Information created accidentally, without design

_{News
July 11, 2013

Darwinism, Design inference, News

1}_{Categories
Darwinism
Design inference
News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Absolutely no one did this stuff, according to sources, which just shows how silly the idea is that intelligence is needed to create information.

Darwinism can explain it all quite easily. Natural selection acted on random mutation causing certain trees to die. End of story.

Hat tip: The Intelligent Design Facebook group, and especially Timothy Kershner and Junior D. Eskelsen

Comments

Timaeus @ 84 I broadly agree with your post @ 84, and I concur with Ms Liddle that it is pleasing to have reached such a point in the discussion. It is admirable that you seek truth. However I believe it is crucial to recognise that truth is the province of philosophy, not science, and there are important differences between these two disciplines. There are many ideas in this world that may be true, but cannot be scientifically tested, and it is not necessarily a criticism to point this out. Regarding the artifact on Mars, of course any reasonable person would agree it was designed. However, that is a purely philosophical inference that is profoundly vague and unsatisfying. I would immediately want to know when was it made, how and by whom? How like us are they? To answer these interesting, practical questions we need scientifically testable hypotheses. And, a discussed at length, "this was designed" is not such a testable hypothesis, however true it may be.
As for your more systematic statement, if I understand it correctly, you are saying that, in principle, God could have designed everything — particular rock formations, particular thunderstorms, particular atoms and molecules, etc. In such a scenario, there would be nothing in the universe that was *not* designed. In that case, design inferences, insofar as they are based on a distinction between what is designed and what is not, would become useless. In contrast, if we are talking about limited designers such as human beings, we can discuss whether a rock formation is natural (e.g. a stalactite) or artificial (e.g., a Hindu temple carved out of cave rock) in origin, because we have an idea of the capacities of human beings versus the capacities of natural forces and objects. So design inferences can be useful only in the case of limited designers. Is that what you are arguing?
Yes, you pretty much nailed it. I would add that it's not necessary, I think, to bring God into it, which may generate more heat than light in this context. The "designed by an intelligence" explanation is so vague on its face that it's clear it cannot be scientifically tested. My hope is that ID proponents will give serious consideration to the problem with the scientific testability of the bare inference "it was designed". CheersCLAVDIVS_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

TJ As you describe it, the only thing the Explanatory Filter is doing is applying the explanation "designed by an intelligence" to one set of phenomena - i.e. those that are improbable and specified - and not to others. It is no surprise whatsoever that this explanation can be applied to some subset of phenomena, because as we all know this explanation can apply to all possible phenomena. What is more, it is as plain as the nose on your face that the phenomena that are supposedly filtered out by the Explanatory Filter could be perfectly well explained by "design" should one choose to do so. Common experience and common sense tells us intelligent agents can mimic natural regularities and can design things that are both highly improbable and unspecified. In my view, the problem that ID has with scientific testability is inherent in the concept "designed by an intelligence", because it is so unbounded and unqualified that it has an unlimited range of applicability. Just because someone may choose, in a particular case, to apply that explanation to some phenomena, and refrain from applying it to others, does not change the fact that the explanation "designed by an intelligence" is inherently capable of explaining any and all phenomena, and is thus inherently not a scientifically testable idea. The Explanatory Filter has exactly this same problem with scientific testability, because the explanation that pops out at the end of the procedure is also exactly the same: an unqualified "designed by an intelligence". In order to solve this problem, this explanation would have to be qualified in some relevant way so it does not automatically apply to all possible phenomena. For example, "designed and built by humans between 2600 and 2500 BC" is an explanation that's qualified enough that it's capable of being scientifically tested. So I really do not think that the Explanatory Filter somehow makes the "design" explanation scientifically testable, because its untestability derives from the unlimited range of applicability inherent in the explanation itself, not in the procedure followed to arrive at that explanation. CheersCLAVDIVS_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

Timaeus: FWIW, I enjoyed your post at 84. I agree largely with the first half, and if the second is not CLAVDIVS's argument, it would be mine :) To extend the argument slightly: If I found inorganic, but apparently sentient, sensible, intelligent, productive, reactive, communicative entities on Mars I would infer that they were conscious. I don't have a scientific test for that (or not one that most people would regard as such). I just think it would be a reasonable inference. Would you agree?Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

Claudius (80): I'm much less concerned with whether or not something is "scientifically testable" than with whether or not it is true. In the case of the machine on Mars, if I said to the Dawkins-clone in the story: "This is designed," and he replied to me, "That is not a scientifically testable conclusion," I'd shrug and say, "So what?" Or I'd ask him if he personally agreed with me that the object was designed, and if he said "Yes," I'd ask him: "If you agree with me regarding the conclusion, then why do you care in the slightest whether or not it is a 'scientifically testable' conclusion?" Either the difference between a "reasonable conclusion" and a "scientifically testable conclusion" has practical significance, or it doesn't. In the case of the machine on Mars, I'd say it has no practical significance, because the two people are agreeing on what is in fact the case. Neither one of them has the slightest *sincere* doubt -- doubt that would affect their lives, as opposed to purely "academic" doubt -- that the thing is designed. Perhaps in other cases, the distinction you are making might have some practical significance. Perhaps you could provide me with a few simple examples, so I can see better why you think "scientifically testable" is so important. As for your more systematic statement, if I understand it correctly, you are saying that, in principle, God could have designed everything -- particular rock formations, particular thunderstorms, particular atoms and molecules, etc. In such a scenario, there would be nothing in the universe that was *not* designed. In that case, design inferences, insofar as they are based on a distinction between what is designed and what is not, would become useless. In contrast, if we are talking about limited designers such as human beings, we can discuss whether a rock formation is natural (e.g. a stalactite) or artificial (e.g., a Hindu temple carved out of cave rock) in origin, because we have an idea of the capacities of human beings versus the capacities of natural forces and objects. So design inferences can be useful only in the case of limited designers. Is that what you are arguing?Timaeus_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT}

Clavdivs, "Why? Because the explanation “designed by an intelligent agent”, without any qualification, can be applied to absolutely any observation, measurement or phenomenon without the possibility of being disproved." No it can't when you use the filter, which is what ID theory advocates.TJ_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT}

Clavdivs @81 The limits on explanatory power that you are looking for are I think built into the explanatory filter. This is a dumbed down version 1. Can it be attributed to regularity? 2. Is it highly improbable? 3. Is it highly improbable and specified? Unless it cannot be the other two options design doesn't get invoked. It seems your worries about always inferring design are unwarranted, because design would never be attributed to something that could be explained by either chance or regularity.TJ_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 79 Yes, that's not an unreasonable point and was already mentioned by Timaeus @ 63. However, I dealt with it @ 68 by showing it doesn't actually affect my argument. CheersCLAVDIVS_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

Timaeus @ 78 What I have been talking about all along is the scientific testability of the explanation "designed by an intelligent agent". As I have already acknowledged @ 68, on observing a complex machine on Mars or a pyramid, it would be perfectly reasonable to infer that an intelligent agent was somehow involved in the design of that object. However, that inference would be a philosophical or metaphysical speculation, not a scientifically testable explanation. Why? Because the explanation "designed by an intelligent agent", without any qualification, can be applied to absolutely any observation, measurement or phenomenon without the possibility of being disproved. Therefore, that explanation cannot be scientifically tested, which puts it in the realm of philosophy or metaphysics, not in the realm of science. If you disagree, you should give me an example of an observation, measurement or phenomenon that cannot possibly be explained by saying it was designed by an intelligent agent. CheersCLAVDIVS_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT}

Clavdivs
If ID does not propose any limits to the designer, then it logically follows that ID’s concept of the designer is unlimited.
As it turns out, your "then" does not follow from your "if." If ID does not propose any limits to the designer, then it follows that ID does not rule out an unlimited designer. That is a long way from saying that the designer is unlimited.StephenB_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

Claudius (68): It seems to me that you are making a simple thing difficult. Suppose you woke up tomorrow and found yourself on Mars. As far as you know, no human beings have ever travelled to Mars. So you expect to find nothing but sand, red rocks, possibly some frozen water or carbon dioxide at the poles, etc. -- unless you accidentally stumble across one of the Mars probes. You wander around a bit, and eventually, you come across what looks to you like a gadget. It has wheels, and gears, and in general parts that seem very precisely shaped and very well meshed with other parts, and one part seems to make another part move in a predetermined way, etc. You aren't sure at first what this gadget is supposed to do -- it isn't one of the Mars probes, and it is like nothing you have ever seen or heard about on the earth -- but it sure looks to you like something that someone designed. Now, a follower of Richard Dawkins, sporting a "There's Probably No God" button, who also has mysteriously found himself on Mars, comes up to you and asks you whether or not you think the gadget in front of you was *really* designed, or only has the *appearance* of design, i.e., is only the product of chance collisions and transformations of Martian matter and blind forces of Martian nature that just happened, by a rare freak of Martian conditions, to produce a metal assembly with well-coordinated parts. Would you say, "It's designed, of course, you idiot!"? Or would you say: "I cannot answer that question unless you tell me what sort of designer you have in mind"?Timaeus_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

Clavdivs You say, 1. Ok, Joe – Give us an example of a phenomenon, observation or measurement that we *cannot* explain by saying “an intelligent agent designed it that way”. If you cannot provide one, this proves my point that the design inference is not a scientifically testable explanation because it cannot possibly be disproven. It can’t be disproven as you are formulating it. But ID theory does not advocate inferring design in cases where chance or necessity is warranted. As I said earlier it is set infer design only when the other options have failed. Meaning you would only get design as a result when that had to be the answer. Now a designer could design something and design it so that it didn’t look designed. The explanatory filter wouldn’t give you design in that case.TJ_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

Clavdivs @ 68 I will respond to this, “The reason ID is not scientifically testable is precisely because “ID people have not defined the bounds of the term ‘designer’”. An explanation for which no bounds have been defined has unlimited explanatory potential.” The design inference uses physical law as the first explanation, then it goes to chance. If those other two options are not viable then design is inferred. The limits are built into the explanatory filter, because design is inferred until chance and necessity are eliminated. The filter was built to allow false negatives, but not false positives.TJ_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

Clavdivs @69 What I said was not intended as anything other than being what I thought was a mildly amusing way of saying that he said what my response would have been. I could have respond directly to you, but he made the same points I was going to so I actually just cut down on the reading and responding for you. If you want it in my words I could that though.TJ_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

Joe @ 73
CLAVDIVS: Give us an example of a phenomenon, observation or measurement that we *cannot* explain by saying “an intelligent agent designed it that way”. If you cannot provide one, this proves my point that the design inference is not a scientifically testable explanation because it cannot possibly be disproven. Joe: Anything that nature, operating freely can produce. That is how it works in archaeology and forensics. That would be the pattern of stones in my driveway. The leaf pattern at the bottom of my pool that I haven’t yet cleaned. The dust bunnies under my chest of draws. Snow drifts after a snowstorm.
Yes, thanks Joe, as expected the feebleness of your response simply proves my point. You're claiming, contra all experience and common sense, that intelligent designers could not possibly arrange stones, dust, leaves or snow into natural-looking patterns. Obviously this is utterly incorrect, as the designers of movie sets can attest. Therefore my point stands that the bare inference "this was designed" cannot be scientifically tested because it cannot possibly be disproven.CLAVDIVS_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS:
Give us an example of a phenomenon, observation or measurement that we *cannot* explain by saying “an intelligent agent designed it that way”.
Anything that nature, operating freely can produce. That is how it works in archaeology and forensics. That would be the pattern of stones in my driveway. The leaf pattern at the bottom of my pool that I haven't yet cleaned. The dust bunnies under my chest of draws. Snow drifts after a snowstorm. The explanatory filter tells you how to test ID, CLAVDIVS. It also tells you how to falsify any given design inference. And guess what? It is the same for archaeology and forensics...Joe_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Joe @ 71 Ok, Joe - Give us an example of a phenomenon, observation or measurement that we *cannot* explain by saying "an intelligent agent designed it that way". If you cannot provide one, this proves my point that the design inference is not a scientifically testable explanation because it cannot possibly be disproven.CLAVDIVS_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS:
The reason ID is not scientifically testable is precisely because “ID people have not defined the bounds of the term ‘designer’”.
And yet we have said how to test it. BTW ID still is NOT about the designer. And BTW is NS is also scientifically untestable then ID would be on the SAME level as the current paradigm and as such needs to be in science classrooms. Or evolutionism needs to be removed. So to recap- IDists have said EXACTLY how to test and possibly refute ID, and all CLAVDIVS can do is whine and say "No, it can't be tested". Pathetic.Joe_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS:
And the idea the pyramids were built by ancient Egyptians can be scientifically tested, because those proposed designers have limitations.
They are all dead. They cannot build anything. It cannot be tested.
To satisfy your curiosity I do believe Darwin’s ideas of descent with modification and natural selection are scientifically testable.
And they have failed at being a designer mimic.Joe_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

TJ @ 64 That's really classy, TJ.CLAVDIVS_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

Timaeus @ 63 We can just stop referring to a "being of unlimited power" if you feel that's misleading. It was just my rhetorical device to illustrate the problem ID has with scientific testability, and it's not necessary to my point. The reason ID is not scientifically testable is precisely because "ID people have not defined the bounds of the term 'designer'". An explanation for which no bounds have been defined has unlimited explanatory potential. This is simply a logical consequence of having no defined bounds, which means no limitations on the explananda that the explanation can apply to. No matter what the phenomenon, measurement or observation, one can always say "Yup, follows from the explanation." And as discussed previously, an explanation from which all possible phenomena follow is not scientifically testable.
If your premise is that explanations that are compatible with almost any outcome are useless scientifically, because they can’t ever be decisively verified or falsified, then you should be just as concerned about “natural selection” as an explanation — or else you are imposing a double standard, whereby ID is expected to give much narrower and more precise predictions than “natural selection” theory can give.
On this thread we've been talking about the Nazi tree patterns and the design inference and its scientific testability. Let's grant to you, just for the sake of making this point, that natural selection is completely untestable and that I am imposing a double-standard. Now does this in any way affect my argument about how ID is not scientifically testable? No it does not. If ID is not scientifically testable because it has no defined bounds, then it's not, regardless of the existence of other untestable theories or, indeed, the existence of people with double-standards. This is why I'm really not interested in discussing Darwinian evolution in this context, because it's irrelevant to my argument.
I don’t see why you say that the proposal that a mind was required to build the Pyramids is “not testable.” ... I therefore think that the conclusion of design in the case of the Pyramids would be both testable and scientific — though what you mean by "scientific" you have not said.
I explained @ 15 what I mean by scientific testing:
The sorts of explanation that can be scientifically tested involve a general rule, and a logical argument showing how phenomena follow from that rule e.g. Jupiter’s orbit follows from Newton’s law of gravitation. Checking whether phenomena follow the rule or not is what is meant by scientific testing. If a rule is so general that all possible phenomena follow from it, then the rule can’t be tested and it doesn’t explain anything.
The concept that the pyramids were designed by an intelligent agent is a perfectly sensible metaphysical speculation. However, it is not a scientifically testable explanation because *absolutely anything* could be claimed to be "designed by an intelligent agent", and no measurement or observation could possibly disprove that claim because the explanans "intelligent agent" has no defined bounds. Finally, to answer your questions:
1. What textual evidence do you have from ID theorists that ID postulates an unlimited designer? (Passages and page numbers, please.) 2. Why is the design inference not testable? (It seems to be obviously testable in many cases.) 3. Given that the design inference is at least sometimes testable, why is it not in those cases a scientific inference? 4. Do you recognize that Darwinian explanation of evolutionary outcomes contains a great deal of elasticity which enables evolutionary theorists, after the fact, to justify a wide variety of evolutionary outcomes from similar initial situations? Do you recognize that this makes it very difficult in principle to ever falsify a good number of “explanations” offered by evolutionary theorists? Do you recognize that this is the same sort of “defect” that you have charged ID theory with, i.e., of being compatible with too many outcomes and therefore theoretically useless?
1. None - see 1st and 2nd paragraphs above. 2. The bare "design inference" without any defined bounds is not scientifically testable because the claim "it was designed" could be applied to absolutely any phenomenon, and no observation could possibly disprove it. To be scientifically testable, an explanation must be capable of being checked to see if it's true or not. 3. The bare "design inference" without any defined bounds is not scientifically testable. 4. Darwin's theory of descent with modification and natural selection, as he outlined in Origin of Species, is capable of being scientifically tested because it is consistent with some phenomena (e.g. fossils), inconsistent with other (possible) phenomena (e.g. hippogriffs) and has a limited scope of applicability (e.g. doesn't apply to the evolution of neutron stars). I can't comment on the testability of "a good many explanations by evolutionary theorists" unless you tell me which ones you have in mind. CheersCLAVDIVS_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

Test (having trouble posting...)CLAVDIVS_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

And I would agree, Timaeus, that attempting to "reverse engineer" any trait back to a selectable first appearance can rarely be anything other than speculation. I don't think this is how the theory of natural selection is, in practice, tested, and so I don't think natural selection should be dismissed as a theory because this testing method is inadequate (useless, in fact). I think you agree that there are other methods, which I would argue are those by which it is, in practice, tested.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT}

Timaeus:
So I repeat: when you read one evolutionary theorist affirming with great certainty that natural selection explains the development of selfish individualism (the critter is trying to preserve its own genes, and doesn’t give a hoot about anyone else’s) and another evolutionary theorist affirming with great certainty that natural selection explains the development of altruism (the critter is trying to preserve the genes of critters closely related to it, so it will sacrifice its own life and its own genetic line for the good of the tribe, through which at least part of its genetic makeup can survive), you should be suspicious about a theory of “natural selection” that is so elastic that it can explain two such different results.
Could you provide citations for these? They sound like evolutionary psychology to me, which is, I agree, largely codswallop. But the theory of "natural selection" is not the same as evolutionary psychology, as I'm sure you would agree. Evolutionary psychology is simply an attempt to use natural selection to explain psychological traits. The problem there, I'd say, is not with the theory of natural selection, but with its (totally inappropriate) application to psychology. And the first thing: "that natural selection explains the development of selfish individualism (the critter is trying to preserve its own genes, and doesn’t give a hoot about anyone else’s)" isn't even evolutionary psychology! It's just wrong more ways than Sunday! That's why I'd be interested to know where you read it.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT}

Clavdivs I would reply to what you said, but after reading the above post I'll refer you there and only add "har har"TJ_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT}

Claudius: I thank you for your reply. However, it seems to me that you haven't dealt very directly with most of what I said, which is disappointing to me. I tried to make clear -- and I'm not sure how I could have been clearer -- that ID is not about, and has never claimed to be about, detecting an "unlimited designer." I don't know where you got the idea that ID pretends to be able to demonstrate such an entity. Certainly not from any writing of Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Nelson, etc. that I have read. Yet your rejoinder here returns to unlimited designers. As far as I can tell, your insistence on tying ID to unlimited designers is based on the following inference: "If ID does not propose any limits to the designer, then it logically follows that ID’s concept of the designer is unlimited." This sentence plays with the ambiguity of "does not propose any limits" and "unlimited." "Does not propose any limits" could mean merely "it is not ID's concern what are the limits of the designer, and therefore it does not talk about them." This would be parallel to "it is not ID's concern whether the designer is male or female, so it does not talk about the designer's sex." Similarly, an "unlimited concept of the designer" could mean "the designer is infinite in size, mass, power, range of operation, etc." or it could mean simply "ID people have not defined the bounds of the terms "designer," i.e., no one bothered to specify any limits because the question of limits was deemed unimportant for the purpose of detecting design. So your inference trades on ambiguities, and especially on the ambiguity of "unlimited." So you can correctly say that ID has an "unlimited conception of the designer," in the technical sense of "ID theory does not specify the character of the designer"; but *the average English reader or listener* will hear or read that as "ID theorists conceive the designer to be unlimited" -- i.e., that ID affirms the designer to be a being of unlimited power, i.e., God. But this in no way follows from ID theory. The designer of life on earth, for example, supposing that there was such a designer, could have been an alien biochemist -- a being who certainly is not "unlimited" in size, power, etc. And of course no one supposes that the designers of Stonehenge were "unlimited" in power, wisdom, etc. I hope this sufficiently explains why your inference is potentially seriously misleading. I would ask you to go through the ID literature and tell me where you find statements from the ID theorists that the designer detected in design must be an "unlimited" one, an "infinite" one, an "all-powerful" one, etc. If you cannot find such statements, I think you should withdraw your claim that ID demands this. And if you withdraw your claim, the premise on which your original argument rests vanishes, and the problem dissolves. On the other main point: it was legitimate of me raise the testability of the action of "natural selection," because you were treating the alleged non-testability of ID inferences as proof of ID's "unscientific" character. If your premise is that explanations that are compatible with almost any outcome are useless scientifically, because they can't ever be decisively verified or falsified, then you should be just as concerned about "natural selection" as an explanation -- or else you are imposing a double standard, whereby ID is expected to give much narrower and more precise predictions than "natural selection" theory can give. So I repeat: when you read one evolutionary theorist affirming with great certainty that natural selection explains the development of selfish individualism (the critter is trying to preserve its own genes, and doesn't give a hoot about anyone else's) and another evolutionary theorist affirming with great certainty that natural selection explains the development of altruism (the critter is trying to preserve the genes of critters closely related to it, so it will sacrifice its own life and its own genetic line for the good of the tribe, through which at least part of its genetic makeup can survive), you should be suspicious about a theory of "natural selection" that is so elastic that it can explain two such different results. You should at least *consider* the possibility that "natural selection" is a flawed principle; or, more cautiously, you should question its applications to the question of the origin of altruism; or, you could decide that evolutionary theorist A is simply wrong and evolutionary theorist B is simply right. But you should be *thinking* about the problem raised by an apparent contradiction such as the one I've given. You should be asking whether the apparent contradiction weakens the idea of "natural selection" or whether the concept can still be rescued by suitable distinctions. Of course, the example of animal altruism is only one of scores that could be given, where "natural selection" can be called in to explain a whole variety of outcomes, and it is almost impossible to specify an outcome which would definitely establish that "natural selection" was *not* operating. Let me say that I think that many of the proposals of Darwinian theory are testable. I was merely pointing out that if someone says that a particular creature developed the properties it has due to "natural selection," one can easily point out very similar environmental circumstances in some other country, where "natural selection" led to no such result (there are plenty of countries with tall trees and droughts, for example, but only Africa has giraffes); and one can point to very different environmental circumstances where very similar results were obtained, which would mean that natural selection cannot by itself be the explanation. (At this point, we interrupt this program for a commercial break: Elizabeth, if you are reading and just itching to jump in to give me a long lecture on how Darwinian theory does not simplistically rely on natural selection alone, but on the interplay of factors, of which natural selection is only one, variation another, etc., you can save your effort. I know that. But it doesn't affect the overall structure of my argument. (Let's say that someone says: "It's unreasonable to expect giraffes in South America, because while the environment may have been conducive there, the necessary variations may not have occurred there." I grant this entirely. I grant that "natural selection must be false because there are no giraffes in South America" would be an unwarranted inference. But the point is that, since there is a vast number of paths variation might have taken (and Elizabeth knows well how vast, from her mathematical training), and since natural selection itself is a quite elastic principle, able to provide *plausible* explanations for a wide variety of outcomes, when you combine selection with variation and any other factors you want to bring in, you can explain almost *any* outcome, after the fact, as compatible with "heritable variation plus natural selection." (Thus, if someone says: "Why didn't X evolve in North America here, where the plains are very similar environmentally to the plains in the Ukraine?" you can argue that the genetic material was different in the two places; and if you say, "Why didn't this critter evolve in Europe where there were proto-critters in both Europe and North America with very similar genetic stuff," you can argue for some subtle difference in the European environment which worked against that kind of evolutionary change. Because evolutionary theorists are always explaining *after the fact*, they can always suppose that the balance of factors -- variation, selection, whatever else -- was such that the outcome we observe was precisely the outcome required by that particular balance of factors. But if placed back in the time period involved, and given a whole lab full of equipment to sequence genomes, measure all environmental factors, etc., six evolutionary theorists would give you seven different answers regarding what they would expect to evolve. The marvelous insight of evolutionary biologists into the effect of the various factors seems available only *after* nature has made its decision; before that, the evolutionary theorist hardly knows how to begin to weight all the factors -- or even, truth be told, what all the factors are. (So we have natural selection, itself very elastic as an explanatory concept, mixed in with unpredictable genetic variation which makes projections of the path of evolution quite uncertain, and we have a recipe for "just so stories" (why the giraffe is found only in Africa, how the coelacanth managed to survive, why there is similarity between marsupial and placental "wolves," why many large mammals died out but elephants survived, etc.), stories which any skilled evolutionary biologist can invent from an armchair, which are almost always superficially plausible, but almost never falsifiable.) End of commercial break; back to main comments: I don't see why you say that the proposal that a mind was required to build the Pyramids is "not testable." It seems to me that it is eminently testable. We have millions of square miles of sandy desert around the world, with sand swirling in all kinds of combinations, for thousands and thousands of years. We have never observed the sand coalesce into stone blocks with neat edges, and we have never observed such blocks, or even sand itself in loose form, arrange itself in a mathematical form as precise that that of the Pyramids. We can easily build huge laboratories the size of aircraft hangars, and play around with factors of all kinds -- different substances, e.g., plastics, molten glass, wood -- different wind velocities and temperatures, and see if *any* combination of substances and environmental conditions *ever* produces *anything like* the Pyramids. And I think that both the historical observation of mankind and our experiments would point to the same conclusion: all such structures are designed, not the product of natural laws and chance alone. I therefore think that the conclusion of design in the case of the Pyramids would be both testable and scientific -- though what you mean by "scientific" you have not said. So, in summary: 1. What textual evidence do you have from ID theorists that ID postulates an unlimited designer? (Passages and page numbers, please.) 2. Why is the design inference not testable? (It seems to be obviously testable in many cases.) 3. Given that the design inference is at least sometimes testable, why is it not in those cases a scientific inference? 4. Do you recognize that Darwinian explanation of evolutionary outcomes contains a great deal of elasticity which enables evolutionary theorists, after the fact, to justify a wide variety of evolutionary outcomes from similar initial situations? Do you recognize that this makes it very difficult in principle to ever falsify a good number of "explanations" offered by evolutionary theorists? Do you recognize that this is the same sort of "defect" that you have charged ID theory with, i.e., of being compatible with too many outcomes and therefore theoretically useless?Timaeus_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT}

TJ @ 58
Anthropologists infer design in certain cases period. ID infers design in certain cases period. They both infer design.
And when either ID or anthropologists infer "design period", without in any way limiting the proposed designer, then they are both engaging in a metaphysical or philosophical speculation, and they are not proposing a scientifically testable concept. That has been my point all along. There's nothing wrong with metaphysical speculation, but it's not the same thing as a scientifically testable explanation. However, since anthropologists typically go on to propose specific designers (humans) that acted on their environment at specific times and places in specific ways that are scientifically testable, this makes those anthropological explanations scientific.
Am I too understand what you are saying to mean that if I was to propose aliens as the agent of design who only exist at particular times and places, and have particular abilities, tools and technologies that strictly limit their ability to manipulate their environment that would be an acceptable hypothesis?
That would depend on the nature of the limitations on your proposed aliens. If you said the aliens acted sometime in the last 100 billion years, but were otherwise all-powerful, then clearly that's still not a scientifically testable explanation, even though you have limited the timescale. What you would need to do is actually propose a specific explanation and what tests you would run to check it.
Because ID includes that kind of hypothesis which would meet all your criteria. That’s not my version of ID but it is ID.
Well, what are the details of this ID hypothesis where the designing agent is limited in specific ways, such that the hypothesis can be scientifically tested?
CLAVDIVS: What matters is that logically the concept of the designer itself, as you acknowledge, is capable of explaining anything, and thus it cannot be scientifically tested. It may be a true concept, but it’s not very useful and not scientific. TJ: It can be scientifically tested. Predictions have been made and confirmed. While the specific abilities of a designer may not be known they may inferred from the design. It may be a true concept but not helpful? True concepts are always helpful in making predictions and understanding the world. How could it be true but not useful? Even if the truth was that everything is ultimately unpredictable (cause the designer is crazy and sporadic) at least we would be able to predict lack of certainty.
It is no surprise predictions have been made from the ID concept of an unlimited, all-powerful designer, because such a designer can explain *anything*. Triangular planetary orbits? Yep, the all-powerful designer wanted it that way. See how that works? What I meant was this is not practically useful because it cannot tell us why we observe X instead of Y, Z or Q. An unlimited explanation explains X, Y, Z and Q all equally well - and equally badly. As you say, an unlimited explanation is "ultimately unpredictable", and hence of no practical use. That said, it may be metaphysically satisfying to infer the truth that an unlimited designing intelligence is responsible for the universe and life. But that does not change the fact that the concept is practically useless.
If there is a rock in my yard I could explain it through a random process (a car drove over a rock and the rock was subsequently thrown into my yard). Or I could explain it through an agent (the neighbor kid put a rock there while he was playing and that rock was supposed to represent the bad guy’s hideout). If however, there are a bunch of rocks arraigned that spell “Johnny” I rule out random processes. This story illustrates how lots of things can be explained by design, but we infer it and only it in cases of functional specified complexity (just like an anthropologist)
And so long as you leave your inference at the level of "it is explained by design" it will remain a metaphysical or philosophical speculation, unable to be tested scientifically and of no practical utility. There's nothing wrong with that. But it's not science.CLAVDIVS_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

Cladvdivs An unlimited designer being unscientific honestly doesn't make sense it's an arbitrary restriction. If it is possible that an unlimited designer could have done something, science should be able to consider the possibility. Otherwise we restrict science so that it might not be able to discover what is true.TJ_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

Timaeus @ 38
CLAVDIVS: So do you acknowledge that the ID concept of an unlimited designer cannot be scientifically tested? Timaeus: I know of no ID concept of an unlimited designer. I know of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim conceptions of an unlimited designer. But ID is not any of those religions. ID is about designers, period. No specification of “unlimited” is essential to the theory of design detection. The idea is that we can detect design, not whether or not the designer is unlimited.
If ID does not propose any limits to the designer, then it logically follows that ID's concept of the designer is unlimited. You may well claim one can detect design whether or not the designer is unlimited. My point is that that is not an idea that can be scientifically tested, because an explanation that has no limits can be used to explain any measurement or observation whatsoever. As such, ID as currently described on this site is not very useful and it's not scientific, because we can't test it.
Timaeus: So the stones of the Pyramids could have been arranged by an unlimited designer (God) or by limited designers (ancient Egyptians).
And the idea the pyramids were built by ancient Egyptians can be scientifically tested, because those proposed designers have limitations. If that idea failed testing (it hasn't, but just for example) then that would not somehow make the idea of an unlimited pyramid designer testable. An unlimited designer is always untestable in principle. Inferring that "a mind was involved" may well be a valid metaphysical or philosophical position. However, that position remains untestable and unscientific so long as the proposed designer is potentially an all-powerful agent.
Timaeus: Now let me ask you a question in turn, since you did not comment on my discussion of Darwinian explanation: Do you acknowledge that Darwinian explanation (in terms of natural selection, as described) is too fluid, too flexible, too adjustable to whatever happens, to be truly rigorous, fully testable scientific explanation?
I didn't comment on your discussion of Darwinian evolution because my comments in this thread have been solely on the subject of the scientific testability of ID, and you in turn did not comment on this subject at all but instead appeared to want to change subjects to the testability of Darwinian evolution. I'm really not interested in that. To satisfy your curiosity I do believe Darwin's ideas of descent with modification and natural selection are scientifically testable. I cannot answer whether they are "truly rigorous" or "fully testable" because I'm not sure how that would be different from just scientifically testable.CLAVDIVS_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

That should have read functional specified informationTJ_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

CLAVDVIS “What I am saying is that the designer proposed by ID (as per the FAQ on this site) does not have any limitations, and therefore must be all-powerful and can achieve anything possible. Such a designer is not just “unpredictable”; rather, it is maximally unpredictable because it explains any phenomenon or measurement whatsoever” ID as proposed by Demski who I believe wrote the FAQ uses a filter that filters out design as an explanation. I fail to see the problem you are proposing. “No, ID does not make inferences like anthropologists because anthropologists place limits on the intelligent agent they propose to explain phenomena: they have particular requirements, they only exist at particular times and places, they have particular abilities, tools and technologies that strictly limit their ability to manipulate their environment etc.” Anthropologists infer design in certain cases period. ID infers design in certain cases period. They both infer design. Because of the fact that the origin of life is in the distant past the identity of the designer is not clear. Am I too understand what you are saying to mean that if I was to propose aliens as the agent of design who only exist at particular times and places, and have particular abilities, tools and technologies that strictly limit their ability to manipulate their environment that would be an acceptable hypothesis? Because ID includes that kind of hypothesis which would meet all your criteria. That’s not my version of ID but it is ID. “What matters is that logically the concept of the designer itself, as you acknowledge, is capable of explaining anything, and thus it cannot be scientifically tested. It may be a true concept, but it’s not very useful and not scientific” It can be scientifically tested. Predictions have been made and confirmed. While the specific abilities of a designer may not be known they may inferred from the design. It may be a true concept but not helpful? True concepts are always helpful in making predictions and understanding the world. How could it be true but not useful? Even if the truth was that everything is ultimately unpredictable (cause the designer is crazy and sporadic) at least we would be able to predict lack of certainty. If there is a rock in my yard I could explain it through a random process (a car drove over a rock and the rock was subsequently thrown into my yard). Or I could explain it through an agent (the neighbor kid put a rock there while he was playing and that rock was supposed to represent the bad guy’s hideout). If however, there are a bunch of rocks arraigned that spell “Johnny” I rule out random processes. This story illustrates how lots of things can be explained by design, but we infer it and only it in cases of functional specified complexity (just like an anthropologist)TJ_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply