Chance, Law, Agency or Other?

_{Barry Arrington

May 19, 2008

Intelligent Design}

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

Suppose you come across this tree:

Tree Chair

You know nothing else about the tree other than what you can infer from a visual inspection.

Multiple Choice:

A. The tree probably obtained this shape through chance.

B. The tree probably obtained this shape through mechanical necessity.

C. The tree probably obtained this shape through a combination of chance and mechanical necessity.

D. The tree probably obtained this shape as the result of the purposeful efforts of an intelligent agent.

E. Other.

Select your answer and give supporting reasons.

Comments

If you observe up from the trunk, you will immediately see the familiar menorah. This clearly shows an example of cooption, further it answers the age old question -- which comes first, the menorah or Hanukkah. We can now confirm that the jewish people found natural menorahs in the about 3000 BCE and developed a whole ritual tale around it. Like get real!bFast_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

Let's start off with what we're quantifying. We are looking at a rotary flagellum commonly found in E. coli. We go with something simple, a 35 gene flagellar motor (one which Scott Minnich has proven to require all 35 of those genes) which because of gene size in an E. coli the flagellum is thus coded for by 49,000 base pairs. The total amount of base pairs in the E. coli as a whole is about 4.7 million. Follow me so far?F2XL_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill, (48) I realize that we are getting dangerously close to your cutoff of 100 comments, and that others have at least partly addressed your comment. However, I would like to return to a specific set of statements you made.
. . . if ID is valid, aren’t both the “chair tree” and a “natural tree” designed? Indeed, I believe that virtually all of the commentators here would agree. In that case, how useful is the so-called “explanatory filter”, as clearly it cannot distinguish between the level of design exhibited by the object in the photograph and the “natural” objects with which it is compared? Indeed, if ID “theory” is valid, it seems likely that essentially all living objects and processes (and formerly living, but now dead ones, such as corpses and fossils) are designed, or are artifacts produced by designed entities.
Implied in your comments seems to be an assumption that multiple layers of design cannot be distinguished, and/or that the distinction is not useful. If so, that would seem to be a quite indefensible assumption. For example, if we sail into Sydney harbor and see plastic flowers forming the letters "WELCOME TO SYDNEY". it is reasonable to conclude (1) the letters were designed, (2) the plastic flowers were designed, and (3) the designer of the flowers may have had nothing significant to do with the designer of the letters. Thus two levels of design can be distinguished that are essentially independent. If real flowers are designed, a similar argument can be made for the essential independence of the use of real flowers and their original growth. The tree chair is then simply another example of an artifact which is designed twice, and the two levels of design can be distinguished. Saying that something is designed is not automatically a way of throwing up one's hands and quitting on the question of how or why. In fact, this distinguishing between levels of design has very practical consequences. A baseball bat, a rolling pin, and a hammer are all designed objects. WHile it may be difficult to assign a precise number of CSI bits to each object, it seems clear that each object (especially if the bat has a logo engraved on it) passes the minimum number, whatever that is. All three can be swung at a head with enough force to cause damage, and in some cases death. That also can, in the appropriate circumstances, pass the threshold of the design inference, in which case the designer is likely to find him/herself behind bars if not dead. But the two design inferences are at least partly separable. The maker of the hammer or rolling pin is not likely to join the malefactor. So important distinctions can be made between different levels of design. The real problem that is going on here is illustrated by another example of double, or in this case triple, design. The World Trade Center was undoubtedly designed. Airplanes are designed, junkyard tornado theories to the contrary notwithstanding. I remember just getting ready to finish my shift when I was called to see television pictures of the World Trade Center North Tower in flames, from where an airplane had hit it. I remember the commentators saying that this was a terrible tragedy, and wondering what had happened, and muttering, "You idiots! Somebody did that deliberately." Then when the South Tower was hit, the commentators started asking "You don't suppose it might be some terrorist?" With time, that has become (with good reason) the conventional wisdom. The problem with recognizing design early on, when it conceivably might have made a difference, was simple; nobody wanted to believe that such design was possible, because it would change how they viewed the world, and would change their actions in ways that they didn't want to change them. In the same way, there are those who do not wish to see the obvious design in trees, people, starfish, and bacteria, because it will change how they view the world and might have a major impact on their actions. Otherwise, why would Dawkins have insisted for decades that all the evidence for design is bogus, when he knew that intelligent design was a reasonable explanation for the origin of life? He was afraid of where it would go if he admitted the truth. He was afraid that if he gave an inch, design theory would take a mile. And so he refused to give even the well-justified inch. As long has he could portray design as unscientific, he had a strong defense against the idea of a God who could "intervene" in nature. Now that he has admitted that one cannot rule out design on scientific grounds, the question of the identity of the designer starts suggesting answers that are hard to avoid, but which he very much would not like to deal with. This is not a question of science versus religion, as is commonly portrayed from that side, but rather a question of anti-theism versus science.Paul Giem_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

"Aren't we all. It is funny how ID-critics will use the objection, get painted into a corner and get suddenly quiet, then bring it up again on a later thread." It's like reading a short biography of what happens when debates run rampant on Youtube, or any other site. I feel the same way when people insist that evolution doesn't have a "goal" of producing something. You ask for elaboration on what those other outcomes might be and they leave, and repeat the same argument on another thread/video. I guess truth can be a hard pill to swallow. "The first step is to focus on the instructions, not the final result, since very simple instructions can lead to extremely complex things (such as the mathematical formula that produces the Mandelbrot set). For the flagellum, this would be the stretches of DNA that code for the various components, but also include parts that code for its construction. It would be reasonable NOT to include any of the machinery used for transcription, etc., as that is held "in common" with all other DNA-based processes and constructs." I agree, when I quantify the likelihood of a structure in biology coming about by material means, I stick with just the instructions, kind in the way one would calculate the odds of getting windows vista by seeing what the binary code would be for it. In the case of the flagellum, that's what I do. It's a little different from how Dembski does it, but in either case you get the same general result. "Yes, I know we’ve gone through this before. But I’ve yet to see a satisfactory answer." I think I can satisfy that Bob. Allen I agree with everything you say of empiricism, and I think I better address both you and Bob on the following: "Still waiting to be shown such an analysis for the E. coli flagellum…" Folks, I would like the honor of taking it upon myself to show these guys how the "X" filter and CSI can both be used to infer design as the cause for the flagellum. But before I do so, both of you need a little background information on what I'm doing. I'm taking the Explanatory Filter (what I call the "X" filter) and applying it to complex specified information (or CSI). The CSI we will be looking at is the genetic information that codes for a flagellum commonly found in E. coli. Allen and Bob, do each of you follow me so far? PLEASE DO NOT BLOCK THESE PEOPLE UNLESS THEY RESORT TO NAME CALLING OR DRIFTING OFF TOPIC! I just want to give them an idea of how it's done.F2XL_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

Bob -- Please, show don’t tell. How would you infer design? What process would you go through? If you need to use CSI, how would you calculate this? Bob, A fair point and before I address it I want to go back to the one I was making to be clear. You have a fallen log (or dead horse) and you sit on it. It's a chair. Hence from what you know about chairs you can't infer that this is a chair since you know just about anything can be a chair. However, there are things that you know are specifically (note SPECIFICally) designed (note designed) for sitting. They have backrests, armrests, fit the contours of the body, provide distance from the ground for the body etc. So you see this thing and assume design. Further we know that trees, by necessity, don't grow this way. Further we recognize that it is very improbable that chance made this thing grow in such a fashion (point to ponder would the chance be greater for this grow as it did or for life to form through the meshing of inanimate atoms? I dare say the latter). So it is fair to say this thing is designed. But suppose you never saw a chair, would you presume design? Probably not. You need the knowledge of design to assume design. Which gets us to life. DNA meshes well with what we know from experience about conveying information whether it be alphabets or computer code. If we just saw DNA as a pattern of molecules and never made the correlation between DNA and information would we consider design? Again probably not but the more we understand about how information works, the greater traction ID gets.tribune7_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, the math is at a bare minimum. The main purpose was to develop a working conceptual framework, with simple mathematical concepts to illustrate certain points. That said, if the framework moves forward, I fully expect the math to get more complex.JJS P.Eng._{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill, Thanks for making the point about not having to identify the designer to identify design. Someday maybe enough people will think well enough that this and "who designed the designer" can wind up in the ash can where they belong. On your other point: can fingerprint analysis be considered robust enough to help solve crimes where it is applicable without the need for it to be applicable in each and every crime scene? Of course, this leaves open the question of whether it is ever applicable and useful. But that case does not hinge upon your current demands.Charlie_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

JJS P.ENG. I'm glad you are willing to see where this trail leads. I don't have the math background to flesh it out in any meaningful detail but I wish you the best, and would like to know your findings. Thus I am saving your blog address for future reference.bornagain77_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

I believe there has been three ways to infer design, CSI which has a problem because some people use it to refer to every designed entity, IC which Behe elaborated on and till today there has not been any valid counter arguments other than speculation and finally OC or organized complexity where individual complex objects interact with each other for functional results. The cell is one of the best examples of OC. There is a constant harping from people like Bob O'H on how to calculate CSI but the real issue is how big the exponents are and not that they are big or not. If CSI is limited to those systems that refer to other functional systems such as computer programs and machine operations, alphabets and language and DNA and proteins then the numbers are so astronomical it is inane to challenge them. So Bob, while there may not be a precise number to quantify CSI, the number is so large that it is meaningless to challenge it as not being large enough to be the result of chance. Nit pick away but you know and we know the specific number is incredibly large for each case of CSI. Pick a protein and the instructions that refer to it. Do the calculations and show us how this could result from chance by a process of your choice. Lay out the argument for chance and then maybe we can have a discussion that is not nit picking over trivialities. I find it ironic that an evolutionary biologist such as Bob or biologists such as specs or leo never defend their positions with facts but who seem to delight in finding slight inconsistencies in often minor arguments by proponents of ID. Step up to the plate and swing away instead of hurling insults from the rafters that the opponent's game isn't going perfectly.jerry_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

Re SCheeseman [70] and bornagain77 [71]: Reading your comments have given me encouragement to complete a framework I am working on to objectively recognise design in nature. Like you, I believe Information Theory is a necessary step in this process. The proposed framework I'm attempting to develop "calculates" the amount of information in an object based on essential but basic parameters of design. If the amount of information calculated is over a "minimum threshold", then one can confidently say that the object is a product of design. I should stress that this "framework" is the product of someone with limited knowledge of biology and information theory. The "framework", if valid, requires that several details be hashed out/filled in, and quite possibly multiple revisions of the framework as a whole (I am expecting a lot of "red marks" - oh, such a lovely reminder of my days in graduate study). This is why I welcome all constructive comments on the proposed framework. For those interested, it will be posted at my blog under "The Problem of Design - Part 3: The Proposed Framework" by the end of this week (I hope). My apologies to Dr. Dembski and DaveScot for "pimping" my ideas (and my blog) on this site.JJS P.Eng._{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

As far as needing to know the identity of the "designer", I completely agree with those who assert that this is unnecessary. I wouldn't need to know which particular Microtus pennsylvanicus are the parents of the meadow vole from which I've obtained a tissue sample. Hoever, what I do need is a technique to identify that sample and characterize it as being from a particular population (or species, or whatever). This is done by following a well-worked-out protocol for statistically analyzing data obtained from empirical tests. If the explanatory filter and CSI are to be taken seriously as robust and widely applicable tools for "design analysis", it is absolutely necessary that its application to empirical analysis be based on an algorithm that can be applied to any natural phenomenon to determine one's "confidence" (in a statistical sense) that the object or process observed is or is not designed. Statistical analyses such as these are standard procedure throughout the natural sciences, but especially in the biological sciences, where causes are considerably less obvious (and more complex) than in the physical sciences. So, if ID is to be taken seriously, it must be possible to do similar statistical analyses to determine if a particular object or process "exceeds the threshold for design". Still waiting to be shown such an analysis for the E. coli flagellum...Allen_MacNeill_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

You would infer design because of what you know about design, not what you know about chairs.
Please, show don't tell. How would you infer design? What process would you go through? If you need to use CSI, how would you calculate this? Yes, I know we've gone through this before. But I've yet to see a satisfactory answer. Is it too much to ask you to show your working when you infer design?
You’ve even been willing to contradict yourself in order to make an argument.
Oh, thanks. Insult my integrity by linking to post from last year, which was posted 2 days after anything else, and to which I didn't reply (suggesting I never read it). And which refers to some previous argument of mine without indicating what that argument was. I can't defend myself simply because I've no idea what you were responding to. Well done. You win.Bob O'H_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

A note on the concept of the genetic 'code'. I recently read an article over at TO wherein the author states that the genetic code isn't real code as per a genuine set of abstract symbols with syntax, semantics etc. used to describe information processes or whatever. The author states that the genetic code is merely a 'cipher'. Of course, that is useless since a cipher is also and abstract code. Looking up definitions for the words 'code' and 'cipher' using Googles built-in define:word function reveals a ton of verying definitions. Doing a 'define:genetic code' fairs about the same - a ton of varying definitions. Most of the definitions however, do indeed denote an implied intelligence and course ought to. Code, instructions, ciphers... all words that can be applied to genetic information systems can only arise from intelligence. There is simply no such thing as structred code arising without it. This, to me is the death knell of materialistic views on the genome and therefore all origins and development of living things. Information itself is necessairly metaphysical and thus coded info cannot arise without a metaphysical component & therefore intelligence.Borne_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

gpuccio wrote:
I am a little bit tired of all the discussions about the necessity of knowing about the designer to infer design.
Aren't we all. It is funny how ID-critics will use the objection, get painted into a corner and get suddenly quiet, then bring it up again on a later thread. Oh well.
First of all, design is defined in relation to a designer. Although some commenters have tried to confuse the terminology, there cannot be design without a designer. Otherwise, you have to call it something else (Dawkins is correct enough when using the term “apparent design”, meaning something which has some characteristics of a designed objetc, but in reality is not the product of a designer). But what is a designer? It is important to remark that, although our reference model is that of humans, the concept of designer does not require the full set of human characteristics: a designer can be easily defined as any conscious being who has the ability to act and to generate, through his action, new design, and in particular new CSI. So, a designer needs not be human. He must, however, have the following characteristics: a) Be conscious (experience conscious representations) b) Be intelligent (that is, aware of principles like meaning and purpose) c) Be able to act upon matter d) Be able to superimpose CSI from his conscious representations into matter, through his actions That’s all. It’s much, but that does not mean neither that the designer has to be human, nor that we have to know anything else about him. In the design inference, the designer is inferred from design, and not vice versa. Design is observed, and the designer is inferred. Moreover, an inferred designer has to have only the essential characteristics of a designer, and not any other aspect of, say, human designers. So, he needs be conscious, like humans, but he needs not have hands. He needs to be able to act, but he needs not to be able to speak. And so on. Does the designer have to have a material body? That depends on your philosophy. If you believe that only matter can interact with matter, point c) would imply that. But if you believe that other realities can exist which are different from matters as we know it, and yet can interact with matter as we know it, then no such material condition is required. As for me, as I firmly believe that human consciousness is not strictly material, and yet it constantly interacts with matter, there is really no such problem.
Hits the nail on the head. Another reason why you, gpuccio, are one of my top 5 favorite commentors on UD.Atom_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: Thanks for putting some meat on the bare bones I offered!SCheesman_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

Off Topic: CSI (complex specified information) is foundational to the Intelligent Design position and I have seen many discussions on this site on the precise definition of information, with Shannon information being invoked many times by our materialistic friends against CSI. In this vein of debate, my curiosity has been aroused by recent discussions about "defining" information that have been brought about by Anton Zeilinger's work in "Quantum Telepotation". Since Anton Zeilinger is in fact arguing that information is indeed foundational to reality (information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows). I thought this following remark very interesting to the Intelligent Design position for CSI: http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/links/newscientist/bit.html In the beginning was the bit excerpt from article: The number of classical bits in a system has traditionally been evaluated using a formula derived by the American engineer Claude Shannon. Say your system is a hand of cards. If you wanted to e-mail a friend to describe your hand, Shannon's formula gives the minimum amount of information you'd need to include. But Zeilinger and Brukner noticed that it doesn't take into account the order in which different choices or measurements are made. This is fine for a classical hand of cards. But in quantum mechanics, information is created in each measurement--and the amount depends on what is measured when--so the order in which different choices or measurements are made does matter, and Shannon's formula doesn't hold. Zeilinger and Brukner have devised an alternative measure that they call total information, which includes the effects of measurement. For an entangled pair, the total information content in the system always comes to two bits. Without Shannon's theory, progress in telecommunications during the second half of the 20th century would have been far slower. Perhaps total information will become as important in the 21st century. Zeilinger's principle is a newborn baby. If its fate is anything like that of Planck's century-old energy quantum, years will pass before it grows up and gains acceptance in the mainstream of physics. But if it does, it will transform physics as thoroughly as its venerable predecessor. --- me again: Could this total information that Dr. Zeilinger is talking about be reconciled in a meaningful manner to the CSI that Dr. Dembski has illustrated? i.e. are they in fact two sides of the same coin?bornagain77_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeill:
Yes, I would. Specifically, I would like to see how one arrives at a quantitative analysis of the level of “CSI” in something like the flagellum of E. coli versus something like a Martian “blueberry” in such a way that one can be reasonably certain that the former is indeed “designed” but the latter isn’t.
I think the above is an entirely reasonable expectation. I don't claim to have the full answer, but maybe a few ideas that might help in leading to the attainment of the goal. The first step is to focus on the instructions, not the final result, since very simple instructions can lead to extremely complex things (such as the mathematical formula that produces the Mandelbrot set). For the flagellum, this would be the stretches of DNA that code for the various components, but also include parts that code for its construction. It would be reasonable NOT to include any of the machinery used for transcription, etc., as that is held "in common" with all other DNA-based processes and constructs. Once the "Minimal instruction set" is determined, you would need to be able to quantify why that particular set of codes is "specified" compared to any other random ordering of DNA of the same length. This might be done by identifying in each section the individual protein coding regions, stops, starts etc., assigning to each part a particular function. Subtracting from the total specified complexity would be redundancies, e.g. where different sequences might be able to code for a protein with nearly-identical properties. This might be pretty hard, but perhaps a reasonable "upper bound" could be applied. As with a written language, there must exist an irreducable "core" of information; beyond which the function would be lost, and from that the specified information could be calculated. Dr. Dembski has produced similar estimates, I believe.SCheesman_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

bob,
But how would one infer or even suspect design if one knew nothing of the designer?
Haven't we had this conversation before? Dave even brought it up. I've noticed you have a trend of repeating your objections even after they're answered many, many times. You've even been willing to contradict yourself in order to make an argument.Patrick_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

Interesting what Allen MacNeill brings up at 47, J Stanley01 concisely answers at 50, and Barry A seconds at 53. Still Allen makes a good point: Design obtains at many levels. Instantly in the photo above we recognize design in the specification of a chair, yet at a deeper level, as Allen points out, there is additional design (he might say “the appearance of design”) in the living organism itself. And it doesn’t stop there. The environment provided by the soil, water, atmosphere and sun—the whole solar system—as Sir Isaac Newton assured us, is also designed. And now we go even deeper and ask: What about the laws? Yes, the laws too, they appear designed. As atheist Martin Rees concedes (Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe), it’s Design or it’s Many Worlds—he picks the latter but notes that it’s merely to his taste. So how far does it go? Reality—like language—is hierarchical. At the deepest level is determinism and in the other direction is contingency—exactly where you draw the line between the two may be debated. But, as Paul Davies says, even God cannot alter the laws of logic. When physicists study other possible worlds, they mean worlds where the laws of physics are designed differently but the mathematics remains the same. So Allen is talking context. We isolate things for study over against some context. When we study biological design we assume the laws of physics, when we study physics we assume mathematics. It is only through the mystical experience that we grasp the whole of it all at once.Rude_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

I am a little bit tired of all the discussions about the necessity of knowing about the designer to infer design. I think it should not be so difficult as it seems. First of all, design is defined in relation to a designer. Although some commenters have tried to confuse the terminology, there cannot be design without a designer. Otherwise, you have to call it something else (Dawkins is correct enough when using the term "apparent design", meaning something which has some characteristics of a designed objetc, but in reality is not the product of a designer). But what is a designer? It is important to remark that, although our reference model is that of humans, the concept of designer does not require the full set of human characteristics: a designer can be easily defined as any conscious being who has the ability to act and to generate, through his action, new design, and in particular new CSI. So, a designer needs not be human. He must, however, have the following characteristics: a) Be conscious (experience conscious representations) b) Be intelligent (that is, aware of principles like meaning and purpose) c) Be able to act upon matter d) Be able to superimpose CSI from his conscious representations into matter, through his actions That's all. It's much, but that does not mean neither that the designer has to be human, nor that we have to know anything else about him. In the design inference, the designer is inferred from design, and not vice versa. Design is observed, and the designer is inferred. Moreover, an inferred designer has to have only the essential characteristics of a designer, and not any other aspect of, say, human designers. So, he needs be conscious, like humans, but he needs not have hands. He needs to be able to act, but he needs not to be able to speak. And so on. Does the designer have to have a material body? That depends on your philosophy. If you believe that only matter can interact with matter, point c) would imply that. But if you believe that other realities can exist which are different from matters as we know it, and yet can interact with matter as we know it, then no such material condition is required. As for me, as I firmly believe that human consciousness is not strictly material, and yet it constantly interacts with matter, there is really no such problem. Do we need to know anything specific about the designer to be able to recognize a design? No, we just need to be aware of our full definition of a designer, and of all the necessary characteristics which must be shared by any designer (see previous points). The only aspect where some more definite idea of the designer could help in inferring design is in the part of the inference which tries to identify specification. As I see it, there are specifications which require no specific knowledge of the designer, others which are better understood in relation to specific characteristics of him. It depends on the context in which the specific function is defined. As I have often remarked, any functional specification must be defined in an appropriate context. Proteins are of no use, unless in the context of a cell, or at least of a solution with the right pH, and where the substrates on which the protein acts are present. A transmembane protein is of no use if there is not a membrane. An enzyme is of no use if there is not its substrate. A transmission pathway is of no use if all the steps are not working. In the above examples, the function can easily be defined in a specific context which can vastly be considered independent from the designer. An enzyme is functional if it does its work, and if its work serves some function in the context, for instance, of a bacterial cell. If it was designed, should we know some further details of the designer, beyond his being conscious, intelligent, and aware that an enzyme of that kind is needed so that the bacterium can survive? No. In the case of the espalier tree, the additional CSI linked to the special form of the tree is viewed as functional only if we think of it as a chair. Therefore, we must be aware of the context in which chairs are functional: somebody has to be able to sit on them. The designer should be aware of that, too. That would bring us to make one more assumption about the designer: either he can sit, or he knows that others (humans, for example) can sit. In other words, the only assumption we need about the designer, beyond the above points, in a specific design inference, is that he may be aware of the contex which specifies the function observed, and possibly interested in implementing that function (and able to do that). I hope that shows that we need not know anything else: human or not human, material or not material. These are non essential (although certainly interesting) details. The design inference can well live without them. All we need are the above points, and an awareness of the context for the function (certainly on our part, and at least assume it on the part of the designer).gpuccio_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

thank Charlie......then i don't know what to say except for i feel a wee bit embarrassed for him.interested_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

Bob --I would infer design because I know about chairs, Maybe not as much as you might think. When is a dead horse a chair? :-) You would infer design because of what you know about design, not what you know about chairs.tribune7_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

F2XL asked (in #52):
"Would you like me to show you how it’s done with the flagellum?"
Yes, I would. Specifically, I would like to see how one arrives at a quantitative analysis of the level of "CSI" in something like the flagellum of E. coli versus something like a Martian "blueberry" in such a way that one can be reasonably certain that the former is indeed "designed" but the latter isn't. This is precisely the kind of statistical analysis that is the bread and butter of experimental biology. One formulates an hypothesis, formulates a prediction on the basis of that hypothesis, designs an experiment to test that prediction, counts or measures the results generated by that experiment, and then analyzes how well the results fit the predictions flowing from the hypothesis using some form of analytic statistics. Show me how this can be done with the flagellum of E. coli. Specifically, show me how the analytic mathematics/statistics of the XF can be used to calculate a number that indicates succinctly the level of CSI in a chosen object or process, such that everyone who does such a calculation will agree that it does (or does not) rise to the level of statistical significance.Allen_MacNeill_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT}

PS: GP [and Allen], T & A, by suggesting a metric dimension of functionality [cf Fig 4 in their paper], can give us a metric for degree of functional performance/specification. In either case, we see a vector metric, with one variable for degree of complexity, and another for functionality and/or specification. Metrics come in various forms: ratio, interval, ordinal, nominal, and quantities come in scalar and vector forms too: 5 m/s North is not equal to 5 m/s South.kairosfocus_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT}

Bob: RE: how would one infer or even suspect design if one knew nothing of the designer? All that is required to identify that a given observed case is credibly designed, is that, based on experience of designs and designerS, one identifies reliable signs of design. The explanatory filter, with the construct: specification + complexity, has proved reliable enough when it rules "design." The subset of CSI, functionally specified, complex information [or T & A's Functional Sequence Complexity], is even more specific, as it looks at function that expresses itself through complex organisation and associated information that would otherwise be overwhelmingly improbable. [That is, the available probabilistic resources would be most likely fruitlessly exhausted on a random search or one not instructed by active information.] So, one does not need knowledge about THE designer to infer to design, and one knows a lot about designers already. In the case of the photo of the chair, the structure shown exhibits patterns of complex organisation that put it well within the threshold of FSCI. And that would hold even if the photo was a fake (Just, instead of espalier, it would be photoshop or the like!) Back to work . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT}

I'm curious about this. I would infer design because I know about chairs, and the designers who use them (I even have a colleague who claims to teach chair theory). But how would one infer or even suspect design if one knew nothing of the designer?Bob O'H_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeill: "Ergo, the “explanatory filter” apparently cannot produce a quantitative assessment of the level of design of any living (or formerly living) object or process. Extending this line of reasoning, the “explanatory filter” is also useless for the purposes of verifying or falsifying “borderline” cases." Wrong. The EF is about affirming the demonstrable presence of CSI. To do that, it uses a definite, although arbitrarily drawn, quantitative level for the minimum complexity requested to define CSI (Dembski's UPB). So, it is perfectly quantitative. Only, its goal is not to quantify CSI, but just to identify those cases where CSI is certainly present. A few notes, to avoid furhter misunderstandings: a) Design does not equal CSI. There are simple designs which don't exhibit CSI. Correctly, they will not be identified by the EF (the design nature could, anyway, be proved in other ways, for instance by direct observation of the process of design). On the other hand, all correctly identified CSI is designed (empirically). b) Not all CSI can necessarily be detected by the EF, because not all the necessary information can be available. Let's remember that the EF, to be applied, needs reasonable information about three different points: the computation of the complexity, the specification, and the exclusion of necessary pathways. c) The EF does not attempt to quantify how much CSI is present, and therefore to compare different examples of CSI. It just compares CSI with non CSI. That's its goal. d) An approximate comparison between different levels of CSI can, however, be attempted by comparing the levels of complexity (not of specification, because specification is a property of the whole, which is either present or not, a binary variable in other words). In a general sense, a more complex specified item could be said to exhibit more CSI than a simpler one. So, as you see, even the "level" of CSI can in theory be assessed, although it can not be easy to do that. An attempt to do that for protein families can be found in the second paper by Abel and Trevors, which applies the concept of Shannon entropy. In the case of the tree, anyway, if you can show that the CSI implicit in the "espalier" form is indeed superimposed to the CSI implicit in the tree (which should be rather intuitive, but not necessarily easy to demonstrate), then you can correctly conclude that the espalier tree has more CSI than a similar, normal tree. To sum up: ID and the EF are pretty quantitative, and they do very definite things (which, indeed, cannot be said of many other evolutionary concepts).gpuccio_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT}

nterested 05/20/2008 9:52 pm allen is not making many valid points at all…..he is just showing that he has never read any of Dembski’s works…..Dembski’s point in defining the explanatory filter was NEVER to be able to ALWAYS detect design in every instance. rather, it was to show that somethings show irrefutable levels of design. beyond that, your post is pretty poor actually…..
Interested, your points are good (as are those of others addressing Professor MacNeill's comments) except for the first error you made: MacNeill not only has read Dembski, but has taught his work to students. http://evolutionanddesign.blogsome.com/reading-list/ His error does not, then, stem from ignorance.Charlie_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT}

D for all trees, not just the tree shown.William Wallace_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

pubdef, (54) Thanks for your charitable reading of what I was trying to say, and as my previous comment noted, I butchered. I agree that the theistic implications of ID should be owned. That is part of why I made comment 41. That does not mean that the theism must be front-loaded. But it does mean that anti-theism cannot be front-loaded. (Well, unless one does like Prof. Dawkins and insist that only naturally evolved aliens are allowed). Behe's religion did not require ID (compare Kenneth Miller). He was driven to it by his science. However, his belief in God made it much easier to accept ID as a possibility. Perhaps more to the point, Antony Flew, in spite of being an atheist, came to the realization that ID was substantially correct, and almost perforce became a theist, although not a Christian.Paul Giem_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply