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

Mark Frank (25): All right, in light of your intervention, and in the interest of non-polemical dialogue with Elizabeth, I'll withdraw the unnecessarily aggressive phrase "insincerity or self-delusion." Let me put the words to Elizabeth differently: "This comment appears to imply that Darwinists have methods for design detection that apply to organic as well as inorganic things, but there is no obvious evidence for the existence of such methods in the Darwinian literature." OK, now I will reply to your further comments. Obviously the people on your side *do* think there is something different about the case of living organisms than the case of inanimate objects, e.g. Stonehenge, arrowheads, clocks, etc., since they completely *agree* with ID people about the inanimate objects and completely *disagree* with ID people *in every single case* when it comes to living organisms or systems. How could this neat division happen, if your side did not believe that a different (and apparently much higher) standard applies to inferences of design in the case of organic things which appear designed, than in the case of inorganic things which appear designed? Note also that it is not always the case that a hypothesis about the designer is necessary in order to successfully infer design. I can imagine all kinds of situations in which I could place you in which, confronted with some inorganic object, say, a stone sculpture or contraption of some kind, you would unhesitatingly infer that the object was designed even if you knew nothing about who might have designed it. If I transported you to Mars tomorrow and you found an anemometer there, made of an unknown metallic alloy never manufactured on earth, you would infer both from the material and from the function that the anemometer was designed, without having a clue who put it there, or why. But, if confronted with a living thing a billion times more complex than an anemometer, a thing which even Dawkins would say strongly exhibits *apparent* design -- say, the first bacterium on the planet earth -- you would not make such a design inference, would you? You would cast about for explanations for how such a thing might have come about *without* design, would you not? You would in fact *prefer* a non-design explanation, no? And if so, then how can you say that the design detection process is "no different" in the case of inorganic objects, contraptions, etc. than in the case of living systems?Timaeus_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PST}

You answered your own question, Mark: "Why this continuing refrain from so many ID supporters that any opponent is either insincere or self-deluded?" Because our opponents repeatedly submit nonsense like this: "But it does require some kind of hypothesis (however vague) about the designer and/or design mechanism so that it can be assessed." Basically, you're not really interested in design. You're only interested in the designer, because if that designer is God, then you can start moaning endlessly about religion... rather than focusing on the science of Intelligent Design. If you ever had to do that, you'd have to kiss good-bye the one thing that you've put your faith in (a very silly thing to put your faith in): Chance.Chris Doyle_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PST}

Why this continuing refrain from so many ID supporters that any opponent is either insincere or self-deluded? This is no basis for a productive debate. There are real, intelligent, sincere arguments to be made by both sides. Detecting design in a living organism is no different from detecting design in any other instance. But it does require some kind of hypothesis (however vague) about the designer and/or design mechanism so that it can be assessed.Mark Frank_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PST}

Elizabeth wrote: "Just because our methods don’t detect design where you detect it, KF, doesn’t mean we don’t have methods that detect design." This comment springs from either insincerity or self-delusion. "Our methods" -- as Elizabeth means the phrase -- can of course detect design if the object is a radio or a coded message or a pyramid in the sands of Egypt. The Darwinists will gladly grant that we can know for a fact that all these things were designed, and not merely the product of chance and natural laws. But there is not a living, breathing soul on her side who has ever proposed a method for determining whether or not *a living system* or *a living organism* is designed. Or is even interested in investigating that question. And it is design *in living systems* that the debate is about, not design in computers or Stonehenge. The *working expectation* of everyone on her side, including Elizabeth herself (if she is entirely frank) is that *all* cases of apparent design will, in the long run, turn to be just that -- cases of *apparent* design only. So why would her side ever try to develop methods of design detection for *natural* objects and systems? (Why would you develop possible designs for a perpetual motion machine, if your working expectation was that one could never be made?) Maybe Elizabeth will show us some of the methods of design detection that the Darwinian side has devised? And let us know who devised them? Mayr, perhaps? Or Crick? Or Monod? Or Coyne? Or Moran? It would all be news to us.Timaeus_{July 13, 2013
July
07
Jul
13
13
2013
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PST}

CLAVDIVS “The problem is that there are no limitations proposed for the intelligent designer, so the intelligent designer can be assumed to be all-powerful and can therefore “predict” or “explain” anything” Okay I see where you are coming from. A physical theory like relativity can be formulated mathematically, gravity can be expressed mathematically and we can calculate an orbit with those types of things. A designer doesn’t count because he doesn’t fit into that type of box. Is this a correct interpretation of what you are saying? I’m going to assume it is and continue feel free to correct me though. Intelligence for sure isn’t going to be that predicable. It isn’t the same type of thing. (Which is one reason why it is powerful as an explanation. It is has all the things previous attempts to explain life don’t.) However, anthropology is a science. They infer intelligence when they see things like writing on cave walls. ID isn’t rooted in physics. But it does make inferences just like an anthropologist might. A designer might be able to explain anything, but nobody is saying that a designer should be invoked “ALL THE TIME” instead we are saying that maybe sometimes in certain specific cases (where we see FSI) design should be considered. Which to me seems more moderate. “Sometimes design” rather than “never design”.TJ_{July 13, 2013
July
07
Jul
13
13
2013
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PST}

It's good to know that I (at least indirectly) taught Elizabeth something, even if she doesn't here acknowledge it. A couple of years ago we debated here, and I mentioned teleology in evolution, thinking the term would be unproblematic for anyone who had a basic knowledge of the historical roots of evolutionary theory or even of "design versus chance" arguments today. Elizabeth, though she spoke very confidently about evolutionary theory, evolutionary mechanisms, etc. didn't know what I meant by "teleology," and asked me if it was the same as "teleonomy." I was quite surprised that anyone would show such confidence in discussing Darwinian evolutionary concepts without being familiar with the concept of teleology (which of course Darwin was deliberately and systematically opposing). Be that as it may, a discussion ensued. Now I see (#9 above) that she is referring confidently to teleology in compact references, as if she is an old hand at the subject: "Methods that distinguish between teleology and teleonomy." Well, it would be nice to get an acknowledgment that, if not my own explanation, at least some subsequent reading Elizabeth did as a result of conversing with me, is the cause of her now being able to toss off a word she didn't know the meaning of before. :-)Timaeus_{July 13, 2013
July
07
Jul
13
13
2013
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PST}

TJ @ 17
CLAVDIVS: “Infer design” is not a testable explanation. It is simply an assertion that there is some sort of explanation, which is not defined enough for testing, that involves an intelligent agent. TJ: It is testable in that it can make predictions and those predictions can be falsified or corroborated. The results of that process can then be compared with other explanations for the same phenomenon.
The problem is that there are no limitations proposed for the intelligent designer, so the intelligent designer can be assumed to be all-powerful and can therefore "predict" or "explain" anything. As I said @ 15: 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. An explanation that is so general that literally anything follows from it, like ID, cannot be tested, because no matter what we observe or measure it can be said to follow from the explanation. Hence such an explanation really doesn't explain anything at all, because it doesn't tell us why things work this way rather than that way. Instead, it operates like a version of the sharpshooter fallacy, drawing bullseyes around bullet-holes - no matter where we find a bullet-hole, ID can draw a bullseye around it, because the proposed intelligent designer has no limitations. And that's why ID is not regarded as science.CLAVDIVS_{July 13, 2013
July
07
Jul
13
13
2013
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PST}

Lizzie, In response to what you said in 3. It is because that is the argument that many of the Darwinist's I talk to make, unfortunately.TJ_{July 13, 2013
July
07
Jul
13
13
2013
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PST}

Yes, it's like the inference of the product of 2 + 2 being 4.Axel_{July 13, 2013
July
07
Jul
13
13
2013
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PST}

ENCODE anyone? Prediction FULFILLED! trying not to gloat and failing.TJ_{July 13, 2013
July
07
Jul
13
13
2013
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PST}

Clavdivs: "“Infer design” is not a testable explanation. It is simply an assertion that there is some sort of explanation, which is not defined enough for testing, that involves an intelligent agent." It is testable in that it can make predictions and those predictions can be falsified or corroborated. The results of that process can then be compared with other explanations for the same phenomenon.TJ_{July 13, 2013
July
07
Jul
13
13
2013
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PST}

wookieeb @ 14
CLAVDIVS: See, lots of testable explanations about when, where, who and how. That makes such an investigation scientific. wookieeb: Of course. For biology, both ID and Neo-Darwinian theories are concerned with this, perhaps with the exception of “who”. ND doesn’t think there is a “who”, and ID does think there is a “who” but isn’t concerned with identifying it.
OK, putting aside the "who", tell me about the when, where and how proposed by ID? Unless ID places some limitations on the nature of the proposed intelligent designer, we must assume the intelligent designer is all-powerful and can achieve anything possible. This is not a testable explanation, because any given measurement or observation can be "explained" by saying that's just the way the all-powerful intelligent designer wanted it. Whilst this may be true, it's not a testable explanation.CLAVDIVS_{July 13, 2013
July
07
Jul
13
13
2013
01:11 AM
1
01
11
AM
PST}

Joe @ 12
CLAVDIVS: ID as defined on this site does not propose any testable explanations for any features of the universe and life. Joe: Yes, we do. If nature, operating freely can produce it, we do not infer design. And if nature, operating freely cannot produce it and it meets the design criteria, we infer design.
"Infer design" is not a testable explanation. It is simply an assertion that there is some sort of explanation, which is not defined enough for testing, that involves an intelligent agent. 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. Therefore, the idea that life on earth was created by - for example - an all-powerful, intelligent genie means that any given phenomenon follows from this rule by explaining that's just the way the genie wanted it. So that's not a testable explanation of anything. Accordingly, unless the ID movement explicitly rules out an all-powerful intelligence as part of its explanation (i.e. by specifying some limiting characteristics on the intelligent agent as to time, space, etc.) then the idea of ID will remain unscientific.CLAVDIVS_{July 13, 2013
July
07
Jul
13
13
2013
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PST}

CLAVDIVS:
- They are connected with Nazi symbolism. Test: Determine age of trees to see if they precede Nazism, or come after. - The trees were planted by humans. Test: Find independent evidence humans were around the area at the time of planting. - Deliberate transplanting of different species to make a pattern. Test: Is the species that makes the pattern local to the area? Is that species typically found to cluster together closely, or are they rather widespread?
In each of your examples, you are pre-supposing design and then testing against it, providing a method to falsify design. But your tests don't lead to a design inference, you've already done that before you started.
See, lots of testable explanations about when, where, who and how. That makes such an investigation scientific.
Of course. For biology, both ID and Neo-Darwinian theories are concerned with this, perhaps with the exception of "who". ND doesn't think there is a "who", and ID does think there is a "who" but isn't concerned with identifying it.
ID as defined on this site does not propose any testable explanations for any features of the universe and life. It just asserts that there’s an explanation involving an intelligent agent, but does not vouchsafe what the explanation actually is, let alone propose any tests. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s not science.
Nonsense! Even if you start from the point of pre-supposing design, the tests to falsify it are there, it is the work biologists are doing. Suppose ID - is there any other process (like Neo-Darwinism) that can demonstrate how complex life developed? Suppose ID - does the fossil record support any other process (like Neo-Darwinism)? Suppose ID - within information theory, is there any other process (like Neo-Darwinism) that can explain the CSI we see in biology? Etc.. Now there is debate on the answers to those questions (I would say "No" to all), but you cannot say that there are no tests to ID.wookieeb_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PST}

- They are connected with Nazi symbolism. Test: Determine age of trees to see if they precede Nazism, or come after.
The swastika was adopted by the Nazis.
- The trees were planted by humans. Test: Find independent evidence humans were around the area at the time of planting.
Humans being around doesn't mean humans planted them. Or do you think all trees were planted by humans?
- Deliberate transplanting of different species to make a pattern. Test: Is the species that makes the pattern local to the area? Is that species typically found to cluster together closely, or are they rather widespread?
Birds and other animals carry seeds and can deposit them where the plants are not.Joe_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PST}

CLAVDIVS:
ID as defined on this site does not propose any testable explanations for any features of the universe and life.
Yes, we do. If nature, operating freely can produce it, we do not infer design. And if nature, operating freely cannot produce it and it meets the design criteria, we infer design.Joe_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PST}

Notice how we can generate testable hypotheses about the origin of the swastikas: - They are connected with Nazi symbolism. Test: Determine age of trees to see if they precede Nazism, or come after. - The trees were planted by humans. Test: Find independent evidence humans were around the area at the time of planting. - Deliberate transplanting of different species to make a pattern. Test: Is the species that makes the pattern local to the area? Is that species typically found to cluster together closely, or are they rather widespread? - Etc. See, lots of testable explanations about when, where, who and how. That makes such an investigation scientific. ID as defined on this site does not propose any testable explanations for any features of the universe and life. It just asserts that there's an explanation involving an intelligent agent, but does not vouchsafe what the explanation actually is, let alone propose any tests. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not science.CLAVDIVS_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PST}

So you don't have any idea- why don't you just say that?Joe_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PST}

Methods that distinguish between teleology and teleonomy.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PST}

Elizabeth:
Just because our methods don’t detect design where you detect it, KF, doesn’t mean we don’t have methods that detect design.
What methods do you use? Please do tell.
We just think that your method generates false positives, or, at least, dubious positives.
Think whatever you want. You definitely cannot demonstrate that our methods generate false positives nor dubious positives. And that means what you say is meaningless.Joe_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PST}

Just because our methods don't detect design where you detect it, KF, doesn't mean we don't have methods that detect design. We just think that your method generates false positives, or, at least, dubious positives.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PST}

Elizabeth:
I have no idea why ID proponents have this weird idea that “Darwinists” think that design can’t be detected.
LoL! Just look at this debate and you have your answer, duh.Joe_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PST}

Okay, double-denial. The very ones who have expended tons of bits in and around UD denying the ability to reliably detect design on empirically tested reliable signs now show up to pretend or suggest otherwise. Priceless. KFkairosfocus_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PST}

Lizzie,
I have no idea why ID proponents have this weird idea that “Darwinists” think that design can’t be detected.
It's strange, isn't it?keiths_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PST}

I have no idea why ID proponents have this weird idea that "Darwinists" think that design can't be detected. Of course it can.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PST}

Oh no, no, no, kairosfocus. THat's too much like teleology. It's not intentional. It's all a big load of Darwin. (O'Leary)News_{July 12, 2013
July
07
Jul
12
12
2013
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PST}

News: Did seeds blowing in the wind just accidentally fall into the shape of glyphs that illustrate swastikas and/or spell out the number 1933, in Germany? In short, we can see from the explanatory filter that lucky noise is not a credible explanation. We infer that twerdun. Now, whodunit? Let's see the news account you clip, on fair use:
Reschke chartered a plane to fly over the area, and indeed, a neatly delineated swastika was clearly visible. The local forester, Klaus Göricke, set out to uncover the origin of the troubling larch formation, and he found out that the trees had been there for a long time. By measuring the trees, he came to the conclusion they had been planted in the late 1930s. That means that for decades, during every spring and autumn, a massive swastika took shape in the Kutzerower Heath -- surviving the Russian occupation, Communist rule in East Germany and the fall of the Berlin Wall without ever attracting notice. The fact that it went undiscovered for so long was in part due to the short period of time each year that it was visible. Furthermore, it could only be seen from a certain altitude, and the airplanes that headed north out of Berlin were already much too high for passengers to see the swastika in the forest. Private planes, on the other hand, were forbidden in East Germany.
Now, clue the explanatory filter deniers in 4, 3, 2, 1 . . . KFkairosfocus_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PST}

Prev 1 … 11 12 13

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply