Am I the only ID proponent that doesn’t like the phrase “positive case for ID”?

_{Salvador Cordova

August 19, 2013

Intelligent Design, News

3}_{Categories
Intelligent Design
News}

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

Probably, with possible exception of Mike Gene.

My good friend and colleague Casey Luskin writes:

ID offers a strong positive argument, based on finding in nature the type of information and complexity that, in our experience, comes from intelligence alone. I will explain this positive argument further in Part B of this article. Those who claim ID is nothing more than a negative argument against evolution are misrepresenting ID. –
ID uses a positive argument based upon finding high levels of complex and specified information.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/what_is_the_the075281.html#sthash.D6IZUcb1.dpuf

I rarely disagree with Casey Luskin, and Casey echoes the majority view of ID, and I’m clearly in the minority to disagree with him.

However, “positive argument of ID” in some people’s view would mean: “we see the Designer in action creating designs in the present day, therefore the designs of life in the present were made by the same Designer we see creating designs today.” So by that definition, there isn’t a positive argument for Design. I don’t like that situation, but that’s the hand we’ve been dealt…

We can believe Stonehenge is designed because we see designers today that can make similar structures. If we saw the Designer creating new biological life forms or making planets and stars in the present day, that would be a positive case for ID in biology, but we don’t have such evidence in the present day. The only other ID proponent that seems to share my reluctance to promote ID as having a positive case is Mike Gene.

ID is mostly based on analogy and heavy amounts of negative arguments. Negative means: not by chance, not by law, not by mindless evolution.

But let me make a little nuance. Life’s resemblance to human designs is overwhelming, and in many cases surpassing of human design. That is the argument that can be made. We can also criticize mechanisms of chance, law, physics, and chemistry as being the sole source of the designs in life.

No need to start debates about whether or not ID makes positive arguments, it’s somewhat irrelevant. Purely negative arguments have been used in math, so a purely negative approach is not invalid in and of itself. Assume for the sake of argument that ID makes no positive arguments, does that somehow prove mindless evolution true? No.

NOTES:

1. Stephen Meyer unwittingly described my view of ID:
ID is a quasi scientific historical speculation with strong metaphysical overtones. I posted this just in case there are like-minded ID proponents out there that share mine and Mike Gene’s view.

Comments

Right, the hows and whys come after- by studying it and all relevant evidence. As I have been saying for many years: In the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. If someone knows any other methodology I would love to hear about it.Joe_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

What a jerk- we do NOT have to know how something was designed BEFORE we can determine it was designed.
Right. We need not know how the Antikythera mechanism was created, or even for what reason, to infer it is not a natural occurrence.TSErik_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

fg:
I have never seen any proposed mechanism on how the design was done or implemented under the ID scenario (I don’t count ‘front loading’ as a mechanisms because it makes a claim about the time of the design, not on the mechanisms).
What a jerk- we do NOT have to know how something was designed BEFORE we can determine it was designed. Only scientifically illitertate people bring that up.
Neither have I ever seen any testable predictions flowing from a proposed ID explanation, again unlike many scientific explanations I have seen presented.
Does archaeology and forensic science make testable predictions? If so can you name them? Does evolutionism make any testable predictions? What are they? fg:
2. To claim that an explanation is ‘the best’, one needs to compare it to alternatives.
Unguided evolution is a non-starter.Joe_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth:
In fact, yes, Joe. “Unguided evolution” is useless. It’s atheoretical and negative and no testable hypothesis can be derived from it.
Umm darwinism and neo-darwinism posit unguided evolution.
What we can test, however, is the theory of evolution which is very specific and has proved to extremely fruitful as a framework within which to generate hypotheses, a vast number of of which have been tested and received evidential support.
What theory of evolution? Could you please reference it so we can actually read what it says? Also it is a safe bet that you are equivocating with the word "evolution". ID is NOT anti-evolution. IOW you have no idea what is being debtated.
If you want to show that evolution was guided you’d need some kind of guidance hypothesis.
And we have that- read "Not By Chance" by Dr Lee Spetner (for a start).Joe_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

The luminous realisation that teeth were designed for chewing is pre-scientific, isn't it? The very design of our brains enables us to ponder the provenance of their design. It must wonder how it could have made such *****-up as to fashion and inhabit the skulls of those who doubt its reality.Axel_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

I don't like the phrase, 'positive case for ID', as it's damning it with faint praise. That the case should have to be made for it in fairly rigorous scientific terms, that it should have to compete with the barmy conjectures of the Entenebrement of the atheist, epistemological demi-monde, is insane; and a sorry reflection on Darwin's bitter-enders. Some knowledge is too obvious to be subsumed under the title of Science, ID being a classic example. Nature DEFINED intelligent design before Adam, or if you prefer, Lucy, was able to ponder the concept. And you can bet they would have.Axel_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Joe
So Alan Fox is admitting that unguided evolution can’t even muster a testable hypothesis and therefor is NOT scientific. Is that right, Alan?
In fact, yes, Joe. "Unguided evolution" is useless. It's atheoretical and negative and no testable hypothesis can be derived from it. Dembski tried to set it as his null, but that doesn't work, because it's far too vague to generate an expected probability distribution What we can test, however, is the theory of evolution which is very specific and has proved to extremely fruitful as a framework within which to generate hypotheses, a vast number of of which have been tested and received evidential support. None of it shows that evolution was guided; none of it shows that evolution was unguided. If you want to show that evolution was guided you'd need some kind of guidance hypothesis. Negative results don't tell you anything.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

faded_glory, have never seen any proposed mechanism on how the design was done or implemented under the ID scenario
I listed that as high on the list of good reasons to reject ID. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/good-and-bad-reasons-for-rejecting-id/ That said, I suggested that we all might see the Designer one day. At a personal (not scientific) level this may count for something: https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/holy-rollers-pascals-wager-if-id-is-wrong-it-was-an-honest-mistake/ Everyone participating at UD may see the Designer one day. We'll see (literally)...scordova_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

You are free to again ignore these objections if you can’t counter them.
These are not objections to anything I said in #54 so why should I have answered them. For example,
I have seen some) center on a mechanism to explain certain observed phenomena, I have never seen any proposed mechanism on how the design was done or implemented under the ID scenario
A couple things: First, I never said anything about a mechanism in #54 except that very rarely, one would have to conclude an intelligent agent as the cause. However, you are being very selective in the choice of your objections. I have never seen any natural mechanism for the evolution of novel complex capabilities. This is the essence of the evolution debate. So why are you not objecting to any piece of research that indicates there might be a mechanism. If you do not object there, then I have to question what your questions are about and if I should answer them. Second, there are numerous current areas in development that hope to construct cellular entities with similar capabilities to cells found in the environment. So here are potentially several mechanisms for design of new life as well as variations of existing life. This design is obviously intelligent. So there are potentially several mechanisms that involve intelligence that should lead to the design of life on the horizon. But there is no naturalistic mechanism known that could explain the origin of complex novel capabilities. So ID has potentially several mechanisms while natural evolution has none.
Many (most?) arguments for ID are probabilistic, and go to some length in trying to show how certain biological features cannot possibly have originated through unguided processes.
In order for something to be considered probable it must have appeared at least once. So far naturalistic evolution has not shown one example for the development of novel complex capabilities for for the origination of FCSI. So does it matter what the distribution is, if the probability is zero. ID research, using probabilities, explains why the probability of a natural explanation of novel complex capabilities is zero. It is not actually zero but it would take probably a few trillion universes to get to just one new one. You had better explain how the choice of distributions makes a difference when something has never occurred even once.
Since you don’t mention any specifics here I don’t see why you insist on me mentioning specifics before you deign my reply worth of discussion.
I don't have to mention specifics because it is not necessary. Every legitimate research study done in the history of mankind could be done by a person who considers Intelligent Design as a possible conclusion. Nearly all would not require that the researcher make the conclusion that the findings were best explained by the intervention of an intelligent agent. However, a fair number of studies in evolutionary biology would have the conclusion that the mechanism for the findings are unknown. In some of these studies if the proper information was collected the conclusion could be that there may have been the intervention of an intelligent agent. My guess is that most evolutionary biology research studies would lead to the following conclusion:
There is no known mechanism to explain the findings. Research continues to find an explanation.
See comment #12.jerry_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Jerry, Why don't you just drop the attitude? It is getting old already. This is what you wrote in the post I responded to:
All intelligent design is is the conclusion that certain phenomena are best explained by an intelligence and not natural processes. The phenomena are few in number and mainly have to do with origins but not all. To come this conclusion, one uses the scientific process and uses the typical tools of science. The structure and methods of the study/analysis are the same as most other scientific studies/analysis. The only difference is in the conclusions of the analysis or study. An ID person will say where appropriate that the best explanation for the data or findings is an intelligent input. An anti-ID person cannot make such a conclusion. If the best explanation is that the phenomena in question is the result of intelligent activity, then that is science. Whether the approach is called positive or negative is meaningless, it is the structure of the process that counts. Call it what you want but that is science and all most here care about. All the minutiae and nit-picking is just really meaningless to the basic process of fact presentation, analysis and logic.
Since you don't mention any specifics here I don't see why you insist on me mentioning specifics before you deign my reply worth of discussion. In any case, my beef with what you say is twofold: 1. Most scientific explanations I have come across (and although not a practicing scientist I do have an Msc degree in a natural science, so I have seen some) center on a mechanism to explain certain observed phenomena. I have never seen any proposed mechanism on how the design was done or implemented under the ID scenario (I don't count 'front loading' as a mechanisms because it makes a claim about the time of the design, not on the mechanisms). Neither have I ever seen any testable predictions flowing from a proposed ID explanation, again unlike many scientific explanations I have seen presented. I therefore am not ready to label ID 'science' as easily as you do. 2. To claim that an explanation is 'the best', one needs to compare it to alternatives. Many (most?) arguments for ID are probabilistic, and go to some length in trying to show how certain biological features cannot possibly have originated through unguided processes. However, these arguments invariably assume equiprobable distributions for the origin of the features (the tornado in a junkyard argument) which is not what evolutionary theory proposes. Secondly, I have never seen a probability computation for ID itself, so it is impossible to decide which of these two alternatives would be the more likely and therefore 'the best'. You are free to again ignore these objections if you can't counter them. fGfaded_Glory_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

F/N: 1: FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1,000 bits of complexity is a commonly observed phenomenon, with billions of cases in point. 2: Directly, it is universally seen as produced by intelligent design. 3: There are zero cases of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity being observed to cause it, where we can directly observe the cause in action. 4: On related analytical grounds, FSCO/I so constrains configs that well matched parts have to be properly arranged and coupled for function to exist, starting with text strings in English and going on to the nodes-arcs-couplings arrangements of functioning machinery. Consequently, we have deeply isolated islands of function in config spaces vastly too large for blind chance and mechanical necessity to credibly be able to find such zones. 5: The needle in haystack effect, in short. 6: So, we have an analytical reason for the contrast in performance between intelligent synthesis and suggested blind processes. 7: We have good reason to inductively infer that FSCO/I -- even when we did not see the actual causal process -- is best explained by and a reliable sign of design as cause. 8: This is not merely an analogy, save insofar as any inductive argument can be said to incorporate some degree of analogy. (In short, blanket objections to analogy are self-undercutting in a world where inductive argument is very important.) 9: The issue is in fact instantiation of an observable phenomenon, FSCO/I, and reasoning on its characteristically observed cause and related analytical considerations. 10: In short, the design inference is based on what we know about the cause of FSCO/I such as in the text string of this post and many other cases. It then argues that such is a reliable sign, and that we have good reason to infer that intelligence is best explanation for FSCO/I even when we did not or cannot directly observe it. Especially when we reflect on the limitations to the alternatives to intelligence on the gamut of solar system or observed cosmos. KFkairosfocus_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

So Alan Fox is admitting that unguided evolution can't even muster a testable hypothesis and therefor is NOT scientific. Is that right, Alan?Joe_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

So is Joe saying Mike Behe has a positive theory or hypothesis of "Intelligent Design"? Is that the name?Alan Fox_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

'ID is mostly based on analogy and heavy amounts of negative arguments. Negative means: not by chance, not by law, not by mindless evolution.' As regards analogy, Salvatore, the antitheses of 'not by chance', 'not by law', 'not by mindless evolution' would, under your classification of 'negative', be the corresponding positives - which he discounts, as you do: 'Assume for the sake of argument that ID makes no positive arguments, does that somehow prove mindless evolution true? No.' Seeing design in progress would not, it seems to me, be an argument, but an observation, Salvatore. However, as regards even the argument from design, 'if it quacks like a duck... etc.' When analogy is all-pervasively applicable, as, indeed, is the case in respect of nature and design to the nth degree: QED, it seems to me.Axel_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

For starters, Alan: Yes, Intelligent Design is both testable and falsifiable. Intelligent Design relies on Newton's First Rule, meaning agencies are only added when REQUIRED. Therefor to refute ID and any given design inference all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it. IOW all evotards have to do to stop ID cold is to actually step up and A) produce a testable hypothesis for their position and B) produce positive, supporting evidence. However all evos can do is cry foul and say "blind, undirected processes is a strawman!"- yet it is a given that natural selection, genetic drift and HGT are all blind, purposeless processes and all mutations are undirected-> that is given the current "theory" of evolution. IOW evos are so clueless they don't even understand the theory they try to defend! So there you have it ole evos- just start supporting your position and ID will go away. How is ID tested? As in positive evidence? 1- See above as the way to the design inference is THROUGH the blind watchmaker 2- The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components." So if nature, operating freely cannot account for it AND it meets that criteria, some agency is required and we infer design (or at least agency involvement).Joe_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

Yes, I do- do you have a testable hypothesis wrt unguided evolution? No, you do not. Ya see Alan, unless you are willing to ante up there isn't any use in discussing science with you as all you will do is handwave whatever we say away. So put up or shut up. (It is a given that you will do neither)Joe_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

Do you have their name, Joe?Alan Fox_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT}

The reason I mentioned probabilities is that an awful lot of the discussion on ID here and elsewhere is about the probabilities of evolution forming certain biological features, concluding that it can’t have, and claiming this to be a scientific approach.
I suggest you go to evolutionary biology and ask them how biological features arose. I am not aware of any research that can point to any process that can be substantiated as a cause for the origin of complex biological novelties, one form of biological features. If they use probabilities, then I would look at how they are doing it and then ask your question of them. It sounds like your problem is with them. I also just suggested that anyone who has an interest in this issue go to a thread where Kirk Durston and his work were featured and ask him about your concerns. He certainly uses probabilities. You claim
my (admittedly limited) experience, science doesn’t usually claim that explanation A is better than explanation B by reason of probabilistic arguments. Thinking back to my own science education (long ago and I am not a practising scientist), a scientific explanation focusses on a set of observations, and then proposes a mechanism by which the observations can be explained.
but then say
We have seen attempts to calculate the probability of certain biological phenomena, but unfortunately these are always based on the assumption that they occurred as an outcome of a random equi-probable process. Under that assumption, indeed many biological features are highly unlikely.
How do you with limited knowledge know that what you ask is not gobbledygook? Why should anyone answer such a comment as yours when you self proclaim your ignorance. I suggest that you spell out with specifics why you make your suggestions especially when some events never occurred and with common sense would have a probability of zero in any distribution. As I said it sounds like your concerns is with what evolutionary biologists are doing and your are implying that what they are practicing is pseudo-science.jerry_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

The positive case for ID is the same as the positive evidence for an artifact, a murder, and ETs-> ie cause and effect relationships. OTOH the positive case for unguided evolution exists only in the bitty minds of materialists.Joe_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT}

Sal:
We can believe Stonehenge is designed because we see designers today that can make similar structures.
So all rock piles are designed because we see people creating rock piles? So all deaths are murders because we see people killing other people?Joe_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
Does anyone have a hypothesis of ‘Intelligent Design’ that we could test or falsify?
Yes, OTOH no one has a hypothesis for unguided evolution that we could test or falsify.Joe_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth:
We cannot prove that the system is “unguided” – what we can show is that is that unguided systems seem to fit the data quite well.
Yet no one has been able to do that wrt biology.Joe_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

“The only other ID proponent that seems to share my reluctance to promote ID as having a positive case is Mike Gene.”
He just doesn’t think ‘Design’ can be proven by natural science. Sadly, much of his efforts are now spend on anti-new atheism. I guess he realised he couldn’t make a contribution to ‘Intelligent Design Science’ and gave up trying.
I was a little disappointed , having pressed Mike Gene a few times at Telic Thoughts about his religious motivation, that he was so evasive and yet subsequently "outed" himself at his blog "shadowtolight.wordpress.com". Not that it matters to me but there seemed at one time an effort to disassociate Mike's ID from his world view. His self-published work "The Design Matrix" was supposed to be an exposition of Mike's version of "Intelligent Design" but, having bought and read it, I found it empty of any evidence to support his "front-loading" idea. I raised that with him (at BioLogos) and he said this will be rectified in a subsequent volume. I don't think it's been published, yet.Alan Fox_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT}

Jerry, You are right, you did not mention probabilities in your post so my words were not in that respect directly addressed to you. The reason I mentioned probabilities is that an awful lot of the discussion on ID here and elsewhere is about the probabilities of evolution forming certain biological features, concluding that it can't have, and claiming this to be a scientific approach. My criticism addressed that line of thinking. Since you said that ID uses the tools and methods of science I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that you were referring to those type of arguments. If you were talking about other type of ID work that you consider scientific, I wouldn't mind some examples. I don't have a problem with the use of probabilities in science, but with the way they are used in the ID debate, as per my previous post. fGfaded_Glory_{August 20, 2013
August
08
Aug
20
20
2013
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT}

If anyone has a problem with the way some pro ID people use probabilities in research, then I suggest they go to https://uncommondescent.com/biophysics/kirk-durston-a-common-either-or-mistake-both-darwinists-and-id-theorists-make/ and search for "probab" to find various uses of the concept of "probability" on this thread and specify where such uses are not valid. Then these instances and rationale for their invalidity can be used to ask Kirk Durston about these uses the next time he is commenting here. The resulting discussion might form the basis for a more informative discussion in the futurejerry_{August 20, 2013
August
08
Aug
20
20
2013
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

I don’t think the poster at 56 has a “problem with the use of probabilities” in evolutionary biology.
Then he should not address his comment to me. I just did not mention probabilities and the commenter went on and on about probabilities. It was a non sequitur. If anyone has a problem, then they should spell it out with examples or specifics or ask questions. One cannot deal with generalities.jerry_{August 20, 2013
August
08
Aug
20
20
2013
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

OK, then I don't understand your question. I don't think the poster at 56 has a "problem with the use of probabilities" in evolutionary biology. It sounds as though s/he has the same problem as I do with the way that IDers compute the probability of a target under the null hypothesis of non-design.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 20, 2013
August
08
Aug
20
20
2013
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Every single evolutionary biology study that uses statistical data analysis will use the term “probability”. That means every single phylogenetic study, every population genetics study, every molecular biology study, every empirical study, any study that involves any kind of sampling.
You are addressing the wrong person. See #56. This is the commenter who has a problem with the use of probabilities.jerry_{August 20, 2013
August
08
Aug
20
20
2013
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

Jerry:
I am sorry but did I use any form of the term “probab…” anywhere in my comment. Has any evolutionary biology study ever used any form of the expression “probab…” anywhere. I would take it up with those authors who do since you seem to believe that use of this technique is invalid.
Every single evolutionary biology study that uses statistical data analysis will use the term "probability". That means every single phylogenetic study, every population genetics study, every molecular biology study, every empirical study, any study that involves any kind of sampling.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 20, 2013
August
08
Aug
20
20
2013
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply