|
Author
|
Topic: ID Research program
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 03. October 2002 22:52
In another thread, Jack wrote, “Evan, perhaps you could share with us what evidence would cause you to merely suspect that something in nature was intelligently designed?”
At that point, I wrote,
quote:
I am not interested in “merely suspecting” design, because history is replete with stories of people “suspecting” design and later finding out that natural causes were responsible.
I am interested in the argument that in fact design can be established empirically. Following Dembski, my position is that design is established by showing that it is highly improbable (nominally 1/10^-150) that something could have happened. In my opinion, in order to do this, ID scientists will need to develop ways to calculate the probabilities of events which do happen in known natural ways (such as “micro-evolutionary” changes), show that those probabilities are larger than the nominal design boundary, and then apply those methods to show that some events fall below the design bound. This will not be an easy program, but it does seem to me to be the research program implied by Dembski’s theory.
Jack replied, “I keep hearing the ID critics complaining about the lack of an ID research program. It would be nice if things were moving faster, however, I would like to know what if anything an ID research program could discover that would be considered evidence of ID in the eyes of the ID critic.”
Jack and I agreed that this topic belonged in a separate thread, so here I would like to offer more thoroughly my thoughts on what type of evidence could be generated by an ID research program.
I do want to make it clear that I am not intending to speak for ID critics, many of whom would immediately dismiss my ideas, nor for any ID advocates. But I do agree with RBH that people interested in ID, either pro or con, need to start offering specifics.
First, an overview of hypotheses, and then an outline of the research program.
1) I start with Dembski’s basic premise: that design produces things that would otherwise be vastly improbable if they happened by purely natural causes. Dembski sets a bound for this (1/10^-150): the exact number is not important, but I’ll accept the idea that such an approximate bound exists.
2) Dembski says in ID Coming Clean, and I agree with this hypothesis, that design does not happen through miraculous interventions, but rather through an introduction of information into the world in a way that does not contravene any natural laws. I have written about the possibility that this is done through the manipulation of quantum probabilities, but the exact mechanism is not at issue here.
The key issue is that any one event (such as a single mutation) will have a probability that is far above the universal bound, and is quite explainable by natural laws, but that some sequence or combination of events, when taken together, will be so improbable that design will be inferred.
That is, for any individual event, the undetectable manipulation of the probability will still be seen as “natural” because the probability is still far above the universal bound, but the combined effect of many events will fall below the universal bound, and thus show a net result of design.
Now, how can this be shown empirically.
1) Methods need to be developed and applied that can compute the probability of biological change taking place in a population. These methods need to include the following aspects of the situation:
a) verified rates of mutation and other genetic changes in the genome of the organisms,
b) methods to calculate the probabilities of such changes in large populations over multiple generations,
c) methods to calculate the effect of the environment in passing the genetic changes on through reproductive success, and
d) increased ability to understand how the genetic changes affect the phenotype
2) Once these methods are developed, they need to be applied to things which we are fairly certain are not designed, to see if they produce reasonable probabilities. For instance, if a particular bacteria regularly evolves some response when put in an environment that contains a new element, such as a mild antibiotic, then can these methods of calculation accurately compute the probability that this will happen in a given time period. Only by being tested in this manner will scientists gain confidence that the methods work.
3) Once the credibility of the methods are established in respect to non-designed changes, then they can be applied to things we think might be designed. If the methods then produce probabilities consistent with the universal bound, we will have some evidence that indeed design has been detected.
Obviously, there will also be the problem of generalizing results from the laboratory to the field, and from changes we can observe in the present to changes that happened in the past.
For instance, I read of an exchange that Behe had with someone at a conference where he was asked if the evolution from a primitive elephant of 3 millions years ago to a modern elephant was designed. Behe said he didn’t know, because he didn’t know what molecular changes would have needed to have taken place to change the primitive elephant into the modern one. Even if we did know that, I would add we also don’t know what the sequence of genetic changes might have needed to take place over 100,000 generations of elephants to get from there to here, much less the probabilities involved with all that happening. Until we do know these things, we won’t know whether that chang was designed or not.
This is what design science needs to be working on. This is what type of evidence is needed that is consistent with design theory as offered by Dembski.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 04. October 2002 13:33
Evan,
You have introduced what I think is a reasonable research paradigm addressing, IMO, many of the key issues in the ID/evolution discussion. If I understand you correctly you are suggesting:
1. Identify evolutionary changes that can be explained and demonstrate/model/simulate the explained phenomena .
2. Identify some new example of evolutionary change.
3. Determine if the new phenomena is explainable based on what is known and demonstrable.
Before you apply your paradigm, however, I think you have to address two basic questions: 1. What is currently known and demonstrable? And 2. What would the paradigm actually test?
WHAT IS CURRENTLY KNOWN?
It appears you have outlined in some detail the information that would be required to explain evolutionary changes based on an RM&NS approach. The claim appears to be made and generally accepted that RM&NS approaches can explain at least some types of evolutionary changes. Your comments would appear to suggest that there is not currently sufficient information available to explain/demonstrate that RM&NS can in fact explain occurrences of evolutionary change. Does your research design suggest the existence of a gap between what RM&NS is ‘believed’ to explain and ‘what can be actually demonstrated’?
WHAT IS BEING TESTED?
Your test, I believe, is intended to determine "If a specific occurrences of evolutionary change can be explained by known processes, models, and theories." If the result can not be explained by known processes, models or theories, such a finding would support the assert "Since the occurrences of evolutionary change can not be explained by known processes, models and theories, the occurrences might be explained by the actions of an external designer". Personally, I have no objection to such an interpretation. It should, however, be noted that the more tradition scientific interpretation of the results are "If the results can not be explained by known processes, models and theories, then the known processes, models, and theories are incomplete, inadequate and/or falsified."
Your tests or the tests designed by Behe, and Demski can be interpreted as demonstrations of the possible actions of a designer. In traditional scientific terminology, IMO, all these tests are simply tests of the validity of various forms of Darwinian models and theories.
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 04. October 2002 22:44
Warren, I believe you misinterpret my proposal.
You write,
quote:
Your test, I believe, is intended to determine "If a specific occurrences of evolutionary change can be explained by known processes, models, and theories." If the result can not be explained by known processes, models or theories, such a finding would support the assert "Since the occurrences of evolutionary change can not be explained by known processes, models and theories, the occurrences might be explained by the actions of an external designer".
First, my proposal is not intended to explain anything. Rather, it proposes that what is needed is ways to calculate probabilities related to events which lead to biological change.
Secondly, the framework of making a design inference based on probabilities is Dembski’s, not mine. I am accepting his basic formulation, and then suggesting what is needed to provide some verifiable, measurable, empirical data for that framework.
So when you ask,
quote:
Does your research design suggest the existence of a gap between what RM&NS is ‘believed’ to explain and ‘what can be actually demonstrated’?
my answer is “no,” that is not what I am trying to suggest. I am not trying to explain anything, or imply any conclusions about what can or cannot be accurately attributed to natural evolutionary processes.
I am saying that we need data - we need procedures and methods for calculating probablities of events. That is the heart of what is need to apply the explanatory filter. Conclusions will come later - possibly much later. What is needed now is nuts and bolts about what actually happens, and ways to measure how likely those things are.
===================
Here’s an analogy. I’ve just read Feynman’s little book on Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).
Feynman and others spent decades working on the theory before QED was fully developed. Billions of dollars were spent on particle accelerators to gather data and to look at phenomena in simplified controlled conditions. New mathematical models and calculating techniques were invented (this is what Feynman got the Nobel prize for). Various hypotheses about how real world things would happen based on these studies were proposed and tested. Hypotheses were refined, abandoned, or confirmed as additional tests based on the growing theory came in.
QED is based on probabilities. Describing what happens when light reflects off glass involves integrating an infinite number of probabilities - at the level of QED all is based on probabilty.
Given that the design inference is based on probability (and given that it is at least possible that the non-miraculous introduction of design information may be through the manipulation of quantum mechanical probabilities), design science needs to follow an analogous program.
Find ways to measure what happens, establish probability measures for different classes of events, build mathematical means to calculate the probability of all those events interacting, make testable hypotheses based on those calculations to see if they agree with reality, and repeat until satisfied.
At some point in his process, probabilities under the universal bound may appear, and design can be inferred.
But if you don’t have a method of empirically showing, in a repeatable manner, that some things are not designed (i.e, evolved by natural means,) you don’t have the tool to show that something is designed.
The tools are needed. That’s what the research program needs to be concentrating on.
[ 04. October 2002, 22:49: Message edited by: Evan ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 05. October 2002 01:32
Evan>>But if you don’t have a method of empirically showing, in a repeatable manner, that some things are not designed (i.e, evolved by natural means,) you don’t have the tool to show that something is designed.<<
But doesn't this cut both ways? If there are no tests to distinguish design from non-design then how does one determine that some biological thing is the product of blind watchmaking? Notice what Mike Gene says about this:
"First, if there was a clear-cut way to distinguish design from non-design, ID theory would not be needed. That is, one simple unequivocal test that distinguishes design from non-design would be sufficient. But there is no such test and keep in mind that science has no such test when excluding design to explain the origin of biological features. Also keep in mind that when anti-ID'ers talk about distinguishing between design and non-design
they are usually referring to two themes: prove the impossible [i.e. evolution couldn't have done it] and show me the designer. I think the search for a magic bullet way to distinguish designed things from things not designed is a
waste of time. The reality investigated is too complicated and design in life is probably too subtle.
The point is simply this - I do not think we can directly detect the existence of either a teleological or non-teleological cause from ancient history. The best we can do is to infer such a cause indirectly to determine how well those inferences make sense of the data we have. In my opinion, there is simply no need for a magic bullet test of detection. Science itself has none, yet that has not stopped it from speculating and testing about non-teleological causes.
Consider this perspective. If we have no reliable empirical detector of intelligent design, then everyone [including science]
is blind to the existence of intelligent design. Science has no evidence against ID. Neither can it say that its hypotheses and theories about origins are true or even approximate truth. All it can say is "given we are blinded to the existence of ID, here's what we can come up with." Thus, the lack of a reliable design detector has serious implication for the non-teleological viewpoint - it means the whole non-teleological account cannot be tested against its
null hypothesis and is thus a circular account."
[ 05. October 2002, 02:14: Message edited by: Jack ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 05. October 2002 08:37
Jack and Evan,
Quote Evan:But if you don’t have a method of empirically showing, in a repeatable manner, that some things are not designed (i.e, evolved by natural means,) you don’t have the tool to show that something is designed.
Quote Jack: But doesn't this cut both ways? If there are no tests to distinguish design from non-design then how does one determine that some biological thing is the product of blind watchmaking?
First, Evan’s and Dembski’s research designs are based on the follow hypotheses testing/interpretation:
Step 1: Can the occurrence of X be explained(modeled or simulated) by natural process Y?
If the results of this test are negative, then, it is proposed, the result can be interpreted as:
Step 2: If X can not be explained by natural process Y then X might be explained by supernatural process Z.
As applied, X refers to an occurrence of biological design, Y refers to some ‘Darwinian evolutionary theory’, and Z refers to actions by an external designer.
As I pointed out yesterday, the step 2 ‘interpretation’ of the step 1 results is not inappropriate, but it does not logically follow from step 1. It will be noted that "If X can be explained by natural process Y, then X might be explained by supernatural process Z" is fully as sound as the original interpretation of a negative experimental result.
It is not logically possible to either prove or disprove the existence of a ‘super natural designer’. This is an interesting philosophical/theological issue but really beyond the scope of the discussion here.
This brings us back to step 1. As I stated yesterday, the "Can X be explained, modeled, simulated by Y?" is the standard scientific format for testing the validity/adequacy of process, model or theory Y. Both Dembski’s research/analysis designs and the one proposed by Evan fit the classic definition for a test of Y or ‘Darwinian theory’.
These observations raise an interesting question-"If the tests being discussed are ‘theory validation tests’ why are they being INTERPRETED as tests for ‘design by a designer’?" The answer is quite simple, Dembski and Evan( i.e. both ID proponents and Darwinian theory proponents) ASSUME the Y, the TOE MUST be valid. IF Y is assumed or defined to be true, then, of course, demonstrating it does not hold in some situation is equivalent demonstrating the X must be due to some supernatural force Z.
The question now arises, "How can Dembski, Evan, and all justify assuming that Y is valid in the face of experimental evidence which appears to contradict and falsify Y?" The answer lies in a common human behavioral phenomena that I will label a knowledge filter. Humans behavior is heavily dependent on information gathered and processes by ‘experts’. In order to maintain an identity as a ‘group of experts’, the group imposes standards and restrictions on the type, form and content of information distributed in the name of the group of experts. These constraints constitute what can be labeled a ‘knowledge filter’.
Typically, knowledge filters are designed to maintain the quality and validity of information provided, but has been demonstrated in numerous fields these filters also promote the interests of the group and the interests of the individuals doing the filtering.
The validity of TOE in EB is subject to a fairly extensive knowledge filters. IMO, the tests designed by Dembski and Evan would not pass the EB knowledge filters and thus would not qualify as validity tests for TOE. TOE, based on the standards imposed by the recognized experts is thus still a valid theory despite the test results produced, and the interpretation offered by Dembski is valid (if you accept the soundness of the EB knowledge filter).
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 05. October 2002 09:46
to Jack (presumably a different Jack than Jack Foster):
I don’t quite understand your point, and since most of your post is a quote from Mike Gene, I’m not sure where you stand. I agree with the quote by Mike, and am trying here to offer ideas about how to develop a “reliable empirical detector of intelligent design.”
You write, “If there are no tests to distinguish design from non-design then how does one determine that some biological thing is the product of blind watchmaking?”
This is exactly the question I am addressing - there needs to be tests to distinguish design from non-design (those things created by natural evolutionary processes.) Since the criteria for design is that it pass through the explanatory filter, and since the EF is based on probabilities, methods for calculating those probabilities need to be developed so that we will have a “reliable empirical detector of intelligent design.” That’s my point.
to Warren:
I am assuming, and I have made this quite clear I think, that the basic premise of Dembski’s EF is correct. I would prefer that a discussion of whether that assumption is reasonable be part of a different thread, not this one. I particularly think that a discussion of “knowledge filters” and other reasons why either Dembski or I are willing to accept these basic premises is off-topic. I ask your cooperation (and perhaps some moderator help) in having that discussion elsewhere.
I do want to point out that I have never used the world “supernatural” in respect to design or designers (although I have used the word “unembodied.”)
This too is a digression that is fairly tangential to the topic of this thread.
The idea is that design can be empirically detected if/when it can be shown that things happen that are too improbable to have happened by natural causes. The implication of design leads to implications about the nature of the designers, including of course the implication that they exist. What type of nature they have, including the question of the form of their existence, is a question that will be more addressable as the data comes in (see the thread on MDT for more on this.)
But this thread is about how to gather the data. I think it would be helpful to keep the thread on this topic.
Thanks.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 05. October 2002 10:54
Evan,
Quote: I am interested in the argument that in fact design can be established empirically. Following Dembski, my position is that design is established by showing that it is highly improbable (nominally 1/10^-150) that something could have happened.
As shown by the above quote from your original post, this thread is about empirically demonstrating design. More specifically, the thread is about empirically demonstrating whether the creation or generation of observed occurrences of design can be or can not be explained by natural processes. The logic on which you plan on empirically demonstrating design would therefore seem to be an entirely appropriate subject for discussion.
To further simplify the argument I am presenting, the demonstrations both you and Dembski are presenting are based on the logic -1. Y or Darwinian theory is valid under one set of criteria(EB criteria or standards) and 2. Y or Darwinian theory can be shown to be invalid under the test or demonstration conditions. At the very least, the logic on which you propose to ‘establish design empirically’ requires an explanation.
I simply suggested ‘knowledge filters’ as an explanation of ‘why’ there are two different sets of criteria for the validity of Darwinian theories. The substance of my comments related to the logical soundness of the demonstration you proposed.
Quote: I’m not sure where you stand. I agree with the quote by Mike, and am trying here to offer ideas about how to develop a "reliable empirical detector of intelligent design."
It would also be useful for the discussion here if you clarified what you mean by ‘intelligent design’. Do you mean ‘something produced by an external designer’ or ‘something produced by a naturalistic process other than Darwinian evolution’. The nature of your test will be highly dependent on what you intend to detect".
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 05. October 2002 12:01
Warren asks some reasonable questions, but also displays some confusion about Dembski’s theory of design.
We’ll start with the confusion first.
Warren writes,
quote:
More specifically, the thread is about empirically demonstrating whether the creation or generation of observed occurrences of design can be or can not be explained by natural processes.
According to Dembski, design is a separate category from things created by natural causation. Therefore, asking whether “observed occurrences of design can be or can not be explained by natural processes” is an oxymoron: by Dembski’s definition, designed objects can not be explained by natural processes. "Design by natural processes" is a self-contradictory phrase in respect to Dembski's definition of design. (Clarification - I know that the real criteria is not “can not be explained,” but is rather that the probability of natural causation is extremely low. Dembski does not posit miraculous, non-natural acts, but rather the manipulation or guidance of natural acts towards results that defy the odds greatly.)
On the other hand, I do agree with Warren that the “logic on which you plan on empirically demonstrating design would therefore seem to be an entirely appropriate subject for discussion.” However, I am not sure I understand his point.
The criteria for concluding design or not is the probability of occurrence: above the probability is not design, below is. That’s Dembski’s criteria. I am accepting that formulation - that’s the logic behind my proposal for “empirically demonstrating design.”
I am asking that we keep separate two different discussions:
1) I would like this thread to discuss the following: if we accept Dembski’s basic formulation, are the elements of an ID research program that I outlined reasonable, at least in theory. Do I accurately outline what is needed next?
2) I would like to not discuss here whether Dembski’s formulation of the issue is correct or not - that is a different issue.
Also, Warren asks, “It would also be useful for the discussion here if you clarified what you mean by ‘intelligent design’. Do you mean ‘something produced by an external designer’ or ‘something produced by a naturalistic process other than Darwinian evolution’. The nature of your test will be highly dependent on what you intend to detect".
I am not discussing whether there is some “naturalistic process other than Darwinian evolution” at work here. If something happens with enough regularity that the probabilities are above the universal probability bound, then I presume that some type of naturalistic description of the situation will be investigated. By definition, this will not be design. I am not even interested in trying to delimit what is included in “Darwinian evolution.” In fact, I presume that if tests were devised to produce the type of data I am suggesting, there would likely be improvements in evolutionary theory as well as the possibility of detecting design.
I am also being quite agnostic about the nature of the designer. (This response really belongs on the “design-centric” thread.) As evidence comes in, it may be that external designers are the best inference from the data. It may be that a more general, impersonal, immanent metaphysical force may be the best inference. That remains to be seen.
The key criteria, though, is one of improbability. If there are natural processes at work that we don’t yet understand, but that produce regular enough effects to be less-than-improbable, then they will become part of a description of natural processes, and they therefore won’t be design. That is because the definition of design is based on improbability.
That is why calculating probabilities is an essential step.
[ 05. October 2002, 12:07: Message edited by: Evan ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Xenon
Member
Member # 435
|
posted 05. October 2002 13:17
Oops wrong thread
[ 05. October 2002, 13:17: Message edited by: Xenon ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 05. October 2002 14:12
Hi Evan, you presume correctly, I'm not Jack Foster.
Yes, I understand you are proposing tests to distinguish design from non-design [those things created by natural evolutionary processes.] I'm all for it, however, I first wanted to comment on the consensus among ID critics that the burden of "proof" is on the ID proponents. Supposedly ID needs a successful research program before it will be taken seriously by advocates of blind watchmaking. My point is that right now ID is not a weak proposal when compared to the blind watchmaker hypothesis.
For instance, where exactly is the blind watchmaker research program? Sure, there's lots of research into evolution per se but where's the reseach that demonstrates biological complexity arising solely via non-intelligent processes? This obviously hasn't been done or we wouldn't be talkng about tests to distinguish design from non-design.
ID critics assume everything in nature had a non-intelligent cause and then challenge anyone to prove them wrong. They feel secure that the blind watchmaker hypothesis is correct because they can't observe the designer in action and because ID'ers can't prove blind watchmaking impossible. This is a weak argument. Let's hear their case for blind watchmaking. If it's nothing more than a deduction from materialism then it's no better as a starting point for origins research than the assumption that if something looks designed it probably is unless we have good reasons to think otherwise.
Even without a research program the ID inference is a powerful one. Is the ultimate origin of the cell better explained as the product of advanced biomolecular engineering or is it better explained as the product of non-intelligent processes? Some scientists are logically inferring that life is carbon-based nanotechnology. Here is an interesting qoute from Mike Gene that explains my position precisely.
"The specified complexity we find within the cell expresses itself in a dynamic three dimensional way and I would thus define it as machine-like complexity [MLC]. With machine-like complexity, we are dealing with function that not only depends on arrangement [of parts], but also the conformation of those parts, their positioning, and timing. All of these are important such that you get coordinated movement of the parts as it is this coordinated movement that carries out the function....
Now as I see it, the inference to design from machine-like complexity [MLC] is a pretty darn reliable inference. I go through life inferring intelligence from MLC and don't live in a maze of confusion because of multiple mistakes in inferring intelligence from MLC, only to find the MLC arose from some non-intelligent mechanism. In the world I move through, intelligence is the default explanation for machine-like complexity, not merely because experience says so, but because MLC can be rationally viewed as the frozen trace of Mind. It's such a *natural*, free-flowing, and beautifully simple inference that I would need more than a possibility to attribute it to something other than intelligence. When I confront MLC, I don't naturally say, "Now *there's* evidence of a non-intelligent cause!" Perhaps if I had a history of being misled by this inference, I would take the mere possibility of MLC coming from non-intelligent mechanisms more seriously. Those who insist on attributing MLC to non-intelligence are free to do so a far as I am concerned. But if they expect me to make the same attribution, they will need more than a claim about how things might happen. They will need some good old-fashioned evidence to show that the particular example of MLC in question did indeed arise from a non-intelligent mechanism. I simply see no evidence that machine-like complexity-from-non-machine-like complexity is generated by non-teleological means, yet it is also quite clear that ID is a known cause for machine-like complexity."
So my position is that as things stand right now, ID is a logical inference for the origin of certain aspects of biotic reality. A successful ID research program would be nice but since the advocates of blind watchmaking don't have one I am satisified for the time being that my ID suspicions, hunches and inferences are as good or better than anything coming from the blind watchmaking camp.
I will address your proposal for an ID research program in my next post.
[ 05. October 2002, 14:18: Message edited by: Jack ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 05. October 2002 15:54
Jack, I am glad to hear that you would like to respond concerning my research proposal.
In the meantime, I gave some questions and comments about your post.
I am not sure what you mean by the “blind watchmaker hypothesis.” Virtually all proponents of ID accept that some amount of adaptive change takes place through natural evolutionary processes - these are sometimes referred to as “micro-evolutionary” changes. Likewise, virtually all ID proponents believe that those natural processes are not sufficient to account for some changes - that the changes are too improbable in respect to what we know about them. These are sometimes referred to as “macro-evolutionary” changes.
However, there is no consensus on exactly where this dividing line is, or why it is there - at what point is design necessary to overcome the improbabilities that natural processes can not overcome? - that is the question.
Dembski’s filter start by assuming that some biological events can be suitably accounted for by reference to natural processes. The research problem is how to show empirically, by reference to probability calculations, where the natural processes become insufficient.
So my question to you is this: what does the “blind watchmaking hypothesis” refer to? Are you questioning whether microevolutionary changes can happen? Do you question whether natural processes can create any adaptive genetic change?
Or by the “blind watch making” hypothesis do you mean the position that all change can be accounted for by natural processes?
If you mean the latter, then that is exactly the problem we are trying to address - where do natural processes become insufficient? If you mean the former, then you are making a much stricter design claim that either I or most ID supporters are making.
You wonder why the burden is on the ID research program. I think the reason is that the microevolutionary changes (at whatever level one accepts them) are well established and not in question. Dembski’s filter proposes that there is something beyond what natural processes can do. Since this is the ID hypothesis, it seems to me reasonable that the burden to create a research program is on the ID proponent.
So, I would be interested in hearing from you more about what you mean by the “blind watch making” hypothesis, and whether you agree or disagree with the general outline of the problem that I have made here.
Point 2:
You again quote Mike Gene, this time on the origin of the cell. The research program I am suggesting is really a very long ways from this issue. The origin of the cell is perhaps the most intractable problem, and is, in my opinion, a very difficult place to start.
That’s why I propose that we start closer to home - with the changes that could theoretically be observed in the laboratory or in the field in living populations. Let’s see if we can develop methods of calculating probabilities of observed changes - develop the tools to measure those quantities which will ultimately be necessary to distinguish non-design from design. Once the tools are developed, they can then possibly be applied to larger changes over longer periods of time.
For instance, the following is posted here at ISCID at www.iscid.org/symposium-2002-jedmacosko.php :
quote:
Friday October 11th - 7pm Eastern
Single Gene Molecular Machines: Still Irreducibly Complex
by Jed Macosko
Influenza, the ubiquitous flu virus, has on it's surface an irreducibly complex molecular machine made from a single gene product. As such this machine, called hemagglutinin (HA), represents an elegant example of intelligent design. In this paper the minimal functions of a virus are discussed, and the role of HA in these functions are delineated. A simpler, genetically engineered version of HA is presented and its limited abilities are explained. Finally, a recent article proposing viral evolution is critiqued in light of the irreducible complexity of influenza hemagglutinin.
Here, Macosko says the flu virus has an IC component, and hence is designed. This is a biological entity that is right here, right now, and would be a good candidate for an empirical study: could methods be developed to show conclusively that this particular component is too improbable to have happened naturally? Well, to answer that question we have to know how to calculate the probabilities of things that do happen naturally. In the long run we need hard data, rather than the general arguments that are usually made made by ID proponents.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 06. October 2002 09:36
Evan,
Quote: The criteria for concluding design or not is the probability of occurrence: above the probability is not design, below is. That’s Dembski’s criteria. I am accepting that formulation - that’s the logic behind my proposal for "empirically demonstrating design."
Based on your comments we can conclude that you are not interested in ‘empirically demonstrating design, but in techniques for measuring the complexity of biological systems. More specifically, you are interested in discussing techniques for measuring levels of complexity greater than or less than Dembski’s arbitrary number of 10^-150.
IMO, you are being inconsistent. On the one hand you claim to be ‘empirically demonstrating design’. On the other hand, you claim you only want to discuss a narrow technical issue. Which is it? If you want to limit discussion to a narrow technical issue, then you yourself need to be careful that you limit your comments to the same subject. Up to this point, it does not appear that you have adhered to your own restrictions.
If, as you suggest, you are interested measuring probabilities, then you need to address the question ‘what probabilities?’. Specifically, are you interested in measuring ‘point in time probabilities’ or ‘change process probabilities’ or some other as yet undefined concept of probability and complexity.
If you want to measure ‘point in time probability-complexity’ then you want to measure Nf/N or ‘the size of Nf divided by the size of N) where "At a point in time a biological phenomena has a functional form Nx which a member of a functional subset Nf and a member of a set of possible forms N".
You could alternatively be attempting to measuring the probability of finding an Nx a member of Nf from the set N using process F". This might be quantified in terms of average number of trials/lifetimes required to find an Nx which is a member of N. This, it appears, is the concept of probability/complexity Dembski is using in his analysis. If you have some alternative definition of probability then you need to define it.
In order to calculate the above probability you need 1)techniques for measuring the relative size of Nf and N and 2)a definition of the process (or class of processes) F. Dembski defines F as a process of ‘randomly generated members Ny from N’.
If rather than empirically demonstrating design, you want to talk about ‘techniques for measuring probabilities’ then you need to define what probabilities you want to measure and how you plan to go about measuring them. The research paradigm you defined failed to address the key issue of what you are trying to do.
IMO, Dembski’s analysis is far more about ‘how experimental results are interpreted’ then it is about ‘experimental results’. Dembski uses very complex examples to demonstrate that ‘there are examples of biological design which have very high degrees of complexity(or very low probabilities of being generated by ‘random’ processes)’. On top of this rather simple, and IMO rather obvious, ‘experimental/observational finding’ he constructs a complex and, IMO, interesting argument ‘suggesting’ design by an external intelligence. It is Dembski’s argument/interpretation of results that ‘suggests design’. IMO, if you don’t want to consider Dembski’s argument, then you should not suggest you are ‘testing for design’.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Edington
Member
Member # 421
|
posted 06. October 2002 10:24
This message has been deleted by the moderator. The author gave the impression that he was interested in Victory rather than dialogue.
the text of the post has been sent to the author via a private message.
[ 06. October 2002, 11:05: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 06. October 2002 10:43
Answer to, and comments on, Warren’s questions:
Warren writes,
quote:
Based on your comments we can conclude that you are not interested in ‘empirically demonstrating design, but in techniques for measuring the complexity of biological systems. More specifically, you are interested in discussing techniques for measuring levels of complexity greater than or less than Dembski’s arbitrary number of 10^-150.
IMO, you are being inconsistent. On the one hand you claim to be ‘empirically demonstrating design’. On the other hand, you claim you only want to discuss a narrow technical issue. Which is it? If you want to limit discussion to a narrow technical issue, then you yourself need to be careful that you limit your comments to the same subject. Up to this point, it does not appear that you have adhered to your own restrictions.
My understanding of Dembski is that “empirically demonstrating design” and “measuring the complexity of biological systems” by ascertaining the probability of their occurrence are equivalent: if something can be shown to be too improbable to have happened through natural processes, it is design.
Therefore, the “narrow technical issue” I am bringing up is in fact the way to detect design. I don’t believe I am being inconsistent here.
If you have a different understanding of what Dembski means, please explain.
Warren writes,
quote:
If, as you suggest, you are interested measuring probabilities, then you need to address the question ‘what probabilities?’. Specifically, are you interested in measuring ‘point in time probabilities’ or ‘change process probabilities’ or some other as yet undefined concept of probability and complexity.
I think my research proposal ideas make it very clear that I am interested in what you call “change process probabilities”, as those are what are biologically relevant. Biological change involves multiple individuals over multiple generations, with many, many events interacting in various ways. These are the probabilities that need to be measured.
I don’t believe that what you call “point in time” complexity is very relevant, because it doesn’t address the question of how something came to be. Design is about causation, and that implies events taking place over time. A snapshot of something at a moment in time doesn’t contain enough information to be useful.
Warren writes,
quote:
If rather than empirically demonstrating design, you want to talk about ‘techniques for measuring probabilities’ then you need to define what probabilities you want to measure and how you plan to go about measuring them. The research paradigm you defined failed to address the key issue of what you are trying to do.
I offered a short, layman’s summary of what I think needs to be done. In very general terms, at the very least, I pointed out that this needs to involve probabilities about genetic change itself (including more than just point mutations), about genetic change in large populations, about the effects of genotype on phenotype, and about ways in which the environment acts on the population through natural selection.
I have very little idea how one could go about measuring these things. I presume experts in various fields of biology are the ones to do that. My point is that this is what ID scientists need to be thinking about.
I also know that one often (usually) needs to simplify a situation in order to study it - in this case by either laboratory studies or controlled field studies, but I also know that scientists need to be very careful about understanding that the results from these simplifications eventually need to be tested against the more complex real world.
I think it should be clear that the research program I suggest would be a decades long project, and would need to involve scientists of different sorts. But the time is ripe for such work - with all the information about genomes and all the computational power of computers, the potential for research is there.
Warren writes,
quote:
IMO, Dembski’s analysis is far more about ‘how experimental results are interpreted’ then it is about ‘experimental results’.
But there are no experimental results to interpret! That’s my point. The “interpretation” that has been done so far has been based on general intuitions that have not been tested. The research program I suggest (or something better offered by someone else) needs to happen before there are in fact any “experimental results” to interpret.
Warren concludes,
quote:
Dembski uses very complex examples to demonstrate that ‘there are examples of biological design which have very high degrees of complexity(or very low probabilities of being generated by ‘random’ processes)’. On top of this rather simple, and IMO rather obvious, ‘experimental/observational finding’ he constructs a complex and, IMO, interesting argument ‘suggesting’ design by an external intelligence.
Dembski does not use any “very complex” examples to demonstrate “very low probabilities of being generated by ‘random’ processes).” He offers one example that I know of and shows that the odds of something coming into existence more or less at one time are below the universal bound.
But evolutionary theory doesn’t posit that things come into existence at one time, so this is not very helpful. This is precisely why I think a research program of the kind I am mentioning is necessary, because it is vastly more realistic.
Dembski does offer arguments as to why he thinks that certain kinds of things will prove to be designed. That’s how a new scientific idea gets started, and it’s why we are having this discussion in the first place. But those arguments need to be put to the empirical test, and until we have some way of measuring the kinds of probabilities involved, we won’t be able to do that. Hence the proposed research program.
P.S. Biological things, designed or not, are not generated by “‘random’ processes,” as you say in the quote above. There are created by a series of events which include a great deal of natural law, some elements of randomness, and perhaps some elements of design. Saying that they are created by merely “random processes” leads to the types of over-simplifications that the research program proposal I offer is meant to overcome.
[ 06. October 2002, 10:51: Message edited by: Evan ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 06. October 2002 12:52
Warren:
You claim that
quote:
Dembski uses very complex examples to demonstrate that ‘there are examples of biological design which have very high degrees of complexity(or very low probabilities of being generated by ‘random’ processes)’.
Could you give some examples of these 'very complex' examples used by Dembski? All I have seen so far wrt biological design was an attempt to calculate the probability for a totally one swoop chance hypothesis for the flagellum. But nothing very complex or realistic imho.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic