|
Author
|
Topic: Honest questions
|
Curious
Member
Member # 521
|
posted 25. October 2002 15:50
Please forgive my questions ,as I am sure you have no doubt heard and answered them before.
I have read some of the posts in this the "Brainstorm", forum and found them very intresting. As a non scientist, and with little information of Intelligent Design theory I have a few simple questions , which I hope might clear up any misunderstandings I have about the subject.
1/ I have read much with the words "darwinist/ism", usually in a negative tone. Why does Intelligent Design make Darwins theory wrong? Couldn't a "designer' use natural selection in the designs?
2/ Why does the concept of Irreducible Complexity equal "design"? Could it be we just don't know of any natural process that may have produced this complexity yet?
3/ If we dont know who or what the Intelligent designer is/was how can we even discern his/her/it's design and motives? Isn't it a little presumptious of us humans to think we can be the arbiters of design everywere in the Universe?
4/ I take it that because some things can be seen apparentlly to be designed then it follows that the Universe as a whole cannot be. Because if it were there can be no way of telling designed from non-designed as everything was designed!
So is Intelligent Design theory opposed to the Creationist hypothesis of a Universe totally "created" and designed by a God?
Once again I apologize if you have answered these questions a million times before..but i look forward to learning more.
Thank You
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 25. October 2002 16:03
Good questions:
In fact you are right, an Intelligent Designer could have used natural selection, something also known as 'front loading' (Dembski) or 'deck stacking' (Sober).
Which makes for an interesting dilemma since the filter proposed by Dembski cannot and does not differentiate between 'intervention' and 'deck stacking' making it hard to eliminate natural processes as the mechanism even when design has been infered.
Nevertheless since it is argued that ID is the logical compliment of 'chance' where chance includes pure chance and lawlike regularities, one would have to eliminate natural selection to be able to infer design.
But ID does not argue that all structures are intelligently designed in biology so there surely may be a place for natural selection in ID.
IC does not equal design since IC allows for the probability of a natural (read Darwinian pathway). Sober has dealt with the IC argument quite excellently in
Intelligent Design and Probability Reasoning
Elliott Sober
quote:
Behe’s first sentence says that irreducible complexity cannot arise by Darwinian processes; however, the next two assert, more modestly, that irreducibly complex features are improbable on the Darwinian model and that they become more improbable the more complex they are. I hope it is clear from what I’ve said earlier why this shift is important. If evolutionary theory really did have the deductive consequence that organisms cannot have features that are irreducibly complex, then that theory would have to be false, if such features exist. But what if the theory merely entailed that irreducibly complex features are very improbable? Would the existence of such features show that the theory is improbable? Would it follow that the theory is disconfirmed by those observations? Would it follow that these features provide evidence in favor of intelligent design? The answers to all these questions are the same – no. There is no probabilistic analog of modus tollens.
Some additions to deal jhappel's claims
I am not sure if all people accept natural selection at least not to the extent that natural selection is one of the founding principles of evolution.
Darwinists argue from observations which suggest that no such intelligence was obvious. ID is also not necessarily arguing that there are interventions, in fact Dembski and others have suggested front loading as a mechanism. But front loading would make it not much different from natural mechanisms.
There are a few problems with the design inference based on "but based on what we know of the limits of nature a better inference is design."
First of all we do know that design inference is a better hypothesis since there exists no testable hypothesis. I have argued in a separate the relevance of this. Furthermore 'based on what we know (now)' suggests that we may be incorrect about inferring design (aka false positives) and finally the concept of CSI is not self evident. In fact the claim that only ID can create CSI seems interesting since CSI is merely the log of probability and thus if ID can create CSI it cannot be CSI since the hypothesis would be having a large probability and thus small information. So far the argument wrt CSI seems to be not much different from the argument from pure chance hypotheses. But I have asked for some clarification in this area.
The jump from 'the same inferences can be applied to biology' are begging the question. In case of Mt Rushmore there are certain knowledge that we use to infer design. We are not making the argument in a vacuum, we formulate a hypothesis of what we know about human ventures. Biology has the added complexity that chance is not the only alternative hypothesis.
Actually the claim that natural processes never create faces like we see on Mt Rushmore may be incorrect. For instance the Mars face seems on closer inspection to be no evidence of design after all.
There are some beautiful designs made by nature which may well suggest ID to us in absence of additional evidence.
Sober argues
quote:
11
Behe is right that the nonbiological examples he cites favor hypotheses of intelligent design over
hypotheses that postulate strictly mindless natural processes, but he is wrong about the reason and
wrong to think that biochemical adaptations can be assimilated to the same pattern. In the case of
mousetraps, Mount Rushmore, and Elvis posters, we are confident about intelligent design because we
have strong evidence for human intelligent design. We know that all of these objects are just the sorts of things that human beings are apt to make. The probability of their having the features we observe, on the hypothesis that they were made by intelligent human designers, is fairly large, whereas the probability of their having those features, if they originated by chance, is low. The likelihood inference is unproblematic. But the probability that the bacterial flagellum would have the features we observe, or that the mechanism for blood clotting would have its observed features, if human beings somehow
made those devices, is very very low. ID theorists therefore are led to consider possible nonhuman designers – indeed, possible designers who are supernatural. Some of these possibilia would, if they existed, have goals and abilities that would make it highly probable that these devices have the features we observe; others would not. Averaging over all these possibilities, what is the probability that the device will have the features we observe if it was made by some possible intelligent designer or other? We do not know, even approximately.
The whole issue is how do we determine what is apparant and what is actual. Without assumptions about the design, it seems hard to impossible to determine if the ID hypothesis is better than the alternatives.
Elimination is no replacement for hypotheses testing.
quote:
My critique of the intelligent design movement has been based on the comparative principle I
stated about evidence – to say whether an observation counts as evidence against evolutionary theory and in favor of the hypothesis of intelligent design, one must know what each predicts about the observation.
A great example is the urn with white balls which shows the importance of this concept.
ID is not just about believing that NS is limited but also proposing that the limitation can be explained by Intelligent Design better than by NS or any other natural or chance phenomenon. The problem is that the eliminative approach is full of practical complications and does not help establish the likelihood of a design hypothesis.
IC may be a quality of machines but ONLY machines? That of course is begging the question. Even Behe does not consider that IC in biology is impossible through a darwinian pathway, and in fact he does consider indirect pathways. IF the argument was that IC made Darwinian pathways impossible then there would be an argument atainst Darwinian evolution in case of IC systems but 1) this hardly means that thus ID is a better explanation 2) darwinian pathways are not impossible but considered 'unlikely' but more or less unlikely than an intelligent design pathway? Shall we ever know?
If genetic algorithms are examples of non-deterministic design then we have a wonderful example of ID not being able to eliminate regularity. There is no ID per se required for genetic algorithms. In fact the simple mutate and select algorithm is quite natural a genetic algorithm. But lets first determine if GA qualify as intelligent design. If they are not fully deterministic then surely they seem to be able to generate CSI in contradiction with the idea that only ID can generate CSI. I find it fascinating that algorithms are considered design when Dembski seems to argue that algorithms cannot add CSI.
It would be helpful to understand if GA is design, intelligent design, if it can or cannot generate CSI and how one were to differentiate a natural occurrence of such 'algorithm' with a computer implementation for instance.
Design might be easier to discern than motives but barely so since design needs to be able to formulate a testable hypothesis before it can be used. A purely eliminative approach is full of pitfalls as I have argued in the various threads and cannot be used to establish the likelihood of the hypothesis of ID with respec to its alternatives.
I would also argue that natural selection, while powerful indeed, is hardly an all powerful force in the world. It plays important roles in elimination of variation but without variation NS would be powerless.
So to recap: Without actual hypotheses it seems to early to jump from IC to ID or even to suggest that IC cannot arise naturally or even by chance.
What is btw more mysterious? Our ignorance or our appeal to intelligent design just because we believe we exhausted all possibilities? How are we going to establish that we are not looking at a false positive for instance?
[ 25. October 2002, 18:41: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
jhappel
Member
Member # 320
|
posted 25. October 2002 17:22
I'll take a stab at these in terms of my knowledge of ID
quote:
1/ I have read much with the words "darwinist/ism", usually in a negative tone. Why does Intelligent Design make Darwins theory wrong? Couldn't a "designer' use natural selection in the designs?
Yes. All people who believe in any kind of design from a 'guided' evolution from a single common ancestor to people who beleive in specially created kinds accept Natural selection. The problem is that Darwinist's insist evolution is undirected and has no goal in mind. ID'ers argue evolution from single ancestor to you and I will not work with just raw natural processes but it must be directed at certain stages by an intelligence.
quote:
2/ Why does the concept of Irreducible Complexity equal "design"? Could it be we just don't know of any natural process that may have produced this complexity yet?
It doesn't equal design rather it is inferred based on analogy from probability theory. It is possible MT. Rushmore could have been formed by erosion and other natural processes but based on what we know of the limits of nature a better inference is design.
quote:
3/ If we dont know who or what the Intelligent designer is/was how can we even discern his/her/it's design and motives? Isn't it a little presumptious of us humans to think we can be the arbiters of design everywere in the Universe?
You don't need to know who or what the designer is or his motives to infer design. When you see Mt. Rushmore you immediately recognize design. The same inferences can be applied to biology.
quote:
4/ I take it that because some things can be seen apparentlly to be designed then it follows that the Universe as a whole cannot be. Because if it were there can be no way of telling designed from non-designed as everything was designed!So is Intelligent Design theory opposed to the Creationist hypothesis of a Universe totally "created" and designed by a God?
You can distinguish Mt Rushmore from other Mountains because we know the limits of what natural processes can do and they never create faces like we see on Mt. Rushmore. But when we say the universe is designed that does not mean we cannot distinguish design from non-design. The actual existance of natural laws and matter needs an explantion. Why do these exist? If they are designed than that explains why they exist. But to say they are designed doesn't mean we can't distinguish between the limits of these natural laws and intelligent actions within or outside these laws.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack Foster
Member
Member # 79
|
posted 25. October 2002 18:05
I think jhappel's got it basically right. Here's a few additional comments:
quote:
1/ I have read much with the words "darwinist/ism", usually in a negative tone. Why does Intelligent Design make Darwins theory wrong? Couldn't a "designer' use natural selection in the designs?
Darwinists view Natural Selection as an all-powerful force in the world. IDists view the power of NS as limited, and are interested in determining just what those limits are. I don't view the term "Darwinist" as a negative; it's a school of thought.
quote:
2/ Why does the concept of Irreducible Complexity equal "design"? Could it be we just don't know of any natural process that may have produced this complexity yet?
When a certain minimum complexity is a requirement of function, then there can be no direct darwinian pathway to that complexity, since natural selection requires some capacity or capability to differentiate the fit from the unfit.
Irreducible Complexity is a quality of machines, and machines are designed and created.
quote:
Could it be we just don't know of any natural process that may have produced this complexity yet?
Why don't we know of them yet? People are certainly free to look for them, but why should we confident that these mysterious machine-producing natural laws will be found?
quote:
3/ If we dont know who or what the Intelligent designer is/was how can we even discern his/her/it's design and motives?
Design itself is much easier to discern than motives. ID is not about setting impossible goals. If intelligent intervention was an absolute requirement for life, don't you think that we can rationally infer that fact by determining the limits of natural law and natural selection? If they are not sufficient, then design (as logical complement of chance) is implicated.
quote:
Isn't it a little presumptious of us humans to think we can be the arbiters of design everywere in the Universe?
This "honest" question seems a bit loaded. Arbiters of design? IDists are just trying to use reason and logic to figure stuff out. Why is that presumptious? It may not be politically correct to be asking the questions that IDists are asking. But it's not presumptious.
quote:
4/ I take it that because some things can be seen apparentlly to be designed then it follows that the Universe as a whole cannot be. Because if it were there can be no way of telling designed from non-designed as everything was designed!So is Intelligent Design theory opposed to the Creationist hypothesis of a Universe totally "created" and designed by a God?
Not all design is entirely deterministic. Genetic Algorithms are an example of non-deterministic design.
IP: Logged
|
|
Curious
Member
Member # 521
|
posted 25. October 2002 18:36
this is for Jhappel:
Thanks for the reply.
So the answer to question one is Darwins theory of natural selection ( descent with modification) is not considered totally erroneous , only the assumption that some of the Darwinists( i doubt there are much pure darwinists left today) claims about the strength or non-directionalness( is that a word ?) of natural selection are wrong..so most proponents of ID support N.S.?
I like to think of myself as on the "evolutionist" side but as a believer have no problem at all with intervention at the start.Though that is a belief thats all.
Now question 2..I see your point but many of the things I have read about IC seem to be not easilly described as "designed" . They seem not to be made of any artificial material and seem very natural to me, they also seem to show much complication when a simpler design could have been substituted.Indeed they may have been designed but I think its too early to tell.
3/ Yes i can readilly infer Mt Rushmore was designed..but i can also infer some purpose to it.I can also see the bulldozer and truck ruts leading up to it and could surmise how it was built.With the examples of IC we can infer nothing..even that it was designed..well thats my opinion. I am not saying they weren't designed only that theres no way of really telling.I dont think that I can at once see the flaggellum of a bacteria and announce it was designed..maybe i just don't think logically : ) .
4/ I am just not getting it if one believes the Universe was "created" by a designer( I do)..it was all designed.Though agreed mankind has his own designs that can be recognized.
Once again thank you for the thoughful reply!
IP: Logged
|
|
Curious
Member
Member # 521
|
posted 25. October 2002 18:49
This is for Jack Foster:
Thank you for your reply.
When i referred to the "tone" about Darwinism being negative..I got that from some of the posts i had read on the forum.
I would be intresting in finding out just how much power IDists give Natural Selection, its an intresting subject.I take it there is not monolithic bloc in the ID movement? Are there people who tend to give N.S. more power and others less? I read Behes "Darwins Black Box" a few years back, he seemed to give it quite a bit of "power" just not enough to form some IC organs or processes.
2/ Yes I suppose I have to agree at some point Darwinian natural selection doesnt seem to work especially on the molecular level( this is why I am intrested somewhat in what ID has to say).I've read some other stuff about the "Neutral theory" and have been trying to get up the courage and time to read some of Kauffmans stuff about self organization too. So though ID is helpful here its not the only idea in town.
Also as far as us not knowing, I really don't think that we know everything.We will I am sure as a species continue to be curious I hope.
3/ I am afraid I do think its presumptious that we should be able to infer design anywere anyplace. My question wasn't loaded its how I feel.
4/ I take your last point about G.A.s
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Edington
Member
Member # 421
|
posted 26. October 2002 15:04
curious (your last name wouldn't be george would it?)
1/ For proponents of Intelligent Design "darwinism" is synonomous with “naturalistic evolution”. I don’t think it is so much natural selection that is a problem, as it is the naturalism part that drives them bonkers.
2/ <no comment>
3/ <no comment>
4/ It all depends on ones definition of design. To answer your question we need a clear and concise definition of what we mean when we say something was “intelligently designed.” (this is the que for ID people to step in and give us a clear and concise definition)
Dan
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic