|
Author
|
Topic: Some difficulties with Dembski's "Still Spinning Just Fine" reply
|
Jacob A. Salamon
Member
Member # 503
|
posted 20. May 2003 13:21
quote:
Intelligent design is not a theory about the frequency or locality at which a designing intelligence intervenes in the material world. It is not an interventionist theory at all.
Indeed, intelligent design is perfectly compatible with all the design in the world being front-loaded in the sense that all design was introduced at the beginning (say at the Big Bang) and then came to expression subsequently over the course of natural history much as a computer program's output becomes evident only when the program is run. This actually is an old idea, and one that Charles Babbage, the inventor of the digital computer, explored in the 1830s in his Ninth Bridgewater Treatise (thus predating Darwin's Origin of Species by twenty years).
quote:
I totally agree with Dr. Dembski's assertion that we cannot have an intelligent designer interfering at select intervals in order to cause nature to go in some intended direction. However this view leads to consequences that may be detrimental to the Intelligent Design position as a whole. (This view is in fact far older that Babbage, it is the view of Maimonides (1135-1204) in his 'Guide for the Perplexed'.)
If the designer 'front loaded' the laws of nature to produce the universe as we have it at present, then the natural laws already had programmed whithin them the necessity and ability for producing life, and indeed all other phenomena that we deem antithetical to chance. This assumption has the result of rendering intelligent design as being undistinquishable from the purely materialistic position on evolutionary science.
The entire debate reduces to evolutionists saying that nature gave rise to the existence of life, etc. while the ID'ers merely argue that an intelligent designer front loaded the ability of nature to give rise to life. From a strictly scientific point of view both arguments are essentially equivalent and unverifiable one way or the other.
In view of the above - all ID arguments essentially reduce to the Cosmological Fine Tuning and/or Anthropic Principle arguments.
[ 20. May 2003, 13:24: Message edited by: Jacob A. Salamon ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Noel Rude
Member
Member # 516
|
posted 20. May 2003 19:03
Jacob A. Salamon: quote:
I totally agree with Dr. Dembski's assertion that we cannot have an intelligent designer interfering at select intervals in order to cause nature to go in some intended direction.
"We cannot have an intelligent designer interfering ... " -- why not? Is there some logical difficulty? Or is this an emotional or philosophical preference? Deists, agnostics, atheists, all rule out such a Designer. And they also opt out of biblical religion where the Deity intervenes anywhere he chooses in time and space -- interesting that Rambam would have argued for front-loading!
But let me suggest that when Bill Dembski says ID "is not a theory about the frequency or locality at which a designing intelligence intervenes in the material world", he has to mean that ID proper (not all of science) limits itself to identifying design -- is this or that designed? or might it be the product of blind force and chance? ONE question is whether all "design" in biology can be accounted for within a purely materialistic theory or whether at least some of it is the product of intelligent agency. If there is intelligent agency, then it is ANOTHER question as to how and when it was introduced into the cosmos. ALSO -- should it turn out that we're talking design of the ID genre, the question still remains: is it theoretically possible (and empirically justifiable) to suppose that all was front-loaded ere the galaxy was formed (as some Deists might have it).
Whereas I'm sure not all IDers are Deists, I find it an interesting observation that, "The entire debate [... might reduce ...] to evolutionists saying that [... chance and necessity ...] gave rise to the existence of life, etc. while the ID'ers merely argue that an intelligent designer front loaded the ability of nature to give rise to life." I would, however, dispute the assertion that, "From a strictly scientific point of view both arguments are essentially equivalent and unverifiable one way or the other."
The whole point of ID is that design can be detected -- verified!
Also ... in the face of the various Anthropic, origin of life, origin of species, and mind-body questions, it is probable that design will prove so ubiquitous that attempts to push it beyond the cosmos will fail -- for if design is necessary at one point it becomes available all over, wherever Occam's Razor suggests.
Also ... why must intervention be all at once or not at all -- "front loading" before the Big Bang or not at all? Just as biblical religion sees intervention in human affairs at sporadic points in history, why can't design be interjected in a similar fashion?
The way you pose the problem it seems we have only two choices: design front loaded before all of cosmic history OR chance and necessity operating ever afterwards.
But yours is a thought provoking message. Thanks.
[ 20. May 2003, 19:07: Message edited by: Noel Rude ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 20. May 2003 21:18
Noel: The whole point of ID is that design can be detected -- verified!
More exactly, the whole point is that some claim that ID can be detected reliably but there seem to be some problems with such claims. And how do you detect design and then verify it?
Noel: Just as biblical religion sees intervention in human affairs at sporadic points in history, why can't design be interjected in a similar fashion?
It surely can but then a skeptic might ask, can we find any direct evidence of these interventions?
The isssue of reliably detecting design however is far from settled.
[ 20. May 2003, 21:22: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 21. May 2003 01:56
I can't keep up with this one, particularly with Dembski. In "Intelligent Design Coming Clean he argued quote:
.. as a general rule, information tends to appear discretely at particular times and places. To require that the information in natural systems ... must in principle be traceable back to some repository of front-loaded information is, in the absence of evidence, an entirely ad hoc restriction. (Section 7)
Now the emphasis is reversed? How on earth is one to evaluate the ID conjecture if it keeps spinning like that? One expects a scientific account to adapt to evidence or die, replaced by a more comprehensive and powerful account, but I see no evidence compelling the shift in emphasis between 'ID Coming Clean' and 'Still Spinning.' Are there grounds for it? What happened to information appearing "discretely at particular times and places"?
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
The Pixie
Member
Member # 548
|
posted 21. May 2003 08:24
The front-loading theory, whether at the big band or the inception of life, would seem to be incompatible with irreducible complexity. The latter specifically demands at least occasional interference to build IC systems.
Pixie
IP: Logged
|
|
Jacob A. Salamon
Member
Member # 503
|
posted 21. May 2003 13:58
Noel: I think that the reason Maimonides (Rambam) held the position that the world was front loaded from the first instant of creation with all its natural laws and capabilities for producing life already 'built in' is that any other view would detract from the creator's ability to do otherwise. After all, an omnipotent creator should be perfectly capable of creating the whole universe in a single creative act. A universe that would require subsequent 'fiddling' with at various intervals is not worthy of an infinite intelligence.
As a point of fact Maimonides considers the creation of the laws of nature as God's greatest creative act, from which all else flowed. Furthermore Maimonides held that all biblical miracles were also front loaded to occur at their proper times from the first point of creation. He held that all biblical miracles were in fact forseen and 'built into' the natural laws by the creator at the time of creation. His view was that the Universe with its natural laws was God's greatest miracle, all the rest just follows from it.
That is why the front loading theory is, even today, such an intellectually (and theologically) compelling viewpoint.
[ 21. May 2003, 14:02: Message edited by: Jacob A. Salamon ]
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 21. May 2003 14:42
I have the feeling I may be wandering out into the quicksand here, but I'll give it one shot. Jacob wrote quote:
That is why the front loading theory is, even today, such an intellectually (and theologically) compelling viewpoint.
On that view, is personal choice, which is required in at least some theological views as being necessary for salvation, even conceivable, or is choice (as appears on at least a first consideration) purely illusory? Where's the slippage between front-loading the whole shebang and choosing?
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 21. May 2003 14:46
Front loading as a concept of design is quite interesting since it would make ID very similar to methodological naturalism.
But I do not think Dembski limits ID to front loading, he also considers intervention. Although as Murray points out, if one cannot distinguish between intervention and front loading (or stacking the deck) then ID may not be able to replace or undercut methodological naturalism.
I would be interested to hear more about Dembski's idea that the intelligent designer injects information
quote:
What's more, the energy in quantum events is proportional to frequency or inversely proportional to wavelength. And since there is no upper limit to the wavelength of, for instance, electromagnetic radiation, there is no lower limit to the energy required to impart information. In the limit, a designer could therefore impart information into the universe without inputting any energy at all.
Is this a scientifically valid proposition?
IP: Logged
|
|
Argon
Member
Member # 276
|
posted 21. May 2003 15:45
Somebody once wrote: "ID is no friend of theistic evolution."
...or something like that.
IP: Logged
|
|
Noel Rude
Member
Member # 516
|
posted 21. May 2003 15:57
Jacob: quote:
A universe that would require subsequent 'fiddling' with at various intervals is not worthy of an infinite intelligence. ... ... That is why the front loading theory is, even today, such an intellectually (and theologically) compelling viewpoint.
Hmm ... a deity rendered impotent by his omnipotence! Philosophers, focused since the Greeks on the perfection of being over the untidiness of doing, tend to reason the deity out of a job. Is it not a matter of taste? the abstraction of the theologian versus the Hebrew God of history. Those who opt for the abstraction with all its "omnis" get no flack from the materialists -- that alone raises my eyebrow.
We probably cannot settle it here, but the Hebrew God of history, I would suggest, will become more acceptable as science resolves itself toward a less deterministic cosmos. If this thread is to go anywhere, folks might marshall their arguments for and against the strong determinism of deist philosophy. What direction is modern science heading?
RBH poses the interesting issue of the importance of choice in theology. This also ought to be of interest to ID. Intelligent Design -- are humans capable? And does it require choice? Is our design novel or front-loaded from the beginning?
An added thought: Pim van Meurs cites Dembski in regard to a designer inputting information at the quantum level. Others have speculated that consciousness somehow supervenes on quantum events. How about this: The human "soul" -- the center of whatever it is that is you -- let me suggest that it is truly elemental (it does not supervene on quantum events) but that it injects information into the cosmos -- your nervous system -- at the quantum level. Is this a novel idea? Or is it old hat?
[ 21. May 2003, 16:12: Message edited by: Noel Rude ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jacob A. Salamon
Member
Member # 503
|
posted 21. May 2003 16:17
We are only talking about the laws of nature being front loaded. I don't think that the front loading of the laws of physics have any bearing on human free will.
Personally I think that the probabilistic nature of Quantum Mechanics allows plenty of room for God to affect the "roll of the dice" without violating any laws of physics.
And this filters up from the micro-world to the macro-world.
For example if God wants one to win the lottery he need violate no natural laws to make the numbers come out your way, since the process is random anyway.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 21. May 2003 23:05
Noel: How about this: The human "soul" -- the center of whatever it is that is you -- let me suggest that it is truly elemental (it does not supervene on quantum events) but that it injects information into the cosmos -- your nervous system -- at the quantum level. Is this a novel idea? Or is it old hat?
Seems to be scientifically more viable than Dembski's zero bandwith information "transfer" but I would still have some questions about details of your hypothesis. Can we measure the information injected into the cosmos?
Btw I do not believe that science in any way will make a deity more or less acceptable.
My arguments (based on Murray and others) is that if ID cannot differentiate intervention design from front loading and if front loading relies on natural law then ID cannot be used to provide an alternative to methodological naturalism.
An idea of mine: Intelligent Design like processes like RMNS are very similar they involve contingency and regularity.
[ 21. May 2003, 23:11: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 22. May 2003 07:57
This thread is close to being off topic. Topics are not supposed to start as criticisms, except in rare cases. There is probably already a thread on this topic, which could house such a criticism.
Also, theology is not a topic for discussion at ISCID.
I'm monitoring this thread and will possibly close it in a day or two. In the meantime, you may want to take the discussion over to the original thread on Dembski's "Still Spinning Just Fine"
IP: Logged
|
|
Noel Rude
Member
Member # 516
|
posted 22. May 2003 16:56
Well, um, to clear the fog here it ought to be emphasized that if by "front-loading" we mean the same thing as the theistic evolutionists (van Till, T. Oakes, etc.) -- that from the Big Bang (or whatever) the cosmos was set such that chance and necessity could do their thing -- then of course there is no difference between ID and Darwinism. Any "front-loading" that is compatible with ID would have to imply something entirely different, say some kind of undiscovered programming inherent in matter that made all the species inevitable, or perhaps some Platonic (Sheldrakian, Dentonian?) forms embedded from the beginning. ID is not ID if all it proposes is an Anthropic beginning from which point on design is indistinguishable from Darwinism. Probably just about nobody subscribes to a determinism whereby the species were in some way mechanistically programmed into matter from some ultimate beginning.
On the other hand what should be clear is that ID believes that design can be identified no matter when or where its provenience.
I suspect that in starting this thread Jacob was of the opinion that ID is compatible with a theistic evolution that embraces Darwinism but might find Anthropic phenomena interesting. If I have cleared that up then perhaps that is all that need be said here.
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 24. May 2003 00:23
Bump - just to see what happens.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic