|
Author
|
Topic: ID Research program
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 07. October 2002 16:59
Last and final answer to this question, because I think my answer is quite clear:
I "suspect" design for non-empirical reasons.
Dembski's ID theory says that empirical evidence for design can be found, and that the probability that something happened by natural causes is the measurement that will provide that evidence.
Therefore, that is the evidence I would like to see.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 07. October 2002 17:31
Evan>>Last and final answer to this question, because I think my answer is quite clear:
I "suspect" design for non-empirical reasons.
Dembski's ID theory says that empirical evidence for design can be found, and that the probability that something happened by natural causes is the measurement that will provide that evidence.
Therefore, that is the evidence I would like to see. <<
Do you think this thread should be limited to just Dembski's theory or should it be open to any empirical evidence for ID?
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 07. October 2002 18:42
Jack writes, “Do you think this thread should be limited to just Dembski's theory or should it be open to any empirical evidence for ID?”
It is, of course, ultimately the moderator's decision about what is too much off-topic, but here’s what I think.
Although I based my research program on my understanding of Dembski's theory, I personally think that offering other ideas about evidence for ID would be appropriate. I would hope, however, that in the spirit of this thread, they would be empirically grounded, and that their theoretical motivations would be clearly stated: that is, what theoretical modifications or additions to Dembski's theory are you making, and then what additional possible pieces of empirical evidence are you suggesting.
I offered my ideas a “brainstorm”, you know, and from the beginning have asked if it seemed to accurately portray what is needed, or not; and if not, why and what changes need to be made.
What I personally would not like to see happen to this thread is a rehash of the general ideas of IC, CSI, NFL theorems, etc. While these supply a theoretical backbone for Dembski’s theory, they in and of themselves do not provide empirical evidence. That is the point of the thread - what empirical evidence can be gathered with which to determine whether the ideas of IC, CSI, and NFL theorems actually apply to the real world.
Thanks for asking.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 08. October 2002 11:38
Evan,
If you would prefer, I will move this to a new thread.
You offered for discussion a proposal for a variation of the ‘Dembski’s research paradigm’. As I have stated, IMO, your research paradigm does not clearly define what is being tested. Until, you define what exactly is being tested, it is not possible to determine if your paradigm is consistent with Dembski, if it is a logically sound, or if it is likely to be practical.
I offer here as an outline of an alternative a research paradigm which, I suggest,
1. Provides a rigorous scientific research paradigm.
2. Provides a generalized form of Dembski’s research paradigm.
3. Provides explicit tests of the ability of explicitly defined mathematical models/theories of design change processes to explain, model or simulate observed occurrences of change in design.
4. Provides a paradigm which is practical to apply.
GENERAL PARADIGM TO TEST MODELS OF DESIGN PROCESSES
As defined here, a systems exhibits teleological or functional design if it can generate a maintain some form Nx which is a member of some set N of possible forms and also a member of a smaller subset Nf of N representing teleological or functional forms. A ‘design process’ is a change process which produces a change in form from Ny to Nx where Nx is functional (a member of Nf). A model or theory of a change process is denoted by F has the form F(Ny)=Nx (under appropriate conditions) [These definitions and notation are simplified but are believed to be consistent with the notation and definitions generally used. ]
In order to test a design process model F, the following items must be clearly defined and measured.
1. BEGINNING FORM Ny- Ny is the form or design of the systems at the beginning of the test period.
2. ENDING FORM Nx- This is the form or design at the end of the test period. To demonstrate Nx as a design it is necessary to show Nx as a member of some set N, to show Nx as a member of some functional subset Nf, and to measure/estimate the complexity or magnitude of N/Nf.
3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE CHANGE OCCURS-
4. THE DESIGN PROCESS MODEL F-
5. REAL WORLD DESIGN PERFORMANCE- Several different criteria can be used to measure real world design process performance including probabilities, speed, and survivability.
THE TEST
The model F fails as a model or theory of a design process if the model fails to match or exceed real world design performance.
SUMMARY
As stated at the beginning, I am willing to move this post if Evan feels it does not belong here.
I have provided here only a rough outline of this research paradigm. I leave open for further discussion, a)the details of the paradigm, b)practical examples of where it could be applied, c)the ‘listed suggestions’ of what the paradigm claims to accomplish, and d)possible interpretations of the results produced by the test.
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 08. October 2002 13:30
I have a couple of questions about what Warren has written.
Warren writes,
quote:
As defined here, a systems exhibits teleological or functional design if it can generate a maintain some form Nx which is a member of some set N of possible forms and also a member of a smaller subset Nf of N representing teleological or functional forms.
I am puzzled by this subset Nf. First, it appears that Warren is saying that teleological and functional are the same thing. If so, that is a very strong and idiosyncratic view of what constitutes design. Virtually everyone accepts that some, and maybe a lot, of biological function can be created through natural processes (the “micro-evolution” concept.) If you define functional = design, you have answered your question by definition, and there is nothing left to study.
Secondly, if this is the case, then Warren’s definition above is circular, for it says that a system exhibits design if it can maintain a form which is a member of the set of things which are designed. That doesn’t say much.
The problem I am pointing out here is very common, I think - the problem being that of embedding the conclusion of design into the beginning assumptions.
Warren goes on to measure complexity by a simple fraction N/Nf, which is the reciprocal of the probability Nf/N - the fraction of possible forms that actual exhibit design (because Nf is the “subset Nf of N representing teleological or functional forms.”)
But the circularity of this definition makes this meaningless. The whole point of the research is find a way to measure what is designed. We don’t know the extent of the set Nf - it could be zero - until we do the research.
Warren’s ideas also suffer from the lack of dynamics (process complexity) that we have already discussed - they fail to take into account the interplay of law and chance over multiple interactions.
Here’s a simple example: Suppose I have three million balls in a jar: 2 million white and 1 million red. Suppose we randomly group them in groups of 3, and ask what is the probability that each group has 2 white balls and 1 red ball. I can assure you that this number is very small.
But what if I tell you that the white balls are hydrogen atoms and the red balls are oxygen, and that they are mixed in the proper environment to bond to form water. Then the probability that they are grouped in a 2:1 ratio is close to 1.
My point is that a simple probability based on the number of occurrences of something which assumes that nothing but randomness is involved is biologically meaningless. Unless you model the activity that gets you from Ny to Nx, and understand the laws operating during those steps, you have not modeled reality.
Warren also writes,
quote:
THE TEST
The model F fails as a model or theory of a design process if the model fails to match or exceed real world design performance.
This sentence again displays a cart-before-the horse confusion. Warren says that the model will be judged on whether it matches or exceeds “real world design performance.” But we have no idea what “real world design performance” there is - finding out where, or even if, there is design is the point of the research.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 09. October 2002 09:51
Evan,
Quote: The problem I am pointing out here is very common, I think - the problem being that of embedding the conclusion of design into the beginning assumptions.
You, like many, confuse ‘design’ the result, with ‘design’ the process. No one can seriously question the existence of ‘design the result’. Eyes, wings, brains, etc. are all clearly observable identifiable examples of design the result.
Design science uses the concepts of complexity/improbability to quantify and identify design the result. If a phenomena Nx is a recognizable set N then specific Nx’s can be identified and labeled based on N. Genetic code, provides a useful example of complexity. A string of code with k elements defines a set N with 4^k members. Each distinct allele in the string can then be uniquely identified by a k length base 4 integer.
Each of the 4^k members of N has an impact on the environment. Nf is defined by dividing the members of N into two groups based on -"For all Nz a member of N under specified conditions, if ‘Nz causes/(results in)/(increases the probability of by some amount) goal, purpose or function G, then Nz is a member of Nf".
These are objective verifiable formats for defining/quantifying ‘design the result’. The definitions/quantification rules are based on standard scientific/mathematical modeling concepts and principles.
As I stated clearly, the issue addressed by the proposed experimental paradigm is "the ability of known materialistic processes to explain, model or simulate changes in design(the result)". It should be quite obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of experimental design that ‘testing change processes’ REQUIRES ‘defining what changes’. Providing definitions of ‘design the result’ is not ‘embedding the conclusion in the experimental design’. Providing definitions of design the result is an essential part of the experimental design.
Quote: This sentence again displays a cart-before-the horse confusion. Warren says that the model will be judged on whether it matches or exceeds "real world design performance." But we have no idea what "real world design performance" there is - finding out where, or even if, there is design is the point of the research.
Your statement appears to reflect a lack of understanding of the logic underlying ID. Let me walk you through it one more time, starting with the common ‘ID conclusion’-
1. CONCLUSION- Evidence suggests that the complex designs observed in biological systems MAY be the result of actions by an external designer’
2. In order to ‘prove/demonstrate’ this conclusion it would be necessary to prove/demonstrate that the ‘complex designs observed in biological systems’ could not have been created/generated by any possible naturalistic process. As Dembski himself has stated, we know that it is logically impossible to preclude design resulting from any possible naturalistic process.
3. So in order to ‘support’, rather than prove the conclusion in 1, ID, design science attempts to demonstrate that ‘complex designs observed in biological systems’ can not be explained by any known naturalistic process. This, IMO, is what Dembski’s argument/demonstration attempts to show. IMO, Dembski provides a convincing argument that ‘the creation/generation of bacterial flagellum can not be explained by known RM&NS processes’. Clearly not everyone agrees with my opinion.
4. The experimental paradigm I proposed moves the support for the conclusion in 1 another step backwards. Rather than attempting to demonstrate ‘can’t be explained by any known process’ I propose testing if "Explicitly definable and measurable complex changes in design can be explained, modeled, simulated by explicitly formulated models of known change processes’.
As you correctly point out, the proposed experimental design could be used to test ‘explicitly formulated models’ of known naturalistic processes such as Darwinian evolution. Also as you point out, most ID proponents as well as ID opponents would fully expect the Darwinian models to pass the proposed experimental tests. The fact that the proposed experimental design can be used to test ‘design changes which are expected to be explained by naturalistic processes’, does not, however, invalidate it as a test for design changes which ‘may or may not be explainable by naturalistic processes’. As you yourself suggested, it is useful to identify the actual line between what can and what can not be explained by known processes.
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 09. October 2002 13:16
Warren writes to me, “You, like many, confuse ‘design’ the result, with ‘design’ the process. No one can seriously question the existence of ‘design the result’. Eyes, wings, brains, etc. are all clearly observable identifiable examples of design the result.”
But Warren - this is exactly the problem. Many people “seriously question” that “eyes, wings, brains, etc. are all clearly observable identifiable examples of design the result.”
Is is not all obvious that anything is designed. Trying to show that some empirical evidence exists by which one might determine if something is designed is exactly the problem for which a research program is needed. If you just assume that such things as eyes and wings are brains are “obviously” designed, than you have clearly built the assumption of design into your premises.
Design, in the context of ID, means that some intelligent agency or force, above and beyond whatever contribution natural processes might have made, have been responsible for something’s existence, or at least some part of its qualities.
Whether we can find empirical evidence that this is true is the problem we are trying to solve.
Until the time that we can show that such evidence exists, we do not know that eyes et al are designed - much less can we state that it is obvious that they are.
It seems to me that your definition of design is merely “anything that performs a function.” (I mentioned this in a previous post.) If this is all you mean, then you are not talking about ID - “intelligent design”, as it is commonly understood. In this case, it is no wonder there is confusion here.
But if you actually intend to consider these two definitions equivalent:
“having a function” = “intelligently designed”, then you have indeed embedded the conclusion in the assumption.
This confusion is again apparent when Warren, in “walking me through” design theory, writes,
quote:
1. CONCLUSION- Evidence suggests that the complex designs observed in biological systems MAY be the result of actions by an external designer’
2. In order to ‘prove/demonstrate’ this conclusion it would be necessary to prove/demonstrate that the ‘complex designs observed in biological systems’ could not have been created/generated by any possible naturalistic process.
What Warren writes is wrong - this is not the issue. The correct way to say this would be:
1. CONCLUSION- Evidence suggests that the complex things observed in biological systems (be they eyes or flagella, or whatever] have been designed as a result of actions by an external designer or other intelligent force, and are not solely the result of natural processes
Trying to show what that evidence is, or how it might be obtained, is the question behind this thread. We cannot just assume that the complex things we see are designed, as Warren seems to do.
To others who may still be reading this: is my point clear? Is my point correct? I’m curious as to what others think, irrespective of whether you care any more about the general discussion here.
Thanks.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Edington
Member
Member # 421
|
posted 09. October 2002 20:07
Evan,
In answer to your question:
"Trying to show what that evidence is, or how it might be obtained, is the question behind this thread. We cannot just assume that the complex things we see are designed, as Warren seems to do.
To others who may still be reading this: is my point clear? Is my point correct? I’m curious as to what others think, irrespective of whether you care any more about the general discussion here."
Your point is clear and seems to be correct. However, it is not complete. The fact of the matter is we have two problems, which can be more or less independent of one another. The first problem is the origin of new and complex biological systems (an example of this is going from a bacteria without a flagellum to a bacteria with a flagellum.) It has never been shown that this type of change requires the intervention of a designer. Considering the fact that the pathway for this change would be
[bacteria w/o flagellum ---> modification to DNA ---> bacteria w/ flagellum]
we can conclude that all calculations that have been done to demonstrate the improbability of this change are biologically irrelevant (because they deal with the formation of this system as if the pathway was
[bacteria w/o flagellum ---> formation of individual components for flagellum ---> assembly of flagellum components ---> modification to DNA ---> bacteria w/ flagellum] )
Another conclusion is that the system could not be demonstrated to be irreducibly complex when viewed in the context of pathway one ([bacteria w/o flagellum ---> modification to DNA ---> bacteria w/ flagellum]) Thus we can ask: What would be the point of looking for evidence for something that has not been demonstrated to be necessary?
The second problem is with the origin of life itself. This is a much more thorny problem. The problem here is deciding how to calculate the probabilities for such an event. How do you determine if natural processes could not have been responsible? If one could establish that design was or was not required for the formation subsequent instances of biological complexity that would be something. For example if one could show that design was required for the origin of something like the bacterial flagellum, then events involving the origin of complex structure that preceeded it would then be suspected of being designed.
So to sum things up, your question is valid. How do we go about establishing evidence for design? However, another question that must be answered first is: Is there currently a valid reason to suspect that this evidence even exists?
Dan
IP: Logged
|
|
Josh
Member
Member # 405
|
posted 10. October 2002 11:16
de·sign Pronunciation Key (d-zn)v. de·signed, de·sign·ing, de·signs v. tr.
1. a.To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference. b.To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product.
2.To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program.
3.To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages.
4.To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
5.To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.
He has designs on my job.
I did a search on the online dictionary to find definitions of design. Why is it that nature cannot contrive for a particular purpose as indicated under definition 3? Surely the purpose of wings and eyes are obvious and despite the non-goal oriented nature of evolutionary processes, does the process not fall under def. 3? Evolution contrives particular structures for the effect of survival, despite evolutionists ardent avoidance of using the word design in their theories due to inferences to designer Gods, I don't see any problem with accepting evolution as an engine of design. In fact Howard Van Till and similar theorists believe that God created the engine of evolution to become the component of the natural vehicle responsible for creating the "design" structures found in biology by the mechanisms of RM & NS. Therefore I would say that it is acceptable to say "design the result" simply based on definition three above. And I should think that despite (wrongful) inferences audiences may make by any evolutionist claiming design in biology in terms of the necessity of a designer God verses a designer natural process, the statement is not incorrect. Nature contrives structures designed for the purpose of survival through non-goal oriented processes.
[ 10. October 2002, 11:19: Message edited by: Josh ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Janitor@MIT
Member
Member # 125
|
posted 10. October 2002 14:45
The first step is to identify a scientific problem:
“About ten years ago some computer scientists came by and said they heard we have some really cool problems. They showed that the problems are NP-complete and went away (Joe Felsenstein in private communication reported by Downey, R.G. et al, “Computational Tractability: The View from Mars,” PDF online.).”
Now who are these computer scientists Felsenstein is referring to? And what are these problems?
Of course, one problem is that if biologists don’t recognize that a problem exists, then for all practical purposes, for science, the problem doesn’t exist (!). Which would seem to preclude even the possibility of a scientific research program (?).
But this sounds like it could be a worthy research project for IDers. I would suggest this, however helpful it may be, that existing methods be adopted to treat well-characterized systems. Or in other words, “When in Rome…”
(I beleive that someone there at ISCID has actually done some preliminaries. LOL)
To be fair to the IDers, there are significant, well recognized problems and questions in evolutionary biology (or just plain biology). Many of these problems and the way they are treated transcend mere science. The IDers are correct to point this out. But A-bombing the quiet little cottage in Down is not going to win friends and influence people, at least not amongst most biologists. Try a “surgical strike” strategy instead.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 11. October 2002 04:12
Response to Evan,
Quote: 1. CONCLUSION- Evidence suggests that the complex things observed in biological systems (be they eyes or flagella, or whatever] have been designed as a result of actions by an external designer or other intelligent force, and are not solely the result of natural processes
Trying to show what that evidence is, or how it might be obtained, is the question behind this thread. We cannot just assume that the complex things we see are designed, as Warren seems to do.
To others who may still be reading this: is my point clear? Is my point correct? I’m curious as to what others think, irrespective of whether you care any more about the general discussion here.
end quote
You are asking a good question, and it is a bit surprising you didn’t get more responses.
You are aware that "evidence of things designed by an external designer" is evidence for the existence of God( or some supernatural being). The question of whether it is logically possible for humans to find such evidence, has been debated at great length by philosophers and theologians. Whatever their personal beliefs, I it is doubtful that any scientists would make the claim that had discovered a way to ‘test the existence of God’.
Response to Janitor:
Quote: Of course, one problem is that if biologists don’t recognize that a problem exists, then for all practical purposes, for science, the problem doesn’t exist (!). Which would seem to preclude even the possibility of a scientific research program (?).
This is, it appears, a reasonably accurate statement of the current state of EB. There does not appear to be any significant interest in 1)identifying and quantifying the complexity of biological systems, and 2)testing explicit models to explain, model and simulate observed changes in complexity. At first blush, this lack of interest seems strange because individuals associated with EB routinely claim at least some of these changes are explainable by existing theories.
IMO, the issue is not so much lack of interest, as a lack of technical/mathematical techniques and skills to address the issue. These technical constraints, IMO apply to both ID proponents and opponents. The issue is further muddled by uncertainty regarding with is and is not actually known and understood.
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 11. October 2002 07:57
Warren writes,
quote:
You are aware that "evidence of things designed by an external designer" is evidence for the existence of God( or some supernatural being). The question of whether it is logically possible for humans to find such evidence, has been debated at great length by philosophers and theologians. Whatever their personal beliefs, I it is doubtful that any scientists would make the claim that had discovered a way to ‘test the existence of God’.
Whether the designers are called "Gods" or not brings up a religious connection that goes beyond science - with that I agree. However, most (or at least many) that are supporting the design inference (including Dembski) are assuming that the designers are unembodied and external to the phenomena. Evidence for design is therefore evidence for the existence of these designers, whether one calls them "Gods" or not.
Furthermore, it is quite premature to assume, even as a default starting point, that the designer is singular and omni-everything, as would be the traditional Western monotheistic God - the "multiple designer thread" discusses this subject; and it seems lots of evidence points to designers of powers that are limited in scope or time.
Warren' statement that "Whatever their personal beliefs, I it is doubtful that any scientists would make the claim that had discovered a way to ‘test the existence of God’" is contradicted by the facts. Some prominent ID proponents do seem to say that ID will, or in fact does, provide solid and convincing evidence for the existence of God. This topic is off the subject of this thread, and possibly not relevant to ISCID. But Warren is correct to point out that this subject is definitely connected to design theory - often the results of scientific investigations have impacted religious belief, including beliefs about the existence and nature of various conceptions of God, and a design research program will be no exception to this.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 11. October 2002 21:01
Evan>>Is is not at all obvious that anything is designed.<<
Oxford University zoologist Richard Dawkins begins his book The Blind Watchmaker with the observation that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." ID proponents agree with Dawkins, therefore, when they find things in nature that look designed to them they investigate further to find data that either weakens or strengthens the design inference. I think this is all ID research can do, either weaken or strengthen the ID inference. That's why I often ask ID critics what evidence would cause them to merely suspect something in nature originated through intelligent design. If one is incapable of making a design inference, then there is no way they can interprete evidence as either strengthening or weakening a design inference.
If an atheist and rabid anti-creationist such as Dawkins can say that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose," then I have to wonder what's going on in the minds of non-atheists when they claim that nothing in nature looks designed to them. When someone tells me that nothing in the biological world causes them to even suspect ID and furthermore that they can't even imagine any evidence that could be found in nature that would cause them to suspect ID then I begin thinking that perhaps I'm dealing with with someone that's philosophically opposed to ID.
ID critics will tell you that to accept ID they need to observe the designer in action or find some extraordinary evidence such as a secret message encoded in the cell or need proof that non-intelligent processes couldn't do the job. ID theorists, on the other hand, say they can make a case for ID without any of this. Mike Gene says, 'A good hypothesis usually involves "if, then" reasoning. That's all that is needed. Use the theory to generate "If, then" hypotheses and test to see if the "then" is there.'
As for Dembski and his probability calculations, I wish him luck. But I don't need probability calculations in order to infer ID for molecular machines or the genetic code. I agree with Mike Gene when he says, " it's a judgment call, but I confess to assigning machines and codes to engineering-type causes rather than rock-forming causes. Something about effects of the same kind being assigned to the same causes. Not enough to establish design, but enough to build on...
The TOE dismisses sudden random assembly as the origin explanation for the flagellum. What is the basis for this dismissal? It seems clear that it is dismissed because of the consensus that such origin explanations are too improbable. And that's the very essence of the appeal behind Darwin's gradualism - it circumvents this problem. Clearly, the TOE is built upon a probability claim without a calculation. In fact, I seem to recall someone else in another thread arguing that IDers think the origin of life improbable, but Darwinists think it not as improbable. Both sides build on probability beliefs, without calculations again.
In fact, the origin of life brings an interesting twist to this. Life is supposed to come about from the random assembly provided by geochemistry. It seems someone is arguing that it's easier to randomly assemble life from geochemistry than it is to randomly assemble a flagellum. This then forces non-teleologists to propose that the original life forms were simpler than flagella. But in the light of biology, such notions are science fiction fueled by metaphysics."
[ 14. October 2002, 11:07: Message edited by: Jack ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 17. October 2002 16:22
Evan>> Jack writes to me,
quote:
"I find it strange that persons that can't tell us what they would consider evidence for ID are discussing methods for detecting it. If you don't know what evidence for ID would look like then it could be right in front of you and you wouldn't recognize it."
Jack - I have told you, and have in fact written extensively about, the type of evidence I would like to see about design - evidence that would pass through Dembski's filter by showing that the probability of something having happened through purely natural causes is improbably low.
You don't seem to accept that answer, but it is an answer based on ID theory.<<
Okay, I got you confused with RBH. RBH said that he couldn't even imagine any evidence from the natural world that would cause him to suspect ID. I assume that includes "evidence that would pass through Dembski's filter by showing that the probability of something having happened through purely natural causes is improbably low." In my opinion, the only effect uncovering high improbabilities would have on the ID critic is to increase their amazement with the process of evolution.
Evan>> Secondly I have told you that merely suspecting design is not a strong enough guide for me - "suspecting design" has been full of "false positives" over the centuries. I would like to see more solid evidence than that.<<
As I see it, the inference to design from machine-like complexity is a pretty darn reliable inference. I have never been mislead by it. Besides, I'm not asking you what evidence would convince you of ID. You seem to think there is no position between "there is no evidence for ID" and " there is absolute proof for ID". To me a suspicion of ID is between those two extremes. What I don't understand is why you are interested in an ID research program when nothing in nature looks designed to you. Dembski would never have come up with his explanatory filter if he hadn't had a suspicion that certain things in nature were intelligently designed. An ID suspicion or inference is logically prior to an ID research program. Any investigation begins with a hunch or suspicion. That's the nature of the game. I don't see how you can deny this. You are like a prosecutor that's incapable of suspecting anyone of a crime until there is enough evidence against them to convict them in court. A prosecutor like that wouldn't keep their job very long.
Evan>>I am not looking for all the excessively strong things you mentioned in your earlier posts - interviews with the designers, etc. I just would like to see us develop some methods that will produce some evidence of the type accepted in science - evidence based on measurable quantities gathered through reproducible means. I have suggested ideas for developing such methods.<<
I'm all for an ID research program and I support the development of methods that will produce evidence. But we need to keep in mind that there is such a thing as a continuum of evidence. There are data that lead to hunches and used to form speculations. There are data which then work to strengthen or weaken these original hunches. There are data likely to convince one predisposed to be convinced. Data likely to convince those who are neutral. And data likely to convince a hard core skeptic.
I suspect you are looking for data likely to convince a hard core skeptic mainly because you demand a level of certainty and rigor from the design inference that is lacking from any explanation that proposes a non-teleological cause behind ancient biological systems/features. I doubt you are neutral because if you were your views on ambiguous aspects of biotic reality such the origin of life, the origin of molecular machines, the origin of the genetic code etc. would be held tentatively and provisionally until science comes up with a test to distinguish ID from blind watchmaking. Instead you support a non-teleological origin for these things and will only change your mind if ID proponents can demonstrate that it is impossible probabilistically for such things to come together by evolutionary mechanisms. But why is the burden on the ID proponent to prove a negative? You are the one who believes the flagellum evolved. What is the evidence behind this belief?.
As far as Dembski's explanatory filter goes I wish him luck but it's not needed to make the case that ID is a better explanation for the origin of things like the flagellum than is blind watchmaking. I think it is difficult to apply the filter to biology. Nevertheless, all that matters is whether an approach guided by the ultimate intent to run the filter is productive.
It seems to me that your position is that we don't need calculations to infer blind watchmaking, but we do in order to infer design. Just what calculation did you run to determine that the flagellum was the product of a non-teleological process? If you have no such calculation, then this is just an example of a double standard.
Mike Gene says:
"Instead of playing by rigged ground rules where teleologists are forced to search every nook-n-crany of the world for a place where the designer is needed. why not simply look for patterns of data that are best explained by inference to intelligent design? It's not a question of needing intelligent intervention, it's a question of whether intelligent intervention makes better sense than the explanation which excludes such a mechanism. Consider the widespread acceptance of darwinism among so many scientists. Did this come about because they found phenomena that could only be explained by natural selection? Did they ever find one thing where an intelligent designer could not have made it, therefore, natural selection must have made it? Of course not. The consensus views about Darwinism stem simply from scientists employing the concepts of variation and natural selection and finding them to be useful. Teleologists don't need to do anything more than this as they flesh out their alternative perspective on the world.
At this point, we might not be able to calculate exact detailed probabilities, but such exact calculations are also missing from every assumption of major evolutionary transitions. Nevertheless, plenty of evidence exists to clearly indicate that whatever the odds are, they are probably very, very small. Such a hypothesis explains why life arose only once [the most parsimonious interpretation of the evidence]. Such a hypothesis explains why life has never arisen from non-life during the last 3.5 billion years. Such a hypothesis explains why life cannot be reproduced in the lab. Such a hypothesis explains why a cell extract cannot be used to resurrect some form of proto-life with the addition of energy.
Of course, there is a way to falsify my claim. If we discover life forms on Mars which are clearly not related to Earth life forms, this would falsify my claim. Why? That life would arise independently on two such closely spaced planets would indicate the odds favor the origin of life.
So let's see if the non-teleological view is as open to testing and falsification: what observation would falsify the notion that the probability of the origin of life is not very small?"
[ 18. October 2002, 12:06: Message edited by: Jack ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 18. October 2002 23:28
Jack writes, “As I see it, the inference to design from machine-like complexity is a pretty darn reliable inference. I have never been mislead by it.”
But you don’t actually know whether you’ve been mislead or not. You think the machine analogy is enough to suspect the flagellum is designed, but you don’t really know. Suspicion, based on analogy, does not make scientific evidence.
Jack writes, “You seem to think there is no position between "there is no evidence for ID" and " there is absolute proof for ID".”
That is absolutely not true, and I am baffled as to why you continue to paint me as a black-and-white ID “hard-core skeptic.” The exact, precise, important point I am trying to make is that intermediate types of evidence need to be sought, and methods to do the seeking need to be developed. Suspicion and machine analogy are not enough, but I am not calling for a face-to-face interview with the designers either.
Science proceeds by assembling literally thousands of small pieces of empirical evidence - a measurement here, an experiment there. Gradually the pieces start to fall together and new scientific understanding is born. ID researchers need to be thinking about what kind of data can be found, and how to find it, that will add empirical content to the theoretical foundations of the EF. Only when this data starts to come in will design theory start to move from being a speculative hypothesis.
Let me make it clear - speculative hypotheses are good things. The Big Bang theory was once one, and so was continental drift, and so was an earth that is billions of years old.
But what moves a speculative hypothesis towards established scientific knowledge? Data does - positive data that supports specific testable hypotheses.
So I am a middle-grounder, not an extremist on either end (neither hard-core skeptic nor one who believes on suspicion alone.) I have a scientific frame of mind, and I would like to see research that brings in data. That’s all.
Last point:
Jack writes,
quote:
I doubt you are neutral because if you were your views on ambiguous aspects of biotic reality such the origin of life, the origin of molecular machines, the origin of the genetic code etc. would be held tentatively and provisionally until science comes up with a test to distinguish ID from blind watchmaking. Instead you support a non-teleological origin for these things and will only change your mind if ID proponents can demonstrate that it is impossible probabilistic ally for such things to come together by evolutionary mechanisms. But why is the burden on the ID proponent to prove a negative? You are the one who believes the flagellum evolved. What is the evidence behind this belief?.
I think I have also made it clear that I am interested in design much closer to the present, where it is easy to study. The origin of life, cells, the flagellum, etc. are 3.5 billions years in the past.
Now perhaps it is true that in fact the only time that design occurred on earth was 3.5 billion years ago - in which case, design will not be found closer to the present. But that is not what many ID proponents believe. In fact it is fairly common to assert at least the possibility is that speciation requires design. Since speciation happens in the present, and in the near past, this seems like a better place to start the research - for two reasons.
One of those reasons is that, as I have proposed, developing methodologies which can at least potentially show via probability calculations that some things are not designed would be a good place to start, because then such methodologies would establish credibility for when they in fact did detect design. So perhaps trying to develop methods to determine whether speciation is probable or not would be a good place to start. I’m willing to let the origin of life issue await results on such studies that are closer to home, and work backwards from there.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic