just stays there. That's not science: it's religion. Isn't it.
Comment by don provan — November 20, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Reality is much more fluid than this. Evolution posits an existing organism. Evolution does not explain the origin of life or the origin of the universe for that matter. The universe evolved too. So where does one sneak in an ateleological supposition? Wherever it is it is an artificial insertion. Teleology is an open question.
Comment by Bradford — November 20, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Do you consider that more specific than "God"? It strikes me as being completely general, yet with specific allowances to make sure God is considered the leading contender.
Comment by don provan — November 20, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Who did? What makes you say evolution implies an ateleological supposition? It has not identified a higher purpose, true, but that's just the facts, not a logical consequence.
People that conclude that there's no higher purpose because the discovered mechnism suggests none are taking a philosophical position, not following a logical requirement.
Comment by don provan — November 20, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
That's funny. Maybe the many statements made starting with Thomas Huxley and continuing to the present time? But you're right in that evolution need not be viewed as ateleological. That's what FL propositions are about.
Comment by Bradford — November 20, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Front loading would do it. My suggestion — that evolution itself could have higher goals — would also. My suggestion has the advantage of not requiring exceptions that science hasn't discovered yet.
I'm not particularly interested in whatever problem you have with Thomas Huxley. Perhaps we could discuss it in a more relevant context? I should have asked where I had snuck in an ateleological suppostion.
Comment by don provan — November 20, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
David Heddle wrote:
It is ironic that the Bible which is a form of what I call “normal theology” actually legitimizes the use of natural theology. For those not familiar with the writing of the apostle Paul here is the text to which David is referring:
“18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1:18-20)
I think Psalms 19 from the OT also supports natural theology.
“1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
3 There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard. [a]
4 Their voice [b] goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,
5 which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
6 It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is hidden from its heat.”
(A very cosmological perspective, don’t you think?)
Notice how strong the language is, especially in the Romans passage:
“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness…”
Paul seems to be arguing that people who reject evidence of design in nature do so cynically and if they were really honest with themselves the evidence of design would be very obvious.
Pixie wrote:
So there are no other ways of knowing except science? Furthermore, in your opinion, what exactly is science? Who makes that determination?
All I was trying to do earlier is lay out the full range of possibilities. One possibility is that nature is causally closed or self contained; the second is that it is open. Yes, we can argue that both possibilities are logical possibilities. But, what is the best explanation for the world as we presently know it?
Don Provan:
Paul Tillich in his theology talked about a “ground of being” Was he talking about God? Or, was he trying to take us back to some basic conceptual starting point. That is what I was trying to do above.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 20, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
November 20th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Did someone suggest there weren't?
Science is the application of the scientific method. The scientific method is a specific logical approach to gaining knowledge that allows the filtering out of the effects of human failings such as personal opinion, preconceptions, and ulterior motives. The cost is that science cannot answer question which are, in fact, matters of opinion such as in areas of faith, morality, or ethics.
The same people that determine what mathematics is.
OK. You said the God was too vague, but then you supplied a starting point that was even more vague, so I wasn't sure what you were doing.
Comment by don provan — November 20, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
November 21st, 2008 at 12:30 pm
So you are presenting this as a "conceptual starting point"? If so, why do you suggest it might be personal or self aware or intelligent, yet not also suggest it might be green and hop? The neutral conceptual starting point is "the universe may have had a beginning, and if so, it may have something we would consider a cause which would therefore, logically, transcend this universe." Anything more is just an attempt to slant the starting point in favor of a particular explanation, don't you think?
Comment by don provan — November 21, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
November 21st, 2008 at 1:13 pm
JAD:
Interesting how you read that into Paul's scary words. Doesn't it bother you that Paul has a 2000 year disadvantage in accumulated knowledge about nature's workings?
Comment by Raevmo — November 21, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:02 am
Raevmo Says:
Scary? I thought you were an atheist. Why would you find the words of a superstitious 1st Century Christian theologian to be scary? Come on Raevmo, are you being serious?
Nope. We still don’t have a clue how the universe exploded into existence, why it is so finely tuned, how life emerged from non-life, or how non-conscious matter gave rise to consciousness. It’s clear to me that there are still things beyond the domain science that science can’t even begin to comprehend.
Don Provan:
Intelligence can do things that unguided forces of nature can’t. Green and hop as far as I know can’t even do what the unguided forces of nature can do.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 22, 2008 @ 1:02 am
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:40 am
OK. I'm just saying that that's not a conceptual starting point. That's a starting point that assumes that there is something that intelligence can do that "unguided forces of nature" can't, assumes that that something is present, and assumes that intelligence can be distinguished from "unguided forces of nature" even though the only form of intelligence we've ever seen is, as far as we know, nothing but a collection of "unguided forces of nature".
Comment by don provan — November 22, 2008 @ 1:40 am
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:02 am
You keep spouting nonsense. Exactly how does intelligence equate to unguided forces of nature? Since physics and chemistry is involved, such does not mean "intelligence" is reducible to it. Unless one is a retarded reductionist.
You seem to be equivocating the two deliberately, despite the fact that we don't know how matter can have mental states/consciousness.
Why should I take you even seriously if you and your posts are just a collection of "unguided forces of nature"?
Comment by Jean — November 22, 2008 @ 7:02 am
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:40 am
Jean to Don:
That’s a paradox if there ever was one.
J.B.S. Haldane writes about this paradox in his 1927 essay entitled "When I am dead":
So if we follow Don’s “reasoning” to it’s logical conclusion we would have to assume that not only is Don not intelligent, but someone like Albert Einstein was not intelligent either. If that's the case why even bother having "reasoned" discussions and making "logical" arguments?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 23, 2008 @ 12:40 am
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:17 am
Intelligence doesn't equate to unguided forces of nature. We've studied intelligence, and so far we've found nothing that contradicts it being nothing but an emergent property of physical forces. Even if you think there must be something more, surely you understand that we haven't discovered anything more.
It is true that we do not know whether intelligence is reducible to physical forces. The statement was that intelligence can do more than physical forces, and since we don't even know if intelligence is anything more than physical forces, that claim is supportable. I'm sorry if you thought I was saying it was absolutely wrong; I was just saying it assumes facts not in evidence, my way of explaining why it wasn't a useful argument.
I am not equivocating, I'm simply pointing out that we don't know, although all scientific evidence collected to date is consistent with a physical explanation.
Stop being silly. Why should I take you seriously if you and your posts are just a collection of undetectable non-physical concepts?
Comment by don provan — November 23, 2008 @ 5:17 am
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:37 am
Intelligence is an emergent property. If we follow your "reasoning", rivers do not exist because we know they are made up of water molecules. And water is not wet because oxygen and hydrogen are both gasses.
Haldane acts as if he didn't know about insanity or hallucinogenic drugs or brainwashing that make it clear that we really do have no reason to suppose our beliefs are true. All we can do is hope that reality is what it appears to be and subject our beliefs to empirical verification.
Comment by don provan — November 23, 2008 @ 5:37 am
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Hey Don:
This is the nub of the whole debate
In order to have meaning to us entities must be both “forces of nature” and “non-physical concepts”
Don’s “science” can’t get from forces of nature to non-physical concepts
and most philosophy can’t show that non-physical concepts can interact with the physical world we can see around us.
Only one world view can combine the two things and give meaning to the world
Hint
And the word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14) In this event we have the fusion of a non-physical concept that became a force of nature.
We can scientifically evaluate this event and observe the effects of the ultimate non-physical concept
And we can reason philosophically about the existence and characteristics of God and compare them to observable phenomena.
cool huh
“As far as we know” rivers don’t exist unless we define river down in such a way that it is only a collection of water molecules and water is not wet unless we define wet in such a way that it is equally meaningless.
Wrong that’s all you and your “Science” can do. It's pretty weak tool
Those of us with first hand knowledge of the Word made flesh can know for sure that non-physical concepts that have been revealed to us bt him are reality.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 23, 2008 @ 1:17 pm