Craig Crushes Ayala

_{Barry Arrington

August 15, 2012

Intelligent Design}

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

Ayala gives two objections to design: (1) The design we see is suboptimal; and (2) the cruelty we see in nature precludes an inference to a good designer.

Craig first shows a picture of a dilapidated old East German Trabant, one of the worst cars ever made. He then shows a picture of a shiny new Mercedes E Class.

Then he makes the following argument.

1. The Trabant is obviously designed.

2. The Trabant design is obviously sub-optimal.

3. Therefore, the fact that a design is sub-optimal does not invalidate the design inference.

Conclusion: Known designs exhibit various degrees of optimality. Therefore, there is simply no reason to restrict design inferences only to maximally optimal designs. If a structure meets Dembski’s criteria for inferring design, that inference is not nullified by the mere possibility that the structure could have been better designed.

Craig then shows a picture of a medieval torture device and makes the following argument.

1. The torture device is obviously designed.

2. The designer was obviously not good.

3. Therefore, the possibility that the designer is not good does not preclude a design inference.*

Conclusion: The design inference says absolutely nothing about the moral qualities of the designer.

*Theologians have answers to the “cruelty” objection, but those answers are not within the province of the ID project as such.

Comments

Do you believe it is possible to transfer recorded information (the form of a thing) in a material universe without the use of a representation instantiated in material medium?
Do I? Well, before I get to that I want to say that I'm glad Upright Biped has been peddling this pitch for so long. As to me, every time he does he undermines Intelligent Design. Why? It's easy. What is the number one thing I want to know from the ID supporters here? It's easy. I want to know when they think the designer acted. It's easy. It's simple. It's one of the most basic question I think you can think of after hearing about ID for the first time. There's much riding on it. If the designer acted "pre-time" or was a "tweaking" designer who can fundamentally alter space time laws etc, then it's "god". And not just that, but "God" with a G, the God of the Bible. But on the other hand, that's not going to get ID back into schools. So we've another designer, the one that almost every body here pretends to believe in. If life is designed, and the designer is a natural product of the universe then all that's really done is push the question back a step. But nobody really want's to come out and say they believe in Alien Designers except the tru believers. Kariosfocus is a good example. He insists that "bodyplans" are outside the scope of "Darwinism". Therefore it's logical that the designer has to intervene to create those bodyplans. But some of the things (evolution can do nothing, remember) are quite recent - if they were coming in spaceships then we'd probably be seeing them or their trails out in space from years ago by now. But we're not. And, boy, if the fossil record is only a fraction of what's existed then this "alien designer" sure has been busy. So that's ID science target no.1 right there, no? You want to get supporting ID, get some before and after pictures of that action. Find that dropped chisel. Search for that spaceship particle trail. But anyway, the bodyplans must come from somewhere. The designer must intervene. We just don't know how. Like Joe says, that's for "science" to find out anyway at some point in the future. So, nice and easy, that designer can go into schools because it might just be an alien "human being". No supranature required. Then Kariosfocus launches into one of his his old testament treatises (have you seen his website?), making it quite clear where his true beliefs lie (hear that cock crow yet KF?). Either way, intervention. Or Joe, who believes that each and every mutation is guided. That's some day job right there for the designer! Do you think it sub-contracts Joe? Must be tiny spaceships, no? So what do all these "beliefs" have in common? Well, they all require the injection of large amounts of information, information that did not exist prior to that injection. Starting to sound familiar? Even Upright Biped is making the same claim - if the symbol system was designed, could only have been designed then how did that come about? Either it was space aliens, push it back a level, or it was a direct injection of information from, well, who knows. However, given that that is to me the crux of ID and what I suspect others are also interested in perhaps I can find out what some other ID supporters think when pressed on the matter. After all, what is ID about if not the instantiation of the "Intelligent Design"? Everything else is just circling the elephant in the room. Luckily somebody has already done that hard work. So, to recap, the question is
Do you believe it is possible to transfer recorded information (the form of a thing) in a material universe without the use of a representation instantiated in material medium?
And my answer is, yes, but only if you violate or suspend the known laws of physics. And you know what? That's exactly how many prominent ID supporters put it when pressed on the matter. * Michale Behe on Poof! Theory: *
"A few years ago, I lectured at Hillsdale College as part of a week-long lecture series on the intelligent design debate. After Michael Behe's lecture, some of us pressed him to explain exactly how the intelligent designer created the various "irreducibly complex" mechanisms that cannot--according to Behe--be explained as products of evolution by natural selection. He repeatedly refused to answer. But after a long night of drinking, he finally answered: "A puff of smoke!" A physicist in the group asked, Do you mean a suspension of the laws of physics? Yes, Behe answered." —
Larry Arnhart's Darwinian Conservatism blog, Thursday, September 07, 2006. http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.co.uk/2006/09/has-anyone-seen-evolution.html William Dembski:
"...I'm certainly not an advocate of universal common ancestry. I just don't think the fossil record bears it out. I think the Cambrian explosion is a perfect example, where you have just utter, you have these forms which are just there, *** Poof! *** And there are no precursors."
Hitchens-Dembski Debate Nov 2010, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tPHXJbdTuM&feature=related David Berlinski
: "… Before the Cambrian era, a brief 600 million years ago, very little is inscribed in the fossil record; but then, signaled by what I imagine as ** A SPECTRAL PUFF OF SMOKE AND A DEAFENING TA-DA! ***, an astonishing number of novel biological structures come into creation, and they come into creation at once." — [The Deniable Darwin (June 1996), Commentary magazine.]
So, without a suspension of the laws of physics ID can't even get out of the starting gate. So perhaps you should address your question to Behe, Dembski or Berlinski? I'd be interested to hear what they have to say. And Upright, remind me again how you propose to solve the problem you pose? And then there was light?mphillips_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

What evidence? Sure, it “could” be. It could be the result of anything, if you put it like that. What’s your evidence? Specifically?
Every single instance of human designers using natural processes and evolution to design. How specific would you like me to be? Should I list every instance of, say... humans using erosion towards an end? How about humans using evolutionary processes, from artificial selection to truncated variation? Should I note instances of humans using fermentation to achieves ends? Hell, should I come up with humans creating fermentation processes and the like? Or are you going to tell me that when humans use erosion to achieve a design, or use fermentation, or use any other number of processes, that they aren't really using natural processes?nullasalus_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

Upright,
So, I make this suggestion. Instead of you cobbling together some idea of the transfer of recorded information without the use of a material representation, an attempt destined to fail, why not accept my offer instead?
Thanks, but I'll pass. To be honest, everything has already been said but phrased more elegantly by others, most recently on this thread and right now by David W. Gibson but of course also over at the TSZ. And you are right, you answered many posts and by no means fled at the first skirmish. However during all that time I was never able to determine how your argument was an argument in support of intelligent design, rather then "other/unknown". Y'know - perhaps the prerequisites for evolution did not, well, evolve. Perhaps a big sea of chemical memory was right there, big self catalyzing network, the size of a planet. A whole lot of planet. A whole lot of stuff going on. And just as Kariosfocus thinks that a good analogy to evolution is his "needle in a haystack the size of the cosmos" routine, perhaps you are stuck on a fundamental misunderstanding about evolution? Why does "the symbol system" have to exist as it is at the ool? After all, there's gotta be a reason why most everybody at tsz did not simply agree with you - either you are mistaken in some way or they are. I'd like to know which. So what about your argument supports ID? As at the moment all I can see is this:
Darwinian evolution requires the symbol system in DNA to already exist in order to exist itself. To say that Darwinian evolution could have caused the symbol system, is to say that Darwinian evolution can suddenly cause things to happen even before it exist. Therefore Intelligent Design
So, please provide support for your claim that Darwininan evolution caused the symbol system that Darwinian evolution itself uses or that "Darwinists" are making that claim. Now, you wanted to know something about "how"?mphillips_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

null
Sure, it’s entirely possible – and backed by a considerable amount of evidence – that the sort of system you describe could also be the work of an intelligent designer.
What evidence? Sure, it "could" be. It could be the result of anything, if you put it like that. What's your evidence? Specifically?mphillips_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

Bare, naked assertion.
In that case, I concede we're at an impasse. To me, this is pure empirical observation.
What is observed is that in the living cell, dFSCI is REPLICATED, sometimes with small errors. And, until such dFSCI’s origin has been shown, you have no valid causal account of the origin of same. And, recall, you need to demonstrate per observation.
So we have a process. We observe it, we see that it happens. We observe that it does not violate any of the principles of chemistry or physics. We see that it produces Upright BiPed's entailments. We propose it as an alternative to Design. And your objection is, if we do not know (in unspecified detail) the history of the molecules involved in the process, then mere observation that it happens is insufficient. But in that case, we should probably note that we also do not know the history of the Design process, or the nature of the Designer. We still can do no more than observe the process in action. Now, I see nothing wrong with this state of affairs. We have at least two very different proposals of the mechanism by which the observed processes are happening. Science thrives on competing proposals, because they suggest tests to distinguish between them. The problem we encounter at this point, unfortunately, is that Design cannot be eliminated as a possibility by any conceivable test, UNLESS the nature of the Designer is operationally defined clearly enough to examine it. So the question one might ask is, IF we assume a Designer, what observation could we make, under what conditions, that would refute this assumption?David W. Gibson_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

Upright,
Darwinian evolution requires the symbol system in DNA to already exist in order to exist itself. To say that Darwinian evolution could have caused the symbol system, is to say that Darwinian evolution can suddenly cause things to happen even before it exist.
My question is this. Please support your claim that "the", i.e the extant symbol system, existed in it's current form at the origin of life.mphillips_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

But what of designs we know are not human? We watch natural processes form fantastic shapes in rocks, for example. Such instances are part of this massive empirical base.
And we also know of humans using natural processes to form everything from fantastic shapes in rocks to otherwise.
So I think we have to at least give some consideration to the idea that complex adaptive feedback processes, with countless variables interacting in limitless ways, and with directional constraints as part of the system, are guaranteed to produce “designs” even if they are natural systems.
Sure, it's entirely possible - and backed by a considerable amount of evidence - that the sort of system you describe could also be the work of an intelligent designer. It's usually outside the scope of ID, but the design status of 'natural systems' are also under dispute.nullasalus_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

DRG:
natural unguided causes ALSO, and very demonstrably, produce comparable results.
Bare, naked assertion. What is observed is that in the living cell, dFSCI is REPLICATED, sometimes with small errors. And, until such dFSCI's origin has been shown, you have no valid causal account of the origin of same. And, recall, you need to demonstrate per observation. BTW, 5,000+ years takes us back to the earliest written records that have survived. KFkairosfocus_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

What is going on here is more selective hyperskepticism again, once something you are disinclined to accept is on the table. Namely, that dFSCI is per a massive empirical base, a reliable sign of design.
No, I wouldn't say this is hyperskepticism. We have a massive empirical base of objects known to be designed by humans or other animals, and objects NOT known to be designed by humans or other animals. What you are arguing is "if everything of KNOWN design is the result of human intent, then everything of UNKNOWN design must reflect similar intent." But what of designs we know are not human? We watch natural processes form fantastic shapes in rocks, for example. Such instances are part of this massive empirical base. So I think we have to at least give some consideration to the idea that complex adaptive feedback processes, with countless variables interacting in limitless ways, and with directional constraints as part of the system, are guaranteed to produce "designs" even if they are natural systems. So once again, we need knowledge of the process, the history, the actual mechanics before we can draw any firm conclusions. I think you are kind of sliding around the implicit understanding that your massive empirical base includes not just designs, but extensive knowledge of their histories, their designers and the tools, limitations, and goals of those designers. This knowledge is being "smuggled in" and I think it's best to look directly at it, and recognize it for what it is.David W. Gibson_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

KF:
All UB needs to do is to point out that on 5,000 years of cases, complex — 500 to 1,000 bits is a good threshold — digitally coded functionally specific, linguistic, meaningful information has had but one observed cause. Therefore it is an excellently warranted induction to hold that this is a signature of such a cause.
This would be more compelling if it were true. But alas, natural unguided causes ALSO, and very demonstrably, produce comparable results. I certainly agree that every human design has the same observed cause - a human designed it! But concluding that ALL objects therefore result from human-type design processes is not justified. The proposal is set forward (and quite exhaustively tested) that complex feedback processes driven by very real directing constraints can produce similar entailments. Upright BiPed SEEMS (to me) to be arguing that if everything we KNOW is designed, represents the application of human intent, therefore everything we do NOT know is designed but is similar in some respects to what humans design, must therefore have been designed by someone with intent similar to human intent. But this analogy may not be the case. "Kind of semi-human-designed-looking" is really not that compelling an argument that we're seeing a signature of human-type intent. In short, we cannot know the provenance of something by examining it in a vacuum. We must have some knowledge of the history of the object or similar objects.David W. Gibson_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

DWG: Re:
The problem is that there are many cases where we can NOT see the cause of functionally specific complex information. Now, if we take every case of such information and discard all cases where the causes are not obvious, sure enough we see a biased sample. Like taking a bag of black marbles and white marbles, tossing out all the white ones because we don’t understand white, and concluding that all marbles are black!
Pardon me, have you studied the way knowledge claims in origins sciences, other scientific contexts where we cannot directly observe processes in action, and other responsible contexts such as scientific forensic evidence are warranted? That is, per the uniformity principle -- similar to the deer tracks example:
(i) we observe patterns of cause-effect, processes and associated phenomena in the present and their characteristic results. (ii) We validate certain observable traces as characteristically and reliably produced by such processes. (iii) Such are deemed empirically reliable signs of the underlying causal processes. (iv) We compare what we observe with the similar traces observable from the remote past or remote reaches of space, etc. [For instance, we cannot directly observe or sample stars, and we infer a lot from spectral patterns.] (v) On inference to best explanation per tested, reliable sign, we hold that the same process we observe best explains the process we did not or could not but which has the same signs. (vi) This is provisional and subject to correction on new evidence, but that is true of any significant scientific finding.
Now, this is not controversial, it is what is used in ever so many fields of science, pure and applied. And if you, DWG, were to consistently object to this pattern of reasoning, all of your favoured theories about the origins of the cosmos, life, body plans etc would at once collapse. But, of course, you and your ilk accept such reasoning -- even in cases where the signs are NOT particularly reliable. What is going on here is more selective hyperskepticism again, once something you are disinclined to accept is on the table. Namely, that dFSCI is per a massive empirical base, a reliable sign of design. In short all that stuff about biased samples etc is simply specious. Please take a moment to look back above and see just how many times you have fallen into the same logical pitfalls. Shouldn't that make you begin to wonder about just how well grounded your thinking on this subject is? KF PS: UB, I hear you. I think this thread is important on its own merits.kairosfocus_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

KF, The thread being derailed is probably my fault. My apologies. Of course, they have no answers for WLC anyway. :) cheers...Upright BiPed_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

David,
Upright BiPed’s semiosis might be one, chance and necessity might be another, biological evolution might be a third.
Darwinian evolution requires the symbol system in DNA to already exist in order to exist itself. To say that Darwinian evolution could have caused the symbol system, is to say that Darwinian evolution can suddenly cause things to happen even before it exist.
There are many observed complex feedback systems…
The following ensemble does not function on the basis of feedback: (DNA-mRNA-tRNA)aaRS = Specified/Ordered Peptide BindingUpright BiPed_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

Onlookers: Observe how this thread is still being argued by design theory objectors on a tangent. It is clear that they seem to have no cogent response to the points raised by Craig in the OP, or they would have pounced at once. KFkairosfocus_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

DWG: Can you identify, kindly, specific, credibly observed cases of undirected chance and blind mechanical necessity producing 500 or more bits of complex, coded digital information that functions algorithmically or linguistically? The answer is a patent no, or there would be no design theory adherents. We can and do show billions of cases across 5000+ years of recorded history, of intelligent designers producing such dFSCI. Over the past 170 or so years now, we have shown such cases in a specifically algorithmic context, more if we bring on the Jacquard loom. We know that such designers use language and make symbolic codes, using speech, signs, text and more. We know that such code involves intentionality, it involves ability to make signs in accordance with rules and purposes, such that systems use messages to function in algorithmically controlled ways. Indeed, absent hitherto statistically unobserved miracles of lucky noise, we have every reason to understand that there is a causal connexion between the skilled, knowledgeable designing mind and the product of that mind, impressed on some signal carrier, an electromagnetic wave [wireless net access for instance], or a physical symbols such as punched holes in paper tape, or the bumps of braille, and more. We have excellent reason to see that such code once it passes a reasonable threshold of complexity, could only credibly be explained on such an intelligent designer. That is why the observation that codes and code writers are causally related is not a mere happenstance hasty generalisation. It is not merely correlation, we have specific, directly observed causal mechanisms at work. I press my fingers on keys to type this message, using the mechanisms of the keyboard to fulfill my intentions. The appearance of the code in this message -- based on ASCII codes and the translation into the alphanumeric glyphs you see -- is not mere happenstance of correlation. It is causally connected. When I then look and I see similar codes in living cells, used in algorithmic processes foundational to both metabolism and the von Neumann self replicator that is the basis of reproduction of cell based life, I have reason to see that this too is best and most responsibly explained on intelligent action. The attempt to impose the notion that we MUST infer to chance in this case, unless we can show that chance could not POSSIBLY be involved is selectively hyperskeptical nonsense, and reflects a priori ideological imposition. That this is apparently being seriously argued shows just how badly science has been taken ideological captive to such a priori materialism. KFkairosfocus_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

David,
The point you are trying to make is not clear to me. Bill is saying that IF you can demonstrate (and not just assert) that no other process can possibly produce the material observations, then your logic is correct. And I think this is reasonable.
Your narrative is not correct at all. Bill simply did not want to talk about the evidence; he made this very clear. In fact, he stated repeatedly that until I removed the logical flaw from the argument, no survey of the evidence was even necessary. Well, as it turned out, there was no logical flaw – a point which he finally conceded. Moreover, when the false flaw was dealt with, he did not turn to discussions of the evidence even then. He now wants to jump the evidence once again without acknowledging its validity, and would like to change the subject (as Dr Liddle did) into speculations as to the designer – which has nothing to do with the semiotic argument. The entire thing was a tactic specifically designed in order to argue against the evidence without having to address it. Bill sought to serve his own purposes because he fully understands that the material argument is sound. As for being “reasonable”, you have suggested that an argument based upon universal observation should be subject to proving a negative in order to be considered valid. Are you sure that is “reasonable”, given that it is also impossible?
But as far as I can tell, the only support for the claim that no other possible process can do the trick that you have presented, is repeating that nobody finds fault with the material observations (the results themselves).
The argument presented does not say that there are no other processes that can produce a semiotic state, instead, it claims that a process capable of creating a semiotic state will be required in order to produce the semiotic state observed. This is a matter of simple logic. A biosemiotician does not hesitate to acknowledge the material evidence, even though he or she may ultimately believe that a natural process is capable of creating it. That is a matter of having proper empirical discipline. Quite frankly, a biosemiotician will even regularly state that the rise of semiosis is concurrent with the rise of life, and they would be 100% supported by the evidence in saying so. On the other hand, an evolutionary biologist, steeped in evolutionary speculation, would rather have their spleen removed than to acknowledge that same evidence ( - which is a matter of ideology). And as for repeating that “no one can demonstrate that the material evidence is false”, that is being done in response to the latter.
The argument is that if some other process can produce the same results, then you can draw no conclusions about the process by observing the results.
If I go outside and pick up a stone, throw it, and watch it return to the earth, can I draw a conclusion that gravity is at work? Can I do so given that “it falling back to earth” is a universal observation of the cause to which has been assigned to it? By your standards, the answer is resoundingly no. But science does not operate by your standards. I doubt you do either. I am certain of it. When you put a pot of water on the stove to boil, do you turn the stove on, or do you calculate that there may be some other reason it will boil? Universal observations have that kind of effect the human family. They are the grist of science, knowledge, and even expectations.
And as far as I can tell, in all your efforts, you have not examined any alternative processes that might work.
That is because there are none to observe, yet the argument makes available the possibility that one might be posited. That is a simple acknowledgement of reality; appropriate for both proponents and opponents alike.
Stating that there ARE or CAN BE no such processes is not a material observation, it’s simply an assertion.
Again, that is not a claim made by the argument. Even so, it does highlight the fact that the argument is falsifiable with a single demonstration otherwise. It also highlights something else. A school of thought that cannot produce a counter-example becomes non-falsifiable because their assumptions are never subjected to a test of reality. This is the position we find ourselves in. One set of ideas (representing the minority) are already supported by the evidence and are subject to falsification, while another set of ideas (those of the majority) have no supporting evidence and are not subject to falsification. Which of these two positions is properly scientific?Upright BiPed_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

David W Gibson- The problem is there isn't any positive evidence for necessity and chance producing transcription and translation.
I’d be willing to bet that Bill et. al. feel that they have indeed indentified an alternative process, backed by 150 years of increasingly detailed scientific research.
Pure propaganda. Propoaganda is not an alternative process. Their position doesn't have any "detailed scientific research"- that is the problem. And why this equivocation with "evolution"? ID is not anti-evolution, so what "evolution" are you referring to? You don't have deer tracks. All you have is imagination- "Oh I can imagine a pathway therefor SCIENCE!" What's up with that?Joe_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

KF:
What inductive evidence can and does support is that there are two observed sources of highly contingent outcomes under more or less similar conditions: chance and choice.
But what if this is not the case, or not conceptualized that way? There are many observed complex feedback systems, with many many variables interacting and influencing one another in ways often impossible to completely model. Are such systems "chance" or are they "choice"? Maybe there's a better term than either, that would be more descriptive.
It further supports that in every case where we directly can see the cause of functionally specific complex information, in this case digitally coded algorithmic or otherwise semiotic info, this is by intelligent choice.
I agree as far as this goes. The problem is that there are many cases where we can NOT see the cause of functionally specific complex information. Now, if we take every case of such information and discard all cases where the causes are not obvious, sure enough we see a biased sample. Like taking a bag of black marbles and white marbles, tossing out all the white ones because we don't understand white, and concluding that all marbles are black! And complex adaptive systems with many interacting variables are indeed very hard to model. If you pile up enough variables and make their interactions complex enough, even the best models make poor predictions, and we speak of "fate" to express this unpredictablity. And certainly we could substitute "intelligent agency" for "fate" with no essential changes - it's still impossible to predict in any detail, and still produces results of marvelous and fantastic natures. I would argue that striving to understand as many of the mechanics of such processes as we can, is a worthy enterprise.David W. Gibson_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

DWG: I see again the selective hyperskeptical move:
I think you have identified the problem here. In order to make his case airtight (i.e. that no other possible process can produce his entailments), Upright BiPed must prove a negative.
To try to impose that standard on UB is to leave the domain of empirically grounded warrant and testing, i.e it is to abandon science. All UB needs to do is to point out that on 5,000 years of cases, complex -- 500 to 1,000 bits is a good threshold -- digitally coded functionally specific, linguistic, meaningful information has had but one observed cause. Therefore it is an excellently warranted induction to hold that this is a signature of such a cause. This is rather like inferring deer from deer tracks. You are in trhe position of asserting that unless you can show beyond all possibility that only a deer can produce a deer track, you have no good reason to infer deer from deer tracks. Try that one on your friendly local deer hunter when deer season comes in in the USA. See how far that gets you. KFkairosfocus_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Joe, I think you have identified the problem here. In order to make his case airtight (i.e. that no other possible process can produce his entailments), Upright BiPed must prove a negative. And I think he realizes this, which is why he simply continues to assert this. When the number of possibilities is unknown, process of elimination is not a valid means of picking one. I'd be willing to bet that Bill et. al. feel that they have indeed indentified an alternative process, backed by 150 years of increasingly detailed scientific research. Their alternative may not meet what you feel are the necessary requirements (chance and necessity), but it's possible that there are MANY possible alternatives. Upright BiPed's semiosis might be one, chance and necessity might be another, biological evolution might be a third. If the third alternative should happen to be correct, you can't deem if false simply because it isn't the second alternative! And if you are fixed on one of many possible alternatives, and unluckily you happened to pick the wrong one, you run the serious risk of dismissing evidence for the right alternative because if it's not evidence for YOUR alternative, you may not realize that it's evidence at all.David W. Gibson_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

Joe: Prezactly. KFkairosfocus_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

DWG: I see:
Bill is saying that IF you can demonstrate (and not just assert) that no other process can possibly produce the material observations, then your logic is correct.
Stop right there, we are dealing with an empirical situation. No inductive or empirical fact or principle can be established beyond possible contradiction. To demand such a proof for a case where you should know better is selective hyperskepticism, here a form of question-begging. That's like the rhetorical fast move played by Darwin when he spoke of a like condition. That boils down to demanding a default you have no right to. What inductive evidence can and does support is that there are two observed sources of highly contingent outcomes under more or less similar conditions: chance and choice. It further supports that in every case where we directly can see the cause of functionally specific complex information, in this case digitally coded algorithmic or otherwise semiotic info, this is by intelligent choice. We can then take up the analysis of chance based random walks in a config space of sufficient complexity, to see why that should be so for complex and functionally specific patterns. Namely, there is too much haystack, you can only make a relatively tiny sample, and there is just too little needle. Sampling theory -- notice, not an exact probability calculation [which is not at all necessary for the conclusion to be all but certain . . . cf. here on] -- tells us, with maximum likelihood, you will get hay not needle under such circumstances. Indeed, that sort of analysis is the foundation of the statistical form of the second law of thermodynamics. This is what your side is really doing:
a: in the teeth of a base of billions of test cases across 5,000+ years of recorded history where we directly and routinely observe the ONLY directly known source of digitally coded complex functionally specific information, b: Where also the only observed alternative to choice for highly contingent outcomes is intelligent choice, c: With the needle in the haystack search challenge also being on the table, d: It is being insisted that -- to save an a priori commitment to materialism now being imposed on the definition of science and its methods -- e: The bare logical possibility that chance can throw up any contingent pattern must hold the default unless a logically certain disproof can be produced, f: This in a context where it is already known that no scientific -- empirical and inductive -- conclusion can be shown to demonstrative certainty.
In short, you are insulating an a priori from empirical test, which is the same as saying that it is not a scientific claim. Do you really want to turn science into applied materialist philosophy? That is what you are doing. If you are doing so, then the rules change. We have every right to expose how you rigged the game, and to call you out as materialist ideologues and fellow travellers hiding in the holy lab coat and pronouncing ex cathedra statements as a new magisterium. I suggest that you do not want to go down that a priori materialist ideology road. KFkairosfocus_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

David W. Gibson:
Bill is saying that IF you can demonstrate (and not just assert) that no other process can possibly produce the material observations, then your logic is correct. And I think this is reasonable.
Nope, no "proving" the impossible. If Bill et al. don't like it they can actually step up and demonstrate necessity and chance producing it. Ya see THEY need positive evidence- we have plenty of positive evidence for intelligent agencies creating semiotic states. None for mother nature doing so. So what DO you have?Joe_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

”Of course if the necessary and sufficient conditions of a phenomenon are present, then the phenomenon is present”. – Reciprocating Bill
The point you are trying to make is not clear to me. Bill is saying that IF you can demonstrate (and not just assert) that no other process can possibly produce the material observations, then your logic is correct. And I think this is reasonable. But as far as I can tell, the only support for the claim that no other possible process can do the trick that you have presented, is repeating that nobody finds fault with the material observations (the results themselves). And therefore, it's not sufficient to spend the remarkable effort you are making, repeating that (1) the process you have described produces the results you have described, and (2) that the results are as you describe them. Nobody is arguing with this. The argument is that if some other process can produce the same results, then you can draw no conclusions about the process by observing the results. And as far as I can tell, in all your efforts, you have not examined any alternative processes that might work. Stating that there ARE or CAN BE no such processes is not a material observation, it's simply an assertion.David W. Gibson_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

Upright Biped- you are making reciprocating bill whine and cry. Hey RB, since you seem to be reading this blog, how about some evidence that blind and undirected processes can produce transcription and translation? Can't do that so you have to belly-ache about ID- is that it? One thing can stop Upright Biped's argument- and ONE THING only- evidence that purely materialistic processes can produce the semiotic state observed in transcription and translation. Anything else is pure whining and not worth responding to. So how about it guys? Care to ante up with some actual evidence (other than Allen Miller's imagination, that is) that supports your position?Joe_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

And by the way... almost immediately after these concessions were made, the exact same objections resurfaced as if nothing ever happened. I believe there is a name for that.Upright BiPed_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

Hi David, The point was never missed. You are correct that ‘assuming the consequent’ was the charge repeatedly leveled against me. The counter argument was as follows: Inappropriate logical operators were being applied to the argument, which do not conform to the argument as it was made (i.e. a misrepresentation), and further, that non-analogous examples were being repeatedly used as a means to employ those inappropriate operators. Like your example above regarding dogs, this included examples such as “rain causes the ground to become wet, the ground is wet; therefore it rained. (if A then B, B, therefore A). Such formulations do not represent the argument being made. The argument is that the material entailments stemming from the transfer of recorded information (TRI) are the necessary material conditions of the phenomenon, and that these entailments are capable (i.e sufficient) to confirm the existence of that transfer. In other words, if B is the necessary and sufficient conditions of A, then the argument makes no logical flaw, but instead becomes immediately subject to the evidence - which is exactly the way it was presented to be. I used the existence of the fire tetrahedron as an example of the issue at hand. The older “fire triangle” gave the necessary material conditions of a fire (a heat source, a fuel, and an oxidizer) but the triangle by itself could not confirm the existence of a fire (i.e it was not sufficient). In its place, the fire tetrahedron added a specific process to the necessary conditions included within the triangle. That process was the rapid oxidation of a fuel, i.e. combustion. By including that specific process, the fire tetrahedron can confirm the existence of a fire. In the exact same way, the physical entailments of TRI enlist the material requirements of the transfer, but it also goes the extra step of including a specific process. That specific process is fundamental to the transfer of recorded information; it is the production of unambiguous function. So while the material entailments of TRI cannot confirm the existence of TRI, the addition of this specific process allows them that capability. This was eventually conceded during the Skeptical Zone conversation by the main proponent of the argument, and that concession (as well as one other) precipitated my leaving that argument after two months:
”Of course if the necessary and sufficient conditions of a phenomenon are present, then the phenomenon is present”. – Reciprocating Bill
Upright BiPed_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

EA: Excellent. I would add in the first, 2a] We can show why [per a mathematical analysis] it is maximally unlikely that any other object would have four legs. Gkairosfocus_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

Back to the opening topic of this thread, there are four basic responses to the argument that bad design means no design. For simplicity, I list these without details (which have been stated elsewhere) and in order of importance: 1. It is simply false on its face. We have myriad known, empirical examples of designed things that are 'bad' (suboptimal) or 'bad' (designed to cause pain, misery, death and the like). 2. It is a religious/philosophical argument, not a scientific one, and is based on questionable philosophical assumptions. 3. For 'bad design' in the sense of evil, cruel, etc., the alternative explanation (no design at all in nature) undercuts the the very argument being made. As a result, it is logically incoherent. 4. For 'bad design' in the sense of suboptimal, imperfect, etc., it is almost always the case that the design turns out, on further inspection, to be ingenious, exquisite, or completely appropriate (e.g., panda's thumb, vertebrate eye). As a corollary, no materialist making the argument about suboptimal design has ever offered a cogent, engineering-level proposal of how the design could be improved. At most, we get broad handwaving assertions that the design could be better.Eric Anderson_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

David W. Gibson: I'll let UB respond, but it seems you may have have misstated the argument. Perhaps it is: 1) All dogs have four legs (material observation) 2) No other object has four legs (material observation) 3) This object has four legs (material observation) 4) Therefore, this object is a dog! (conclusion) Or perhaps it takes a slightly different form . . .Eric Anderson_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply