A Twist on the Infinite Regress Argument

_{Barry Arrington

December 1, 2007

Intelligent Design}

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

In a previous post there was a vigorous debate about idnet.com.au’s suggestion that Craig Venter might soon manufacture a living organism from scratch. This comment caught my eye: “OMG!! When Craig Venter produces a living organism, will this event trigger the infamous “infinite regress?” WHO DESIGNED CRAIG VENTER???”

Indeed. Assume for the sake of argument that Craig Venter actually succeeds in creating life in the lab (We’ll call them Venter’s critters or “VCs” for short). Then assume the dreaded super virus comes along and wipes out all life on earth except for the VCs, who are immune. Assume further that a million years passes and there are no traces that any living thing other than VCs ever existed on earth. Then two aliens come along. Alien 1 of 2 observes the VCs running around, all of which are desendants of the original lab-created VCs. The VCs exhibit irreducable complexity and complex specified information, and 1 of 2 therefore concludes that it is very unlikely that they were caused by chance and necessity, and therefore, making an inference to the best explanation, he concludes they were designed. Alien 2 of 2, a dyed in the wool materialist, says, “1 of 2, you’re an IDiot. You are just pushing the question back. If these beasties were designed, tell me who designed the designer?”

This thought experiment brings into relief the fatuousness of the “who designed the designer” argument. 2 of 2’s question is unanswerable. 1 of 2 would have no way to know who Craig Venter was, where he came from, what his purpose was, what process he used to design his critters, etc. Nevertheless, his design inference would be correct.

Comments

Jerry, try "Mitochondrial evolution" by Gray, Burger, and Lang, Science 283. 5407, 1476-1481. Briefly, there is strong evidence that mitochondria are related to the origin of eukaryotic cells, which would mean that we're all descended from bacteria. There are of course competing theories about how mitochondria evolved, with Lynn Margulis on one side and T. Cavalier-Smith on another. See Cavalier-Smith, "The phagotrophic origin of eukaryotes and phylogenetic classification of Protozoa," International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (2002), 52, 297–354.getawitness_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

BA77, Your version of ID apparently hinges on genetic entropy and rejects common descent. I've not read Sanford yet (I've ordered it through interlibrary loan, but it's a very small press and not widely available in libraries). But genetic entropy is not a scientific principle -- yet. Maybe it will be. Also, when you write,
The principle of Genetic Entropy allows us to trace the CSI to point of implementation,
I don't know what you're talking about. First, how would you decide when the points of implementation happened? You need a measure. You can't simply point at new species and say "there," becuase if you don't accept common descent ID is just a version of periodic special creation. Second, something seems circular to me until it's demonstrated conclusively that CSI is (a) coherent, quantifiable, and scientifically relevant, and (b) incapable of being produced through natural processes.getawitness_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

Getawitness you stated: "And I’ve suggested a possible ID research program which would, through quantifying CSI, be able to name those moments of intervention." What, Am I speaking Chinese? The principle of Genetic Entropy allows us to trace the CSI to point of implementation. A Cambrian Peak in Morphological Variation Within Trilobite Species Mark Webster http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5837/499 This study is excellent! It is a study of trilobites over their 270 million year history in the fossil record since their "abrupt" appearance at the beginning on the Cambrian explosion. Of special note: It studies within species variation instead of just among species variation. Within species morphological variation, over deep time, for the entire spectrum of trilobites, gives us a peak at CSI "degeneration" within trilobites over their 270 million year history. It follows Genetic Entropy to a tee buddy! "Early and Middle Cambrian trilobite species, especially, exhibited greater morphological variations than their descendants. This high within-species variation provided more raw material upon which natural selection could operate, Webster says, potentially accounting for the high rates of evolution in Cambrian trilobites. Such findings may have implications for our understanding of the nature of evolutionary processes, he says. Why the early trilobites were so morphologically diverse is a whole different mystery." Guess what getawitness we know the answer to the mystery! CSI degeneration aka Genetic Entropy! And it gets even better if you go into the actual studies themselves you find all trilobites that branch off the "parent" trilobites species quickly lose variability that is found in the parent stock. I am extremely confident that this study, when it is fully fleshed out in all its detail, will fit the ID/Genetic Entropy perfectly. http://www.geotimes.org/july07/article.html?id=WebExtra072707.htmlbornagain77_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

getawitness, Where is the information on mitochondria DNA that indicates there is unique common descent? This is the first I heard of it and would be interested in reading about it.jerry_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

es58, If they found our rover it would obviously be design if you use the method of Dembski’s explanatory filter. Or by the rules of theory of ID- the design inference- this would be an obvious fact. Now as for the microbes. If the microbes displayed SC then they would be excellent candidates for design. Especially if the aliens thought that the rover displayed the level of scientific advancement necessary for its designer to be able to design microbes. Here on earth there is no difference accept we don’t even need an alien rover to see that certain aspects of the cell require intelligent causation. ID studies the effects of intelligence and has concluded that there are clear signs of it in nature (i.e. the digital code in DNA) but it does not say who the designer is. The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a government program that looks for radio signals coming in from space. If there is a highly improbable engagement of pulses that we reason could not be just natural we can infer that there is ET out there and is sending out a message or something of the sort. But at the same time we know NOTHING about the nature of this alien intelligence accept that it is sending radio pulses out in space and that we can pick them up. Your microbes bring up another great point which is if the aliens used the EF and concluded design of the microbes they would then likely or possibly posit that the designers of the rover were the designs of the microbes. This would as you pointed out be incorrect. This points out that ID does not tell us who the designer is it only tells us if something is designed. So we can infer the design of an ancient artifact reliably but some times we attribute that to a certain culture and later discover it was designed by a different culture we knew nothing about.Frost122585_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

also, if they found microbes in the soil, like we've been looking for, might they assume that the life there designed the "artifact"? (which of course is wrong)es58_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

So, if these aliens landed on Mars, and found our rover, with no other artifacts on the planet, and a1 said: design, does everyone agree that is inference to a designer is valid? if not,why not?es58_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

BA77, thanks. I still hold with common descent, and think ID should as well. There's clearly a development of life forms through history. Unless the designer was tinkering with different forms until hitting on the present organization, I don't see what's the point of all that history without relatedness. And as I said, mitochondrial DNA strongly suggests that we're all related as far back as the origin of the cell nucleus. I'm suggesting that the best ID explanation within the framework of common descent is that existing species were intelligently manipulated periodically throughout earth history. And I've suggested a possible ID research program which would, through quantifying CSI, be able to name those moments of intervention. All this assumes the premise that increasing CSI requires intelligence -- which I'm not convinced of, by the way, and measuring CSI would be one way to get there. Speaking of research programs, why don't the ID leaders create ID-friendly peer-reviewed research journals? I understand there used to be some, but they all went belly-up.getawitness_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Getawitness: If common descent is untrue, then the genetic resemblances among different species are historically meaningless. BINGO, By golly you are a double winner tonight. The impossibility of information (CSI) generation by natural means precludes any increases in information for a 100% poly-functional genome. The similarities of the genomes of monkeys and man, though while interesting, is impossible to accomplish from first principles of science for a poly-functional thus poly-constrained genome (Sanford Genetic Entropy page 141). The best way to view the differences and similarities of the genome is to wipe the blackboard totally clean of any "radical" evolutionary biases that ignore Genetic Entropy and to look at the Genome from a fresh engineering perspective. This approach is the proper approach and will finally bring much of the genome into man's understanding, if indeed, the complexity of the genome can even be tamed by man at all, which it very well could be out of the grasp of man to do. The Boston Globe DNA unraveled "The science of life is undergoing changes so jolting that even its top researchers are feeling something akin to shell-shock. Just four years after scientists finished mapping the human genome - the full sequence of 3 billion DNA "letters" folded within every cell - they find themselves confronted by a biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined." http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2007/09/24/dna_unraveled/bornagain77_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

getawitness, in 46, said "I think ID should accept common descent and stick to what it might have something to say about, namely, how did the changes happen?" But isn't it already a framework that could allow for common descent? The support for ID is IC - and of specific relevance is the claim that IC can provide a better explanation of events than common descent. Thus, common descent is a method implicitely recognized by ID should IC NOT* be the best explanation. BarryA even includes this as an option in his statement "1 of 2 therefore concludes that it is very unlikely that they were caused by chance and necessity". It's just that according to ID, common descent is extremely unlikely. But, in this particular example, BarryA did not provide a scenario in which ID DOES* provide the best answer. It is still open as to whether Venter's finished life forms will be IC - they may be functional as partial units, meaning that they may be reducible. *Sorry - haven't figured italics yet.Q_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

BA77, in [44] above you seem to be arguing against common descent. If common descent is untrue, then the genetic resemblances among different species are historically meaningless. (How convenient, though, that all life is based on DNA!) Anyway, if you're arguing against common descent then you're arguing for a version of special creation rather than intelligent design as such. I think ID should accept common descent and stick to what it might have something to say about, namely, how did the changes happen?getawitness_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

D.A. Newton (#35) said "Isn’t is amazing and amusing that Q in #2 depends upon the existence of artifacts,..." Yes, maybe amusing. The point of mentioning the artifacts was to show that BarryA's claim of "1 of 2 would have no way to know who Craig Venter was, ... “ is insufficiently developed. His analogy is that because the creator of this life is no longer observable, we cannot learn about the creator of this life. But, his analogy fails because as he constructed the model, artifact will be left. At the same time, he did not show that this is the same as the creation of our life. In his model, the aliens could dig through 2000 years of evidence and quite likely find their answer. That may be totally contrary to our search of our origins – if we truly were created. However, his analogy does hold for a different investigation. The aliens could still examine the remains of earth, as per BarryA’s scenario. They could find books and CD’s describing the process Venter used. They may even find references to Venter’s name. Then, they could investigate Venter. Proceeding with this, they could dig deeper in the soil, and eventually gather enough evidence to suggest that either Venter’s origins were best explained as the actions of an intelligent creation, or they were best explained as the result of a non-intelligent creating process. Which leads to what I gleaned from BarryA’s comment – the question of “who” is the creator is also not adequate. If we agree that there is a before and after – the thing did not exist before and does now – then the “creation” did occur, somehow. Unless we know properties of that creation, the most we or the Aliens can clearly say is that a creation process occurred. The “who” may simply be the process, and may not even have the properties of a “who”. The Christian model of a “holy ghost” – with a presence in all of space and all powerful, could be the source of the creation, but be without a “who”-ness. I suggest that BarryA’s model be reworked, because his claims of “Alien 1” do not result from the model he presented. As a result, his assertions about “Alien 2” also cannot be arrived at from the model presented. [b]He may need to show that any creation event that resulted in us left no artifact – otherwise he is leaving open the analogous investigation that the Aliens could perform.[/b] BTW: Sometimes a BB is all that is needed for evidence – similar to the BB of finding a rabbit skeleton in Cambrian strata, should it ever happen.Q_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

Hmmm, Getawitness, and what did the genetic anaysis tell us exactly? "The new molecular based phylogeny has several important implications. Foremost among them is the disappearance of "intermediate" taxa between sponges, cnidarians, ctenophores, and the last common ancestor of bilaterians or "Urbilateria."...A corollary is that we have a major gap in the stem leading to the Urbilataria. We have lost the hope, so common in older evolutionary reasoning, of reconstructing the morphology of the "coelomate ancestor" through a scenario involving successive grades of increasing complexity based on the anatomy of extant "primitive" lineages." From an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, in 2000 Shoot Getawitness, the Genetic Data is so jumbled and antagonistic to Darwinism, that Koonin has invoked the Biological Big Bang to explain the genetic (molecular) differences. The Biological Big Bang for the major transitions in evolution Eugene V Koonin Abstract Background Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the nt description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal. I propose that most or all major evolutionary transitions that show the % e" pattern of emergence of new types of biological entities correspond to a boundary between two qualitatively distinct evolutionary phases." and in summarizing He states: In modern cosmology, there is a striking analogy to this pattern, namely, the transition from the rapid, exponential expansion (inflation) of the multiverse to the much slower expansion occurring during the nucleation of an individual universe (see below). This transition corresponds to the Big Bang of the traditional of an expanding universe. Hence I denote the transitional events in the evolution of life the Biological Big Bangs (BBBs) and refer to the rapid stages of evolution as the inflationary phase. I elaborate on this analogy in the next section. As far as Neanderthal data, The genetic study on them proved that they were to far out of range for us to be directly related to them. So how does the genetic data support evolution again getawitness?bornagain77_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Borne [40], I take it you deny common descent. If you read Patrick's post, you'll see that it gives plenty of reasons for the relative scarcity of fossils generally. There are other reasons as well: the presence of oceans over 2/3 of the world's surface, for example. That we have as many fossils as we do is pretty heartening, IMO. But apparently no evidence will convince you:
Those fossil species touted as transitionals are always assumed to be such, based on morphological similarity alone. Today we know that morphological likeness does not always coincide with genetic likeness thus bringing the whole “looks like this therefore comes from this” assumption to confusion.
In other words, if a science uses assumptions (and all science does), you can freely reject it. Second, you're wrong that forms are determined to be ancestral by morphological similarity alone. Morphological similarity is used in conjunction with a lot of other sciences, such as dating (do you reject that too?), population genetics, etc. Genetic analysis has further confirmed some relationships and modified others (for example, with regard to Neandertals).getawitness_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

getawitness stated: "This is why precisely why creationist claptrap about the alleged lack of transitional fossils and forms (both of which of course do exist) should be ignored." And what do evolutionists themselves say about the fossil record? "The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be .... We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated". Evolutionist David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History "... Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360. "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." - Niles Eldredge , "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," 1996, p.95 "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University and the leading spokesman for evolutionary theory in America prior to his recent . "As Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould pointed out almost three decades ago, the general pattern for the evolution of diversity (as shown by the fossil record) follows precisely this pattern: a burst of rapid diversity following a major ecological change, and then a gradual decline in diversity over relatively long periods of time." Allen MacNeill PhD.; (Evolutionist) Teaches introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY. The following article is unique in that is shows the principle of Genetic Entropy being obeyed in the Trilobites, over the 250 million year fossil history of their life on earth (Note: the Trilobites appeared suddenly at the very beginning of the Cambrian explosion with no evidence of transmutation from the "simple" creatures that preceded them). http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_Cambrian_Many_Forms_999.html As you can see, the fossil record is overwhelmingly characterized by suddenness and stability, as well as conforming precisely to the principle of Genetic Entropy (loss of information) when closely scrutinized for loss of diversity over long periods of time. For creatures who have lived in the ocean this fact is extremely clear, because their bones are fossilized in the ocean sediments very quickly. Unfortunately for land creatures, the fossil record is much harder to properly discern due to the rapid disintegration of animals who die on land. The large variety of hominid (man or ape-like) fossils that we do have piece-meal records of are characterized by overlapping histories of “distinctively different and stable” hominid species during the entire time, and the entire geography, each hominid species is found in the fossil record. There is never a transition between ANY of the different hominid species no matter where, or in what era, the hominid fossils are found. "If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on." David Pilbeam, Harvard University paleoanthropologist: from Richard E. Leakey's book, The Making of Mankind, Sphere Books Limited, Barcelona, 1982, p. 43. "If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving". Richard Leakey, world's foremost paleo-anthropologist, in a PBS documentary, 1990. Note: The hominid fossil record has now become even more confused, of any imaginary transitional scenario, since Dr. Leakey made this frank, but honest, admission. Israeli Researchers: 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans Apr 16, 2007 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1176152801536 New Fossil Ape May Shake Human Family Tree August 22, 2007 (note; the word "Shake" was originally "Shatter" until national geographic realized it made Darwinism look bad) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070822-fossil-ape.html http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man.html So getawitness do you still think it is just a great creationists conspiracy to fool a gullible public with their claptrap?bornagain77_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: at #14 (commenting about materialist strategy) … “they accept that there is a growing challenge, though of course they wish to frame it to their advantage.” Yes! WHOEVER FRAMES THE ISSUE, WINS THE DEBATE. By evoking the “supernatural” the game is radically altered.------ the focus shifts from “inferences about effects” to “speculations about causes.” Thus the modest goal of discerning a design is transformed into the presumptuous task of identifying an inscrutable cause— -----and not a single shot has been fired; not a single argument has been made. Further, the stage is set to 1) ask "who designed the designer" and 2) pretend that we were the ones who invited the inquiry. In confronting our adversaries, we should spend less time answering their irrational objections and more time asking them to clarify the murky and misapplied definitions that gave rise to those irrational questions.StephenB_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

getawitness: "This is why precisely why creationist claptrap about the alleged lack of transitional fossils and forms (both of which of course do exist) should be ignored." Where are they? Where are the traces of the millions of intermediates we've been hearing about for over 140 years? We have yet to see anything other than speculative claims over some creature being an intermediate to some other. We've been shown quaint, fabricated diagrams neatly lining up similar creatures, trees of life etc., but we've never seen a single piece of indisputable evidence for an intermediate of the kind required to demonstrate gradualism. Pointing to fossil remains that appear to share, morphologically speaking, traits of one creature and traits of another creature is hardly evidence. Indeed, it's like saying, "hey, this duck looks like a goose therefore ducks must have come from geese." Get the point? It's called forcing the data into the theory. So what do you do? Invent just-so narratives that go leaps and bounds through the 1000's of RM+NS steps required without stopping to examen the real complexity involved? That's Darwinisms way. Rather look for a better explanation based on the evidence. You don't try to shove the data into any theory but follow the data wherever it leads most logically. ID is doing this. We know what designed mechanisms look like through experience and abductive reasoning methods - the same used by forensics anthropologists every day to find cause of death, identity, origins etc. of cadavers. But the problem is far worse. There ought to be millions upon millions of clear intermediates. There are not. The only evidence acceptable would be the finding of 100,000's of clearly graduating species all lined up nicely together, and that for a very large part of the 1.7 million known species recorded to date (+- 13000 more each added year). Nothing even remotely close exists. There are only +- 250,000 fossils in existence to date. All fully formed and well adapted. A very far cry from the humongous numbers Darwin expected to find. Those fossil species touted as transitionals are always assumed to be such, based on morphological similarity alone. Today we know that morphological likeness does not always coincide with genetic likeness thus bringing the whole "looks like this therefore comes from this" assumption to confusion. Q: How does Darwinism explain that? A: More speculation. We supposedly share share 50% DNA with bananas. What does that prove? Here's what Darwin said: "The number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great if this theory be true." Do the math. BTW, every time you read these posts you make an unconscious design inference.Borne_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

Patrick [33], I'm not sure whether my argument is "like PZ Myers" or what it would mean if it were. Unlike Myers, I'm not an atheist.
The first step, which is currently the focus of ID since it has developed formalized design detection methods, is determining design in a standalone object.
It would be nice if those methods were developed to the point where they were more widely accepted by the rest of the scientific community. For example, I wonder if they could be used in more pragmatic fields where determining design actually has immediate consequences, such as archeology. If design detection methods started to become widely cited as such in some area of science, they would be taken more seriously. But they haven't proven their utility, or at least not as far I can tell. Selling the design argument on the grand scale should follow some way of making it useful and attractive on the small scale. Either that's not been tried or it's not been successful. As for what the "counter-scenario" ignores, it's true that historical sciences are hard to perform and that evidence decays. This is why precisely why creationist claptrap about the alleged lack of transitional fossils and forms (both of which of course do exist) should be ignored. On the other hand, we do have a lot of history and a lot of physical records. The stuff about the Rosetta stone is interesting. It's one reason why I find the SETI project problematic. Dr. Dembski has argued that SETI methods for detecting aliens are analogous to ID methods for detecting design. I think there are some problems with the analogy, but to the extent it works, it shows the poverty of SETI and not the robustness of ID. As Wittgenstein wrote, "If a lion could speak, we would not understand it."getawitness_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

D.A.Newton: "Isn’t is amazing and amusing ..." Indeed. Darwinists are the pros of circular reasoning. Their theory is built on it.Borne_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

-----"getawitness," I said the lab evidence is evidence of a designer, not of design." That's like saying the portrait shows evidence of Leonardo Da Vinci, but not of the "Mona Lisa."StephenB_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

BarryA, I like the edit, which brings the analogy much closer to the ID argument. Of course, some differences remain. For example, the VCs apparently remain VCs over a million years; they haven't evolved into different species. :-) VCs are and remain the "original" species, and so the question becomes one of abiogenesis (which is certainly where I'm most sympathetic to the ID idea). Apart from abiogenesis, we don't face that situation. We have a lot of evidence of (for example) the relatedness of all things. Features such as mitochondrial DNA suggest convincing (to me) evidence for life having been "originally breathed into a few forms or into one," to use Darwin's language. The question we face is how to understand the history of that (now more or less obvious) relatedness. That's where the scientifically interesting work happens. And my view is that there is no reason to understand that relatedness in interventionist terms, because that would require periodically suspending the normal operations of nature. BarryA, I want to be clear: I don't oppose the idea of design, or arguments for it. I'm just not convinced that it belongs in science.getawitness_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Isn’t is amazing and amusing that Q in #2 depends upon the existence of artifacts, the complexity of which is trivial with respect to Venter’s Critters, to confirm the design inference for said critters. Its like using BBs to confirm the existence of the boy who used a BB gun. Amazing!D.A.Newton_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

OK getawitness, I've edited the post to deal with your comments. Can't wait to see how you'll avoid the thrust of the argument now.BarryA_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

getawitness, In other words, like PZ Meyers you're saying that in order for design detection to be valid the designer(s) must be detected first. This is a step-by-step process...essentially you're demanding that scientists jump straight to the end in order to validate the first step. The first step, which is currently the focus of ID since it has developed formalized design detection methods, is determining design in a standalone object. The second step is to develop ID/design-compatible hypotheses that incorporate specific mechanisms for design. This is obviously a work in progress. As research continues hypotheses will be falsified by the evidence until one or several remain. Then, assuming we have a good grasp of the mechanism or other relevant evidence, we would use other methods for designER detection. BTW, your counter-scenario ignores some aspects. 1. You assume that this lab survives intact for however many years. 2. Where is the alien-to-human Rosetta stone that allows the aliens to comprehend our "leftovers"? 3. There is a limited lifespan for the data integrity of hard drives, CD/DVDs, flash drives, tapes, etc. They're very unlikely to find video or audio in a digital storage medium. Unless the aliens happen to come very soon after the extinction event they'll only have limited physical objects as evidence, like photos and printouts, which themselves are subject to decay. 4. "a strand of highly conserved DNA that said (c) 2010 Ventner Labs." Obviously there would be a standard for transcribing such legal information, but it would not be directly in English. How would the aliens know how to translate this section of DNA into English, never mind their own language? Alien 2 of 2 would likely pass this section off as "junk DNA". Bob,
Very few systems have been shown to be IC or have CSI, and the impression I have is that it is conceded that many biochemical systems did evolve through natural selection.
This is the second time recently I've seen someone say something like this. Why is it assumed that because there is a focus on relatively simple highlights that that is all there is? Also, "conceded"? ID proponents have been saying since the 1990's that Darwinian mechanisms should be capable of producing minor changes to pre-existing information. So how are any of these examples of things stated to be expected within the limits of Darwinian mechanisms a concession?Patrick_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

getawitness writes, "Well, not while I’m sober." In the words of Bluto from Animal House, "My advise to you. Drink heavily." ;-)BarryA_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

Correction: lab equipment.getawitness_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

JGuy, I said the lab evidence is evidence of a designer, not of design. But I'm assuming a kind of continuity: that is, that the leftover lab equipment resembles the technology of the alien species enough to be recognizable. Nevertheless, the remaining lab equipment would be evidence of the mechanism, of how the designer worked. The ID argument not only doesn't look for mechanism, it pretty much excludes such a search on principle.getawitness_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

getawitness:
The lab equipment, if left, would be evidence of a designer.
How do you knowit would be evidence of design? What is your reasoning?! I think BarryA's point is valiud. He is proposing a hypthetical scenario that must be possible in a materialist paradigm! That would reveal that the alien that proposed an intelligent designer was CORRECT. And his analogy shows that a bias against intelligent design has this weakness - ie. to not find the real truth and promote BAD (misleading) form of scientific inquiry & practice.JGuy_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

Actually, I was thinking that the aliens would have left the lab and started to transform the environment, and that the lab also would have been destroyed. The lab equipment, if left, would be evidence of a designer. An alien species capable of reaching earth would be able to piece together how the design happened. Again, design and designer implicated. Would they instead look at the microbes and say "these are too complicated to have evolved on their own"? Maybe it would be better to assume a longer time-scale. The Ventner-designed microbes leave the lab, and everything else gets destroyed: all evidence and traces gone. 3 billion years pass. Some of the descendants of the Ventner-described microbes evolve consciousness, and some of them come to think they're designed. It would be useful, at that point, to have something about the designer there. Say, a strand of highly conserved DNA that said (c) 2010 Ventner Labs. There was an episode of Star Trek: the Next Generation that developed a panspermia story like that. BarryA, I suppose I'm supposed to deal with the main point by sitting back, scratching my head, and saying "You're right. Profound analogy, man." Well, not while I'm sober.getawitness_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

getawitness:
BarryA, I assume that your hypothetical scenario wipes out not only all non-Ventner created life but all evidence that non-Ventner created life ever existed. You’d have to wipe out all evidence of the designer species (that is, Ventner and his type). They’d have to leave no trace whatsoever.
That's funny.. because it reveals that you are assuming that those two aliens would identify the lab equipment as intelligently designed equipment. What is your reasoning for such thinking?JGuy_{December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply