Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Design Inference vs. Design Hypothesis

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Evolutionnews.org just published an article by me titled “Design Inference vs. Design Hypothesis.” Here is an excerpt:

The logic of the design inference moves from a marker of intelligence (specified complexity) to an intelligence as causal agent responsible for that marker. The direction of this logic can, however, be reversed. Thus, instead, one can postulate an intelligence operating in nature and therewith formulate predictions and expectations about what one should find in nature if that postulate is true. The logic in this case takes the form of hypothetical reasoning, where a hypothesis is put forward and then its consequences are drawn out and the explanatory fruitfulness of the hypothesis is seen as a way of advancing science and giving credibility to the hypothesis. Stephen Meyer has taken this approach to design reasoning, treating it as an inference to the best explanation in which the hypothesis of design gains credibility because of its power in explanation.

SOURCE: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/design_inferenc064871.html

Comments
Joe, As I said, engineers don't ask those questions with a presumption of intelligent design in nature (i.e., not in the way Dr. Dembski wants us to pose the questions.) It's clear that Dr. Dembski understands that the engineering sciences do not employ hypotheses that objects in biology and in the cosmos are the result of intelligent design; he's calling for such hypotheses to be employed in the engineering sciences. Again, I'm asking him to what he attributes this situation. Does he attribute it to an ideological bias in the field of engineering, as he does with the natural sciences?Freelurker_
October 6, 2012
October
10
Oct
6
06
2012
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
Freelurker_ Your original comment:
The engineering sciences do not contain a hypothesis that intelligence has acted in biology or in the cosmos.
That doesn't have anything to do with what Dembski said nor what you quoted. Engineering sciences ask the questions he posed- the questions that appear just before the part you quoted. IOW it is clear that you don't even understand what you are talking about so how is Dembski supposed to figure it out?Joe
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
Joe, Per my original comment (#18), the design hypothesis I am talking about is the one that Dr. Dembski would like to see employed in the natural sciences and in the engineering sciences. It's the hypothesis that an intelligence has acted in biology and in the cosmos. I am confident that Dr. Dembski understands my question.Freelurker_
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
Freelurker- Wouldn't designing something new require R&D which is basically a series of working hypotheses? For R&D you require a concept/ concepts. Then you set out to test those concepts. Structural engineering is a good example. Starting with a concept, taking equations about materials and forces and formulating a solution.Joe
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
Joe (21), You appear to be attempting a design inference. I am asking Dr. Dembski about design hypotheses. Specifically I am asking him about their absence in the engineering sciences. In reference to the mainstreams of the natural sciences, Dr. Dembski has attributed the absence of design hypotheses to ideological resistance on the part of scientists. I'm simply asking him if he similarly attributes the absence of design hypotheses in the engineering sciences to ideological resistance on the part of engineers.Freelurker_
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
Dr. Dembski wrote (emphasis added):
The point is that intelligent design does not posit God as a theoretical entity. Rather, it infers that intelligence acts in nature, and in the biological world in particular, yet without prejudice for the metaphysics or theology that might say who or what that intelligence is. This is not duplicitous. It is simply being honest about how far the evidence of nature can take us. Intelligent design can infer that a designing intelligence has been active in nature. Such an intelligence, simply in virtue of the tools that ID uses to study intelligence, will have to be characterized in highly generic terms. Identifying that intelligence with God will always require additional philosophical or theological moves extrinsic to ID.
It seems to me that ID's unforgivable sin has been to describe an observable boundary in the natural world beyond which, not just ID, but science on the whole cannot go. A sin which is one, as a Churchillian might describe it, up with which the high priesthood of Darwinism will not put.
Horatio: "O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!" Hamlet: "And therefore as a stranger give it welcome. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
jstanley01
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Joe,
When they needed it.
Never mind then. I guess Mung not interested in replying. I'll just drop it.Jerad
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
When they needed it.Joe
October 5, 2012
October
10
Oct
5
05
2012
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
Joe,
We know why breakwaters are constructed. And we also know how walls are constructed- by placing block upon block.
Any idea of when?Jerad
October 4, 2012
October
10
Oct
4
04
2012
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT
Jerad, We know why breakwaters are constructed. And we also know how walls are constructed- by placing block upon block.Joe
October 4, 2012
October
10
Oct
4
04
2012
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
Joe, Thanks, that's what the discussion needs: discussion based on good knowledge/experience. If it's designed do we have an idea of when and how? Or, I hesitate to ask, why? Mung: anything to add??Jerad
October 4, 2012
October
10
Oct
4
04
2012
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
Jerad, Unfortunately no one is allowed to clean the rocks to get a better look underneath all the growth- to look for tool marks, etc. That said, it looks like a breakwater, is built like a breakwater and no known non-telic processes can produce anything like it- and people have tried and tried to refute the claim it is a designed structure yet have come up short.Joe
October 4, 2012
October
10
Oct
4
04
2012
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
Mung, What do you think of the Bimini 'Road' structure? You're the one that asked me to give you some things to consider after all.Jerad
October 4, 2012
October
10
Oct
4
04
2012
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
Joe (23),
I would say choice.
Brave man! For offering an opinion that is. I'm particularly interested in your opinion since YOU'VE ACTUALLY BEEN THERE and I've only seen pictures? Do you think it's a clear case or one that requires more 'proof' or argumentation to establish the case? Seriously, since I've not seen it, what about it makes you say it was designed?Jerad
October 4, 2012
October
10
Oct
4
04
2012
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
I would say choice.Joe
October 4, 2012
October
10
Oct
4
04
2012
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
Joe (20),
What do you think of the ‘Bimini Road’?
It’s more like a breakwater. BTW I have been to Nasca also.
So, what do you think: if the Bimini structure chance or choice? I'd love to go to Nazca. What were those people thinking way back then?? Crazy.Jerad
October 4, 2012
October
10
Oct
4
04
2012
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
Freelurker- To understand how the body works requires engineering. Kinesiology requires an understanding of engineering principles.Joe
October 4, 2012
October
10
Oct
4
04
2012
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
What do you think of the ‘Bimini Road’?
It's more like a breakwater. BTW I have been to Nasca also.Joe
October 4, 2012
October
10
Oct
4
04
2012
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
Mung, Any opinion about the Bimini Road mentioned in 15 above? Chance or choice?Jerad
October 4, 2012
October
10
Oct
4
04
2012
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT
Dr. Dembski, From the linked article:
Each of these questions falls squarely within the natural and engineering sciences. Such questions are far from exhaustive, but they point up that once we know an intelligence has acted, inquiry proceeds by asking a new set of questions quite different from the questions we would ask if we thought the phenomenon in question were simply the product of blind material forces.
The engineering sciences do not contain a hypothesis that intelligence has acted in biology or in the cosmos. Engineers do not address the questions you have raised, (that is, not with the presumption of intelligent design.) Do you think that engineers are being pragmatic or are being ideological in this regard?Freelurker_
October 3, 2012
October
10
Oct
3
03
2012
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
Joe, Yes, I've heard it's lovely. I need to get scuba certified one of these years . .. What do you think of the 'Bimini Road'?Jerad
October 3, 2012
October
10
Oct
3
03
2012
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
Jerad, I have been diving around Bimini- off of South Bimini is stranded ship that was used for target practice WWI & II- great dive site. And off of North Bimini is the road and other formations. Cool place, need to get back to it.Joe
October 3, 2012
October
10
Oct
3
03
2012
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
Mung (14):
Looks like plenty of other folks are already on that one. Do you have anything else?
I was hoping for some extra insight from the design paradigm. What have you got? You want me to find something that looks designed that no one else is working on? Really? How about the lines at Nazca: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazca_Lines Clearly designed, what are they for? How were they made? How about the Bimini Road? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimini_RoadJerad
October 2, 2012
October
10
Oct
2
02
2012
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT
Jerad @10: Looks like plenty of other folks are already on that one. Do you have anything else?Mung
October 2, 2012
October
10
Oct
2
02
2012
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
Sorry: 'venomous'.Axel
October 2, 2012
October
10
Oct
2
02
2012
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT
So Dawkins is an animist then, isn't he. He does display a religious zeal. I'd be interested to hear his response at the deity concerned, when he accidentally bangs his head on some low-hanging object. Are his oaths that bit more personally venous than mine, I wonder?Axel
October 2, 2012
October
10
Oct
2
02
2012
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT
I find Bill’s questions relating and following the design detection being quite interesting. I think also that some other questions, like those below may present also interest once design is detected, more so when it is detected in so many places, on multiple scales and layers: 1. The abilities of the designer(s) 2. The abilities of the designer(s) compared with human design abilities and scopes. 3. The power of the designer(s) 4. The scope of the designs of the designer(s). Here we can summarily list: Biology, anatomy, botanic, planetary systems, geophysics, Earth, cosmology, the Universe origin, particle physics, Earth echo-systems, dimensions of the Universe, depth of microscopic and particle world; 5. Are all these designers the same designer? 6. Make sense to think of a personal designer (Kalam cosmological argument)? 7. Make sense to think of an extremely powerful designer? 8. Make sense to think of an omni-present, ubiquitos designer? 9. By virtue of the above inquiries and findings, make sense to think of a divine designer? 10. Make sense to validate that the words below make perfect sense? “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” Romans 1, 20. and: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. 9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55, 8-9InVivoVeritas
October 2, 2012
October
10
Oct
2
02
2012
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT
Mung (8):
Please describe something that you think is the product of intelligent design and why you think it’s the product of intelligent design and we’ll get right on it!
Silbury Hill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbury_HillJerad
October 1, 2012
October
10
Oct
1
01
2012
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT
But then again, Dawkins doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Do any of them?Joe
October 1, 2012
October
10
Oct
1
01
2012
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
Hi Jerad, Please describe something that you think is the product of intelligent design and why you think it's the product of intelligent design and we'll get right on it!Mung
October 1, 2012
October
10
Oct
1
01
2012
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply