Design Operates at Multiple Levels

_{Barry Arrington

February 19, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

In a comment to a prior post lastyearon writes:

I’m simply not understanding how it is possible to detect that certain things were the result of design if everything is the result of design. If you hold that the laws of nature were Fine-Tuned for life, then that position seems incompatible with the notion that it is possible to detect that certain things were the product of Intelligent Design. IDers say they can detect design by distinguishing designed objects from products of natural ‘undirected’ causes. But if natural causes were designed for life, then doesn’t that invalidate that claim?

I reply:
You seem to imply that “IDers” are the only ones who claim to be able to distinguish between designed objects and objects that are the result of undirected causes. This is simply untrue. Here are two strings of text:

String 1: Uq[49epfia[epfoias[efojafpojuawer89yup9fj0075v9aus[-er uqpw\\dflkjoigjeriodfdfioaergoierioadf;lkdfrgerkiergsdfvm

String 2: To be, or not to be–that is the question: Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune Or to take arms against a sea of troubles And by opposing end them.

Now you tell me. Which one of these strings of text is designed and which one is random gibberish. I am certain you will answer that it is obvious that string 2 is designed and string 1 is random gibberish, and so it is. There, you’ve detected design. And anyone else would reach the same conclusion whether they are an IDer or an inveterate opponent of ID theory.

To answer your question, consider this analogy. If I go to Home Depot I will see piles of lumber, nails, paint, wire, etc., in short, everything I need to build a house. No one believes those materials found their way into the aisles of Home Depot by natural undirected processes. They were manufactured and delivered by intelligent agents. But still there is no house. Thus we see that the materials at Home Depot are necessary, but they are not sufficient to build a house. The house will only ever be built if an intelligent agent assembles the materials in a complex and specified fashion.

In the same way, the ID proponent says that the finely tuned laws of nature are necessary for the existence of life, but they are not sufficient. What is missing? Complex specified information. And the fundamental premise of ID theory is that complex specified information arises ONLY as the result of the acts of intelligent agents. So you see, just as in the Home Depot example, design operates at two levels. It operates at the level of setting the conditions (building materials ready to be used; finely tuned laws of nature), and it also operates at the wholly separate level of the design of specific things (building the house; building the DNA molecule).

Comments

---Toronto: "Please understand that I am not ignoring your examples, I am trying to explain why I don’t believe they apply to this particular argument." My examples served their purpose very well because they refuted the objection that design cannot be detected in the context of a mega design, a point that you acknowledged yourself by agreeing that a designed mount of sand can be distinguished from natural causes in a designed universe. Appealing to Boolean/Scalar issues as a means of showing that the same inference to design that you first agreed can be made, cannot now, as it turns out, be made after all, is illogical. You must either deny that the inference can be made or affirm it; you cannot have it both ways.StephenB_{March 4, 2010
March
03
Mar
4
04
2010
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

StephenB @140, Please understand that I am not ignoring your examples, I am trying to explain why I don't believe they apply to this particular argument.
[E] Further still, you assume that if FSCI always indicates design, design also always indicates FSCI.
FSCI is a result of the design process, and thus anything that is not the result of a random process, must contain FSCI.
[IF A, then B does not translate into IF B, then A.]
That logical statement means that B does not mandate A, but it doesn't preclude it either.
[D] Further still, you assume that the entire designed creation contains FSCI. [Where did you get that talking point?]
That is the point of this OP, at the very beginning of the article.
Design Operates at Multiple Levels Barry Arrington In a comment to a prior post lastyearon writes: I’m simply not understanding how it is possible to detect that certain things were the result of design if everything is the result of design.
That is why your Corvette example doesn't serve as a good example in this particular thread. I notice that you haven't touched on the Boolean/Scalar issue for FSCI. If FSCI had magnitude, in other words if it could assume analog values instead of a digital YES/NO, you could build a model that could detect the background from the foreground. Lastyearone's argument is closer to that of niwrad's OP on fractals rather than mine.Toronto_{March 3, 2010
March
03
Mar
3
03
2010
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

---Toronto: "An analogy is useless for any sort of work except for debating purposes." You labor under the burden of several false assumptions and logical errors, and with each new post you add to the list. That is why I asked you to stay with a concrete example so that you can follow the arguments being made: [A] My arguments and examples do not depend on mathematics. Do you need mathematics to differentiate a burglar from a tornado? [B] My examples were just that, they were not analogies. [Where did you get that talking point?] [C] Further still, as I pointed out, I was not comparing a real Corvette with a model made of sand; I was comparing a model made of sand with the natural forces of nature. [You have not demonstrated that you understand the example even at this point.] [D] Further still, you assume that the entire designed creation contains FSCI. [Where did you get that talking point?] [E] Further still, you assume that if FSCI always indicates design, design also always indicates FSCI. [IF A, then B does not translate into IF B, then A.] [F] I asked you how you know that the model was designed and explained that in answering that question, you would understand the topic under discussion, which you promptly ignored. [G] You made the claim that design inferences cannot be made in the context of an overall mega design. I refuted that claim with two examples. You admitted that the examples were true and then turned right around and tried to deny the principle that informs them, namely that inferences to agency can be made by eliminating law and chance. [H] Indeed, you completely contradicted yourself first by admitting that the Corvette model was designed by man, followed by the opposite argument that such inferences cannot be made at all on the grounds that background FSCI makes it impossible to detect other FSCI. Apparently, you do not understand the argument that is being made, so you ignore my examples and revert back to your talking points which has nothing to do with the argument. That is why I asked you where you are getting them.StephenB_{March 3, 2010
March
03
Mar
3
03
2010
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

That should read, "Both of your claims that a universe designed by a creator precludes the possibility of detecting other designs is obviously false."StephenB_{March 2, 2010
March
03
Mar
2
02
2010
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

StephenB @137,
—Toronto: “The original comment by “lastyearone” pertained to a mathematical model demonstrating that if the universe was fine-tuned, you could not detect foreground FSCI from background FSCI.”
Evidently, the math model was wrong, inasmuch as I showed that it is easy to detect designs other than the original design of the universe. I can provide plenty of other examples.
Dembski is using math to try and prove ID concepts because, once algorithms are refined, they can be used as tools for further work. That is where the war will be fought, not with analogies that appeal to laymen. An analogy is useless for any sort of work except for debating purposes. If what you say is true, you should be able to refute my example functions. You should be able to tell me why, using FSCI as defined by ID, why my examples aren't valid. That would refute my argument. If you feel like it, come up with your own example, if necessary with a friend, but I want detail, not assertions. Your argument would allow me to refute Galileo by saying, "Look, the sun clearly goes around the Earth, we can see it with our eyes". Any scientist on either side of this debate won't buy that argument. It's just not enough. Tell me specifically, what is wrong with them.Toronto_{March 2, 2010
March
03
Mar
2
02
2010
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

---Toronto: "The original comment by “lastyearone” pertained to a mathematical model demonstrating that if the universe was fine-tuned, you could not detect foreground FSCI from background FSCI." Evidently, the math model was wrong, inasmuch as I showed that it is easy to detect designs other than the original design of the universe. I can provide plenty of other examples. ----"You changed that math model to an analogy that contained a human observer comparing a human made object, a “real” Corvette, to a “facsimile” of a Corvette rendered in sand." You still do not understand the example. It was a facsimile of a Corvette designed with sand compared to all the other mounds of sand made by natural forces, NOT a facsimile of a Corvette compared to a real Corvette. ----"I want to go on record as saying that if I saw any object on the beach made out of sand, that resembled something designed by humans, it was probably also designed by humans." How do you know that water, wind, and erosion didn't do it? Once you understand that significance of and the answer to that question, you will have finally arrived at a basic understanding of what we are talking about. ----"In a fine-tuned universe, none of the properties of matter, energy, or even Earth’s position in the Universe have been left to chance, meaning the Universe before the existence of life but prepared for it, already contains an extreme amount of design." If that was true, you could not distinguish the Corvette designed from sand from all the other mounds of sand. ----"If ID used a scalar value for FSCI instead of a Boolean, we could possibly use regular mathmematical operators to establish a baseline FSCI for a fine-tuned universe, but ID has no such list of standard FSCI values." You are getting way ahead of yourself. ----"Until they do, statements such as, “..you could not detect foreground FSCI from background FSCI” , have not been refuted." Both your thesis and LYO's thesis has been refuted. Both of you claim that a universe designed by a creator precludes the possibility of detecting other designs is obviously false. Go back to another one of my examples. If you find your house ransacked, you rule out natural causes [tornado] and draw an inference to design [burglar]. That is a design inference, plain and simple.StephenB_{March 2, 2010
March
03
Mar
2
02
2010
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

StephenB @135,
For my part, you are welcome back anytime.
Thank you. The original comment by "lastyearone" pertained to a mathematical model demonstrating that if the universe was fine-tuned, you could not detect foreground FSCI from background FSCI. You changed that math model to an analogy that contained a human observer comparing a human made object, a "real" Corvette, to a "facsimile" of a Corvette rendered in sand. I want to go on record as saying that if I saw any object on the beach made out of sand, that resembled something designed by humans, it was probably also designed by humans. In a fine-tuned universe, none of the properties of matter, energy, or even Earth's position in the Universe have been left to chance, meaning the Universe before the existence of life but prepared for it, already contains an extreme amount of design. IsFSCI returns true if FCSI is larger than the UPB. One item is foreground while another is background. if( IsFSCI(&Item1) ) { printf("Designed"); } else { printf("Random"); } if( IsFSCI(&Item2) ) { printf("Designed"); } else { printf("Random"); } If ID used a scalar value for FSCI instead of a Boolean, we could possibly use regular mathmematical operators to establish a baseline FSCI for a fine-tuned universe, but ID has no such list of standard FSCI values. Until they do, statements such as, "..you could not detect foreground FSCI from background FSCI" , have not been refuted.Toronto_{March 2, 2010
March
03
Mar
2
02
2010
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

----Toronto: "I didn’t come here to argue, I came to debate." If you can detect design in a Corvette made of sand apart from the globs of sand formed by natural causes, then the fact that God may have designed everything does not, as you try to argue, preclude the design inference. If you don't address that argument, then you are not debating. ----"I have already thanked you, Lock, Upright Biped, tgpeeler and kairosfocus in another thread for replying to me, but due to the moderation delay, you may not have read it." I am sorry that you have had that experience. ----"I also said I’m going back to lurking because due to that delay I cannot reply in a decent time-frame to anything you guys may put together for me. Thanks again." For my part, you are welcome back anytime.StephenB_{March 2, 2010
March
03
Mar
2
02
2010
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

StephenB @132, Here's me saying the Corvette was designed:
—Toronto: “If I saw that Corvette, I would agree with you 100%, that it was designed.”
Here's you claiming I didn't say that.
You are avoiding the issue. Your position is that a mound of sand formed into the image and likeness of a Corvette Sting Ray [human design] cannot be distinguished from sand formed by water, wind, and erosion [natural causes] on the grounds that, since God designed everything, the Corvette’s design cannot be distinguished from other clusters of sand or even the the beach itself. Suffice it to say, such a position is not reasonable. If you don’t believe me, ask a friend.

-Do you even know what FSCI is? -Seriously, please tell me where you get this stuff.
I didn't come here to argue, I came to debate. I don't see how you and I are going to do that. I have already thanked you, Lock, Upright Biped, tgpeeler and kairosfocus in another thread for replying to me, but due to the moderation delay, you may not have read it. I also said I'm going back to lurking because due to that delay I cannot reply in a decent time-frame to anything you guys may put together for me. Thanks again.Toronto_{February 28, 2010
February
02
Feb
28
28
2010
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

---Toronto: "In that context, everything has FSCI, including the physical constants of the universe." Where did you ever get such an idea? Neither the formless clusters of sand or the sand beach itself contains FSCI. In my example, only the mound of sand formed into the image and likeness of a Corvette Sting Ray contains FSCI. Do you even know what FSCI is? ----If the universe is fine-tuned for life, there is no dividing line between the physical forces of the universe and life itself, as suggested by “The Privileged Planet” I don't remember saying anything about "life." We are not ready for that discussion until you show me that you understand how a design inference operates at the most basic level, which is why I chose my example. Obviously, there is a dividing line between the physical reality which manifests itself as the model of a Corvette Sting Ray and the physical reality that manifests itself as a formless sand beach. In any case, none of that has anything at all to do with the hypothesis of a Privileged Planet. Here is another example: If you come home and find your house ransacked, you will quickly discern that a tornado [natural cause] did not go through your dresser drawers looking for jewelry and attribute it to an agency cause [a burglar]. In other words, you will make a design inference from a natural cause to an intelligent agent. What you are trying to argue is that the "Privileged Planet hypothesis" conflicts with the logic by which we distinguish the act of a tornado from the act of a burglar. Seriously, please tell me where you get this stuff.StephenB_{February 28, 2010
February
02
Feb
28
28
2010
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

---Toronto: "If I saw that Corvette, I would agree with you 100%, that it was designed." You are avoiding the issue. Your position is that a mound of sand formed into the image and likeness of a Corvette Sting Ray [human design] cannot be distinguished from sand formed by water, wind, and erosion [natural causes] on the grounds that, since God designed everything, the Corvette's design cannot be distinguished from other clusters of sand or even the the beach itself. Suffice it to say, such a position is not reasonable. If you don't believe me, ask a friend.StephenB_{February 28, 2010
February
02
Feb
28
28
2010
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

"has been so decisively refuted" oopstgpeeler_{February 28, 2010
February
02
Feb
28
28
2010
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

Toronto, as I wait for your discourse on how reason can deceive us, that I expect will be well-reasoned... hee hee Here is the UNIVERSAL method of detecting design. It never, ever fails. Whenever a code is involved, design is present. Period. It's as simple as that. The whole business of detecting design can be boiled down to that. I'd make it into a book but who would publish a one paragraph book? Anytime a code (or a language, same thing, really) exists, you KNOW it cannot be explained by physical laws. And if you think it can you either haven't read my posts on the subject or you just haven't thought it through. At any rate, language is the universal indicator of design. My claim is easily falsified. Just create information in some way without recourse to a language. In other words, just using physical laws or even algorithms based on physical laws. You will quickly see that it cannot be done. It's logically impossible. Therefore, "we" win and the naturalists lose. And I for one, am finding this argument ever more tedious since the "non-design" side has be so decisively refuted. But maybe you'll have a novel counter-argument. (You won't but I will wait and see...)tgpeeler_{February 28, 2010
February
02
Feb
28
28
2010
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @126, I appreciate the response, but it doesn't explain to me specifically why the following statement is an attempt at building a strawman.
[Toronto] 1] 116: Is it the position of the ID movement, that design can be detected as being destinct from non-design?
Where in the above am I attributing to the ID movement a claim it doesn't make. We can't make any headway at all, you and I, if neither of us can say to the other, "What do you mean"? While I believe that the ID answer to my above statement should be yes, why is it not acceptable to ask it? Please specifically parse my above statement and show me what's wrong with it. If you do that, I will be able to frame future questions to better address your concerns.Toronto_{February 27, 2010
February
02
Feb
27
27
2010
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

StephenB @127,
You honestly believe that a mound of sand formed into the image and likeness of a Corvette Sting Ray [human design] cannot be distinguished from sand formed by water and wind [natural causes] because God also designed the universe.
If I saw that Corvette, I would agree with you 100%, that it was designed. After many posts, the original context of a statement gets lost. I made that statement in the context of the "Privilged Planet" hypothesis, that the universe is fine-tuned for life. In that context, everything has FSCI, including the physical constants of the universe. If the universe is fine-tuned for life, there is no dividing line between the physical forces of the universe and life itself, as suggested by "The Privileged Planet". No one has suggested however, that the universe has been fine-tuned for art. You could take any complex material with a very high level of FSCI, and shape a Corvette out of it. The Corvette's FSCI however, is distinct from it's original material. By accepting "The Privileged Planet" hypothesis, that dividing line is not there. That's why I say, if the universe is fine-tuned for life, you could not come up with a mathematical proof that necessitated the use of FSCI.Toronto_{February 27, 2010
February
02
Feb
27
27
2010
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

I asked: So, it is your judgment that if I find a mound of sand on the beach formed in the image of a Corvette Sting Ray, I cannot really conclude that it was designed because God created the universe? ----Toronto [in care of LYO] "You can conclude that it, the sand, you, the air you breathe and the photons illuminating the beach are all designed. In a designed universe, everything is designed, which creates a problem in finding something that isn’t." I do thank you, at least, for making your position clear. You honestly believe that a mound of sand formed into the image and likeness of a Corvette Sting Ray [human design] cannot be distinguished from sand formed by water and wind [natural causes] because God also designed the universe. Remarkable, truly remarkable.StephenB_{February 26, 2010
February
02
Feb
26
26
2010
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

Tor: RE:
Since I don’t qualify the level or scope of design at all, you could safely answer with an unqualified yes or a qualified yes. I see no strawman in the above statement at all. If we’re going to have an exchange of information, and maybe understanding, we have to trust each other that our goal is not to trick the other side, but to have a real conversation.
I suggest that you pause and read the Weak Argument Correctives above. This -- unfortunately -- is a high misunderstanding, high-hostility, strongly rhetorically manipulated, ideologically loaded issue [with much of the manipulation being by strawmannish, question-begging, misrepresenting framing of design thought; notoriously the "ID is [Biblical] Creationism in a cheap tuxedo" or "ID is the thin edge of a right-wing theocratic wedge" type of slur], most of the trouble coming from the ID-skeptical or objecting side. Sadly, up to the level of repeated unjustified career-busting and outright slander. (Some of which I have personally felt, especially once I was identified with a specific contribution to this blog.) There simply is no basis for naive responses to potentially loaded remarks. Please try to understand that. It is in that context that we have to be very specific about just what kind and degree of design detection the design inference carries out. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 26, 2010
February
02
Feb
26
26
2010
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

Toronto, your reply at #117 has doesn't actually address the issue raised in #115. There is absolutely no way to falsify the assumption that only unguided processes are at work in the cosmos (which is why no one ever reads or hears anything about its falsifiability). Of course, this non-falsifiability renders the assumption itself unscientific - if we are to apply the "rules of science" imposed against the strawmen misrepresentations which materialists routinely manufacture against ID. Yet, here we are. Materialist ideologues raise the issue of non-falsifiability against a strawman claim that ID does not and cannot make. By doing so, they immediately insulate themselves from addressing the issues that ID actually does raise. And to accomplish this strategic sleight-of-hand, they set up a mandate that all truly scientific theories must accept a priori assumption that is - completely non-falsifiable. And there sits the good judge over there, dutifully nodding his head... "Let us act now to save the grand institution of Science from those who cannot bind themselves to the splendor of our logic..."Upright BiPed_{February 26, 2010
February
02
Feb
26
26
2010
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Tor: I will be give a hint, got to go right away. See you later. The design methodology is about inference to best explanation that does not rule out a priori any of the causal factors commonly observed to operate. It is about direct causal factors, not about global metaphysics. I tis limited to the issue of emopirical data as a basis for detection of design in particular cases, and does not essay to provide a global design detection method guaranteed to detect any and all cases of design. indeed, to an extentt his is deliberate, i.e the explanatory filter cheerfully sets teh default to "chance," once high contingency is observed. Only under fairly strignent conditions on which the quantum state resources of the cosmos would be swamped by the config space, do we see that complexity + specificity --> design. It also happens to be very relevant in a world that was designed, as part of he design may well use chance-based processed; as I already identified -- diffusion, osmosis, and other processes that exploit random molecular behaviour. On cosmological signs of design, again, this is inference to best explanation. So, design may operate at comsological level and that is consistent with lawlike natural regularities of mechanical necessity and of statistical patterns at a lower level. Such manifestations will be empirically discernible form cases where contingency rules out necessity, and complex specificity rules out chance as a credible explanation. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 26, 2010
February
02
Feb
26
26
2010
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @122,
[Toronto] 1] 116: Is it the position of the ID movement, that design can be detected as being destinct from non-design?
There is nothing in the above statement that mandates any sort of minimum or maximum scope, or degree, of design detection. Since I don't qualify the level or scope of design at all, you could safely answer with an unqualified yes or a qualified yes. I see no strawman in the above statement at all. If we're going to have an exchange of information, and maybe understanding, we have to trust each other that our goal is not to trick the other side, but to have a real conversation. Going step by step means that you should not respond to any single point of the other side as if it was his complete argument. If you trust me and allow me to lead you through a step by step process to make my point, I'll do the same for you, without debating each point along the way.
[Toronto] 3] However, that means that nothing with a FSCI below the UPB would be discoverable by an algorithm that correctly measures FSCI content. [kairosfocus] WWhy that “however”?
The "however" refers to these lines above it.
[Toronto] In the “Privileged Planet”, the universe, the Earth’s position in it, and the forces holding everything in place, are considered to be so finely-tuned that it is unlikely to have happened by chance. This means that the forces of physics and the entire universe have FSCI beyond the UPB. If this is the case, then the ID side is right about evolution.
Toronto_{February 26, 2010
February
02
Feb
26
26
2010
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Tor: A few notes. But first, through I regret any offence it may have caused you, I think it would have been more material for you to actually address the substantial point that the design inference is an excercise in abductive reasoning in a scientific context, rather than the a priorism on theism you would straight-jacket on it. Now on other points: 1] 116: Is it the position of the ID movement, that design can be detected as being destinct from non-design? The formal design theory position, per def'n in this blog, is that:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. . . . . In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.
The specificity and anchorage to empirical observation of signs of intelligence in the definition mark key distinctions from the strawman your own statement is setting up. That is, first, there is no claim of a universal design detector. Nor, is there any claim of absolute proof, but rather the level of warrant commonly used in scientific and other responsible fields of praxis: inference to best, empirically anchored explanation. Thirdly, once teh direct causla facrtors in a situaiton are say nartural, mechanical forces leading to nautral regularieies, or random processes leading to statisticallly distributed contingencies, the EF will detect such DIRECT causes as being necessity or chance, without any onward direct implication of the ontology of the cosmos as a whole. Similarly, on test cases, teh ID apprach sees distinct marks of design, e.g. FSCI, and infers to the direct involvelent of intelligent cause without any direct inference to the origins of intelligence. We then look at the signs that mark such distinctives and see how reliable they are. Certain highly reliable signs [e.g. FSCI] -- when they rule "design" -- are then taken, per inductive gneralisation, as fingerprints of design wherever we see them, until and unless we can show that chance and/or necessity are able to come up with a good and repeatable counterexample. That is how science works. That we can then find such signs in the cell, and in body plan diversity, or similar signs in the physics of the cosmos that is fine tuned to facilitate such c-chemistry cell based life then leads tot he inference to the best explanation being: design. Hence the initial statement in the cited definition. 2] The ID movement, at this point, tries to determine the FSCI of the “Unit Under Test”, which may be biological or chemical, etc. If the “UUT” exceeds a level that ID refers to as the UPB, it is defined as being designed. Another subtle misunderstanding. The practical procedure in explanatory filters is to look at he known patterns of behaviour, then to allocate aspects across the direct causal factors. natural regularieis are best explained by mechanical necessity. Stochastic contingency by chance, FSCI and erelated things by intelligence, all per an empirical evidence base. The actual inference is that we isolate necessity first by its pattern of regularity, i.e. we are looking for lo vs hi contingency. high contingency has two credible sources, chance and design,a nd we look in that context at he distinguishing features that mark randomness, accidents of arbitrary initial conditions, and intelligent action. This, BarryA exemplified in the original post, and I have exemplified in the case of dropped objects vs fair vs loaded dice. In particular,t eh mark of intelligence is specified complexity, especially funcitonally specific complexity beyond a threshold where teh quantum state resources of our observed cosmos render a search of he implied config space to get to the islands of function rather unlikely on a chance hyp. Hence the inference to BEST explanation aspect. Which provides provisional but often reliable warrant. Notice, an inference to best explanation from empirical facts, not an a priori deduction from an assumed principle. 3] However, that means that nothing with a FSCI below the UPB would be discoverable by an algorithm that correctly measures FSCI content. WWhy that "however"? It is the very definition of a conservative inference to best explanation, that one is stringent on a test that is in effect statistical. So, if it is within reason that on the quantum state gamut of our observed cosmos that we could search through an appreciable fraction of the relevant config space, we will default to chance. This, so that we will not be likely to make a mistake when inferring that design is the best explanation. In short, you have here followed those who have rhetorically sought to twist a principle of caution and conservativism in inference to momentous conclusions, into an alleged weakness. The design inference is not intended to be a detector of any and all designs [note the subtle but loaded strawman misrepresentation!], but instead a cautious method for detecting when design is -- per generally accepted principles and procedures of scientific reasoning -- the best explanation. (And in so doing, what we do at ontological level is to refuse to exercise the Lewontinian a priori materialist censorship that is usually "sold" under the label "methodological naturalism, and is nowadays being smuggled into definitions of science by the materialist high priesthood in lab coats.) _____________ I trust his helps make clear where there are several strawmannish caricatures -- many tracing to hostile advocates at the top level of public advocacy on this issue -- at work. You are not blameworthy for being taken in by them [and "taken in" is unfortunately apt in too many cases], but that also imposes a duty of hearing from us what we are actually saying, not what we have been misrepresented as saying. (Have a look at the weak argument correctives linked top right.) G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 26, 2010
February
02
Feb
26
26
2010
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @114
You will notice that the reasoning is abductive — which it seems you are utterly unfamiliar with. (Oddly, as it is the core method in science.)
Given that pre-school children perform abduction without even realizing that a term exists for it, what was your purpose in asking this particular question? I treat people with respect and expect the same.Toronto_{February 25, 2010
February
02
Feb
25
25
2010
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

I was looking at The Design Inference tonight and I think I realized an answer to the problem we are having. At least it helps me in my own understanding. The explanatory filter is on page 37. On page 36, Dembski explains, "To attribute an event to a regularity is to say it will (almost) always happen. The explanatory filter has "reg" for the category in which high probability events fall. The "reg" is really an abbreviation for ascribing an event to a regularity. So the event within the regularity is high probability, but the occurrence of the regularity, such as a very fine-tuned physical law, may be itself very low probability. This means the regularity itself would be filtered down into the "design" category. Ironically, the event within a regularity is more probable (once the regularity occurs) than the regularity itself.womanatwell_{February 25, 2010
February
02
Feb
25
25
2010
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler @118
We CAN know what is logically impossible. The details are for another day and another thread...
I predict 1000 posts in three days!
Our senses deceive us but reason never does. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it unless you can provide a better argument.
I'm working on it.Toronto_{February 25, 2010
February
02
Feb
25
25
2010
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Toronto: "He may not be able to do anything that ..He.. considers impossible, but I don’t think that we should believe in any way, that simply because ..we.. think something is logically impossible, that we have somehow defined the limitations of a timeless being that can bring a universe into existence." We CAN know what is logically impossible. The details are for another day and another thread but the rules of logic are the rules of logic and they apply to God as well as us in the sense that they are part of His essence or character. Like righteousness. He can't sin, either. He can't be irrational because He IS Rational. So we can say, for example, that even God can't make a 1 a 2. That would violate the law of identity. (I AM WHO I AM) A 1 is a 1 and a 2 is a 2. By the way, there is an OT verse that warns us in the strongest possible terms not to violate the law of identity. It's Isaiah 5:20 - Woe to you who call evil good and good evil. Reason is our ultimate epistemological ground for knowing anything. Reason (properly done) always leads us to the truth. Our senses deceive us but reason never does. That's my story and I'm sticking to it unless you can provide a better argument.tgpeeler_{February 25, 2010
February
02
Feb
25
25
2010
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @115,
By the way Toronto, If called to court, I’d want you to explain how to falsify the mandated assumption that only unguided processes are at work in the cosmos. Any ideas?
There may very well be forces guiding what goes on in the universe. If that's the case, I'd like to be one of the first ones to accept and maybe even prove it. What I'm looking for is positive evidence. Consider the positions of earth-like planets that have been found recently. If they are evenly distributed, that would raise suspicions in me as you would expect them to cluster in areas like ours.Toronto_{February 25, 2010
February
02
Feb
25
25
2010
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

Tor, 103: It is the ID position that design can be detected from non-design. How would you do that if everything is designed? The only way to have anything that is not designed, is for the universe itself, to be not designed, Yet another strawman misreading.
I don't understand. Let's do this one single step at a time. Is it the position of the ID movement, that design can be detected as being destinct from non-design? If so, you have to be able to make a statement of this type; "That is designed but that other thing is not". The ID movement, at this point, tries to determine the FSCI of the "Unit Under Test", which may be biological or chemical, etc. If the "UUT" exceeds a level that ID refers to as the UPB, it is defined as being designed. In the "Privileged Planet", the universe, the Earth's position in it, and the forces holding everything in place, are considered to be so finely-tuned that it is unlikely to have happened by chance. This means that the forces of physics and the entire universe have FSCI beyond the UPB. If this is the case, then the ID side is right about evolution. However, that means that nothing with a FSCI below the UPB would be discoverable by an algorithm that correctly measures FSCI content. Please explicitly show me the strawman here because I haven't tried to make one.Toronto_{February 25, 2010
February
02
Feb
25
25
2010
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

By the way Toronto, If called to court, I'd want you to explain how to falsify the mandated assumption that only unguided processes are at work in the cosmos. Any ideas?Upright BiPed_{February 25, 2010
February
02
Feb
25
25
2010
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

WAW: Re 108: the design theoretic investigation is starting from empirical observations of objects and events, and the known observed causal factors that affect them, thence the signs they leave behind. In short, it is open to he way the evidence leads. It so happens tha ton particular evidence it leads to design, sometimes inconveniently for the evolutionary materialists. Tor, 103:
It is the ID position that design can be detected from non-design. How would you do that if everything is designed? The only way to have anything that is not designed, is for the universe itself, to be not designed,
Yet another strawman misreading. Go back above, and see the actual procvess at work, not the one you are projecting onto design theory. We are dealign with direct observations inthe first insrtance,a nd so it should be fairly easy to see tha there are tyhigs that att he direct level in question are effectivley acting with natural regularities, in others there is stochastic contingency that fits randomness distribution, and in others there is purposeful functionally specific complexity not credibly the product of chance [on search space reasons.] From such we can identify reasonable signs, and we then see that the signs are reliable. From that we may then observe other cases where similar signs appear and draw conclusions. You will notice that the reasoning is abductive -- which it seems you are utterly unfamiliar with. (Oddly, as it is the core method in science.) Note, the issue is to identify candidate explanations, then to test which is best on reasonable grounds. And, in a designed universe, chance/ randomness may well play a role [e.g. random molecular motion associated with temperature, which underlies diffusion, osmosis, electronic junction behaviour, etc etc] , as also already discussed and overlooked or ignored. So, pardon a few direct words: please show me that you have done some basic homework, before repeating already corrected errors and distortions. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 25, 2010
February
02
Feb
25
25
2010
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @112, I am firmly on the ID side when it comes to getting a hearing on the ID/Evo debate. I think this issue needs to be resolved in the public eye one way or another. It won't be resolved by emotional arguments that try to ridicule one side's position, only logical fact-driven arguments will decide the outcome. If I lose to a better case presented by the other side, I could live with decision. If we make this seem like an emotional cultural issue though, neither side will even get into a forum that would decide it. My point in coming here, is to try and do whatever I can to get this thing heard in public, which is also I believe, what you want. Let's work together to make this happen by not deriding each other, or the statements we make.Toronto_{February 25, 2010
February
02
Feb
25
25
2010
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply