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

top ... less lamininsbornagain77_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PST}

Left a word out: I haven’t searched the theological reasoning for the to^pless lamininsbornagain77_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PST}

Sparc: http://jcsm.org/myspace/laminin.jpg Well using the same Darwinian logic for similarities of morphology being sufficient proof for establishing evolution as conclusive beyond any doubt, The morphological similarities of laminin to the cross of Christ, as well as its central role in "holding our body together (as well as holding all other animal bodies together)", obviously warrants conclusive evidence that the designer of life was in fact Jesus Christ. To think otherwise makes you a materialistic Crank with a hidden religious agenda to sneak your (non) religion into our schools (oops that diabolical deed has already done). At any rate, That the disruptive ADAMS, http://www.udel.edu/PR/NewsReleases/Viper/moliculeslr.jpeg disintegrins, would disrupt laminins, would be found in snake venom as well as would look morphologically just like a snake only furthers this Darwinian line of reasoning of similarties being conclusive scientific proof and proves beyond any doubt that that serpent, Satan. did indeed tempt man in the garden of EDEN and caused the fall of man and the world from perfection. I haven't searched the theological reasoning for the topless laminins but I'm sure, using this same Darwinian line of reasoning of similarities being conclusive proof, will give me more irrefutable evidence to refute the crankpot Darwinists with.bornagain77_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PST}

PS: Let us hypothesise a photoshopping game, just for fun; just in case Chas Johnson decides to weigh in and can find the usual artefacts of manipulation. Where does this point? Again, the FSCI leads to -- Design; just, the context of the design would be different: cheating or a joke..kairosfocus_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PST}

This tree is an example of the astonishing power of evolution. Further, it shows how could two separate species evolve traits that just happen to fit so perfectly together. The arrangement of branches accommodates perfectly the posteriors of both early and modern man. Our early ancestors were hardy and rugged individuals but they appreciated a comfortable resting place for their rear-end as much as we do today. Individuals rested comfortably and in a way that facilitates social interaction could thereafter face the next struggle with a small but significant advantage. The tree entices the primate to take a comfortable seat. The resulting shaking of the branches releases a shower of pollen into the hair of the seated individual.He or she then moves on through the forest until another rest is required. The most comfortable natural seat is sought and the pollen is carried there, accomplishing the plant’s goal of pollination. To those untrained in the discipline of darwinism this mutual arrangement may appear to defy logic. To the untrained eye it may even have the appearance of design but this is clearly incorrect thinking. In fact we often see even more complex evolved symbiotic relationships. For example, plants have evolved the means of production of nourishing and sweet-tasting nectar as a reward to birds that assist in pollination of the plants. The chair tree is a more straightforward and easier explained case of bottom-down/bottom-up evolution.steveO_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PST}

LOL . . . Hint: look up "espalier." Here we actually see yet another case where functionally specified complex information [straightness, symmetrical bends and branches, configuration of a chair -- well over 500 bits of information are highly probable] traces yet again to design. The presence of a human in context of course invites the well, we know a candidate designer was present objection. To which the reply is: unless you can -- without begging the question -- rule out that a designer was possibly present, given what we know of FSCI, it is a reliable sign that points to design ad the best explanation. So, obviously option D is the best. [And, the reasons put up by some to revert to other options are highly revealing.] Well done, BarryA. VERY well done. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 20, 2008
May
05
May
20
20
2008
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PST}

Difficult question. I have to choose E. It's certainly not something that could be created by nature, or by any kind of random means. I might be tempted to say it was something created by the gentleman standing next to it. But I do not have any understanding of how he might have done it. In fact, I think it's impossible to create something like that. Therefore, I have to discount the "intelligent design" option. It was clearly created by something not of this world. And while the creator "may" be intelligent, I have no evidence to support that, seeing as how I know nothing about the nature of the creator or what conditions it may be operating in. So, I'm left with "E". There is no satisfactory conclusion. Go back to the lab and look for another hypothosis.TheMissingLink_{May 19, 2008
May
05
May
19
19
2008
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PST}

i am intrigued by how few of our resident skeptics of ID are weighing in on this topic. i find it very telling actually.....interested_{May 19, 2008
May
05
May
19
19
2008
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PST}

DLH-- I can't remember exactly where, but in some published essay or book, William Dembski pointed out the question-begging logic behind saying "we can identify human designs because we have seen humans design things, but not so with non-human designs". Well, when we saw the human being designing something, how did we know that that was what he was doing? Dembski gives the example of a human being taking a whittling knife to a stick. How can we even tell that the human being is acting as a designer as he manipulates the knife, rather than just using it to absently hack away at the stick? Only by detecting design in the result! Hence we infer from the presence of design to the designing activity of the human, and not the other way around. Indeed, in our own individual psychological development, how could we ever have conceived of humans as being designers, apart from having made a design inference from the results of intentional human action? The ability to make such an inference from the designed nature of effects to the designing nature of the cause would seem to be intrinsic to human developmental psychology. For example, it is hard to see how infants could ever pick up language without making such an inference. It is also hard to see how an infant could ever begin to develop an awareness of the existence of other persons absent an inference that there are agents causing the order behind sensory events. The bottom line is that accurate design detection is logically prior to knowledge of designing agents. While identifying agents depends on design detection, design detection does not depend on identifying agents.Matteo_{May 19, 2008
May
05
May
19
19
2008
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PST}

BTW, ADAMs have been identified in snake venom!sparc_{May 19, 2008
May
05
May
19
19
2008
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PST}

BA77:
It seems the source may be correct for the importance of the Laminin protein molecule
But then, what do topless laminins (laminin-311, laminin-321, laminin-411 and laminin-421) tell us? Did they suddenly realize they were naked? And why have disintegrins that disrupt interactions between laminins and their receptors been named ADAMs?sparc_{May 19, 2008
May
05
May
19
19
2008
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PST}

The answer is clearly C. Random variation and natural selection can easily explain this phenomenon. Certain insects attack trees. Since the advent of humans and pesticides, insects evolved through natural selection to avoid humans and thus the deadly chemicals. Those insects that did not avoid humans and the deadly chemicals were killed by the deadly chemicals and did not pass on their avoid-humans-and-the-deadly-chemicals genes. To further clarify the explanatory power of Darwinian theory, we now turn to the chair-shaped tree. The insects that evolved through natural selection to avoid humans, and thus the deadly chemicals, evolved further to recognize subtle indicators of human presence, such as chairs. This tree, through natural selection, evolved to fool the insects into thinking that humans might be around to poison the insects with the deadly chemicals, and, thus, this variety of tree stood a better chance of survival from avoiding attack by insects that fear humans. Thus, through natural selection, the chair-tree passed on its chair-tree genes to future generations. This line of reasoning is irrefutable. Only creationists, who refuse to accept the obvious explanatory power of modern evolutionary theory, and who want to destroy science as we know it, refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence provided above. Creationists are obviously poorly educated, not very bright, and cannot understand the subtleties of modern evolutionary theory. Only those with more highly evolved intelligence and years of schooling are qualified to comment on Darwinian theory, which clearly and conclusively offers irrefutable evidence for the evolution of the tree-chair. Perhaps some bright, young, evolutionary theorist will flesh out my obvious explanation for the evolution of the tree-chair, and present it as part of his dissertation in pursuit of a Ph.D. in evolutionary theory.GilDodgen_{May 19, 2008
May
05
May
19
19
2008
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PST}

I inferred design based on the fact that I know it is possible for humans to do such things, and that there were humans around at the time the tree existed. Is there a more formalized, "scientific" method for inferring design? If so, can someone demonstrate how would it apply, step by step, to the example here, showing all calculations?congregate_{May 19, 2008
May
05
May
19
19
2008
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PST}

Time to whip out the explanatory filter: The object in the picture contains roughly 9 branches coming out from the stem. I would guess the range of possible directions they could point could be anywhere from zero (horizontal) to 90 degrees (skyward), and they all (looking from above) could point anywhere in a 360 degree span around that main stem. So we know this is highly improbable. Now all we need to do is determine if this was a regularity or came about by design. Any arrangement of branches pointing out is highly improbable, but does this specify a pattern or design? If so we could rule out the idea that this is an intermediate probability. So for proving specification, I will in this instance use minimum description length to make my inference. All 9 of the main branches (except the outer two, which exhibit the same bends anyway) form the same bent shape. It also repeats a familiar pattern allowing me to describe it in far fewer words: a chair. Well, I guess the only rational way to the evidence is through D, with C playing a very minimal role. "Off Topic: Cool Video: Laminin Protein molecule: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related" Well that's an odd coincidence ;DF2XL_{May 19, 2008
May
05
May
19
19
2008
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PST}

congregate at 3 Yes, identifying design INDEPENDENTLY from identifying a designer is very threatening to most materialists. Many insist that one must identify a designer before one can recognize design. That gives the excuse that there can be no design detection in nature without identifying the designer. Then since nature is not "signed", there can be no inference to either design or designer in nature. This is a critical issue in ID - whether design can be detected without identifying a designer. So it is worth exploring the issues on how / why we can detect design, and where this can be done without identifying the designer. A similar example is prehistoric cave paintings. How/why can we distinguish design in the above example and/or cave paintings?DLH_{May 19, 2008
May
05
May
19
19
2008
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PST}

russ (7), Sorry, I didn't catch the sarcasm. Given the serious responses I have seen from ID skeptics, I just couldn't tell the difference. I've had conversations lately where the other person could have copy+pasted your note and it would have fit right into their line of thinking. As others have noted, it is sad but true that it is hard to satirize the opposition. Perhaps we need to use a warning of some kind -- something at the end that makes the tongue-in-cheek nature obvious.ericB_{May 19, 2008
May
05
May
19
19
2008
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PST}

It seems the source may be correct for the importance of the Laminin protein molecule: Here is what wiki says about Laminin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminin Laminin is vital to making sure overall body structures hold together. Improper production of laminin can cause muscles to form improperly, leading to a form of muscular dystrophy. It can also cause progeria. and this: https://www.bdis.com/discovery_labware/products/display_product.php?keyID=238 Laminin, a major component of basement membranes, has numerous biological activities including promotion of cell adhesion, migration, growth, and differentiation, including neurite outgrowth.bornagain77_{May 19, 2008
May
05
May
19
19
2008
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PST}

Off Topic: Cool Video: Laminin Protein molecule: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ejj51hNIL3E&feature=relatedbornagain77_{May 19, 2008
May
05
May
19
19
2008
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PST}

Eric, I was being sarcastic. But we know that humans do that kind of thing, so its reasonable to assume that the guy in the photo could have designed it. It's the best explanation. Of course, airbrushing out the designer does not mean he never existed. That was part of the sarcasm.russ_{May 19, 2008
May
05
May
19
19
2008
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PST}

[Also to russ (5)] congregate (3): "So what’s the point, that we can recognize design in some things? Is that controversial?" Sadly, yes, it is controversial -- at least it is when materialists feel that the recognition of design might threaten their materialist assumptions. It is only not controversial when those materialist assumptions are safe (cf. Dawkins in Expelled). Atom's response in post 1 is humorous satire, although unfortunately it was hard to tell that it was satire until the end. To russ, the person in the photo cannot be assumed to be the designer. In any undesigned option, the person could just as easily be the discoverer. Remember, in addition to your general knowledge (e.g. about trees), the only specific information you have to go on is the photo. In other words, the question is whether one should infer design, even if you don't know anything about a designer. Can you properly infer design just from the object in question?ericB_{May 19, 2008
May
05
May
19
19
2008
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PST}

"D", because we have a photo of the apparent designer. But if you airbrush out the designer from the photo, then A,B,C or E become true.russ_{May 19, 2008
May
05
May
19
19
2008
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PST}

I think I would assume intention (which is option D). But the D (from design) is not a show stopper. I just don't understand why anyone would think so narrowly? Maybe reverse engineering would be an interesting activity to consider as an example on how to proceed. To know that some system was designed does not change anything, it just broadens the horizon with regard to the kind of processes that can be considered while you are attempting to figure out how it works. A real scientist (someone who seeks knowledge) would then ask "how?", as in "how was this done?" because that's still very much unknown. A real philosopher (someone who seeks truth) would then ask "why?".gmlk_{May 19, 2008
May
05
May
19
19
2008
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PST}

Well, I'm not aware of trees growing quite like that naturally, and I am aware that humans have "trained" plants to grow in similar fashion (at Disney World they grow pumpkins shaped like the iconic Mickey Mouse ears), so I'll go with d, purposeful efforts of an intelligent agent. I could change my mind if you showed me that the tree's ancestors had the same shape, or if seeds from it grew in the same shape. So what's the point, that we can recognize design in some things? Is that controversial?congregate_{May 19, 2008
May
05
May
19
19
2008
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PST}

Naw, It's all front loading.Rude_{May 19, 2008
May
05
May
19
19
2008
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PST}

If we have separate evidence of an existing designer (and by separate I mean not "artifacts"...it has to be bones or something), then maybe design. Until then, we can assume that a high-information fitness function exists, and that it shapes trees into such an unlikely functional configuration (unlikely relative to all possible configurations.) If we conclude design, we have to stop asking all questions. Suddenly. Except for who designed the designer. </end canned UD critic answer> That is the answer someone will be posting in 5, 4, 3...Atom_{May 19, 2008
May
05
May
19
19
2008
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PST}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply