|
Author
|
Topic: William A. Dembski: Becoming a Disciplined Science: Prospects, Pitfalls, and ...
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 03. November 2002 11:49
Dan>>If I wanted to have evidence that an object, such as a car, may have been designed, I would need to know something about how one would go about making such an object. For the car example, I would have to hypothesize about how one might produce a car and ultimately I would have to go into the lab and see if I could produce a car (or parts of a car at least) in order to demonstrate what features were clearly left over from the design process. Then this data would be compared to the original car, if the vehicle in question had these same features (such as weld marks and other marks that builders leave behind.) Then I could reasonably suspect the car was designed. Not being a biologist, I can’t say how (or even if) this sort of experimental process would translate to a biological system.<<
If scientists found a a machine on Mars they would immediately suspect it was intelligently designed. They would then follow up on their suspicion with an investigation. In the course of their investigation they would find clues that would strengthen their initial suspicion. The only way to thwart the design inference is to discover evidence that non-intelligent processes can produce machines.
On the other hand, if these scientists were philosophically predisposed to believe that machines could be produced by non-intelligent processes and if they further thought that their presupposition was strenghtened by the fact they observed no intelligent designers on Mars then they very well may not look into the possibility that the machine was the product of ID. They may conclude the machine originated through non-intelligent processes and only look for explanations that invoke blind watchmaking. To change their minds you will have to show them the designers or prove blind watchmaking impossible.
[ 03. November 2002, 12:06: Message edited by: Jack ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Genie
Member
Member # 266
|
posted 03. November 2002 16:20
Dan:
quote:
If one could establish with a reasonable degree of certainty that the concept of a design predated the actualization of the design that would be a sufficient level of proof to suspect design, quite possibly even enough to prove it. An example of this would be an automobile. We can produce blueprints, computer simulations, scaled models, etc. that show that some designer had an idea for the design that existed for some time before the car was ever constructed. I would conclude from seeing the blueprints and other material that the car was designed even in the event that no designer was found.
Interesting. So if a complete functioning “thing” is preceded and by a discernable blueprint, a specific and precise set of instructions that essentially contain all the information about what to create and how to create it, then you would find that to be pretty convincing evidence of design. That’s great. Perhaps, to be most efficient, these instructions might be carried within the “thing” itself. I know this might be getting elaborate, but it may be even more efficient if the blueprint were to be replicated in each tiny piece of the “thing”, and perhaps then it could even be passed on to off-“things”. As far as proving that the blueprint existed “for some time” prior to the creation of the “thing” seems a little arbitrary. After all, it only needs to have existed immediately prior to the creation of the designed thing.
I’d have to agree that this would seem to be a very strong implication for design and, in and of itself, should raise enough eyebrows to generously fund research and exploration into design theory. To be quite frank (and as unbelievable as it may seem), some people would find the blueprint argument weak and unconvincing. Still others, and I kid you not, would think it more plausible that the blueprints had magically sprung into being.
quote:
As far as the arrow analogy goes, what you said should be true. We would expect that there would be physical evidence available to indicate the truth of the matter, sometimes this evidence is not readily available. The situation I biology is like this, we have an arrow in the bull’s eye and as far as we can tell there is no paint under the tip.
Well, then it’s high time somebody pulled out the arrow and looked under the tip. (One of the main points of conferences like RAPID.)
quote:
There is of course on important reason why a design force can’t be explored by scientific means. That reason is that there is no empirical evidence that such a design force exists.
That just doesn’t follow. Aside from the fatuous catch-22, any force in nature can be explored using scientific methods. IMO, the design force (teleology) is not unnatural or supernatural. In fact it is more natural than any other, precisely because it is metaphysical.
quote:
From a metaphysical standpoint one can explore teleology all one wants.
Agreed, and that may be the most logical and fruitful approach to a full understanding of reality. But teleology can also be explored empirically, and that is part of what exploration into information theory, complex systems, and biological emergence is all about.
quote:
As sort of an aside, an additional problem with ID is the fact that this design force is assumed to be intelligent and thus highly complex in its own right. Does ID not stipulate that complexity of that sort implies a designer? So really complexity isn't explained it is merely assumed to have always existed.
This is a very good point, Dan. One can't assume that the complexity already existed, although the potential for it obviously did. It would follow that such a design force would need to be self-deterministic and in the act of self-creation.
quote:
Has anyone ever considered the possibility of a non-intelligent design force? The fact that life exists today essentially forms the driving force for life to have formed in the past. While it seems bizarre I think if you examine current physics theories you will find that reality may in fact be that weird.
To be quite frank, in many cases, examining current physics theories only adds to the confusion. Regarding your question, the phrase "non-intelligent design" is meaningless (it is an oxymoron), but I think I know what you're getting at. Maybe "natural design" is more accurate, reflecting what we might call "natural intelligence". This can describe the intelligence we see in nature…the type that occurs through the process of natural selection (a process that is completely compatible with intelligent design, btw). Any time you see adaptation to environmental pressure, you see adaptive problem-solving and intelligence in action.
IP: Logged
|
|
Terence A-H Tan
Member
Member # 234
|
posted 04. November 2002 11:52
These are my two cents worth of thought for now as I continue to mull over these issues in my spare time:
Intelligent Design Vs Evolution
Implicit Intent Vs No intent or Explicit intent
Theology Vs Non-theology
Non-naturalistic intervention to information Vs Naturalistic intervention to information
Falsability to ID is Confirmatory to Evolution (Evolution based scientific research)
Confirmatory to ID is Falsability to Evolution (ID based scientific research)
Intelligent Design presupposes an intelligent agent. Evolution presupposes no intelligent agent or apparent intelligence as imposed explicitly.
An intelligent agent presupposes implicit purpose/intention prior to creation. No intelligence presupposes no implicit purpose/intention but rather apparent intention again imposed explicitly.
Therefore, Intelligent Design includes Theology but Evolution excludes Theology.
The inclusion of theology predicts/includes non-naturalistic intervention on current information while exclusion of theology only predicts naturalistic intervention on current information.
Thus all scientific research done, per se being neutral, to confirm theoretic evolutionary mechanisms falsifies theoretic intelligent design and vice versa. Because intelligent design is a ‘young’ movement and does not at present enjoy mainstream popularity, what it needs to strengthen itself more is not with falsability scientific research, which is the onus on evolutionary groups to prove or confirm their different theories (apparently not succesful so far), but confirmatory scientific research. Intelligent Design may thus need to draw on information presented by theology to conduct the latter type of research in order to check-mate, otherwise it seems the debate will continue to be a strangle-hold. An example, taken from the bible, is that if God had intervened in the history of man to limit his lifespan eight fold down to 120 years, perhaps evidence of this non-naturalistic intervention may be uncovered by molecular biology research.
Terence Tan
IP: Logged
|
|
Genie
Member
Member # 266
|
posted 04. November 2002 13:48
Terence:
quote:
Intelligent Design Vs Evolution ...
I think you're missing the point of much of what design theory is about by listing a set of dichotomies. Design is not at all at odds with evolution. Design is a natural process. (It is not, of course, a random process.)
A lot of what I heard at RAPID reinforced my perception that many of the arguments in the debate are extraneous to the true essence of the debate. A lot of the disagreements come down to semantics and terminology and focusing on the personalities in the debate instead of on the content of the fundamental questions at hand regarding whether or not life was intelligently designed. A great part of the future and development of design theory will depend on getting used to the ideas of the "other side" (for both sides).
Regarding the notion of falsifiability, it has already been deemphasized in science (although it's frequently trotted out by detractors). I agree that the emphasis needs to be on confirmatory results.
I'd have to disagree strongly with one point you make in your post:
quote:
Intelligent Design may thus need to draw on information presented by theology to conduct the latter type of research in order to check-mate, otherwise it seems the debate will continue to be a strangle-hold.
Although teleological processes are open to theological interpretations and have ethical implications, at no point is it obligatory to consider such interpretations in order to conduct scientific research. There really isn't anything that can be gained, from a purely scientific viewpoint, by focusing on these issues. Actually, spirituality aside, there is not that much distance between IDists like myself and some of the more liberal viewpoints on the "other side". It would be great to see some collaborative research efforts.
[ 04. November 2002, 13:55: Message edited by: Gina Lynne LoSasso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Edington
Member
Member # 421
|
posted 05. November 2002 08:16
Gina,
quote:
Perhaps, to be most efficient, these instructions might be carried within the “thing” itself. I know this might be getting elaborate, but it may be even more efficient if the blueprint were to be replicated in each tiny piece of the “thing”, and perhaps then it could even be passed on to off-“things”. As far as proving that the blueprint existed “for some time” prior to the creation of the “thing” seems a little arbitrary. After all, it only needs to have existed immediately prior to the creation of the designed thing.
By this I assume you refer to DNA as the “blueprint” of life. I am uncertain how much mileage you can get out of this metaphor. Some of your own ID people have argued against it, mostly because such a view would severely short circuit ID claims of the ICness of the bacterial flagellum.
quote:
Well, then it’s high time somebody pulled out the arrow and looked under the tip. (One of the main points of conferences like RAPID.)
I think this has been done and as I have said there is nothing there. Perhaps more sophisticated techniques may reveal something however in the absence of evidence indicating there might be something of interest there, why should we bother?
quote:
That just doesn’t follow. Aside from the fatuous catch-22, any force in nature can be explored using scientific methods. IMO, the design force (teleology) is not unnatural or supernatural. In fact it is more natural than any other, precisely because it is metaphysical.
Metaphysics goes beyond science, it is speculation on things that science really can not study. How can we measure this design “force” to show it exists. If it is a force, in the same sense as electromagnetism or gravity, then it should be measurable. If it is then we can study it, otherwise no.
quote:
This is a very good point, Dan. One can't assume that the complexity already existed, although the potential for it obviously did. It would follow that such a design force would need to be self-deterministic and in the act of self-creation.
This is more plausible than abiogenesis? At least with abiogenesis they were able to perform experiments to demonstrate that their speculations were not beyond the realm of possibility. What can you give us to demonstrate that a “self-deterministic” super intelligence that is capable of “self-creation” can even exist.
quote:
but I think I know what you're getting at
I am not sure you do, which is ok because it not really important. What I was suggesting was that perhaps nature is both self-deterministic and self-creating, although with out any intelligence to guide it. My real point is this: Both ID and abiogenesis speculate on complexity arising from non-complexity. Abiogenesis requires simple molecules (that might have existed on a primitive Earth) to undergo reactions in such a way that they form more complex products and eventually form complex self-replicating systems. ID, on the other hand, calls for a complex super-intelligence to form at random from the void to create the universe. Ultimately ID will always come back to the point where a great amount of complexity must be formed from nothing, which is fine except this is something ID says can’t happen.
Jack,
quote:
If scientists found a machine on Mars they would immediately suspect it was intelligently designed. They would then follow up on their suspicion with an investigation. In the course of their investigation they would find clues that would strengthen their initial suspicion. The only way to thwart the design inference is to discover evidence that non-intelligent processes can produce machines.
would they? If scientists found what appeared to be a non-natural structure on Mars would they immediately suspect design? The supposed “face” on Mars is an example. From the perspective of the orbiting probe the mountain looked like a face. NASA scientists did not suspect that it was, specifically because they knew there was no life on Mars to create such a structure. The only reason subsequent missions even bothered passing over that region again was because of the public hysteria over the supposed NASA “cover-up” of the “face” on Mars. NASA scientist had no interest in the structure and would really have liked it if they could have used those resources more productively.
The appearance of being designed is not enough to suspect design, especially in the absence of evidence showing the existence of a designer.
Irving,
quote:
As opposed to a set of blueprints sitting on some designer's table, would you accept allocated requirements? In essence that's what blueprints, computer simulations, scaled models, etc. are.
I suppose, I’m not entirely sure what you had in mind. Can you give me something a bit more specific?
[ 05. November 2002, 08:21: Message edited by: Daniel Edington ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 05. November 2002 15:32
Dan,
When I origianlly posted I didn't have a specific requirements set in mind, I was just attempting to scope the bounds what you might consider. In reflecting upon your question; however, let me "brainstorm" a possible example.
In Software Engineering, the difference between ad hoc programming and structured programming is an "indicator" of design. Ad hoc programming is an attempt to satisfy requirements brute-force; whereas structured programming indicates pre-analysis by the allocation of requirements into specified areas. Natural systems develop along brute-force mechanisms--features are added as they are encountered, thought-up, or required. Structured programming, while flexible and adaptable shows order.
Designed mechanisms typically have reserve capacity. Natural items typically operate at performance limits.
Also, just something I noticed in your last post.
quote:
The appearance of being designed is not enough to suspect design, especially in the absence of evidence showing the existence of a designer.
I seriously believe a lot of people suspected the Shroud of Turin was Intelligently (human) Designed before any evidence existed showing the existance of a designer. Should we give more credibility that the Shroud naturally occured until blueprints, or prototypes of the Shroud can be produced?
Thanks,
IP: Logged
|
|
Genie
Member
Member # 266
|
posted 05. November 2002 17:53
quote:
GLL: This is a very good point, Dan. One can't assume that the complexity already existed, although the potential for it obviously did. It would follow that such a design force would need to be self-deterministic and in the act of self-creation.
Dan: This is more plausible than abiogenesis?
Yes.
quote:
Dan: At least with abiogenesis they were able to perform experiments to demonstrate that their speculations were not beyond the realm of possibility.
Abiogenesis is not even a well-formed hypothesis. Hypotheses require models, and abiogenesis relies on too many "givens" (e.g., the order implicit in the laws of nature) for which no consistent model has existed. I'm merely alluding to a remedial model.
quote:
Dan: What can you give us to demonstrate that a "self-deterministic" super intelligence that is capable of "self-creation" can even exist.
Logic, as expressed in a theory called the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU). There's a paper on this very site.
quote:
Dan: My real point is this: Both ID and abiogenesis speculate on complexity arising from non-complexity.
Are you sure you don't mean "apparent noncomplexity"? After all, emergence requires a medium of emergence, and the medium must support the phenomenon.
quote:
Dan: Abiogenesis requires simple molecules (that might have existed on a primitive Earth) to undergo reactions in such a way that they form more complex products and eventually form complex self-replicating systems.
OK. But molecules and reactions require complex laws of nature, and without a model for those, abiogenesis doesn't have even a preliminary model.
quote:
Dan: ID, on the other hand, calls for a complex super-intelligence to form at random from the void to create the universe.
That's not quite correct. The ID "movement" officially does not address this. Design "theory" does. There's a paper on this site that presents a clear and logical viewpoint regarding this aspect of ID.
quote:
Dan: Ultimately ID will always come back to the point where a great amount of complexity must be formed from nothing, which is fine except this is something ID says can't happen.
Your first statement is already false (study the aforementioned paper). The second is false too.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Edington
Member
Member # 421
|
posted 05. November 2002 21:36
quote:
Dan: ID, on the other hand, calls for a complex super-intelligence to form at random from the void to create the universe.
Gina: That's not quite correct. The ID "movement" officially does not address this. Design "theory" does. There's a paper on this site that presents a clear and logical viewpoint regarding this aspect of ID.
Id may not address it, but it absolutely requires it. So we can ask the question: Why doesn't ID officially address the issue?
[ 05. November 2002, 21:41: Message edited by: Daniel Edington ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Edington
Member
Member # 421
|
posted 05. November 2002 21:56
Irving,
quote:
Should we give more credibility that the Shroud naturally occured until blueprints, or prototypes of the Shroud can be produced?
We may want to review the topic, but I think they can show that the image on the shroud was patterned after artwork from the time period the shroud was dated at(or at least make a strong case for it.) I think We can safely assume that it was designed, based on the existence of "blueprints".
As far as your software example is concerned, sorry but it was of no real help to me.
[ 05. November 2002, 21:58: Message edited by: Daniel Edington ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Genie
Member
Member # 266
|
posted 05. November 2002 22:30
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan: ID, on the other hand, calls for a complex super-intelligence to form at random from the void to create the universe.
Gina: That's not quite correct. The ID "movement" officially does not address this. Design "theory" does. There's a paper on this site that presents a clear and logical viewpoint regarding this aspect of ID.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan: Id may not address it, but it absolutely requires it. So we can ask the question: Why doesn't ID officially address the issue?
Gina: I don't know. But it doesn't matter, we do.
[ 05. November 2002, 22:31: Message edited by: Gina Lynne LoSasso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 05. November 2002 23:23
For Dan,
quote:
We may want to review the topic, but I think they can show that the image on the shroud was patterned after artwork from the time period the shroud was dated at(or at least make a strong case for it.) I think We can safely assume that it was designed, based on the existence of "blueprints".
We risk drifting off topic here, but I don't believe any "blueprints" have been established safely or otherwise. It is the extreme uniqueness of the Shroud that has engendered its interest.
Be that as it may, I think the point still stands, that many people inferred design before any direct evidence was produced.
Sorry the software example didn't clarify.
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 06. November 2002 09:08
This thread is drifting off topic. The next few posts must be made in response to specific content in Dr. Dembski's paper. This is the only warning I'm going to give. If posters do not follow my advice then their posts will be deleted and sent back to them.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic