Design Operates at Multiple Levels

WAW That is why I and others here at UD have emphasised functionally specific complex information [cf the weak argument correctives], and it is why I have discussed the significance of wiring diagrams comprising arcs and nodes, for such entities. the practical upshot is that once you have a system that credibly stores 1,000+ bits of functional info, and where modest perturbation will destroy function, you have excellent reason to conclude design. Life-functional DNA starts at well north of 100 k bits, i.e two orders of magnitude beyond the threshold. And it is credible that for body plans of multicellular complex organisms, you are needing 10's to 100's+ M bits of novel functional, integrated DNA. that is four or more orders of magnitude beyond the threshold. Also, to cover self-replicaiton, per von neumann, we are looking at need to store a digitsed blueprint that easily surpasses the same threshold, plus codes, algorithms, data structures and implemeting machines that have to work together in aco-ordinated way. Absent imposition of a priori materialism a la Lewontin, it is blatant that these systems are best explained as designed. And so we come to Philip Johnson's Nov 1997 rebuttal to Lewontin's notorious article:

For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."  . . . .   The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] When the public understands this clearly, Lewontin’s Darwinism will start to move out of the science curriculum and into the department of intellectual history, where it can gather dust on the shelf next to Lewontin’s Marxism. [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

GEM of TKIkairosfocus

February 24, 2010

February

02

Feb

24

24

2010

07:12 AM

7

07

12

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Kairosfocus @74 & 76. Well said.StephenB

February 24, 2010

February

02

Feb

24

24

2010

06:58 AM

6

06

58

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

----kairosfocus: " StephenB, I note that in science laws can be laws of mechanical necessity a la the Newtonian laws of motion and gravitation, or statistical or probabilistic laws a la those of statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics. So, one could enfold both chance and necessity under “law,” and therefore we should use necessity, chance and design or synonyms to mark the relevant distinctions. (In Plato’s The Laws Bk X, he uses accident, phusis [= nature], techne [= art]. Monod spoke of chance and necessity, and that is probably the best vocabulary to use. I sometimes stress mechanical necessity. Before I forget: a programmmed process that acts by an algorithm — whether explicitly linguistically coded or implied by an implicit or explicit mechanical sequencer [e.g. cams] — is plainly an act of art.)" Agreed. And you have characterized the situation very well. Also, I note that we are dealing with two strawmen here, [a] Darwinistic "God of the Gaps" and [b] TE's Everything-is-designed [God's creative activity]-therefore-design-cannot-be -distinguished-from-non-design. I was addressing the second straBoth arguments fail, but the answer to the atheist strawmen is of a slightly different texture than the answer to the TE strawman. However, I think your answer addresses both.StephenB

February 24, 2010

February

02

Feb

24

24

2010

06:56 AM

6

06

56

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

lastyearon: Usually an IDer who knows the subject means "low probability" when they say "complexity" yes. In fact we usually mean an event whose probability is so low it lies outside the Universal Probability Bound (UPB) which is 10^-150. So as I said before, Law is incapable of producing complex things by definition because Law can only produce things or events with a probability of one, which means that given the corresponding caveats the same thing will happen every time. Chance can produce complex things, but it cannot reasonably be expected to produce complex, specified things. This is Dembski's specified complexity, which when used in informatics terms is Complex Specified Information (CSI) and the UPB corresponds to about 500 bits of information. Dembski's further work on the subject, and he has published papers on this, shows that when given a string such as the one MacNeill suggested the "method" or program needed to generate the string through a process governed by Law must contain at least as much information as the string itself. In other words, the string can be said to have no information, but the method which produced it is now the real information and can be evaluated by ID theory. So ID theory can be applied to Law and come to the same conclusion as the fine tuning argument. Perhaps it would clear things up if you explained the fine tuning argument and why you believe it. If you do so, I will show you that the argument is a percursor to the basic ID argument from specified complexity.tragic mishap

February 24, 2010

February

02

Feb

24

24

2010

06:20 AM

6

06

20

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

lastyearon,

Detecting levels of design may be an intriguing path that could lead to something. But it would have to use some formula for detecting a level of design other than the ones IDers use, because the ones IDers use (ie Dembski’s Explanatory Filter) explicitly rule out any Design in the creation of the laws of the universe

I'd like to add one more comment if I may to our discussion (lastyearon). I think many ID ideas are sound because of general principles. The microbiological systems that Behe calls irreducible are made of interlocking parts which are made of molecules such as amino acids. The molecules have certain chemical properties outside of biological life. The chemical laws are the same whether you call them designed or not. The atoms are the same, and the systems inside the organism are the same. Irreducible complexity still could be taken as a good argument. And William Dembski, in The Design Inference, sets out to find patterns that eliminate chance (see Preface). Physical nature makes random patterns whether it is designed or not. There are still probabilistic resources such as Dembski describes. He compares chance with specified complexity, which is helpful in evaluating DNA and other biological structures. IMO a problem arises because Dembski uses examples in his descriptions such as random card, coin and letter arrangements. That is all right for demonstration, but when you move from these metaphors to the real situation of atoms and molecules, you have entities which are controlled by physical and chemical laws. Now, as I said, the laws are the same whether you call them designed or not. BUT IF these laws are designed, then you are not proving design when you compare them to biology, you are comparing designs. This seems true to me no matter what they cause. And, many people believe that the fine-tuning of the universe, including just the right strength of gravity, just the right forces and charges to make planets and people, do demonstrate design.womanatwell

February 24, 2010

February

02

Feb

24

24

2010

06:00 AM

6

06

00

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kairosfocus, thank you for your insights. Your observation is, as always, cogent and well nigh logically unassailable.Barry Arrington

February 24, 2010

February

02

Feb

24

24

2010

05:42 AM

5

05

42

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Mr Arrington: I note that the rhetorical underpinnings of LYO's arguments show that (especially from now on) the overall origins science design inference issue has to be dealt with as a whole, step by step. I believe we therefore need to first highlight that the focus here is on the empirical inference per what we can directly observe, and not on metaphysically loaded assumptions. (BTW, I suspect that is where LYO's line of rhetorical framing heads, i.e. it is a novel form of the old "You're smuggling in a God- of- the- gaps"/ "Creationism in a cheap tuxedo" argument. If so, it is inter alia meant to rhetorically blunt the perceived force of the point that the materialist neo-magisterium [e.g. NAS, NCSE, NSTA, Judge "Copycat" Jones, etc etc], through imposing methodological naturalism, is building in a priori Lewontinian materialism into origins science.) So, you are fundamentally right to emphasise that we directly and routinely observe and distinguish empirically grounded characteristics of chance, mechanical necessity, and design. CJY et al are right to point out that all three or two of the three may interact significantly in any given situation, but as I have stressed for some time now, once we focus on ASPECTS that we study, we may often readily distinguish these directly acting causal factors. (This last comes from my experience of doing experiments and observations in Physics, starting with school level physics where one distinguishes the pattern due to law of necessity from that due to the usual experimental scatter and to bias imposed by the procedure or instrumentation, or even by Astronomy's infamous "personal equation." [In the famous case of the surveys used to ground the metre, lack of awareness of these factors led one of the scientists involved to take desperate measures.] ) On this foundation, we may fairly easily validate the general design filter per signs of necessity, chance and intelligence and show how well it integrates into the generic scientific method. We can see from this that there are some well-tested, reliable signs of intelligence -- and observe, LYO, the focus is on empirical observations and validated patterns of DIRECT causal factors. In particular, CSI -- esp. in its functional form [and note my recent extension through the nodes and arcs, wiring diagram/ mesh of points approach] -- is a reliable sign of the art-ifical. So, per equally massive observation, is irreducible complexity of multi-part systems. (And, using the classic "exploded view" to generate a "wiring diagram" plus point-mesh components view allows us to digitise the degree of complexity involved in an IC system: how many points have to be specified to get a workable system, and what happens if we drop out core parts or plug them back in?) Algorithms and associated linguistic codes and required physical implementing machinery are another case, and there are doubtless other credible signs of intelligence acting through art that creatively uses the forces and materials of nature to achieve purposeful ends. And, LYO et al, I am deliberately echoing the classical definition of engineering. Here is the ABET official definition:

Engineering design is the process of devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. It is a decision-making process (often iterative), in which the basic science and mathematics and engineering sciences [I add: i.e. preferably quantitiative -- but just as validly intuitive -- knowledge of the laws, forces, chance-based processes and materials of nature] are applied to convert resources optimally to meet a stated objective. Among the fundamental elements of the design process are the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis, construction, testing and evaluation . . .

I here confidently assert on a vast body of experience, that such signs of intelligence, per massive observation, are reliable. And, on such reliability, it is normal for science to infer to a general pattern. That is, we see here the classic, provisional [but empirically reliable] inductive scientific and/or common- sensical generalisation that grounds confident inference from sign to signified. Therein lieth the rub. For, once we move from the operational, going-concern world of the directly observable present, to investigate deep time origins based on signs in the present, we run into the implications of the Lewontinian a priori materialistic imposition. It is this imposition and not any defect in reasoning from sign to signified, that is the basis for rejecting design inferences from signs of intelligence in C-chemistry, cell based life, which abundantly manifests all three signs of intelligence as just described. Remove the a priori, and the inference in this case is at once blatantly obvious. But also, once we accept the premise of inference from sign to signified, we also look at the observed cosmos that facilitates C-chemistry, cell based life. It too manifests multi-part integrated complex functionality that is exceedingly fine-tuned -- thus, specific -- for the observed function. That is, we can construct a complex nodes and arcs "wiring diagram" of laws and parameters that drive the cosmological processes that evidently gave rise to galaxies with habitable zones, and stars with life-friendly terrestrial planets, including of course a certain G-2 star of our close acquaintance. So, we have a cluster of signs that point to intelligence as their best, empirically anchored explanation. (And LYO, kindly notice, we are here arguing by inference to best explanation anchored on empirical observation in the present, using the logic of abduction. That is, we are accepting the counter-flow between the chain of logical implication and the locus of empirical support: We have facts F1, F2, Fn, and we note candidate explanations E1, E2, . . . En. Which best accounts for ALL the material facts, most coherently and with explanatory elegance as opposed to being either simplistic or an ad hoc patchwork? On signs of intelligence, we contend that design is the best explanation for C-chemistry cell based life, and for the observed credibly fine tuned cosmos that facilitates it. This is NOT a deductive "proof," which can be no stronger than its assumptions, and is also irreducibly uncertain in a post Godel world, even for mathematics.) So, we see levels of design, and a stepwise progression from direct observaiton and identificaiton of signs of design, to acceptance of these signs, to use of such signs in origins science starting with cell based life,a nd onward to cosmological design inferences. G'day GEM of TKI PS: StephenB, I note that in science laws can be laws of mechanical necessity a la the Newtonian laws of motion and gravitation, or statistical or probabilistic laws a la those of statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics. So, one could enfold both chance and necessity under "law," and therefore we should use necessity, chance and design or synonyms to mark the relevant distinctions. (In Plato's The Laws Bk X, he uses accident, phusis [= nature], techne [= art]. Monod spoke of chance and necessity, and that is probably the best vocabulary to use. I sometimes stress mechanical necessity. Before I forget: a programmmed process that acts by an algorithm -- whether explicitly linguistically coded or implied by an implicit or explicit mechanical sequencer [e.g. cams] -- is plainly an act of art.)kairosfocus

February 24, 2010

February

02

Feb

24

24

2010

02:04 AM

2

02

04

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N; In point 24 I needed to say we assign the behaviour of a loaded die to law and chance constrained by art!kairosfocus

February 23, 2010

February

02

Feb

23

23

2010

05:42 PM

5

05

42

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

LYO (and others): Just passing by, noticed this thread. I suspect you would benefit from looking at the diagram and discussion here on (and from actually pausing to summarise accurately what your interlocutors are saying instead of re-framing it in your own context; which is ending up in erecting and knocking over strawmen). I note,in step by step points: 1 --> Objects, processes and events are indeed complicated, and are known -- per massive experience -- to manifest interactions of chance [stochastic or happenstance patterns], predictable forces that give rise to natural regularities [law], and actions of intelligence. 2 --> My capital example for this is that (i) heavy but unsupported objects drop, (ii) if they are fair dice they tumble to positions at random, (iii) the tossed dice may be part of an intelligent game that uses structured random elements to help fulfill a functional, complex, specific purpose. (And of course a loaded die is itself going to take advantage of lawlike regularities to provide a biased outcome where the naive might expect a fair distribution.) 3 --> Similarly, a typical scientific experimental or observational study will as a rule reflect law and chance, in a context that may be artificially contrived to manifest significant patterns, or it may be selected for observation for similar reasons. (Think of particle physics experiments in a bubble chamber vs astronomical observations of say a supernova.) 4 --> Magic step: we are looking at ASPECTS of the objects or events, and we are thinking about the DIRECT and OBSERVATIONALLY DISTINGUISHABLE causal factors that are or may be at work. 5 --> BTW, the word "observationally" highlights that all human knowledge is inherently subjective, but may also be objective, i.e. we see a self-evident truth here, that empirically based knowledge is possible. 6 --> So, if we are loking at an interstingly shaped functional object (say a putative car part) we may specify a grid-net of points, and note how the variablity affects function. 7 --> Such a net of specified points [and of associated factors such as materials] can be converted into a bit pattern, and the island of function may be inferred from the degree of tolerance permissible. 8 --> Once that bit pattern passes the rule of thumb threshold of 500 - 1,000 bits, at he upper end we are beyond ten times the square of he number of Planck-time quantum states the observed comsos' atoms will go through across their lifespan. 9 --> That is, we have a credible inference that the whole observed universe, per argument, acting as a random search engine would not be able to scan enough configurations to have a search that would not round down to zero. 10 --> With one exception: if there is a precise law at work that under specific starting conditions, would cause the part to tumble into a functional config (i.e we have dramatically cut down the config space), we see law and chance together as immediate source. 11 --> Howbeit, the functional specificity of the law and the initial circumstances are suspicious. [That is they would strongly point to an additional factor at work: art.] 12 --> And we here see that we have looked at various aspects, and are assigning causal factors per aspect: (i) law constrains contingency, (ii) chance manifests stochastic patterns that may be complex but are unlikely to be functionally specific [islands of function effect], (iii) art may make use of the above but injects intelligence to achieve a purpose that would otherwise be unlikely on the assumption of no intelligent constraint or structuring. 13 --> Thus we see that he commonsense observation that the design filter as is commonly used in statistical studies, is credible for what it does. (And, Mr MacNeill, your strings were not 500 - 1,000 bits long, so they are irrelevant to the design inference.) 14 --> As a first relevant context, we see the putative ocean or pond chemical soup or volcano hot vent. There is no reason to infer that any chance factors beyond those studied under statistical mechanics would be at work, which would tend to rapidly reduce the soup to equilibrium, not the construction of complex information rich molecules and integration of same into functional life forms as observed. The laws of necessity would affect some physical or chemical processes, but the dynamics would be dominated by the sort of chemical patterns just described. 15 --> That is why OOL studies is in the perplexity we can so easily observe, e.g. in the recent sharp exchanges between Orgel and Shapiro. 16 --> Per argument, we take a putative early unicellular life form, and propose that it creates novel body plans by chance variation, horizontal gene transfers [but one has to make the functional genes before transferring them, and one has to have a common code and algorithms for that to work . . . ] , and selection forces on niches. The problem here is that we are looking at 10's - 100's of millions of bits worth of new functional, integrated, code based information, which is again only going to come from fine tuning of law and chance, or from chance. 17 --> So, we have good reason to explain both the OOL and the OO body plan level biodiveristy on design. 18 --> Worse, we see that the c-chemistry, cell based life we observe rests on a cosmos that creates galactic habitable zones with life-friendly terrestrial planets [earth not venus!] in circumstellar habitable zones. 19 --> General Relativity leads to the implication that we have a finely tuned cosmos for that to happen, a degree of finetuning that would specify a considerable number of bits. (And multiverse models, the proposed alternative, boil down to a save the phenomena for evolutionary materialism exercise in empirically unconstrained metaphysical speculation.) 20 --> So, even through the EF's biasing that defaults to law for regularity and chance for contingency, we can be confident that inference to design on conservative thresholds of complexity and functional specificity is reliable. 21 --> it also accords well with our experience and observation: we routinely -- and without serious exception -- directly observe FSCI coming from art, and we simply do not see repeatable cases of law + chance giving rise to same. We have a good search of config space reason for that. So we can be highly confident inthe observation. 22 --> Why, then, is it hat this fairly simple and obvious empirically anchored inference is so desperately resisted? ANS: because it cuts across a currently dominant school of thought. 23 --> Finally, we note that by highlighting the direct causal factors on aspects of objects and events, we are able to see that, indeed, there may be levels of design at work in ways that do not vitiate the distinction being made at any given level. 24 --> So, we may assign the falling of a heavy item to law, the resulting tumbling of a fair die to chance, and the tumbling of a loaded one to law and chance. 25 --> From that simple case, we may infer to he direct causal factors on a peculiarly shaped metal object vs say a stone from a field, and we may extend to the origin of c-Chemistry, information based cellular life and body plans, and we may also do the same to the observed cosmos that facilitates such life. 26 --> And, as has just been demonstrated, we can easily do so -- unlike in the strawman-framed cases above -- without hesitancy or confusion. ___________ I trust this is helpful. G'night GEM of TKIkairosfocus

February 23, 2010

February

02

Feb

23

23

2010

05:34 PM

5

05

34

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

-----lastyearon: “Let’s take a closer look at that statement. You say that ID claims to be able to differentiate between Law, Chance and Agency, but that does not mean that Law and Chance weren’t themselves designed (ie a product of Agency).” Right. ----“But if Law and Chance are themselves a product of Agency, then nothing in our universe is not the product of Agency, which invalidates the argument for ID. ID can detect that the products from the first Agency cause [God if you like] that manifest themselves as law-like regularities [and its cooperation with chance] are different from the products of the first Agency cause [God] that manifest themselves as designed objects [DNA patterns] and [human agents] by examining the design patterns IN the DNA and those left BY the humans and recognizing [a] that they are similar and [b] that natural laws have never been known to produce anything like them. Once the nature of those patterns have been established, ID can then distinguish between the law like regularities designed by the first Agent, which have no such patterns, and the designed entities from the first Agent which do. ----The argument from ID is that the effects of law and chance are distinguishable from the effects of agency. Right. ----“So I reiterate, the only way to claim that it is possible to detect design in specific things is by claiming that the universe is not itself designed.” That is incorrect for the reasons just stated. ----“Let me make a different argument. You say that “law and chance as causes, are distinct from agency in terms of what they produce.” If we say that Law and Chance were produced by Agency (the fine tuned universe) and we also say that human beings were produced by Agency, then given that human beings design things, why cannot Law and Chance also design things (evolution)” Because innovation or creative design requires a choice among alternatives, and laws can neither innovate, choose nor be creative. They can only repeat what they do. If they could do anything else, they wouldn’t be laws.StephenB

February 23, 2010

February

02

Feb

23

23

2010

04:08 PM

4

04

08

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

tragic

You are assuming that an “event” or “thing to be explained” is equal to “the entire causal chain leading up to that event or thing”. That is not the case. An event or thing can be evaluated by itself. In fact, that’s really all science can do, since we don’t have a way to observe the distant past.

Don't you see that in this very statement you are conceding that it is possible that Law and Chance are capable of producing complex things like life. Evolutionary biologists study the causal chains. It is ID that says the entire causal chain of Chance and Law is not capable of producing life, hence Agency.

ID defines complexity as low probability. Perhaps you are working with a different definition? According to the probability definition, Chance and Agency can both produce things of high complexity, while Law cannot since Law can only produce things with a probability of one.

Hmm...I wasn't aware that that was the definition of complexity. Is that how it's used throughout?lastyearon

February 23, 2010

February

02

Feb

23

23

2010

03:53 PM

3

03

53

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

In other words, how does one come to the conclusion that Law and Chance don’t have the same ability to produce complex things as we do, given that we are both the direct product of Agency.

ID defines complexity as low probability. Perhaps you are working with a different definition? According to the probability definition, Chance and Agency can both produce things of high complexity, while Law cannot since Law can only produce things with a probability of one.tragic mishap

February 23, 2010

February

02

Feb

23

23

2010

02:15 PM

2

02

15

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

lastyearon:

But if Law and Chance are themselves a product of Agency, then nothing in our universe is not the product of Agency, which invalidates the argument for ID. So I reiterate, the only way to claim that it is possible to detect design in specific things is by claiming that the universe is not itself designed.

You are assuming that an "event" or "thing to be explained" is equal to "the entire causal chain leading up to that event or thing". That is not the case. An event or thing can be evaluated by itself. In fact, that's really all science can do, since we don't have a way to observe the distant past.tragic mishap

February 23, 2010

February

02

Feb

23

23

2010

02:09 PM

2

02

09

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Clive Hayden @68,

tragic mishap: Being unable to perform logical impossibilities does not impinge on omnipotence.

I still don't follow. Are you saying that God cannot do anything we consider logically impossible ?Toronto

February 23, 2010

February

02

Feb

23

23

2010

01:52 PM

1

01

52

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Toronto, Nonsense is not a limit, God can do anything, nonsense is not a thing.Clive Hayden

February 23, 2010

February

02

Feb

23

23

2010

01:42 PM

1

01

42

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB

Let me help you out. ID does not declare that Law and Chance are “mutually exclusive to design” in the sense of claiming that they were not, or could not, have been designed; it declares only that law and chance as causes, are distinct from agency in terms of what they produce.

Let's take a closer look at that statement. You say that ID claims to be able to differentiate between Law, Chance and Agency, but that does not mean that Law and Chance weren't themselves designed (ie a product of Agency). But if Law and Chance are themselves a product of Agency, then nothing in our universe is not the product of Agency, which invalidates the argument for ID. So I reiterate, the only way to claim that it is possible to detect design in specific things is by claiming that the universe is not itself designed. Let me make a different argument. You say that "law and chance as causes, are distinct from agency in terms of what they produce." If we say that Law and Chance were produced by Agency (the fine tuned universe) and we also say that human beings were produced by Agency, then given that human beings design things, why cannot Law and Chance also design things (evolution). In other words, how does one come to the conclusion that Law and Chance don't have the same ability to produce complex things as we do, given that we are both the direct product of Agency.lastyearon

February 23, 2010

February

02

Feb

23

23

2010

01:35 PM

1

01

35

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Clive Hayden @65,

Toronto: I think it does since what limits us should not limit an omnipotent being.

Nonsense doesn’t cease to be nonsense because we add the words “God can” to it.

I don't follow. Are you saying an omnipotent being has some sort of limits?Toronto

February 23, 2010

February

02

Feb

23

23

2010

01:22 PM

1

01

22

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Toronto, tragic mishap:

Being unable to perform logical impossibilities does not impinge on omnipotence.

Toronto:

I think it does since what limits us should not limit an omnipotent being.

Nonsense doesn't cease to be nonsense because we add the words "God can" to it.Clive Hayden

February 23, 2010

February

02

Feb

23

23

2010

01:10 PM

1

01

10

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

---lastyearon to Upright Biped ---"Not quite, but you’re getting there Upright BiPed. Let me help you out…In your example, we know that a synthetic rubber tire was designed because we can go to a synthetic rubber tire plant and see people designing and manufacturing them. In the case of natural objects like living organisms, the only method ID uses to detect design is by ruling out chance and law (Dembski’s EF, Behe’s IC). Therefore chance and law are mutually exclusive to design, and thus ID theory is incompatible with a Fine Tuned universe." Let me help you out. ID does not declare that Law and Chance are "mutually exclusive to design" in the sense of claiming that they were not, or could not, have been designed; it declares only that law and chance as causes, are distinct from agency in terms of what they produce. You seem to think, mistakenly, that since ID allows that natural laws were designed, it must also allow that their effects are designed. In effect, you are confusing the idea of natural laws as an effect of designer's act of creation, which they are, with the idea of natural laws as causal producers of events, which they also are.StephenB

February 23, 2010

February

02

Feb

23

23

2010

12:47 PM

12

12

47

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

The heavens declare the glory of God; The skies proclaim the work of His hands.

Psalm 19:1 This gets a little deeper than I have time for today. I'll try to be back tomorrow.womanatwell

February 23, 2010

February

02

Feb

23

23

2010

11:29 AM

11

11

29

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Not quite, but you're getting there Upright BiPed. Let me help you out... In your example, we know that a synthetic rubber tire was designed because we can go to a synthetic rubber tire plant and see people designing and manufacturing them. In the case of natural objects like living organisms, the only method ID uses to detect design is by ruling out chance and law (Dembski's EF, Behe's IC). Therefore chance and law are mutually exclusive to design, and thus ID theory is incompatible with a Fine Tuned universe.lastyearon

February 23, 2010

February

02

Feb

23

23

2010

11:07 AM

11

11

07

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

So, if the material of a object was designed, then the design of the object itself will be somehow masked by that material? So, as an example of the logic, if I see a synthetic rubber tire, I cannot discern the pattern of the tread because of the material used to build it. Got it.Upright BiPed

February 23, 2010

February

02

Feb

23

23

2010

10:29 AM

10

10

29

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

What is the logical prohibition of using designed materials in designed objects?

Upright BiPed, you are missing the point. my point is that it is impossible for us to distinguish an object as having been designed if everything in the universe was designed. So it may be possible for god to specifically design some things, and let the laws of nature take its course everywhere else. But if the laws of nature are themselves designed, there is no way for us to know which objects are specifically designed. Dembski's EF states that plainly. Only by ruling out law and chance as causation can we infer Agency (design). If the laws of the universe were caused by Agency then the Explanatory Filter breaks down.lastyearon

February 23, 2010

February

02

Feb

23

23

2010

09:38 AM

9

09

38

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I think that what I am trying to say at 58, is that we are raising the act of performing logic up to the level of the evidence that drives it. The logic can be flawless, but by not properly choosing the data we input, we can get any output we want. I think it is wrong to point at any conclusion and say that it was the logic that proved it.Toronto

February 23, 2010

February

02

Feb

23

23

2010

09:32 AM

9

09

32

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

tragic mishap @53,

Being unable to perform logical impossibilities does not impinge on omnipotence.

I think it does since what limits us should not limit an omnipotent being. For instance, by making a rock big enough to hold the universe inside it, I nullify the only mass that can hold it immobile. By not having any mass outside of it though, I can no longer lift it off anything. It is your logic that is limiting your omnipotent being, not his power.Toronto

February 23, 2010

February

02

Feb

23

23

2010

09:12 AM

9

09

12

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

lastyear, What is the logical prohibition of using designed materials in designed objects?Upright BiPed

February 23, 2010

February

02

Feb

23

23

2010

09:07 AM

9

09

07

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

tragic mishap @53,

Are each of these possibilities mutually exclusive? Are all events that result from contingency, or law by definition not the result of agency?

Short answer: Yes. This is the crux of Dembski’s Explanatory Filter. After law and chance can be ruled out, agency is the logical conclusion.

Why is it not "possible" for an agent to cause events via contingency or law? An agent may not be concerned with a specific outcome. For example, I can deal a set of cards without caring about their distribution even though the person I deal them to certainly will. If I don't deal them at all though, they'll just sit on the table.Toronto

February 23, 2010

February

02

Feb

23

23

2010

08:52 AM

8

08

52

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

womanatwell

I was thinking from our discussion that a better term than “design detection” might be “design level detection.”

Detecting levels of design may be an intriguing path that could lead to something. But it would have to use some formula for detecting a level of design other than the ones IDers use, because the ones IDers use (ie Dembski's Explanatory Filter) explicitly rule out any Design in the creation of the laws of the universe (see tragic mishaps post #53).lastyearon

February 23, 2010

February

02

Feb

23

23

2010

08:52 AM

8

08

52

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

tragic

Short answer: Yes. This is the crux of Dembski’s Explanatory Filter. After law and chance can be ruled out, agency is the logical conclusion.

So by Dembski's own definition of Intelligent Design the universe cannot be the result of Agency. Some things are the result of law and chance (and by definition not Agency) and other things (presumably life) are the result of Agency. This argument is completely incompatible with the idea of a Fine Tuned universe. Does anyone disagree? If so, please elaborate.lastyearon

February 23, 2010

February

02

Feb

23

23

2010

08:46 AM

8

08

46

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

lastyearon:

Are each of these possibilities mutually exclusive? Are all events that result from contingency, or law by definition not the result of agency?

Short answer: Yes. This is the crux of Dembski's Explanatory Filter. After law and chance can be ruled out, agency is the logical conclusion. waw, C.S. Lewis was an atheist from age 9 to about 30. Like most young atheists, he thought that those types of "gotcha" questions actually counted as an argument. "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it? Hahahaha." I actually had an adult atheist friend ask me that question. I looked at him and said, "No." And your point is? Lewis' point was that the question itself is nonsense. It's a logical impossibility. Being unable to perform logical impossibilities does not impinge on omnipotence. It's no different from asking if God can be both God and not God at the same time. Obviously not, because that's a logical impossibility.tragic mishap

February 23, 2010

February

02

Feb

23

23

2010

08:09 AM

8

08

09

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link