Design detection in SETI — just fine; design detection in biology — no way!

_{William Dembski

June 1, 2006

Intelligent Design}

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

Skeptics, ever selective in their skepticism, remain convinced that SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is a legitimate scientific program. But applying methods of design detection to biology — well that’s just plain stupid. See Robert Camp’s piece here.

Design from biology fairly smacks us over the head. What about design from SETI (i.e., convincing proof of alien intelligence)? We’re still waiting for a shred of evidence — in this regard Michael Crichton hit the nail on the head: http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html.

Comments

origen = originMats_{June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

There is a new theory for the origen of life. :)Mats_{June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank, your analogy appears lacking, simplistic with ommissions imho. 1) Assume a priori DI scientist lacks curiosity or scientific methods. 2) Will not require more research and independent corroboration. Does not recognize an independent intellect. A Pavlovian response. 3) Omits "Astronomer" as a classification for DI scientist - thereby linguistic euphemism for ignorance. Should be A-DI. 4) Having updated DI to A-DI we can now safely assume A-DI would know historical reference points and Pulsars like (A) and would therefore be just as cautious. 5) Assume a priori non-ID Astronomer less likely to jump to hasty conclusions? Were the overly exuberant astronomers from the past that discovered Pulsars - ID scientist from DI in 1967? Or were they SETI? Or just plain old earth evolutionist? Do we know? I'd say real life examples trump this analogy. A true scientist(much less any sane person) is not limited simply by his beliefs when searching for truth and this applies to the false attacks on Dr. Sanford's young earth creationist views in the previous post here. You cannot simply apply your understanding of ID so simplistically to an individual, nor it appears standards to past astronomers who were not influenced by ID. All humans jumpt to conclusions, not just ID humans.Michaels7_{June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

scratch "could" in the third sentence.ftrp11_{June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

Well Dave I don't think that life didn't have help. I think that the environment found on Earth is conducive to its thriving. How the immense complexity could that we see built into life emerged I have not a clue. I see nature being incredibly complex in almost every way. It is hard to think of a field in the hard sciences that has not produced more questions with every answer that is yielded. We have reached a point where we are able to recognize complexity beyond our comprehension. Everything we know is bound by natural law. If life and conscious beings are indeed God's intention and God was willing to cheat his own rules to make us why bother with all the pointless creation. Our star is one of hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy which is one in hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe. All that we can observe operates according to natural laws. It makes no sense to me to supernaturally seed just one planet in the midst of such copious creation. It seems more likely that we live in a universe engineered to create complexity according to Natural Law without further assistance. I have no reason to believe that I can ultimately fathom the means of poduction used by a being capable of such immense creation, but the fact that everything I see is ordered leads me to believe that special assistance was not necessary. If there even can be a burden of proof on something that may well be unknowable I would say it is on those who make a special case for life breaking the rules.
I didn't say anything about supernatural beings or breaking rules and none of that is required as far as I can tell to either design the DNA based life on earth or deposit it here. No straw men please. -ds ftrp11_{June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

Mung

The article emphasized that forensics work relies on a known intelligence whos motives we can understand. If we see a phenomenom where we understand how a human could have produced similar results, but we have no idea how nature could have produced the affect then we can say with reasonable assurance that the phenomenom is artificial. The point about needing to understand stand the motives is that such understanding is an integral part in judging something artificial i.e. man made. In SETI's case we are looking for a signal sent by a race similar to us that uses logic we understand. Only a signal sent by a race trying to show itself and using the most likely, by our thinking, part of the em spectrum will be detected by SETI.

Again the argument falls back on the notion that intelligent agency is necessary for design. Many scientists would say that it is not. Stephen Wolfram has shown that design can be contingent on the rules of the game and not purposeful mechanisms. Random changes constrained by appropriate rules can create intricate designs. It is certainly an awful strectch to extrapolate from that that natural mechanisms are capable of creating the immense complexity we see, but the point remains. What we would reflexively call design is not necessarily the result of purposeful mechanisms.

So you're saying you can't tell a machine running under digital program control from a pile of rocks? Or are you saying you can tell the difference but you think that absent confirmation of an intelligent agent you can't tell if the machine was built on purpose or its parts just piled up by accident like the rocks? Forgive me for saying this but I think anyone who seriously makes the argument you do, while understanding just how complex the machinery in question is, needs to have their head examined. Digitally programmed machines of almost unfathomable complexity don't just materialize out of thin air. The burden of proof should be on the purveyors of the ludicrous notion that machines like that assemble themselves without help and until proven otherwise the only sane assumption is that these machines were designed by an intelligence of some sort. I can forgive Darwin. He didn't have a clue of what was going on inside even the simplest living cell. You have no excuse. -ds
ftrp11_{June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

As far as the message in the stars goes,,, Camp states that only unexplained phenomena it subcategory b1 are capable of being investigated by scientific method. He defines a b1 event as an event that "accords with certain preconditions, those being that it is real, it is derived from natural processes, it abides by the physical laws of the universe, and is accessible to current science. Camp would put the stellar message phenomenom in subcategory b2 and therefore not accessible to scientific investigation. Ofcourse science cannot rule out supernatural events and I would imagine that we would heed such a warning regardless of its suscepitability to scientific investigation. Gil said: "With all due respect, the sophistication of the information content and information-processing capabilities of living systems can only be explained away in materialistic terms if one has a somewhat irrational commitment to a dying philosophy." I would submit that the information precessing capabilities of living systems cannot currently be explained by material explanations or otherwise. ID presupposses that nature is incapable of producing CSI. Most scientists see no reason to make such an assumption. We currently cannot hope to unravel the complexity of systems that we know operate on natural mechanisms. People say follow where the evidence leads, but that doesn't help much when the evidence is well beyond our reach. Calculations of probability, to be reasonably accurate, require an understanding the relevant mechanisms and laws. We do not even come close to having the requisite understanding of how life operates to make probability calculations concerning its development. Consider this. There is our current body of biological knowledge. There are also all the realms of biology where we are aware of our ignorance. Quite possibly the combination of the two is merely the tip of the iceburg. How we can we say with any assurance what the probability of certain events are when what we know about those events is dwarfed by what we do not. It is similar to Crichton's argument about the nuclear winter calculations. There is simply no way to know what would happen because there is too much that we cannot know.ftrp11_{June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

The problem is that natural selection, a natural process, also fulfills the complexity-specification criterion, thereby demonstrating that it is possible to have unintelligent design in nature.

...to detect design we needed to know details or make assumptions about the capabilities, limitations and motivations of the designer.
So, if it is possible to have untintelligent design in nature, how is it that to detect design we needed to know details or make assumptions about the capabilities, limitations and motivations of the designer? Why aren't we asking these questions about natural selection? I think the point here is that the anti-ID arguments are self-contradictory. Or do I need to dust off an Intro to Logic textbook? :)Mung_{June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

Re #21. Yes it is true that the prime number sequence tells us nothing about a possible designer. That's my point. The message in the stars is clearly designed because it does tell us something about the designer. The prime number sequence - all we know is that it was not generated by a process which generates each bit at random. The next step is to explore alternatives. But the ID specialist just puts up a sign saying "design" and stops.Mark Frank_{June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

Addendum: The IDist's reluctance to partake in story telling for the prime number sequence is not a fault; it is the mark of someone who realistically knows what the evidence can say and what it cannot. I would call him the better scientist in that situation for using epistemic restraint. Then again, the astronomer's stories about advance imperialistic civilizations would probably get him a grant. : )Atom_{June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

Re #18: "Going back to the message in the stars. This shouts design. But it is not just the improbability of chance meeting a specification. We can make the prime number example as improbable as we like by extending the length of the bit string, but it will never have the power of the message in the stars. Why? Because the message in the stars immediately suggests a lot about the designer." I would like to point out a few things, first, if we recieved a prime number string, what message could it possibly convey? A few things: 1) It was designed, if specification and probablility requirements are met. (Explanatory Filter) 2) The intelligence that designed it had knowledge of mathematics, and 3) not much else. You see, we can't assume the intelligence wanted us to find the signal. Maybe it just "leaked" out. We can't assume anything about the technology used; maybe they cause radio frequencies using an unknown to us form of signaling. Anything beyond "It was designed and the intelligence knows the prime number suequence" is pure conjecture. But then again, in Darwinian circles, all you need is a story, a logically-possible series of events, and that is taken as "hard science". Just my two cents.Atom_{June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Don't judge a book by its cover, a scientist by his religion, or a link by its name... Skeptical Dualist, I followed your link on the post about Dr. Sanford's book, then Qualiatative's post of a NYT article, from there to the following subject for Research Towards the Year 2020 by Microsoft. Just like IBM, Microsoft see's the light. I thought this research team study by MicroSoft would be good for additional discussion in relation to Future trends, SETI, and Biology. Because at the end at least one of their commenters recognizes the need for external input. A few quotes... "Indeed, we believe computer science is poised to become as fundamental to biology as mathematics has become to physics." Why is this not a bold statement? "... there is a growing awareness among biologists that to understand cells and cellular systems requires viewing them as information processing systems, as evidenced by the fundamental similarity between molecular machines of the living cell and computational automata, and by the natural fit between computer process algebras and biological signalling and between computational logical circuits and regulatory systems in the cell." Another bold recognition of the future biologicial space frontier? "We believe this is a potential starting point for fundamental new developments in biology, biotechnology and medicine." A "potential starting point". IBM's there Mr. Gates. I wonder if PARC is in the race at all. They are - http://www.parc.xerox.com/research/default.html. "7 Finally, ...funding. Scientists will need to be completely computationally and mathematically literate, and by 2020, it will simply not be possible to do science without such literacy. This therefore has important implications for education policy right now." Great_ape recognized this very fact not long ago here. Again - business will demand better education in the hard sciences. This means a decisive move away from antiquated, sterilized and might I add, bigoted viewpoints. The fact Dr. Sanford created 25 patents and succeeded in two businesses and excelled as an academic far past most in his field highlights the utter lunacy of statements against his religious viewpoints and therefore oppression of his views. It shows how completely foolish people can be in their ad hominem attacks and exposes them for what they are - fearmongers. Good science is done by all kinds of people irregardless of philosophical underpinnings. Today's search is ever more about "computational Design mechanisms" on all levels and the need to codify the biological structures we see on the micro level. The researchers at Microsoft all agreed that current biology is underserved by its practicioners lack of understanding in the complexity inherant in the systems they work with every day. It will take the hard sciences to unlock the diversity we see on this planet. It will take vast computing power and fundamentals in such areas as signal processing and electronic design. Here's the site... http://research.microsoft.com/towards2020science/downloads.htm The MS 2020 Research study is downloadable PDF at above location. This would be good discussion material as IBM, MS and others foray into biology upsets the status quo of the old guard. The study clings to evolutionary standards and like SETI look to external events to explain timelines, but here's an interesting final quote by Ehud Shapiro.... "... the evolutionary distance between the primary cell and modern humans seems smaller than the distance between innate matter and the primary cell." "Hence more time might have been needed to allow for its evolution than is afforded by planet Earth, which is precisely what CrickÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s theory provides. Once we open the possibility of life originating somewhere else, we also have the freedom to speculate what conditions might have been most conducive to lifeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s development, without being confined to the specific conditions prevalent in early planet Earth."Michaels7_{June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

Re my last post (#18) - please ignore the last sentence which was rubbish left over after editing.Mark Frank_{June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT}

Re #13. These thought experiments are really instructive (Dembski has a similar one with a quantum generated bit string that prints out the ASCII for a cure for cancer). I find Camp's paper unclear, primarily because it lacks examples, and I don't think the natural/supernatural distinction is very helpful. This is how I would put it. For any given set of observations there will be a number of competing explanations (and many more that no one has thought of yet). Some of them will include an element of design, others will not. One of the ways you evaluate the different hypotheses is by seeing if you can detect a pattern in the observed results and assessing how likely it would be to match this pattern on the basis of the hypothesis (that's the specification bit - I will leave out how the definition and justification of the pattern for the moment). That is not the only way you evaluate the competing hypotheses - but it is an important one. But you can't evaluate a hypothesis unless you supply some detail about the hypothesis. Just to say - my hypotheses is "design" is not sufficient. In the case of SETI, and the other examples where human design is proposed, there is detail. There is an examination of whether the signal could be generated by an intelligence, what would be the motivation, etc. E.g. If the source of the prime numbers was an area known to be nothing but a gas cloud then that would cast serious doubt on the hypothesis that the signal was from an alien source. Going back to the message in the stars. This shouts design. But it is not just the improbability of chance meeting a specification. We can make the prime number example as improbable as we like by extending the length of the bit string, but it will never have the power of the message in the stars. Why? Because the message in the stars immediately suggests a lot about the designer. The designer wants to help us. Has initimate knowledge of our culture and language and has immense technology. It is a quite extraordinary phenomenon and this extraordinary hypothesis is the best that we can come up with. Because we have some detail we can further evaluate the hypothesis - for example is the message in modern English or something older? Did the stars make sudden changes to their positions in the sky to spell out the message or was it always there? The important thing is that this is not a case of systematically detecting CSI and declaring design. It is much more positive than that. If the ID movement were able to make a similar proposal about life then it could also be examined. I can look for design in In the bizarre case of the message in the stars then we are not just looking at the improbability ofMark Frank_{June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PDT}

Re #15. I am sorry - you will have to explain to me how this relates to the little example I put forward. We weren't talking about living systems. We were talking about prime numbers ??Mark Frank_{June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT}

Mark, With all due respect, the sophistication of the information content and information-processing capabilities of living systems can only be explained away in materialistic terms if one has a somewhat irrational commitment to a dying philosophy.GilDodgen_{June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PDT}

I could be going out on a limb here crandaddy, but I thought the crux of the Camp's arguement was that to detect design we needed to know details or make assumptions about the capabilities, limitations and motivations of the designer.
ie in forensics, when investigating a crime we tend to assume human perpetrators and so assume they don't fly, are corporeal and can't pass through solid objects, leave fingerprints, have a certain strength they are capable of, etc.
Science as it stands only restricts itself to corporeal entities insofar as hypotheses involing non-corporeal entities have not stood up to repeated experimentation.
Again, perhaps naivety on my part, but a cornerstone of science as I know it, is for observations to be repeatable and so far no experiment of measurement of non-corporeal entities has been proposed that mainstream science can build on and use.
As an example, when building a theory about how a crime took place, a forensic scientist can make assumptions about what the perperator did and test them based on what humans are capable of. Such tests are simply not possible of a non-corporeal entity as we have no experience with them, and hence can neither ascribe nor deny actions and qualities to them.

I also have a problem with assuming a non-corporeal entity whenever we have a case of design but can't identify a known entity or mechanism that could of designed an object. Going back to the watchmaker arguement, the watch we find on the beach, assume it is digital or of sports design for Paley's time... Should we automatically assume the watchmaker is non-corporeal? Rather than the watchmaker in this case being just a bit smarter than us?

Personally I accept the "We don't know yet" answer to a problem without the need to say "this artifact was definately designed, we have known designer or mechanism, so it was the Great Designer". I guess this is the point I disagree on with DonaldM, detecting design I think is fine to me, but what type of design? Pigliucci is just saying natural processes are capable of generating what would appear to be Intelligent Design, not that all Intelligent Design is due to natural processes.
mc87_{June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT}

Re #9 and #10. In the little example above both A and D accept that the prime numbers would be an extraordinary coincidence if the bits were randomly generated - so they both accept that the string conforms to a specification. (It would not be a conincidence if there were no specification). The point is their reaction. A looks for detailed alternatives and rules nothing out. D says - it can't be we what thought therefore design. (My understanding of specification is based on http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf which supersedes all previous descriptions of specification as is made clear in addendum A.)Mark Frank_{June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

Is Camp's argument against the eficacy of ID's design detection capabilities the best that the other side has to offer? If so, then they look to be in quite the conundrum: Design detection is only applicable if the design being studied is likely to have been produced by an entity of a corporeal nature, but how could one ever tell if a corporeal entity is intelligent in the first place? The intelligence of corporeal entities is assessed by the effects they produce, so intelligence is fundamentally understood by effects, not physical bodies and not even methods.

In fact, this is trivially easy to exemplify. Consider that an astronomer discovers a new stellar constellation spanning hundreds of light years which spells out the sentence "God was here" with perfect form. Could a corporeal entity (or entities) really have done this? How could it (they) have done it? Camp and his colleagues must say that because we can't answer these questions, we are not justified in concluding that the constellation was designed.

But wait, it gets even better! Let's say that the astronomer discovers a constellation that says (in English, and again in perfect form) that an asteroid is on a collision course with Earth, that it is so massive that it will destroy all terrestrial life, and that it will impact in ten years. Because we don't know how any corporeal entity could possibly have written such a message, we are not justified in concluding that this message is the result of intelligent agency; therefore, to set into motion any evacuation preparations would be irrational under Camp's reasoning. Have I thoroughly refuted his argument, or is there something I've overlooked?
crandaddy_{June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

I found this quote from Pigliucci to be most illuminating:
Dembski is absolutely correct that plenty of human activities, such as SETI, investigations into plagiarism, or encryption, depend on the ability to detect intelligent agency. Where he is wrong is in assuming only one kind of design: for him design equals intelligence and, even though he admitted that such an intelligence may be an advanced extraterrestrial civilization, his preference is for a god, possibly of the Christian variety. The problem is that natural selection, a natural process, also fulfills the complexity-specification criterion, thereby demonstrating that it is possible to have unintelligent design in nature.
So, is it fair to say that Pigliucci would never accept that any signal detected by SETI could be of intelligent origin because, apparently, chance and necessity can also fulfill the complexity-specification criterion. Pigliucci accuses Bill of assuming only one kind of design, but it seems that Pigliucci is doing the very same thing. Oh how I wish these guys would dust off thier intro to Logic textbooks!DonaldM_{June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT}

"Do we know of any natural deterministic process which can produce primes?" An evolutionist would claim that evolution creates primes with the cicadas, who emerge in cycles of 13 and 17 years. The story goes that their predators work on similar cycles of multiple years, and by having prime cycles they ensure that they won't consistently emerge on the same year as their predator - since the predator's cycle can't be a factor of the cicadas'. Of course, since we're talking about living things I doubt anyone would agree it's a 'natural' process around here!Tiax_{June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

Comment by Mark Frank...
As Atom points out, "you make it sound like Ã¢â‚¬Å“unlikelinessÃ¢â‚¬Â is enough to trigger a design inference, when it is not." But that's not all. Do we know of any natural deterministic process which can produce primes? Mark, respectfully, all you are doing is demonstrating your ignorance of ID thoery in general, and the Explanatory Filter in particular. The question I have to ask is, is it deliberate, or is it willful? Do you really know better and just pretend that you don't? You won't be taken seriously here if you persist in displays like this.Mung_{June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank, you forgot to mention that the unlikely pattern also conforms to an INDEPENDENT pattern, that of the prime number sequence. Low probablility is not enough. Begin by reading "Specification" in W.Dembski's Mathematical Foundations of ID series and check "The Design Inference." You make it sound like "unlikeliness" is enough to trigger a design inference, when it is not.Atom_{June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

There is SETI as it is actually practised and then there is the famous fictious example in Contact which is more of a thought experiment. They are both interesting - but different. I am particularly interested in the thought experiment. I have never seen Contact but I would like to share a fantasy I have of a scene after the prime numbers have been detected. Suppose a SETI manager (M), an astronomer (A) and an expert from the Discovery Institute (D). M: OK. There is no disputing these are prime numbers. It looks like we may be on to something big. Astronomer what do you think? A: Well it is certainly not the result of random 1s and 0s where each digit is equally likely. That would be an extraordinary coincidence. I am not sure of a natural process that could produce this pattern or even make it more likely - but I am not ruling it out. I am still working on it. Remember how we all got so excited when we got the signal from the first pulsar. M: Right. Well keep working. Now then our Intelligent Design expert. What do you think? D: I agree it is certainly not the result of random 1s and 0s where each digit is equally likely. M: Oh - right. So what do you think? If an alien race wanted to communicate it might be a really universal signal to start with - right? And any advanced race should have the technology to send a signal of this strength? D: Oh I am not going to be trapped into that game. I won't conjecture about that motives or the identity of the designer. All I can tell you is that there is strong evidence of design. M: Oh right - what's that? D: Well it is certainly not the result of random 1s and 0s where each digit is equally likely. M: Yeah I heard that already... D: Therefore, it is not chance and must be designed. M: Run that by me again?Mark Frank_{June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Two comments by Crichton are particularly illuminating: Ã¢â‚¬Å“...I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc^2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.Ã¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever "published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review." (But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism, coming from scientists?Ã¢â‚¬Â Does any of this sound familiar vis-a-vis the Darwinism / ID debate?GilDodgen_{June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

The Crichton lecture is great reading. So much good material in it.Mung_{June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Michael Crichton's speech--he sure did hit the nail on the head! "There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." Science is the most precious thing. It's the pursuit of truth--for if not then there's no difference between science and technology--just "useful fictions". If it's concensus then it's just politics--which is what the postmodernists so politically assert it to be. Reading the "skeptics" brings home how that for many the drive is not for truth but rather for stability and conformity and who'll be king of the mountain. "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."Rude_{June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

I read R. Camp's essay with interest. What impressed me most was his style of skepticism, which I would characterize more as an effort to be critical, but also to be objective in his criticism(s). He questions the analogy between IBD (intelligent biologic design), and human design applications, including SETI and forensics, but he questions it objectively. As usual, I don't agree with those conclusions, but I like his method of analysis. Camp agrees that many human investigations looks for design inferences, but that that should not necessarily apply to biologic designs, and ultimately, by extension, to origins. He attacks Wm. Dembski's Explanatory Filter, but not effectively. One argument is that forensics wouldn't work without an accurate understanding of the nature of the intelligence being investigated, and that that would not apply to supernatural causes. He compares SETI with forensics, in that both disciplines employ "specific assumptions" about the intelligence they investigate. Forensics, yes, but SETI is highly speculative and we can make no concrete assumptions. In any event, direct knowledge about the perpetrator, while helpful, should not be required to establish design. He states that "the analogy of ID to forensics, SETI, and science Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ fails", but provides no real reasons. He makes the 'just so' assertion that ID and science are different, and that any comparison is a "category error". That sounds a little like the 'establishment clause' of the Constitution. Maybe we should devise a 'Lemon Test' to get around that. He presents other arguments, but none stand up, IMO. His bottom line conclusion is that ID can never be science by definition, i.e. that science investigates only natural causations and phenomenon, and that 'does' have some merit, but only if one adheres to a strict, and perhaps outdated definition of what science is. A solution to that dilemma might be to include supernatural, or spirit matter, as part of the 'natural' universe. But of course, the spirit world doesn't exist Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ Camp quotes British poet Ralph Hodgson in his opening page: "Some things have to be believed to be seen." It is perhaps a more accurate assessment of many scientists today to state the converse, that 'some things have to be seen to be believed.' Quite true, but first, they have to take the blinders off.leebowman_{June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Why do they call themselves skeptics? They are not at all skeptical concerning the gaping and obvious lacunas in Darwinian theory.GilDodgen_{June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

PS: Stephen Hawkings did not originate that quote, he popularized it. He does not claim to be an athiest, and I have heard the same sentiment from the most pious of sources, too. Object lesson might be: Never mix singularities and imaginary numbers.Collin DuCrÃƒÂ¢ne_{June 1, 2006
June
06
Jun
1
01
2006
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply