Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Twist on the Infinite Regress Argument

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
Bob: Interesting points. I suspect though that BarryA was getting at the characteristic issues and concerns of science qua science. Scientific findings do give rise to further questions, but for the moment these are worldview level questions. For the future, perhaps someone may find a way top make these questions subject to the mechanisms of science, at least in part. That would be a very interesting development -- especially if we can come up with reliable empirically anchored ways to characterise the identity, nature and intent of designers from empirical traces. [Maybe the folks over at Langley have been working on it, but that we are not likely to know about for the better part of 50 years . . . like Enigma and Ultra.] Already, too, just the possibility that there are systems that empirically exhibit CSI, IC or OC [and IMHCO there are evidently a lot more than you seem to accept] has led to very interesting results and a significant impact on what we see as possible or actual in our world. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT
The ONLY conclusion that can be drawn about the intelligent agent is that it/he/she is capable of designing immensely complex biological systems. Notice that it says nothing about the nature or purpose of the intelligent agent.
I would disagree with your conclusion, Barry, I think the conclusion does say something about the nature and purpose of the intelligent agent. Obviously, as you state in the previous sentence, one can conclude that the intelligent agent was capable of designing complex systems, which puts some limits on the possibilities (it rules out most politicians, for example :-)). But we can also conclude that the intelligent designer wanted to create complex systems. i.e. there was a motive too (something that can be explored further). More importantly, I think it places limits on the designer. 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. In that case, I think one can conclude that the designer wanted to create complex systems with CSI, rather than ones that didn't have it. Alternatively, one might want to argue that the designer also designed systems that don't exhibit CSI, in which case one has a designer who's designs can't always be detected. At this point, there's really no material difference between this and claiming omnipotence in the designer. I guess my underlying problems is that as far a as I can see, the only way of avoiding a theory of intelligent design that accepts Last Thursdayism is to put limits on the designer, i.e. to start making claims about what the designer can and cannot (or did and did not) do. I would like to see these claims being made explicit, and dealt with. My feeling is that if ID is to be a science, it has to tackle these problems head on. BobBob O'H
December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT
H'mm: Gentlefolks, the discussion here triggered my mind, and so over at the core issue thread, I responded by raising some of the implications and underlying issues at post no 40. Thought you'd like to know, Frost. (Very impressed with your work.) BarryA, I think Frost is right that the WDTD argument becomes very interesting when we shift from sleight-of-mind distractive debate tactics to the ground of comparative difficulties and demand that evo mat advocates put their cards on "the inference to best explanation across comparative difficulties table" too. When that is done, as the post on the other thread raises, it soon emerges that they have not at all escaped the force of the WDTD argument. For, they have not accounted for the nature of the "dirt" in the wider cosmos as a whole, and the sub-cosmos making lottery machine that allegedly gave rise to our life-habitable cosmos by chance variations in the required physics. Quoting myself -- ouch on the humility issue! -- we can see that . . .
[t]his is the “get your own dirt” issue — no “dirt” no material basis for the observed complexity of material bodies. So is the underlying reality a wider cosmos as a whole with a mechanism that throws up random variations in physical laws that in turn throws up sub-cosmi; at least one of which “just” happens to be life-friendly? If so, whence the “machinery” for the supercosmic lottery — is that not an instance of extreme organised complexity, capable of extremely fine adjustment? [That is, the materialist “explanation” has NOT escaped the issue of organised complexity! It has just managed to rhetorically distract attention by pointing elsewhere, and ducking the philosophical duty of comparative difficulties across competing explanations.] Or, do we have an intelligent ultimate being who [possibly exhibits the observed pattern of intelligent beings -- of being complex unities, i.e at once complex AND simple (being individuals with a self)] created the cosmos in which we live [and if he wanted to he can use multiverses too . . .]?
So, now, what best makes coherent and elegantly simple sense of the facts? Why? GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 2, 2007
December
12
Dec
2
02
2007
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT
I agree with everything you said. My position is that ID makes claims about reality. The theory as I understand it is compatible with a universe that is infinite or ever regressing. This is simply a position of logic and one that I have pointed out can not be ruled out. While the theory says nothing about the designer except that it is of an intelligent agency, the theory is compatible with an infinite regressive universe just as it is with a God or alien intelligence or a natural intelligence or especially a God that IS finite that has no designer. This is because such a God could exist partly outside of the physical nature of the universe and therefore is not subject to the universal regress by our methods based on inter-universal observed intelligence. My point is a political and philosophical one. Fist philosophically I say ID is compatible with the infinite regress argument or that the argument does nothing to restrict redefine or disprove ID. My political point was as an ID advocate when someone asks me who designed the designer I say intelligence. If they then ask the question again I say what do you think designed the designer? Then they say they dont know and I say well at least I have a theory. If they say they think that there is no designer I say then we have nothing incommon to discuss on this point. I agree with the site this this argument gets old no boubt. But Im new had had no idea about the policy becuase I couldn't find it. I welcome the WDTD arhument by darwinian evolutionists because we have at least one possible answer for it which is intelligence and they have no answer at all. Therefore WDTD is a winning as well as a whining issue for ID. Sorry BarryA for being repetitive and thanks for entertaining my perspective.Frost122585
December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT
Frost122585 I reiterate idnet.com.au's comment. You are welcome here; I did not mean to imply that you are not. You write: "If the designer is not known then the natural laws that govern that designer are not known either. Therefore it does not logically follow that restrictions on the designer, such as having a designer, are a “necessary” exponent of the theory of ID." ID is a scientific theory. It posits, broadly speaking, that non-intelligent causes (i.e., chance and necessity) have never been observed to cause either irreducible complexity (“IC”) nor complex specified information (“CSI”), and it is demonstrably astronomically improbable that they ever could cause either IC or CSI. Therefore, whenever IC and CSI are observed, chance and necessity are inadequate explanations for the observation. Intelligent agents, on the other hand, produce IC and CSI routinely. Even the simplest biological systems are rich in IC (at many layers) and CSI. Therefore, intelligent agency is the best explanation for the cause of the IC and CSI observed to exist within biological systems. That is as far as the theory goes. The ONLY conclusion that can be drawn about the intelligent agent is that it/he/she is capable of designing immensely complex biological systems. Notice that it says nothing about the nature or purpose of the intelligent agent. It says nothing about when or how the intelligent agent acted. It says nothing about whether the agent is natural or supernatural, personal or impersonal, or even whether he/she/it still exists. That is the point of my post. Whenever someone asks an ID theorist any question about the designer, the question is unanswerable by ID theory qua ID theory. This is not to say that many ID theorists don’t have personal views about that subject. Obviously, they do. But those views are not part of the theory. Does this answer your question or am I misunderstanding you?BarryA
December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT
Thanks a bunch!Frost122585
December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT
Moderation policy https://uncommondescent.com/comment-policy/idnet.com.au
December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT
Hey Frost122585 you are welcome. Your thoughts are very interesting and helpful. It is just that people in the past have played the "who designed the Designer" game ad nauseum.idnet.com.au
December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT
Could I get a little help finding the web site's moderation policy? Sorry.Frost122585
December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT
BarryA, no problemo I had not read the policy yet. I have no desire or intrest in boring anyone at UD. But if my argument is wrong I wish I could see why. If the designer is not known then the natural laws that govern that designer are not known either. Therefore it does not logically fallow that restrictions on the designer, such as having a designer, are a "necessary" exponent of the theory of ID. It is therefore not an argument against ID. I am sure my logic is right because we infer design based on our own experience with known intelligences and this only allows us to search the effects of naturalistic intelligences but when the results of the search do not yield a material designer as in biology it then becomes possible to postulate that an unembodied intelligence did the designing. And as unembodied designer it more or may not play by all of the rules of the theory. This would not be the case however if we could point to examples of SC in the world that was not the result of prior intelligence. If we could the idea of an unembodied intelligence would break the rule of Occam’s Razor and become a superfluous hypotheses. But we cannot. What is wrong with an infinite God or repeating intelligence? ID does not speculate on the nature of the designer. In the computer simulater, the programer, a human, is the designer and displays SC therfore would too reuqire ID. The humans deisnger we dont know so it may or may not have a designer. Therefore, I maintain that the WDTD argument is perfectly consistent with ID. I think it is a legitimate mode of inquiry and is in fact the one used in No Free Lunch to explain why specified complexity can not be purchased without prior intelligence. For the record I don’t think a logical argument exists that is not compatible with ID. Feel free to set me straight if I made a logical error though, that is if I’m not boring you. After all you brought up the point originally and that is why I responded to it. It is the topic of the article. And yes, of course as a prime contributor I understand that you have priveleges the rest of the community does not have. Now, as you wish I will no longer comment on this topic. Ever, Ever again. Unless by total accident. With honest respect, your fellow Uncommon Dissenter, Frost122585Frost122585
December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT
Frost122585: what you write is very interesting, but in the end I agree with BarryA that the "who designed the designer" argument is, if not stupid, completely wrong and out of context. Let's say that the argument assumes that intelligent is a byproduct of complexity. I that assumption is right, then the argument has some sense, but still ID concepts are valid. In that context, ID would be perfectly apt to detect design, but the problem would arise to identify the complex designer and explain its complexity. So, to sum up: a) If the assumption that intelligence is (always) the byproduct of complexity is right and b) If the ID procedures to detect design in biological beings are right (and they are!) then c) An infinite regress arises. But that infinite regress is not evidence that b) is wrong. It is evidence that a) is wrong. And, indeed, a) is wrong. Assuming that intelligence is (always) the byproduct of complexity is absolutely arbitrary. It is a compulsive assumption only in a purely materialistic context. In other words, it seems obvious to materialists only because of their irrational faith that only matter exists. But if we assume, perfectly reasonably, that consciousness and its attributes (including intelligence) are not the byproduct of material complexity (in other words, if we reject the AI theory), then the scenario changes completely. We have evidence, in biological beings, of consciousness which expresses itself through increasingly complex material forms. We have evidence, in human beings, of intelligent consciousness which expresses itself through a most complex material form, and introduces new design in ither naterial forms. We can, perfectly reasonably, make the hypothesis that intelligent consciousness may exist independently of a complex material form. That's, exactly, the hypothesis that a God, or anyway some spiritual being, may exist. That hypothesis is not stupid. It is not anti-scientific. It has been the main cognitive hypothesis of mankind practically forever, and still is. The important fact is to acknowledge tha, in this context, a "purely spiritual" intelligent is usually considered as a simple entity, for many logical and cognitive reasons. In other words God, for most religious points of views, is simple, not complex. He/She/It is a simple fundamental reality, perfectly able to create complexity. So, to come back to the regress argument, let's see what are the consequences of a correct ID inference, according to the two main possible hypotheses about the designer of biological complexity: 1) The designer is an intelligent complex material being or beings, let's say the classical ET. That's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. It indeed "pushes back" the problem, but it is a very interesting and scientific way of pushing it back. If we were designed by ETs, shouldn't science be interested in discovering that and going on in the scientific inquiry? Certainly it should. But, certainly, in that scenario the problem of "who designed the designer" remains: it becomes a true scientific problem (who designed the ETs?)and it does create an infinite regress problem, which has to be met in some way by any materialistic approach. Because the alternative explanation, that biological complexity came out of itself, is simply wrong. 2) The designer is some kind of "spiritual" being(s), is simple, and intelligent, and conscious. He/She/It can create complexity, but is no complex. He/She/It can interact with phenomena, but is not necessarily inside phenomena. That's, in essence, a spiritual hypothesis for the Designer. That hypothesis perfectly explains the origin of design in living beings (and, obviously, in the whole universe). And it does not, in any way, create an infinite regress, because there is no complexity in the Designer which remains to be explained through material ways and causations. I would like to affirm, in patrial dissent with what somebody else has said, that this is not an "irrational" hypothesis. It is, indeed, a very "rational" one, one that has been sincerely believed and supported by most rational thinkers throughout history. And if that hypothesis is true, is the consequence that science has nothing more to say about biological design? Is that a science stopper? Absolutely not. Even if the designer is "spiritual", and even if, in the ultimate sense, He/She/It may be out of the reach of scientific explanation (an assumption, but at least a very reasonable one), the "design" can certainly be explored from the side of science, both about its nature and structure and about the modalities of its introduction in natural history. In other words, even if the designer cannot be scientifically "explained", certainly the designer's interactions with phenomena must be observable, at least from our side of the interaction, that is phenomena. And that observation and analysis is, still, the role of science.gpuccio
December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT
Frost122585, sorry. You are wrong on this one. Look at the web site's moderation policy under "arguments not to use." The very first one is "who designed the designer?" I quote: "Put a Sock In It Arguments we’ve heard many times before and don’t want to hear again. If you insist on boring us with them you won’t be with us for long. Many of these can be found in the Pandamonium game. If you want to wage battles with these arguments go there and fight the pandas instead of us. Who Designed the Designer This argument points out that, by inferring a designer from complexity in machines, the designer must also be complexity. Why? Well just because it seems like he/she/it would. This of course then plunges into an infinite loop of who designed the designer. This infinite loop makes Intelligent Design somehow impossible. The really weird part is the argument is broadcast to us using a computer that was the result of intelligent design. Intelligent design does not speak to the nature of designers anymore than Darwin’s theory speaks to the origin of matter."BarryA
December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT
"who designed the designer?" is as far removed from science as can be. It's a shallow philosophical argument which betrays a paranoid atheistic agenda.shaner74
December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
This thought experiment brings into relief the stupidity of the “who designed the designer” argument. I don't think the who designed the designer argument is stupid at all. It does however reveal the incorrect locial criticism that the argument makes. This is a very impotant question. It is the essence of the design inference because the way in which we infer ID is through specified complexity. Secondly, No Free Lunch theorem states that when we see SC we can infer an intelligence played a role in its construction. People display SC and therefore according to the theory must have a designer. So I don’t think that the question is stupid at all. In fact it is at the core of ID. The problem with the argument is it is used as a tool to create the false impression that the ID argument is false, incomplete, contradictory or just pushing the problem back. The only allegation among thses which holds any water is the “pushing the problem back argument.” What is incorrect about this argument is the word "just." ID doesn’t "just" push the problem back, it "explains" the origins of certain phenomena (SC) and through this yields greater insight into the nature of origins in general. The methodological materialist will approach science differently that the ID theorist. ID opens doors of inquiry while MM sticks its head in the sand. So I think as ID advocates we need to respond to this argument by saying “That’s a great question! What do you think designed the designer?” And when they pose no answer say “well I think that intelligence clearly played a role.” If they say “I don’t think anything did.” answer “well that is a possibility.” And if they say “I reject the fact that there is even a designer involved.” Say “well then your question has no merit.” After all, how can you ask a serious question about something you deny even exists. It is certainly a possibility that the designer was designed as we can posit the constraints of our natural laws, but to presuppose so would be coming to a conclusion not fully supported by the evidence. There is no proof that the designer is constrained to these laws. The argument can be made that since all of the ID that we experience first hand requires intelligent causation/intervention, that we should then, based on all the observable data used to formulate the theory, presuppose a designer of the designer. ID however is not about revealing the identity of designers. ID is not about “finding” designers in nature. ID is about detecting their handiwork or effects. ID is about inferring design based upon what we know about the effects of intelligence. If we look at statisitics and conculude that there is some fraud involved we may have n idea who committed the fraud yet at the same time we can infer the activity of intelligence. Therefore, all ID correlates is the role of intelligence with SC. We know of no natural source that can do this without intelligent causation and therefore the logic would seem to say that the designer needs to be designed itself but we ignore the logical possibility that we may one day find a case of SC or a designing intelligence that appears to not require ID to account for itself. Therefore, without knowing the identity and nature of designer first hand we are not logically forced to speculate on its designer.Frost122585
December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
getawitness, there's always a way to avoid dealing with the main point isn't there?BarryA
December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
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." This, of course is easy enought to achieve. It turns out that Craig Venter was on a spacecraft heading for distant realms at the time. (The earth had become uninhabitable because of global warming.) The new lifeform he created was proving deadly to the occupants of the spacecraft, so it was ejected to land on a lifeless planet. The equation here is not one of "is this what happened?" The equation is, "if this is how we got here, is science incapable of detecting that we are designed?" Now, the physics department will point out that their case for the big bang is pretty strong. They will conjecture that time itself began at the point of the bang. If they are correct, infinite regression of organisms like us is impossible. (Panspermia.org, which holds that a similar scenerio to this did happen argues that the big bang theory is a bunch of hot air.) Yet the point remains that science should be able to detect design without any a-priori knowledge of the designer. "You're not alowed to postulate a designer" is falisfied by this argument.bFast
December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
Getawitness, we are definately not trying to find out who the designer is with ID. That is the whole point. We are finding design, not the designer.Collin
December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
Collin, the point is that history leaves traces. In any normal history, a later scientist would say "they were designed, and probably by the Venterians" (or whatever). Another might say "I think they were designed by horses." But for the question of "Who is the designer?" to be meaningless, we would have to assume an absolute break in history with no way of accessing the past. Otherwise, the question of "are they designed" is inextricably entangled in "who designed them?"getawitness
December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
Great point Barry. Getawitness, Fine, all of that evidence is gone. Who cares. You miss the point.Collin
December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
Something has always existed. If "it" is time-based, there is an infinite regress, which is irrational to us. If "it" is not time-based, then "it" exists in a reality utterly unlike ours, is still irrational to us. Reason has its limits. Rationalism ultimately fails. The Big Ontological Question cannot be answered by appeals to Reason. This is a fact to be faced. Deal with it.mike1962
December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
BarryA, I like what you've done with this post. Actually, I owe a tip o' the hat to MikeGene, an "online personality whose clear-thinking and lucid prose has been praised by those open and closed to the concept of intelligent design," to quote ResearchID.org. MikeGene explored this aspect of the infinite regress argument here: http://telicthoughts.com/scifi-and-id/ p.noyola, there wouldn't be "proof" of ID...there isn't now. But there would presumably be evidence of it, as there is now. (Of course in this scenario, we happen to know the answer...) RM & NS designed Venteer?? Isn't that what's being debated here? (A typical Darwinista approach to the question, it seems.)Lutepisc
December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
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.getawitness
December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
To say "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." is a mistak in intepreting the scenario presented. The virus hypotehtically "wipes out all life on earth except for Venter’s critters." It does not destroy Ventners office, the buildings, the records, the surface of Earth, or all artifacts surrounding the creation of the life form. Artifacts will remain. This means that Alien 1 will likely be able to validate his claim through archeological, paleontologial, and physical investigations. He will be able to show that the life was crated through mechanisitc processes, and quite likely be able to find that it was created by Venter. If fact, by investigating the evidence surrounding his premize, Alien 1 will be answering Alien 2's point - he will find the designer of this life form. His design inference will be proven, and details about it will have been demonstrated.Q
December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
Let me predict what the materialists will say: 1) How did 'Alien 1' infer a designer? What 'proof' is there that design was involved? (In this hypothetical, we witnessed the design, but Aliens 1 & 2 didn't. 2) Mutation and Natural Selection 'designed' Venter! Then it will be the same old argument all the way back, won't it?p.noyola
December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply