Design Detection Reported on CBS’s 60 Minutes

_{Barry Arrington

November 30, 2008

Intelligent Design}

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

This evening the CBS News show 60 Minutes reported on an impressive example of design detection in the on-line poker world.

Online gambling has grown in a few short years to a 16 billion dollar a year industry, and a big part of that growth has come from internet poker. Recently several professional gamblers at one of the larger internet poker sites, Ultimatebet.com, noticed that some of their opponents were playing extremely poorly, yet winning consistently. They suspected cheating.

One of the professionals obtained tracking data on one of the suspected cheaters, and after running the numbers determined that the suspect’s winning hand percentage was 13 standard deviations away from the mean percentage. This is equivalent to winning a 1,000,000 to 1 lottery six times in a row. The professionals took their findings to the licensing authority. Denyse, you’ll get a kick out of this. Most internet poker sites are licensed by a sovereign Indian nation near Montréal, Canada, the Mohawk Kahnawake tribe. The tribe hired a professional gaming expert to investigate, and sure enough there was cheating. One of Ultimatebet’s employees had gotten an administrative password, which gave him the ability to play poker at the site while looking at the other players hands! In all, the employee stole more than $20,000,000. Read the whole story here.

How does this relate to ID? The investigation was pure scientific design detection. Here is how the investigator employeed the scientific method to reach his conclusion.

Step 1: Decide on a question one would like to explore. In this case, the investigator suspected cheating, but it was just a gut feeling. The poker players among us know that in any given hand the worst player in the world can beat the best player in the world by pure dumb luck. I have personally seen a player win a hand in which the probability that he was going to win was only 1%. But blind luck like this succeeds only in the short run. In the long run, the better player will always come out ahead. Here, the investigator saw data that seemingly contradicted that maxim. A player (let’s call him Joe) who was playing very poorly, constantly taking foolish risks, was nevertheless winning not only in the short run, but also in the long run.

Step 2: Form a hypothesis. This was easy enough. The investigator hypothesized that the Joe was cheating.

Step 3: Test the hypothesis. The investigator gathered data about Joe’s history and performed a statistical analysis to test his hypothesis. He determined that Joe was winning at a rate that was 15 standard deviations above the mean. In the story the investigator is quoted saying, “Now, this sort of stuff just doesn’t happen in the real world.” In other words, the investigator cannot rule out random chance in an absolute sense, but as a practical matter, he is certain that Joe is cheating.

Step 4: Form a conclusion. The data indicate that Joe is cheating.

Acting on his scientific findings, the investigator reported Joe to the licensing authority, which performed its own investigation and found that Joe had in fact been cheating by using the administrative password to look at the other players’ hands while he was playing.

How is design detection in this instance different from the design detection employed by ID proponents? As far as I can tell, not at all.

Comments

Barry A writes: “As a matter of simple logic we can assert that the exact same TYPE of causes are potentially in play with respect to both living things and Mt. Rushmore. Those potential causes are: chance, mechanical necessity and design. Therefore the two cases are eminently comparable.” -----Rib responds: “By that logic, literally everything in the world is “eminently comparable” to everything else. Think about it.” (Inspired by the magnanimous behavior of Atom, G Puccio, and Timeaus, I hereby resolve to provide the requisite fraternal correction with no references whatsoever about egregious lapses in logic)..(An exercise in self control that should be duly recorded in the annals of endurance.) Barry A’s argument is as follows: If specified complexity is the result of intelligent innovation in all KNOWN cases (meaning that it has been verified that chance and mechanical design were known NOT TO HAVE PLAYED A ROLE), then if specified complexity appears where the agent is unknown, the best explanation is that, once again, it follows from an intelligent cause. ------“By the way, it’s interesting that you continue to employ the Explanatory Filter when Dembski has disavowed it. Do you think the disavowal was a mistake on his part?” Barry A’s argument does not appeal to the explanatory filter. It is an extension of an empirical observation. It is not a step by step journey from law to chance to agency. -----I’m pointing out that we have a plausible materialist explanation for the apparent design of life, whereas we don’t have such an explanation for Mt. Rushmore. The difference? Rock formations don’t reproduce with heritable variation, so natural selection cannot operate on them. To assert that the materialist explanation is “plausible” is to assume that which has yet to be demonstrated. The entire theme of this blog is that the “materialist explanation” is NOT plausible.StephenB_{December 5, 2008
December
12
Dec
5
05
2008
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

pubdef asks: Where exactly is the dividing line between micro- and macroevolution? As soon as I see chance and necessity work together to generate additional genetic information, I will start to take NDE seriously.Barry Arrington_{December 5, 2008
December
12
Dec
5
05
2008
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

Rib, re [90] your entire argument rests on the assumption that NDE is a plausible explanation for macro-evolution. You are a true believer. Arguing with you is, therefore, pointless.Barry Arrington_{December 5, 2008
December
12
Dec
5
05
2008
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

#84:
As a matter of simple logic we can assert that the exact same TYPE of causes are potentially in play with respect to both living things and Mt. Rushmore. Those potential causes are: chance, mechanical necessity and design. Therefore the two cases are eminently comparable.
I don't think it's adequate to refer to "design" as a type of cause, because the hypothetical designers of living things and Mt. Rushmore are so clearly not of the same type. (Again, I'm not interested in the possibility that life on earth was designed by aliens, an earlier race of sentient beings, or any other natural, material agent who would in turn require its own designer.) To further illustrate my point, from #82:
It’s rather obvious that trees aren’t cut down, with whittle marks at the ends, and arranged across streams with a dry compartment inside and an underwater entrance, by unguided natural processes, so I don’t see the problem of the design inference in the case of beaver dams. We might not be sure what kind of agent was responsible for them, if we had never seen a beaver; we might suppose it was some short little humanoid like a hobbit. But we would be right to suppose a designing agent of some kind.
Exactly -- we wouldn't know it was a beaver if we had no idea that beavers exist, but we would surmise that it was some kind of animal. So there are (at least) two problems: (1) not all "designing agents" are equally plausible, and (2) notwithstanding the protestations of ID people here and elsewhere, evolutionary biology, supported by other branches of science, does have the kind of evidence that supports (and, more importantly, provides a fruitful paradigm for further investigation of) the existence of a mechanism that can produce complex structures. (Where exactly is the dividing line between micro- and macroevolution?)pubdef_{December 5, 2008
December
12
Dec
5
05
2008
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

Later today I will present some remarks and questions about natural selection that should address the points raised by you, jerry, Patrick, and others who are skeptical of NDE’s power.
You better have some data then. I've been discussing observed limitations, not talking points.Patrick_{December 5, 2008
December
12
Dec
5
05
2008
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

Ribczynski (#91,#92): Your points about teleological language are quite reasonable. Nonetheless, the central problem remains. Granted that Darwinian processes would produce a result similar to the result of conscious, designing activity, how then do we choose between the two processes? Which is the best explanation? It seems to me that empirical evidence must be the deciding factor. No one has shown that Darwinian processes can create complex, integrated systems. We know, however, that complex, integrated systems can be created by intelligent beings; further, all complex, integrated systems known to us have in fact been created by intelligent beings, or at least by sentient beings (beavers, bees) with instincts that contain implicit intelligence. We have never seen complex, integrated systems created by lower animals (flatworms, starfish, etc.), plants, or minerals. All of this would suggest that intelligent design is a better explanation for complex, integrated organic systems than Darwinian processes. True, in intelligent design, we cannot locate the agent through whom the design is implemented. So our choice would appear to be a choice between a cause that is known to work, with a missing agent, and an agent (chance plus matter plus natural laws) which is known to exist, but whose capacity to do the job is (a) empirically unproven; and (b) theoretically highly improbable. Given this apparent stalemate, one wonders why Darwinian evolution is considered a scientific achievement on the level of Newton and Galileo, whereas intelligent design is not considered science at all. Perhaps both of them should be removed from science class, and denied public funding for their research. I propose freezing all public funds currently allocated to the salaries and research expenses of professors of evolutionary biology, until Darwinists have proved that Darwinian processes can generate integrated complexity in at least one major case (the eye, the avian lung, the cardiovascular system, etc.) Then the funding tap can be turned back on. Alternately, ID could be given equivalent funding and an equal number of university chairs. Either of these proposals would create a level institutional playing field for the two conjectures, neither of which appears more scientific than the other. T.Timaeus_{December 5, 2008
December
12
Dec
5
05
2008
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

I should add that even in disciplines other than biology, teleological language is common. An atom seeks its lowest-energy state, or borrows an electron from its neighbor. A microprocessor wants to complete a subroutine, but keeps getting interrupted. A river finds the path of least resistance. You get the point.ribczynski_{December 5, 2008
December
12
Dec
5
05
2008
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

Hi Timaeus, I'd like to briefly address your comment about teleological language. Later today I will present some remarks and questions about natural selection that should address the points raised by you, jerry, Patrick, and others who are skeptical of NDE's power. You wrote:
On (a), science works well without invoking design in the physical/chemical realm. It does not work so well without invoking design in the biological realm. Anatomy and physiology textbooks are laced with teleological language relating structures and functions to obvious internal ends or purposes. Cell biology, too, finds it hard to avoid such language.
I don't find it surprising at all that biologists often use teleological language. 1. Being social creatures, we have a keen understanding of other people as agents who think, feel, and plan as we do. We tend to overuse that faculty, attributing agency in cases where there is none (see this). Even when we know there's no agency involved, it's easy to lapse into teleological language, and everyone understands that we're not being literal. I recently heard someone say, "My cell phone chose that exact moment to die on me." 2. Since NDE gives rise to apparent design, it is perfectly natural to use teleological language to describe its results. And why should NDE give rise to apparent design? Because it weeds out changes that are unfavorable to survival and reproduction, leaving the ones that are. Inevitably, it looks as if the retained characteristics were chosen to promote survival and reproduction. In fact, "selection" is itself a teleological word.ribczynski_{December 5, 2008
December
12
Dec
5
05
2008
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Barry wrote:
As a matter of simple logic we can assert that the exact same TYPE of causes are potentially in play with respect to both living things and Mt. Rushmore. Those potential causes are: chance, mechanical necessity and design. Therefore the two cases are eminently comparable.
By that logic, literally everything in the world is "eminently comparable" to everything else. Think about it.
Against this conclusion, one could also appeal to chance and mechanical necessity to explain both phenomenon.
Sure you could. But that doesn't make the explanations equally plausible. By the way, it's interesting that you continue to employ the Explanatory Filter when Dembski has disavowed it. Do you think the disavowal was a mistake on his part?
In your statement that I quoted above, you are doing nothing more than assuming that the apparently designed features of living things are the result of the chance and necessity and the apparently designed features of Mt. Rushmore cannot be the result of chance and necessity.
No, I'm pointing out that we have a plausible materialist explanation for the apparent design of life, whereas we don't have such an explanation for Mt. Rushmore. The difference? Rock formations don't reproduce with heritable variation, so natural selection cannot operate on them. Barry, not all phenomena are equally likely to be explainable in terms of chance and necessity. Suppose we are comparing two phenomena, A and B, that appear equally complicated to us. We have a mechanism in mind that seems to explain phenomenon A. For phenomenon B, we have no such explanation, and we cannot even conceive of one. By your logic, phenomenon A is no more likely to be the result of mechanism than phenomenon B. After all, we failed to explain phenomenon B in terms of chance and necessity. Why should phenomenon A, which we are also trying to explain in terms of chance and necessity, be any more likely? Does that argument really make sense to you?
And accordingly, we are less than impressed with your reasoning.
That statement is rather more amusing than you intended, coming as it does from someone who argues, without realizing it, that everything in the world is comparable to everything else.ribczynski_{December 5, 2008
December
12
Dec
5
05
2008
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Considering the fundamental role of both linear and quadratic selection in population genetics and in popular accounts of Darwin’s theory, one of those “unresolved” issues may well be whether natural selection exists to any appreciable extent, and if it does, whether it plays any real role in biological change altogether.
I think Berlinski went too far with that last comment. I know PaV (I think I recall it being him) has argued in the past for an intelligent mechanism for the finch beaks, but we can look at GAs and see that fitness functions do work when properly balanced (which is active information). The problem is that Darwinists presume this balancing act and thus that natural selection is capable of operating uniformly. As in, for ALL targets in a search space there exists environmental factors capable of creating diversifying or directional selection to the extent that features become fixated within a population. I have no problem with the assertion that this works for SOME cases, just not ALL. The reason I think this is an issue is since selection usually relies on environmental factors (I say usually since there is artificial selection like with dogs). While some factors are generalized, some factors must be very specific in order for the funneling effect to work. What if, like with these peacock feathers, the factors are very rare or don't even exist? That means that in order for Darwinism to work not only does Functional Complexity have to emerge it must be paired with a rare event that offers selective pressure. Now ID proponents don’t dispute the notion of stabilizing selection. They dispute the notion that there’s a kind of selection other than stabilizing selection that can operate successfully to the point of macro-evolution. This does not mean that selection in general does not happen per se (think finch beaks, blind cavefish, malaria, ice fish, etc.) but Berlinski would probably say it's not special enough that should not warrant a separate categorization. Or at least that directional selection is exceedingly rare and can only operate under limited conditions/environments and thus for a very short amount of time (or at least it better be short lived...directional selection tends to decimate a population as was seen with the finches). Personally I'm fine with people making these categorical distinctions since they've only been shown to be capable of trivial changes. Now as I've pointed out before the major issue is that natural selection is essentially a funnel, and it must be balanced in order to produce results. For an example, a while back I had an experiment with a GA that performed word searches. Going from memory here, so short version is that there were multiple versions of the fitness function: a) pseudo-random search b) a function that attempted to emulate Darwinism c) a function that incorporated some active information about the target d) explicit directed front-loading. The target was less than 200 informational bits but only C and D were capable of finding it. The most difficult target at 360 informational bits required D. The point is that selection must be constrained and balanced long enough that the trait becomes fixated. The problem with the finch example is that once the environment changes back to normal the finch population also reverts back to being a mixed population based upon continuous variation. As in, the changes purportedly funneled by directional selection don't stick (they are not fixated). Some Darwinists like to say that in order for such changes to fixate that the environment must be permanently altered as well. Well...in the finches case it's apparent by their dwindling numbers that this might likely cause extinction of that population within that environment. Even if they did survive and the trait did fixate within the population it's unknown whether the finches would permanently lose the ability to produce beaks of different sizes if the environment changed once again far off into the future. A Darwinist put it this way: "sufficient conditions for long-term improvement [and fixation, I might add] to be likely are quite complicated." Tell me about it... Here's an example with flying squirrels, which have numerous balanced morphological changes in order to properly glide. Dawkins speculated that falling from trees provided the environmental funnel. How many squirrels died jumping out of trees before some of them found out that they were lucky enough to have mutant extra skin along with modifications to the spine and ligaments in order to allow them to glide? How many squirrels have to fall to their deaths for such a change to become fixated in the population? Do we have any data at all on deaths caused by falls or is it all speculation? The automatic tendon locking mechanisms of such creatures should keep most of the corpses of natural deaths up in the trees I would imagine. What environment would provide this selective pressure? Unfortunately for such speculations, ordinary squirrels have been observed to fall from great heights with little or no injury. So are we now forced to hypothesize a limited set of environments which may include trees that would regularly cause death by falling? The reason I ask all this is because evolutionary biology claims to have all this predictive power, so answering these questions should be easy. If this particular hypothesis (death by falling providing the environmental pressure) does not match reality what scenario is plausible? After all, there needs to some sort of plausible scenario since these traits are shared in divergent species and are supposed to be the result of convergent evolution. The recent article HOW TO MAKE A FLYING SQUIRREL: GLAUCOMYS ANATOMY IN PHYLOGENETIC PERSPECTIVE (2007) makes the suggestion that since leaping distance scales with size that a smaller species would benefit more from gliding. So perhaps the selective pressure would be a smaller species competing with a larger species? Unfortunately, no data is provided for this hypothesis so we cannot evaluate whether this would provide enough selective pressure. It might be another peahen story-telling session. They also briefly mention that evolving from a ground-based ancestor would be unlikely, presumably because of the low positive selective pressure for gliding. But again, we're back to the problem of needing regular directional selection in order to fixate these changes in the population. Also, in order for these changes to be beneficial in the first place they have to be balanced (look up that squirrel article to see just how balanced). And if they're not balanced they're unlikely to provide much benefit (it's neutral) and thus will be lost. Having said all that, in general I don’t see an issue with unguided Darwinian mechanisms being capable of making these particular changes considering their "relative" simplicity and apparent modularity (then again, it may be front-loading) which "I" think "might" allow for a stepwise pathway. I just think it disconcerting that the focus of that recent article–which should represent the latest findings on this subject–seemed to be on making comparisons between samples. Darwinian mechanisms as the source of evolution were generally assumed to function, without any evidence of this being the case. The problems related to natural selection were never addressed. This is ironic since the article is entitled “HOW To Make a Flying Squirrel”. Now Darwinists always start with the assumption of simplicity giving rise to higher complexity. Some ID proponents present this alternate scenario: What if ALL of the original squirrels could glide? After all, it's far easier to suffer a deleterious mutation, and the survival benefit from this particular feature is negligible in most circumstances. The same could be said of the bat, where some species have echolocation and others do not. What if the original bat had echolocation and then over time some divergent lines lost it? Now before anyone accuses me of being a YEC, which I'm not, this scenario is compatible with YEC/OEC and front-loading hypotheses where the change program self-terminates at the final form and then deleterious mutations eventually occur. Another issue is that often times Darwinists are dealing with mathematical models. It is claimed that fitness should not be measured by actual success (or actually, lifetime reproductive success, LRS). Instead, fitness should be the mathematical expectation of LRS in the environment. So it's possible that Darwinism may "work" in the mathematical models but the models do not match reality. Models depend on empirical data and definitions. GIGO: Garbage In Garbage Out. Needless to say, I'm not sure if all this makes the issue ever more confusing.Patrick_{December 5, 2008
December
12
Dec
5
05
2008
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

Ribczynski, You said "1. An empirical gap: Nobody has demonstrated to their satisfaction that the large-scale morphological differences we see (between genera, for example) were produced by NDE rather than by a directed process." Probably, better at the order level. For example, someone or more likely a large team may come along and show that all Carnivora are related, that is cats, dogs, bears, badgers, weasels and maybe even seals and might have descended from a common ancestor. ID would have no problem with that if it was demonstrated. The question is where did the original gene pool arise that had all these differences available in it and how much had to change over time through micro evolution processes to produce all these different families, genera and species. Are their genomic elements that could explain the difference between all these species just by micro evolutionary means. But there maybe elements that defy natural resources to produce. For example, you mention the giraffe. Yes, the giraffe has longer legs and a long neck but it also has a very complicated and unique blood pressure system to support the long neck. How could this unique system arise through micro evolutionary means. Maybe, maybe not. The underlying genomic system would have to be isolated and understood. By the way genes are out as explanations of morphological differences and gene systems or other types of systems are now thought of as the controlling mechanism of much morphological change. The whole theory is in a big state of flux today as you would suspect. The relationships are getting much more complicated and the interactions more precise. All of which support an intelligent input. Though no scientist will say such an heretical thing. The ubiquitous "It evolved" or "It was selected for" line all the journal articles. "2. A theoretical gap: They believe not only that NDE hasn’t produced such changes, but also that it is theoretically incapable of doing so. Some of them claim that this is because NDE cannot generate new information and therefore cannot produce the new genes required to effect large-scale morphological change. Others concede NDE’s ability in this regard, but think that there aren’t enough “islands” of functionality in the fitness landscape for NDE to hopscotch across." NDE can generate new information but just how big a change is produced is the essence of the question. It is not just producing new genes, but systems of genes and other genomic elements that control the gene systems. When ever anything complicated and functional arises it is not the result of simple additions and subtractions but the introduction of exquisitely coordinated processes that allow the system to work. Also any changes that are introduced should have some selection value to hang around and as I have said it is not just adding up the appropriate number of genes to get a new system. It is an elaborate set of interactions not only between genes but between systems that express those genes in just the right amount and right order etc. I have seen the expression fitness landscape or islands of functionality but I am not sure exactly what they mean or if they really describe how systems can arise piece by piece to form complicated interactions all to produce a functional capability. It seems that these terms are just crutches pulled out to prop up a shaky idea and may not represent reality at all.jerry_{December 5, 2008
December
12
Dec
5
05
2008
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

In Comment 68 I forgot the link: The Strength of Natural Selection in the Wild It should be rquired reading for all evolutionists. However they won't read or won't accept its conclusion because bto them natural selection is a deity.Joseph_{December 5, 2008
December
12
Dec
5
05
2008
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT}

Among the inhabitants of ID’s “Big Tent” are a group of supporters who accept a) evolution; b) common descent; c) the true age of the universe; d) the occurrence of natural selection; and e) the occurrence of microevolution, while denying f) macroevolution by Darwinian means.
YECs also accept a, limited b, c via Dr Humphreys "white hole cosmology", d and e.
In general, they have told me that they reject (f) for two reasons: 1. An empirical gap: Nobody has demonstrated to their satisfaction that the large-scale morphological differences we see (between genera, for example) were produced by NDE rather than by a directed process.
That should read to ANYONE's satisfaction. IOW the only people who accept f are the people who have already assumed f. Also to date no one, I repewat NO ONE, even knows whether or not the transformations required are even obtainable via an acumulation of mutations.
2. A theoretical gap: They believe not only that NDE hasn’t produced such changes, but also that it is theoretically incapable of doing so. Some of them claim that this is because NDE cannot generate new information and therefore cannot produce the new genes required to effect large-scale morphological change. Others concede NDE’s ability in this regard, but think that there aren’t enough “islands” of functionality in the fitness landscape for NDE to hopscotch across.
Pretty much ANYTHING can work on paper, ie in theory. However it is when one tries to test or confirm said theory is where one runs into problems. For example the ONLY evidence for the "evolutiopn" of the vision system is that we observe varying degrees of complexity in existing vision systems (these range from "simple" light sensitive spots to complex mammalian vision systems) and we "know" the first population(s) of single-celled organisms didn't have one. And BTW it isn't that NDE can't give you "new" information. The debate is about an INCREASE in information.Joseph_{December 5, 2008
December
12
Dec
5
05
2008
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT}

Life is shaped by Darwinian processes,
Nice bald assertion.Joseph_{December 5, 2008
December
12
Dec
5
05
2008
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT}

rib writes concerning the Rushmore analogy: "The two cases are not comparable. Life is shaped by Darwinian processes, but rocks are not." Wrong. As a matter of simple logic we can assert that the exact same TYPE of causes are potentially in play with respect to both living things and Mt. Rushmore. Those potential causes are: chance, mechanical necessity and design. Therefore the two cases are eminently comparable. In both cases the objects appear to be designed (even arch-Darwinists like Richard Dawkins admit that living things have the appearance of design). So one could conclude that the appearance of design in living things is real just as the appearance of design is Mt. Rushmore is real. Against this conclusion, one could also appeal to chance and mechanical necessity to explain both phenomenon. With respect to life, NDE operates at the interplay of chance (random mutations) and mechanical necessity (natural selection) and excludes design a priori. With respect to Mt. Rushmore, one could also appeal to the interplay of chance (where and when the wind and rain hit the rock, the condition of the rock at certain points, etc.) and mechanical necessity (if X wind force is applied to Y rock, the Z erosion will take place) and would also exclude design a priori. In your statement that I quoted above, you are doing nothing more than assuming that the apparently designed features of living things are the result of the chance and necessity and the apparently designed features of Mt. Rushmore cannot be the result of chance and necessity. What evidence do you give to support your assertion that one apparently designed object is clearly the result of the interplay of chance and necessity while another apparently designed object simply cannot be the result of the interplay of chance and necessity? Absolutely none. It is as if you have decreed the matter closed by fiat. You should not be surprised that some of us would prefer to base our conclusions on evidence rather than on your bald unsupported assumptions, which are in turn based on nothing but your metaphysical predisposition. And accordingly, we are less than impressed with your reasoning.Barry Arrington_{December 4, 2008
December
12
Dec
4
04
2008
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT}

-----Atom writes: “There is no possible refutation of this, unless you have the chutzpah to argue that a sculpture as well-defined as that on Mt. Rushmore could have been formed by rain, wind, heat, and chance.” -----“I have put this argument forward to Darwinists with Ph.D.s in biology, and no one yet has given me any convincing argument against the design inference in this example, or has shown me why the same reasoning does not apply in the biological case.” ------Ribczynski responds: “The two cases are not comparable. Life is shaped by Darwinian processes, but rocks are not.” Natural processes shape sculptures after they have been designed just as surely as they shape life forces after they have been designed. The argument is this: If specifically complex patterns indicate that sculptures are designed, then specifically complex patterns indicate that biological organisms were designed. Your objection does not refute the argument; it simply disputes it with a popular assumption. Atom's argument holds.StephenB_{December 4, 2008
December
12
Dec
4
04
2008
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT}

Ribczynski (#65): Thanks for your detailed reply. It’s always gratifying when a critic pays close attention to what one writes. On the flu/flagellum business, I agree “that mutations arise, that they can generate new information, that they can cause phenotypic changes that can be selected (or pruned), and that they can be inherited.” But in my view the illegitimate move is here: “In the evolutionary case, we presume that a number of mutations have occurred and been selected for, leading stepwise through a number of intermediates to the flagellum we see today — even if we can’t specify the exact sequence.” I don’t believe that “we” have the right to “presume” that. But I think you are right that this is exactly what Darwinians do presume. And, as you point out in your next paragraph, ID people don’t think that the mechanism should be taken for granted. On beavers, bees, etc. I asked: If we had never seen a beaver or a bee or a computer programmer, would it be a “huge complication” to infer a designer of all these things? And you replied: “Yes, if we had no other evidence of their existence and if we already knew of mechanisms that seemed capable of producing dams, hives or programs.” It’s rather obvious that trees aren’t cut down, with whittle marks at the ends, and arranged across streams with a dry compartment inside and an underwater entrance, by unguided natural processes, so I don’t see the problem of the design inference in the case of beaver dams. We might not be sure what kind of agent was responsible for them, if we had never seen a beaver; we might suppose it was some short little humanoid like a hobbit. But we would be right to suppose a designing agent of some kind. Also, I deny your implied parallel with evolution, because, from the ID perspective, we don’t know of any mechanism that can produce complex structures. We know of mechanisms that can lengthen finch beaks and darken the color of moths. The extension of this to macroevolutionary change is speculative. I wrote: Why, then, should we go out of our way to avoid a design inference in the case of the flagellum, the avian lung, or the cardiovascular system? And you replied: “Because a) science has worked tremendously well without invoking design; b) over their history, humans have mistakenly attributed all kinds of things to design; c) indeed, humans have been shown to have a propensity for seeing design where there is none; d) given that we have a mechanism (natural selection) that seems capable of explaining biological complexity, why invoke a superfluous designer?” On (a), science works well without invoking design in the physical/chemical realm. It does not work so well without invoking design in the biological realm. Anatomy and physiology textbooks are laced with teleological language relating structures and functions to obvious internal ends or purposes. Cell biology, too, finds it hard to avoid such language. And when it comes to the origin of complex biological systems, science has demonstrated very little. One explanation for the failure of science in this area is its refusal to make use of the notion of design. On (b) and (c), Dembski and Behe have refined the design inference to exclude the careless design inferences that were indulged in by thinkers of the past. On (d), I disagree that natural selection “seems capable of explaining biological complexity”. Natural selection seems capable of killing off three-headed cattle before they can reach breeding age, and preserving faster cheetahs, and giraffes with longer necks, and bacteria with antibiotic immunity. It has shown no ability to generate radically new body plans or major new organs or systems. You say you are not horrified by the possibility of design in living nature. Good for you. Then you will have an open mind, as Dawkins, Coyne, Myers, and others do not. On how rates of evolutionary change are calculated, I may have spoken without sufficient knowledge. If you know something about this, please give me a paragraph on it, in layman’s language, so I can analyze the assumptions of the methods used. T.Timaeus_{December 4, 2008
December
12
Dec
4
04
2008
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

Among the inhabitants of ID's "Big Tent" are a group of supporters who accept a) evolution; b) common descent; c) the true age of the universe; d) the occurrence of natural selection; and e) the occurrence of microevolution, while denying f) macroevolution by Darwinian means. In general, they have told me that they reject (f) for two reasons: 1. An empirical gap: Nobody has demonstrated to their satisfaction that the large-scale morphological differences we see (between genera, for example) were produced by NDE rather than by a directed process. 2. A theoretical gap: They believe not only that NDE hasn't produced such changes, but also that it is theoretically incapable of doing so. Some of them claim that this is because NDE cannot generate new information and therefore cannot produce the new genes required to effect large-scale morphological change. Others concede NDE's ability in this regard, but think that there aren't enough "islands" of functionality in the fitness landscape for NDE to hopscotch across. To those who fall into this camp: have I represented your views accurately? Could you elaborate on them? After you have, I'd like to pose some additional questions regarding the idea that macroevolution via NDE is theoretically impossible.ribczynski_{December 4, 2008
December
12
Dec
4
04
2008
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

pubdef writes:
Now, is it OK if I go off-topic for a minute? ribczynski, have you seen “The Hudsucker Proxy?” It is a lesser-regarded film by the Coen Brothers, and it has a priceless scene in which Tim Robbins reacts to Jennifer Jason Leigh’s (false) claim that she, like he, is from Muncie.
Yes, I remember that scene well -- especially because there really is a local Muncie school whose mascot is the eagle. Happily, their fight song isn't nearly as inane as the one in the movie. There's a surprising number of references to Muncie in the popular culture, from Close Encounters of the Third Kind to The Hudsucker Proxy to that reality show, Armed and Famous, where Erik Estrada gets to be a cop for real -- in Muncie. See this list.ribczynski_{December 4, 2008
December
12
Dec
4
04
2008
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

Timaeus wrote:
There is no possible refutation of this, unless you have the chutzpah to argue that a sculpture as well-defined as that on Mt. Rushmore could have been formed by rain, wind, heat, and chance. I have put this argument forward to Darwinists with Ph.D.s in biology, and no one yet has given me any convincing argument against the design inference in this example, or has shown me why the same reasoning does not apply in the biological case.
The two cases are not comparable. Life is shaped by Darwinian processes, but rocks are not.ribczynski_{December 4, 2008
December
12
Dec
4
04
2008
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

Thanks Patrick. I am not sure exactly why he got blacklisted, but I think it had something to do with DS and a political post. Anyway, I'll let him know. (Feel free to delete these posts, since they've served their purpose.)Atom_{December 4, 2008
December
12
Dec
4
04
2008
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

Could you (or any other mod) restore “Gods Ipod” to the blog?
Not sure what he did, so he's off the blacklist but still in the moderation list.Patrick_{December 4, 2008
December
12
Dec
4
04
2008
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

pubdef (#75): It is not necessary to establish the existence of a designer of a certain type in order to establish the fact of design. If I found the equivalent of Mt. Rushmore on Mars, I would not need to first prove that creatures of a certain sort do in fact exist, before I could infer that the rock sculpture was designed. In fact, the reverse is the case: from the sculpture I could infer the existence (past or present) of intelligent beings on Mars. The probability of their existence, far from having to be determined in advance of any design inference, could be set at 100%, based on the existence of the manifestly designed object. There is no possible refutation of this, unless you have the chutzpah to argue that a sculpture as well-defined as that on Mt. Rushmore could have been formed by rain, wind, heat, and chance. I have put this argument forward to Darwinists with Ph.D.s in biology, and no one yet has given me any convincing argument against the design inference in this example, or has shown me why the same reasoning does not apply in the biological case. T.Timaeus_{December 4, 2008
December
12
Dec
4
04
2008
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

OK, I'll give you this: the probability of an explanation is inversely proportional to the amount and quality of evidence required to support it. Now, is it OK if I go off-topic for a minute? ribczynski, have you seen "The Hudsucker Proxy?" It is a lesser-regarded film by the Coen Brothers, and it has a priceless scene in which Tim Robbins reacts to Jennifer Jason Leigh's (false) claim that she, like he, is from Muncie. Now, back to our regularly scheduled argument. Evaluation of an explanation (and thus the weighing of probability and quantum and character of evidence) is linked to its purpose and effect. To me, acceptance or rejection of Darwinism has no inherent consequences and only matters to the extent that facilitates or hinders further investigation. And one more thing about the role of probability in assessing explanations: the probability of Darwinism is of no use in assessing its merit relative to ID, because the probability of an ID explanation is, as I see it, flatly incalculable, as we have no basis for evaluating the probability of the existence of a designer who is capable of the sort of project we're talking about. (I am ignoring the non-supernatural designer hypothesized by some, as it only moves the fulcrum of the debate.)pubdef_{December 4, 2008
December
12
Dec
4
04
2008
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

Ha! Welcome back Timaeus.Upright BiPed_{December 4, 2008
December
12
Dec
4
04
2008
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Off-topic: BarryA, I need to ask a favor. Could you (or any other mod) restore "Gods Ipod" to the blog? He was blacklisted and Bill (as well as I) would like to see him back. I already asked if he'd come back, so he just needs to have his account de-blacklisted. Thanks, AtomAtom_{December 4, 2008
December
12
Dec
4
04
2008
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

pubdef: I didn't use the word "impossible". I know that “improbable” doesn’t mean “impossible”. However, when probabilities reach extremely low levels, let’s say, 1 in 10^50, we have to face what might be called "practical impossibility". For example, it is indeed possible that a bridge player, with an honest deck and an honest deal, will find himself with 13 Spades on five hands in a row. But in hundreds of millions of bridge hands over the last 100 years, this result has never been observed, and calculation of the probability (which is roughly 1 in [4 x 10^56]) suggests that it is never likely to be observed, even at the rate of a billion bridge hands per year, and no one would ever bet any amount on its happening. It is not theoretically impossible, but no rational person considers it practically possible. I believe that if the probabilities of Darwinian evolution [and I mean Darwinian specifically, because of its unguided character – guided forms of evolution are another matter entirely] could be accurately computed, they would almost certainly come out lower than the probability of five consecutive perfect bridge hands. Therefore, no rational person should consider it a serious possibility. The only person who would consider it a serious possibility would be one who was determined not to believe in the existence of a designer. If you rule out a designer a priori, and if the only other possibility is evolution by chance, evolution by chance will of course have to be accepted, no matter how ridiculously low the probability. But there is neither logical nor metaphysical nor scientific basis to rule out the possibility of a designer. And the name for ruling out something without rational warrant is prejudice. Darwinists accept that evolution occurred by chance, despite the ridiculously low probabilities, because they are metaphysically prejudiced. And this is why they all howl against Dembski’s design filter. Not because of the alleged mathematical errors in Dembski’s presentation, but because even if Dembski’s math were entirely correct, they would never allow chance to be ruled out. Dembski generously allows events as with the unimaginably low probability of 1 in 10^149 to be within the reach of chance, but even if the probability were only 1 in 10^500, they would still go for Darwinian evolution rather than accept that a designer had anything to do with life. Of course, my argument above could be refuted by a quantification of the probability of Darwinian evolution which showed that it was easily or at least plausibly achievable within the permitted timeframes. For example, if the probability of the evolution of the bacterial flagellum by purely Darwinian means could be shown to be 1 in 100, then I would have to admit that a rational person could accept it as a serious possibility. But Ribczynski, who started this discussion, says that no such quantification is available. This means that he cannot refute my intuition that the probability is astronomically low. Of course, he can state his own intuition that the probability is much higher. But then it is just one guess against the other. And a guess is a guess, even if it comes from Ernst Mayr, Richard Dawkins, or Jerry Coyne. In the absence of a set of probabilities tied to a full causal knowledge of the evolutionary process, I’m not intellectually obliged to surrender to great names.Timaeus_{December 4, 2008
December
12
Dec
4
04
2008
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

ribczynski, You are missing the point of the whole debate. You point out some shortcomings with ID. Few here will deny that ID has some shortcomings in terms of scientific proof though to nearly all of us the basic logic is sound. But we look at the other side of the debate and there is also nothing but wishful thinking to support a gradualistic approach to the origin of species nor can they point to any other naturalistic approach now known that might account for species origin with novel complex functional capabilities. Many of here would be willing to call it a day if both sides admitted that the scientific evidence for its position is tenuous and that each should not be part of the science curriculum and in textbooks. Biology and science books could teach micro evolution but then make the statement that there is no known mechanism that would account for macro evolutionary changes seen in the fossil record. In other words there is nothing to support Darwin's claims for this area of science. Would you support such an approach?jerry_{December 4, 2008
December
12
Dec
4
04
2008
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

One should be careful to not confuse common ancestry with common descent. They are wildly different concepts and yet evidence for one is used to conclude the other is true. There is no evidence for common descent except for the common use of DNA as the basis for organizing life but lots of evidence for common ancestry. Also common descent has nothing to do with the evolutionary debate since the debate is over mechanism and not whether the new species has both similar and different genomic elements. The debate is over how the new species got both the similar and different genomic elements. When the evidence ever points to a mechanism, one can then speculate as to whether there is common descent or what they are seeing is most likely just common ancestry.jerry_{December 4, 2008
December
12
Dec
4
04
2008
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT}

(a) specify a particular evolutionary process by which the flagellum was designed
How can that be accomplished given only the flagellum? Can you SPECIFY the genetic acidents required to bring about the flagellum in your scenario?
(b) specify alternate implementations of the flagellum and other motility devices, and explain why they were not chosen by the designer;
So now IDists need to know the mind of the designer? You obviously are totally clueless as to how design detection works.
(d) calculate the probability that these goals and constraints would lead to genetic and phenotypic changes that just happened to appear compatible with a hypothesis of common descent and Darwinian selection?
You are dense. Again "it" only "appears" compatible with the hypothesis of common descent to those who have already assumed it. However when looking at the evidence objectively the pattern of universal common descent disappears.Joseph_{December 4, 2008
December
12
Dec
4
04
2008
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply