“Design without Intelligence”

_{William Dembski

November 7, 2005

Evolution, Intelligent Design}

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

Visit http://www.mutationengineer.homechoice.co.uk and you will see how a simple molecule could dramatically accelerate evolution in a way which might allow design without intelligence.

Comments

Actually, science should be the search for truth. If you don't accept truth, then science shouldn't matter, because then there would be no way to discover anything real or true about our universe. If all truth is subjective then science is nothing but an illusion and we can learn nothing from it.dodgingcars_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

"Many people make the incorrect assumption that science is about the search for truth. This is absolutely false. Science is a group of disciplines that form thought structures that allow us to understand and manipulate reality as we experience it. Truth is the relam of religion or philosophy, and we all must eventually pick our own truths." Can we pick the truth that evolution is false and ID true?taciturnus_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

> For an environment to exist that allows for life to form, there have to be some pretty finely tuned natural laws in place. Our existence is either the greatest improbability imagined or we live in a universe designed to allow life to form. well I though about this playing DnD the other week (no connection except dice), how do you know any other values that the ones that allow human life could have arisen? I mean, what if these constants are the value they are because for (reasons unknown) they do not have the full range we could concieve of? without that knowledge, i wouldnt be able to make a guess at the probability of our universe, ot its improbability. so, that 'either' you insert strikes me as a false dichotimy, because it's based on an assumption for which we lack evidence....if my logic is right.theSun_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

jboze3131 You are right. Science cannot make claims about intent or purpose. Those areas are strictly within the realm of religion. When scientists speak of a lack of purpose they are saying that there is nothing about the natural world that would lead them to believe that we are in anyway the culmination of a process meant to bring us about. In short evolution is not about us anymore then it is about any other living form, and there is no empirical evidence to suggesst that humans were an inevitable product of life on Earth. As to whether there is a larger purpose for us that the natural world does not suggest??? Well that is something that science cannot touch. Natural selection is certainly not a purposeless or unguided process. It is an amzingly elegant mechanism for ensuring life's ability to form robust complex systems. Again when scientists say unguided they are saying that there is, as of yet, nothing that we know that would suggest that we are an intended end product of natural selection or that there is even such a thing as an intended product of natural selection. That simply means that there is not a purpose that we are capable of detecting. It does not mean that there is no purpose. I would say that you can infer design. An inference however is not science. Science cannot by its own definition deal with questions of design. We can say that a cell is designed but that does not mean that it was supernaturally created one day. That is where science has a problem with id. Saying that we can infer design and perhaps purpose is a fine philosophy of science. There is nothing that science is capable of saying that could ever contradict that. The problem with id is that it implies a supernatural creation at some point and such an idea is beyond the bounds of science. For one thing there is no reason for scientists to think that a supernatural creation was ever necessary. More importantly, such an idea is inherantly unscientific. In short, the notion of design is completely irrelevant to science. --To the larger question of whether or not such a god is worthy of worship-- Scince cannot say anything about God. It cannot say that miracles are impossible. It can suggest that if they do happen they are rare and that they are not necessary to explain the universe. While I may choose to believe in a God that does not interact with us, that is certainly not an inevitable position for a student of science. We each have to decide where we want to place our faith. We can never prove any element of our faith. Faith is by nature a-rational. Science can't touch it. If you choose to believe in a God that has domain over everyday events science cannot say you are wrong. Many people make the incorrect assumption that science is about the search for truth. This is absolutely false. Science is a group of disciplines that form thought structures that allow us to understand and manipulate reality as we experience it. Truth is the relam of religion or philosophy, and we all must eventually pick our own truths.jmcd_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

Bombadill, What you cited was NDE, which hardly justifies your position even by the admission of the authors of the paper you cited. The rest was philosophical arguments which amount to no observable evidence for your claim. Provide me with testable, experimental, observable evidence and I will take your point seriously. I guess my question is how would you falsify your claim for an immaterial mind? My claim can be falsified if it shown definitively that no possible physical mechanism could explain thought (or if evidence for an immaterial mind were to surface).testerschoice_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

Missing from this discussion is why philosophers ever posited an immaterial mind in the first place. The reason goes back to Plato and may be called the problem of universals: If the number "5" can be applied to an infinite variety of materially diverse objects, then "5" itself is not material but transcends matter. It is a "universal". The mind that understands not only 5 ducks or 5 bricks, but the number "5" itself abstracted from any particular matter must also transcend matter insofar as it understands. I've never heard a satisfactory explanation of how a purely material mind could understand universals. The discussion about correlations of thoughts with brain activity is interesting but does nothing to advance a solution... Dave T.taciturnus_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

The experiments I cited in the other thread which discussed this issue, demonstrated an immaterial mind which transcends the physical brain. Again, you have not shown how thougths & propositions can be reduced to the purely physical.Bombadill_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

Bombadill and Jboze, I propose: brain activity --> behavior You propose: immaterial mind --> brain activity --> behavior You have no evidence for you connection from mind to brain activity. I have presented evidence on not only the gross level but also the cellular level for brain activity correlating and causing thoughts. Can provide evidence for your connection between immaterial mind and brain?testerschoice_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

It's not a cop-out for me to point out that thoughts/propositions have never been reduced to a physical location in the brain. The point I'm making is that Neuroscience has yet to explain this immaterial reality.Bombadill_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

Bombadill, Nice nice, thanks for the philosophical cop-out. At least you are honest in your total lack of evidence.testerschoice_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

"So, where is this immaterial mind and how does it interact with the brain?" Good question. I'll let you know as soon as you tell me how that which is strictly physical produced that which is metaphysical. ;)Bombadill_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

tester- you never once showed brain scans showing THOUGHTS. you merely showed scans expose parts of the brain lighting up during certain activities. thoughts are still immaterial according to science...in the sense that, no one has made the connection. you seem to want to demand that the mind not even use the brain at all...and if it does, that proves that the mind itself IS the brain and nothing more. so, please show us where the material thoughts are. most scientists admit this is still a complete mystery. you keep linking to papers that merely show brain activity in regard to certain situations...that activity itself doesnt equal thoughts themselves. few in science would claim it does. JMCD- if theres a god who created some laws of the universe and then sat back and that was that- thats hardly a god worth caring about in any manner...let alone worshipping. intent and purpose- these are things that empirical evidence couldnt show, despite the claim that NS in evolution is just that- unguided, purposeless, meaningless, etc. its beyond science that such a claim is made. design can be inferred, and designed systems can be identified, but to proclaim a goal or purpose or intent of the designer- thats not science. neither is the claim of intent darwinists make.jboze3131_{November 7, 2005
November
11
Nov
7
07
2005
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

Bombadill, "And again, the depth and panoply of emotion and sense of Ã¢â‚¬Å“IÃ¢â‚¬Â that is the human conscious, seems to fly in the face of this materialistic philosophy." Oh Bombadill, let's not start this again. So, where is this immaterial mind and how does it interact with the brain?testerschoice_{November 7, 2005
November
11
Nov
7
07
2005
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

jboze3131 You said: "if darwinists proclaim that evolution us goal-less, unguided, and purposelessÃ¢â‚¬Â¦thats pretty much the same as saying there is no god" Thats not true at all. Who are we to try and define God's purpose. When evolution is descibed as being "purposeless" it is meant that evolution does not represent a progression towards superior life forms. The ebiquitous image of a tree of life always puts humans at the top suggesting that we are life's premier creation. It is more accurate to think of a shrub of life where we are but one species coexisting with many others. Even this does not mean that God has no purpose for us. It just means that we can't look for purpose in science. If life did indeed arise by itself, that still does not take God out of the loop. For an environment to exist that allows for life to form, there have to be some pretty finely tuned natural laws in place. Our existence is either the greatest improbability imagined or we live in a universe designed to allow life to form. Our knowledge about the universe we live in will only continue to grow. Supernatural explanations for what we see in the world have always been proven wrong. I don't think that it is such a big step to believe in a universe that is governed by natural laws while still believing in God. Scientists can say their theories show that God does not have to interact with us for us to explain what we see. What they cannot address is the author of the laws they study.jmcd_{November 7, 2005
November
11
Nov
7
07
2005
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

I know I harp on this a lot, but I think it's worth repeating - beings who seem wired to ponder and seek purpose and meaning for their existance, seem unlikely to be the result of blind purposeless natural mechanisms. What a cruel mistake it would indeed, if that were the case. And again, the depth and panoply of emotion and sense of "I" that is the human conscious, seems to fly in the face of this materialistic philosophy.Bombadill_{November 7, 2005
November
11
Nov
7
07
2005
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

"Ultimately science cannot tell us whether or God exists. It can only tell us how our world/universe works." if darwinists proclaim that evolution us goal-less, unguided, and purposeless...thats pretty much the same as saying there is no god. evolution, tho many will deny this, has to account for the origin of life- bioevo proclaims that it arose by itself and wasnt created...which means that god would have no role in life period. if he didnt create life at all, he had no role it evolving, etc. scientists constantly claim their theories make god impossible, then they contradict themselves and claim that god is outside the realm of science.jboze3131_{November 7, 2005
November
11
Nov
7
07
2005
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

TheSun "But you need to be clearer on the meaning of Ã¢â‚¬â„¢selectivelyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, and cite papers showing it is selective." Sure. I posted a handful of them in the comments immediately following the article: http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/blog/?p=404DaveScot_{November 7, 2005
November
11
Nov
7
07
2005
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

paulp I don't see how he enters into teleology at all. He is describing a hypothetical natural process that would account for observed changes of pace in mutation. Nothing he talked about implied a goal just a means for adaptation. I also don't see how it is a problem that a computer simulation might accurately represent reality. He designed a system with rules that is suppossed to mirror nature. If you are implying that such rules imply intelligence I would agree with you. Ultimately science cannot tell us whether or God exists. It can only tell us how our world/universe works. That seems to be a common notion. Many people think that evolutionary theory rules out the possibility of an intelligent design for us or the universe for that matter. It does nothing of the sort. What it does do is show that it is very likely that we are the result of natural processes and not a supernatural creation that appeared on Earth one day.jmcd_{November 7, 2005
November
11
Nov
7
07
2005
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

I'll have to read the details but it seems that the poor guy gives the game away in the second paragraph of his home page. He writes, "The central idea is simply that many mutations are performed not as a result of a random error in genetic duplication, but as a result of this enzyme, which introduces mutations in a systematic way. It is proposed that a gene which produces this enzyme would provide a definite and inheritable advantage, which would give its carriers the selective edge over those dependent on a totally random mutation process." As soon as he uses terms like 'systematic,' 'provides a definite and inheribable advantage,' 'give...selective edge over' he introduces goal talk--teleology--into his experiement. Goal talk is incoherent apart from mind so it's odd how this process would be non-intelligent. Of course there's the problem with the fact that he, as a computer programmer, has set up this whole game which is anything but non-intelligent.paulp_{November 7, 2005
November
11
Nov
7
07
2005
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

OK, i'll accept accelerated mutation, I've seen studies on shock protiens, so its possible, as similar circumstances prevailed. But you need to be clearer on the meaning of 'selectively', and cite papers showing it is selective. You see...selectively...is it reallly? Is it "protien X is under attack, I shall mutate genes 2344 to counter this? It's cool, exciting. I like it. But I need the original papers to read. Source materials might clear up my questions..or make them bigger.theSun_{November 7, 2005
November
11
Nov
7
07
2005
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

Bacteria are already known to selectively accelerate mutation in times of stress. If we take it as a given that prokaryotes were precursers to eukaryotes I find it difficult to deny the same selective mutation capability to eukaryotes - the latter should have all the abilities of the former plus some.DaveScot_{November 7, 2005
November
11
Nov
7
07
2005
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

well, i dont think natural selection gets accelerated, per se. it's an environmental thing. Maybe the mutation rate gets increased, or previous muaions manifest. There's a group of protiens called 'shock protiens', and heat shock protiens (HSPs) buffer mutations. That is, the weird little things take malformed protiens and wrench them back into shape. If you supress HSPs or stress the living things enough to use all their HSP at the development phase mutations previously supressed express all at once. The mutos run in lineages. Brothers are near identical, but cousins 14 times removed look very different. After a few generations of this the HSPs recognise the new form as normal and no longer maintain the original form.theSun_{November 7, 2005
November
11
Nov
7
07
2005
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

ok....so basically he is proposing an ezyme with these capabilities...and such a thing doesn't exist? brilliant!IDEA_AASU_{November 7, 2005
November
11
Nov
7
07
2005
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

Right. I question how well these algorithms translate into the realm of biological systems. Is it really comparing apples to apples?Bombadill_{November 7, 2005
November
11
Nov
7
07
2005
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

I know I'm not scared. But then again, I could be missing the significance of these findings. (I mean, I understand how mutation can be accelerated in a computer. But for some reason, that doesn't tell me how to accelerate natural selection, or arrange the existence of adaptive mutations, in nature.)neurode_{November 7, 2005
November
11
Nov
7
07
2005
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

And if he DESIGNS an experiment which creates a mechanism which works, you have to look at how he does it pretty closely. It would take a lot of CPU power to completely represent everything.geoffrobinson_{November 7, 2005
November
11
Nov
7
07
2005
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

Good point.Bombadill_{November 7, 2005
November
11
Nov
7
07
2005
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

Given evolution's proven track record of inflated claims?William Dembski_{November 7, 2005
November
11
Nov
7
07
2005
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

Should we be scared?Bombadill_{November 7, 2005
November
11
Nov
7
07
2005
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply