E. O. Wilson on ID

_{William Dembski

November 26, 2007

Intelligent Design}

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

Here’s what E. O. Wilson writes in THE NEW SCIENTIST:

. . . Many who accept the fact of evolution cannot, however, on religious grounds, accept the operation of blind chance and the absence of divine purpose implicit in natural selection. They support the alternative explanation of intelligent design. The reasoning they offer is not based on evidence but on the lack of it. The formulation of intelligent design is a default argument advanced in support of a non sequitur. It is in essence the following: there are some phenomena that have not yet been explained and that (most importantly) the critics personally cannot imagine being explained; therefore there must be a supernatural designer at work. The designer is seldom specified, but in the canon of intelligent design it is most certainly not Satan and his angels, nor any god or gods conspicuously different from those accepted in the believer’s faith.

Flipping the scientific argument upside down, the intelligent designers join the strict creationists (who insist that no evolution ever occurred) by arguing that scientists resist the supernatural theory because it is counter to their own personal secular beliefs. This may have a kernel of truth; everybody suffers from some amount of bias. But in this case bias is easily overcome. The critics forget how the reward system in science works. Any researcher who can prove the existence of intelligent design within the accepted framework of science will make history and achieve eternal fame. They will prove at last that science and religious dogma are compatible. Even a combined Nobel prize and Templeton prize (the latter designed to encourage the search for just such harmony) would fall short as proper recognition. Every scientist would like to accomplish such a epoch-making advance. But no one has even come close, because unfortunately there is no evidence, no theory and no criteria for proof that even marginally might pass for science. . . .

Two comments:

(1) ID does not argue from “Shucks, I can’t imagine how material mechanisms could have brought about a biological structure” to “Gee, therefore God must have done it.” This is a strawman. Here is the argument ID proponents actually make:

Premise 1: Certain biological systems have some diagnostic feature, be it IC (irreducible complexity) or SC (specified complexity) or OC (organized complexity) etc.
Premise 2: Materialistic explanations have been spectacularly unsuccessful in explaining such systems — we have no positive evidence for thinking that material mechanisms can generate them.
Premise 3: Intelligent agency is known to have the causal power to produce systems that display IC/SC/OC.
Conclusion: Therefore, biological systems that exhibit IC/SC/OC are likely to be designed.

(2) Wilson’s claim that proving “the existence of intelligent design within the accepted framework of science will make history and achieve eternal fame” is disingenuous. The accepted framework of science precludes ID from the start. Wilson and his materialistic colleagues have stacked the deck so that no evidence could ever support it.

Comments

tyke @ 91
Well, we could debate the meanings of atheist and agnostic all night, but suffice to say that two of the most well known, militant and outspoken atheists (Dawkins and Hitchens) will tell you that they cannot completely rule out the existence of a deity. One would have to have God-like powers in order to rule it out.
I know you're talking about atheist v. agnostic here, but I think Frost122585 mentioned humanism. Dawkins is indeed a Humanist, as is E.O. Wilson. Antony Flew was as well; I don't know if his standing has changed.angryoldfatman_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

I agree with Frost122585 that Lazarus is a troll. Based on the things he's said ("The bible is true because God said it is", "I know for a fact that ID was predicated upon the God of the Bible", "if the bible isn’t true then ID isn’t true", "God Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It"), I'm guessing he's hoping to get some "Amen, brother!" responses, link to it on pandasthumb, and claim that as proof of ID's religious motivation. This quote (when he was solon in a previous thread): "Janice I am not so sure that what we need is more science, but probably less of it. Think of the literally billions of dollars that is wasted on a bankrupt religion masquerading as a science! When we can re-take control of our government and when we get back on the path to God as a society then we can save trillions of dollars!" is a little more blatant than some of his more recent posts. He seems to be trying to be more subtle now since that didn't get a lot of support.dl_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

I feel that when I am debating this kind of a person I am more or less just debating a Prophet Yahweh. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7400276785462020684&q=prophet+of+the+gods+5&total=63&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0.Frost122585_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

Well good luck with all of that but I think that I will save my breath for more interesting discussions with people who actually want to engage in a real dialogue. People like yourself. Btw keep using all terms they make the discussion much richer. But I maintain that I would like to never see another post by Lazarus again if they are all going to just be theological arguments rooted in biblical absolute literalism and a personal narcissistic false sense of philosophical argumentation. I really have a problem with people who just assert things that cant be proven and then say their proof is in their head/soul or w/e and finish it all off with a cherry on top in the form of a classical circular argument like “its all true because God said it is true.” To me that is all just bs.Frost122585_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

Hi Frost First, I do address, in reasonable details, the relevant science [and inescapable associated philosophy] issues tied to ID, as my always linked will show. (Cf my name in the LH column. Sorry on the technical teminology -- it is inescapable once we are at this level. And BTW, to those out there who disparage us as random wanderers in shooting off in ignorance, I think it is fair to say that all regular commenters here have been subjected to a serious level of scrutiny that is at least a passing fair substitute for peer review, and in a multidisciplinary context. We have everything from biologists and mathematicians to computer scientists, engineers, biologists, medical doctors, theologians, lawyers and philosophers here -- and on multiple sides of the questions. So, just wade in and spout off something that is poorly warranted and see what will happen to you in short order. Then compare anything else out there -- including the standard that we find too often in courtrooms, open source reference sites such as Wikipedia, "serious" media and too many scientific magazines and journals. That's why I am using this blog to clarify and test my own thinking, towards onward use in serious educational contexts, as is say CS from a different perspective. And, while there is a lot of complaining onthe high spam and moderation standards, I find that this is vital to keepingt out ad hominems and repetitious, closed-minded assertions substituting for serious argument. Dave Scott and Patrick etc, thanks for a thankless job, even though I am one of the ones who keeps on breaking the system down! Hey, I haven't busted it for coming on a whole week! Thanks, Mark over at Akismet, too. When all is said and done, UD and its team will have made a major contribution to restoring the balance in our civilisation, not just in science.) In my always linked, and often in references to it, I invite comment and interaction. Pixie, for instance took me up, and the result is included in the current version of the document. What has happened is that L/S has raised a theological challenge, tied to the phil issues, and has been rather dismissive and -- frankly -- disrespectful. I am therefore first showing him that the theology INVITES assessment of the phil issues [as Rom 1 highlights], and that the science issues are relevant to those issues. So, saying "the Bible says X" does not even properly address what the Bible does say, in Rom 1, Ac 17 etc. If he will engage on the merits, I believe he has much to learn, starting with the stated message of Rom 1 and Ac 17. If not, he is exposing himself as simply rude and ignorant, or else as an outright fraud -- a Sokal style hoaxer. But if so he has been duly detected and challenged, which if he refuses to address on the merits, he has ducked. If he ducks and refuses to apologise ands amend his ways, he has no basis to then go out there and claim that he was unfairly excluded from the discussion by moderators, and/or that he was rudely ignored by the regular contributors and commenters here. In short, we are dealing with a multiple-front battle with objectors form several directions: the evo mat advocates, some theistic evolutionists of the Miller type school, those Creationists who fit into the sort of pattern that L/S either represents or parodies. In such a situation, we do need to emphasise the central scientific questions, as you will see that I do. But equally, we also need to address objections and objectors from their multiple perspectives, lest they "frame" the way the issues are perceived and put out to the public in ways that block the reasonable common man from being able to make up his own mind in a fair and balanced, well-informed way. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

The Sokal Affair refers to an incident in 1996 when Professor Alan Sokal, a physicist at New York University, submitted a deliberately pseudoscientific paper for publication in an academic journal of cultural studies. The paper, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity," (published in the Spring/Summer 1996 issue of Social Text) was submitted to see if an academic journal would (according to Sokal) "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions." Popperian cosmology is Karl Popper's philosophical theory of reality that includes three interacting worlds, called World 1, World 2 and World 3. Popperian cosmology also includes Karl Popper's theory of objective epistemology, also known as his theory of falsifiability. Paul Karl Feyerabend (January 13, 1924 – February 11, 1994) was an Austrian-born philosopher of science best known for his work as a professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, where he worked for three decades (1958-1989). His life was a peripatetic one, as he lived at various times in England, the United States, New Zealand, Italy, and finally Switzerland. His major works include Against Method (published in 1975), Science in a Free Society (published in 1978) and Farewell to Reason (a collection of papers published in 1987). Feyerabend became famous for his purportedly anarchistic view of science and his rejection of the existence of universal methodological rules. He is an influential figure in the philosophy of science, and also in the sociology of scientific knowledge. Oh yeah, ok.Frost122585_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

My point is that we don’t have to venture into the realm of Heideggerian prose to see that Lazarus is way off topic and beyond enlightenment or reproach. I do however think that you want to take the level of thought to the appropriate higher level .So don’t take my disagreeing with you as insulting just pragmatically a different approach to dealing with fools like Lazarus. As my father always told me when I was trying to deal with someone who was being totally unreasonable- "Don’t be so generous with your knowledge.”Frost122585_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

You use a big vocabulary and I am being forced by you to look up all of these words. Nonetheless I feel that you are wrong. If you look at the claims of ID they are mathematical, empirical, mechanical and logical. This is because logic is less refutable, mechanical explanation requires empirical geometric understanding and math is more or less a universal language. The goal of these is to take as much subjectivity and belief as possibly out of the arguments. This leads to good arguments and god science. This site should have one bias and that is relevance. I will admit that there is one aspect of ID that I find requires a bit of subjectivity and that is the specified part in specified complexity. I have no problem with the universal probability bound and all of that i do think the idea of something being arbitrary independent as a given patter is a bit subjective. For example to single something out is useful for investigation but it ignores all other things and thus could be in a sense imposed upon the world. For example is a chair independent form the ground it rests on independent form the tress outside also connected to the ground etc. All in all I am convinced by there is always the problem of perspective and induction. But i do think we try to reduce subjectivity as much has possible .That is why I said the Virgin Mary flew in my window last night and told me ID was true. This kind of reasoning should not be allowed on the site Im sure we both agree. Where I disagree with you is in trying to get Lazarus to debate you because the kind of debate you would be partaking in is not like a chess match. There are no rule or chess board because at Lazarus has made it perfectly clear he/she has no intention of playing by any rules except the idea that he/she. is right and the bible is all fact and even more the bible is al that matters. Lazarus is not even posing an argument. Lazarus has no interest in ID. Lazarus called us all "metaphysical masturbators" which is a ridiculous insult that is based only once again on stupid assertion. If you want to initiate a theological debate with Lazarus feel free although I would personally hate to see posts by Lazarus up on the site again. Just be aware that nothing constructive will likely come out of it because Lazarus is a fraud and is not interested in ID at all.Frost122585_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT}

Hi Frost I have noticed several quite usefuyl posts from you. On Lazarus, on another thread, I invited him to dialogfue with me in a less restrictive forum, or privately through email. He refused, in the terms just noted above. I am inclined to believe that it is most likely that he is trying out a Sokal-style hoax [which I found to be highly immoral on Sokal's part -- exploiting trust], or else that he is in serious need of correction. In effect, I am here challenging him to step up to the batting-crease and show serious level thought and that level of sportsmanship that Cricket is well-noted for. Failing this, he deserves to be ignored and/or removed from this forum. On Paul's teaching in Rom 1, a bit of context will help. Romans is the most consciously intellectual, philosophical and theological document in the New Testament. In Ch 1, in the passage as pointed to, Paul is appealing to publicly available evidence that is accessible to every man, wit5hout reference to any special revelation. In so doing, he clearly cl;aims thast the world without andf the mind and hearet within are sufficient evidence to leave us without excuse on the issue of the4 existence of a Divine Agent as the originating force behind the cosmsos as we experience it. In the philosophically central section of the text:
Rom 1:19 . . . . what may be known about God is plain to [men], because God has made it plain to them. 20 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 men are without excuse . . . 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles [some would add, in those days in temples, now in museums, magazines and on TV] . . . 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.
So, the question is, is he right or wrong. Up to Darwin, it was commonly held that he was right. After Darwin, in many -- but not at all, all -- academic and intelligentsia circles, it has been held that he is wrong. The Design inference issue, as Antony Flew points out, puts the question back on the table, and in his considered opinion, tilts it back the other way. Of course,t his is a question of worldviews, but we should note 6that as I have shown and linked above, much of what is going on is a radical restructuring of science driven by worldview level assumptions of materialism. Also, as Lakatos has pointed out, once we look at research programmes, they have an architecture based on a belt of theories and a core that deeply embeds worldview level assumptions. So we cannot so easily dismiss worlodview issues by assuming or imposing methodological naturalism as a datum line between science and non-science. For that matter, Popperian style falsificationism has issues to face at this level too -- just contrast that iconoclast, Feyerabend. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, OK, thanks. I think I understand your reasoning a little better now. I'm trying to avoid hasty responses -- you see how well they've worked for me in the past! :-) So I'll have to ruminate on this for a while.getawitness_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus -"Third, I believe Lazarus/Solon owes me a justification of his dismissive remark, that my always linked is “rubbish” or words to that effect, in another thread. Failing such justification, he has plainly removed himself from the pale of civil discussion of serious issues at a responsible level." Don’t waste your breath. Lazarus is merely a ploy. As far as Paul’s claim about evidence for God being found inside. I think that that could obviously simply be his own personal experience and may not be true for someone else. God could in fact make it not obtainable for someone else for his own reasons. This is not science. This sight is a medium for intelligent scientific discussions not totally subjective ones. An inappropriate example would be say for example if I said that the virgin marry flew in my window last night and had a long talk with me about ID and told me that it is all true. This is nonsense and no one wants to here it because and especially on a web page no one can experience what I am saying to judge for themselves. Lazarus is not to be pitied, or laughed at and especially not to be taken seriously. Lazarus is to be ignored.Frost122585_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

GAW [and L/S etc]: First, let us connect some dots: a] There are entire sciences as well as areas of focus within sciences that deal with the study of entities that are designed by agents. That is, one may properly scientifically investigate that which is a result of agent action. Inference to/ the known presence of agency is not an automatic "science-stopper." b] In other words, in scientific work, we can and do -- and in some cases it has been very important -- frequently study entities and situations that were designed. c] Indeed, we may then -- often successfully and highly reliably -- extend conclusions from such artificially set up situations to situations where we do not directly know how the situation came to be. (Often we call such situations "naturally occurring" or "natural" ones. Notice how I have here left the issue of the origin of "natural" situations open.) d] In many specific fields of study -- especially where statistical inference is a part of the scientific process -- we routinely infer to the action of one or more of the following general causal factors: (i) chance, (ii) mechanical necessity showing itself through natural regularities, (iii) agent action. e] In these fields, we routinely rely on the results of such findings, e.g the inference to message, not lucky noise, or the inference to drug action, or the inference to intentional action not accidental circumstance, etc. [Cf here my discussion in Section A, my always linked.] f] Now, for instance, DNA is a known case of a highly complex, digitally coded data string used in the information processing of the cell. In real cases its storage capacity is of order 500,000 to 4,000,000,000 4-state elements, or 1 mn to 8 bn bits. Such complexity -- even at the lower end -- is far (orders of magnitude) beyond the Dembski type bound of 500 - 1,000 bits; beyond which the probabilistic resources of the observed universe are exhausted. Thus we know that DNA is maximally unlikely to have arisen by chance on the gamut of the observed cosmos. Since highly contingent situations reliably trace chance or agency not mechanical necessity, we are empirically and logically well-warranted in inferring to agency to explain the origin of cell-based life. d] Similarly, the origin of major body-plan level biodiversity, e.g. as the Cambrian life revolution documents, is credibly known to require increments to DNA and functionality that are well beyond the similar threshold. Thus, we are again well-warranted to infer to agency to account for such body-plan level biodiversity. Indeed, the recent results highlighted by Behe on malaria, underscore just how limited RV + NS is on such functional innovation. e] Going up to the cosmic level, we observe that the physics to set up a universe that is friendly to life is highly complex, co-adapted in a multitude of fine-tuned ways, and in general credibly exhibits organised complexity. Thus, the late, great, Sir Fred Hoyle was credibly well-warranted to observe -- I suspect, now he knows for sure:
From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? Following the above argument, I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has "monkeyed" with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. [F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16.]
Now, absent imposition of a certain worldview level alleged criterion of what is "scientific," none of this would be exceptional. And, when we see that that criterion -- often termed "methodological naturalism" -- is historically unwarranted and is premised on a philosophically questionable worldview AND that it is observed to distort science away from being a free, open-ended, open-minded search for the truth about the cosmos in light of empirical findings and associated analysis, we are further well-warranted to challenge the imposition of the claimed criterion. I believe this summary should help us rethink and reconceptualise, thus relieving the cognitive dissonance triggered by the contrast between what is credibly so based on evident facts when linked to their implications and best explanations, and what many of us have been taught to believe. Next, I note that inference to intelligent action is not to be equated to inference to supernatural agency. Just as, we are not well-warranted to impose the restriction that candidate agents "must" be material entities, given the radical distinction between mental and informational properties on the one hand, and material entities on the other. In short, the design inference is a scientific enterprise that opens our minds to the full set of possibilities in science and thence at worldview level. Third, I believe Lazarus/Solon owes me a justification of his dismissive remark, that my always linked is "rubbish" or words to that effect, in another thread. Failing such justification, he has plainly removed himself from the pale of civil discussion of serious issues at a responsible level. Since the above is a reasonable precis of the case I make in the always linked, I invite him to respond here. (It would also be relevant -- given his uncharitable dismissal of metaphysics -- to invite him to in that same context address the remarks here, noting their original context as lecture notes for a compulsory course at the Jamaica Theological Seminary -- a noted Evangelical Seminary in the Caribbean.) Fourth, I also follow up on a biblical allusion he forced me to, based on the statements in Rom 1:19 - 24 etc. In this text, Paul infers that the testimony of the external world and the inner mind and conscience point to an Agent responsible for creation. If Paul claims this, and it seems that he does, that is a matter open to inspection and testing against what we know from styudying nature; or, at any rate, what we believe we know from studying nature. That means that if the evidence comes in on afair and responsible assessment the other way, Paul is wrong on at least this point. In that context, the issues connected to design above are a reasonable test. Perhaps, we can focus on the merits of the issue, then? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT}

To simplify if you could not find an embodied intelligence to account for SC then unembodied intelligence is the likely candidate. You can infer SC regardless of whether it is the effect of embodied or unembodied designers. Dembski holds that Intelligent Design is always inferred by its effects not its causes. I would like to plug in a quote here from an excellent book that I bought called The Design Revolution by William Dembski. Chapter 25 THE SUPERNATURAL Pg. 188 "I’ve never liked the term supernatural. The problem with terms like supernatural or supernaturalism is that they tacitl presuppose that nature is the foundational reality and that nature is far less problematic conceptually than anything outside or beyond nature. The super in supernatural thus has the effect of a negation." He is saying that materialistic causes of the world conceptually rule out an informational cause. NFL says that only intelligence can purchase NFL. This could be a unembodied designer that simply imparts information into the physical universe. It might be a natural intelligence built into the world as well. Aristotle thought that the world was endowed with teleology- or that nature was just naturally full of design. What or where the nature of the designer is not known.Frost122585_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT}

No free lunch says you cant get SC for free eventually you run out of material processes and something like information is required to account for the complexity of life in the universe.Frost122585_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT}

Duncan, good question here ---But my question is, what is the basis by which we can stretch it to apply beyond a materialistic application to a non-materialistic one? I have recently read and finished NO Free Lunch by William Dembski. Now its not my book so i "could" be wrong but this is what i gather. The Design inference Dembski's first book spelled out what specified complexity is. It has to do with an improbable event falling outside of the universal probability bound and having an arbitrarily objective pattern. Now once you locate SC you can now infer design. The reason why is because SC needs something more complex that it to account for it arising due to is pattern and its improbability. This is what we see with a radio wave of prime numbers that we could infer alien intelligence with as I the move contact. This is a materialistic form of inferring ID. Now that we have shown SC we need to account for the designer. If its aliens where did they come from. This is where God or a natural intelligence usually comes in. The reason is that information must transcend matter at some point if we are to explain how a big bang of just matter assembled into intelligent creatures. There are to be an informational medium that transcends the matter and organizes it. Now it may not be God. It could be some other intelligence that we cannot fully comprehend. Nonetheless ID is about detecting design not finding designers. The prime numbers that SETI could detect would certainly reveal alien presence but we wouldn’t know anything about the aliens themselves. All we would have is speculation. The point here is that Information transcends matter. The digital code in DNA could not have formed by chance. We can therefore see that something more than material processes are having an influence in our universe.Frost122585_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT}

rockr- "Lazarus, I don’t think you are insane or dumb as Frost122585 unkindly accused you." I never called Lazarus dumb I said Lazarus was not stupid because he/she had a developed vocab. I then said therefore Lazarus is either crazy or a fraud. A fraud meaning someone who is not a fundamentalist Christian but merely posing as one. The reason I think Lazarus is a fraud is that the claims or points Lazarus have made all have nothing to do with ID. The only comments directed towards the theroy of ID are about how ID is irrelevant and an idol and even the lovely term "metaphysical masturbation." I don’t mind people coming on the blog who are skeptical of the theory of ID. I would love to talk to them and set them straight. But when all you do is say the bible is all that matters and your proof is your relationship with the holy spirit, and insult virtually everyone at this web blog then I have a problem. People need to stay on topic and show real intellectual interest to the concept/s of this site. I would and should be rejected if all I talked about was golf and how ID is all BS.Frost122585_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

Uh, I think I understand what you're saying even less now. I don't see why the existence of computer science, or of experiments conducted with springs or prisms, speaks to the design question as ID puts it.getawitness_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

GAW: I am saying that observed phenomena studied through scientific means include not only those tracing to chance and to mechanical necessity but also to agency. Consider Newton's investigations with a prism, or Hooke's with a spring for simple cases. Were these foundational investigations in Physics any less scientific because these entities are agent-originated, i.e designed? Plainly, not at all. [And for that matter, indeed, an experiment is contrived, i.e designed. We routinely -- and often demonstrably reliably -- infer that the phenomena we observe there and the laws we infer as explanations or patterns carry over into situations we have not designed nor have we observed the origin of directly, in the cosmos. I am saying just the opposite of what you seem to fear.] Next, I am pointing out -- as I do in section A of my always linked -- that when we consider a communication and/or information technology situation, we are routinely scientifically studying agent-originated entities. In particular, we comfortably and reliably make the inference to message not lucky noise when we study signals in the presence of noise or potential noise. (DNA is an information-bearing molecule, with a sophisticated message of information carrying capacity that starts at about 500, 000 to 1 million bits in observed situations. This is far, far beyond the reach of random walks in the appropriate configuration space, on the gamut of our observed universe. And related multiverse proposals are in this context essentially ad hoc, after the fact patches that are metaphysics not empirically tested science.] In statistical investigations we similarly make inferences to design when we set out to reject chance null hypotheses. To artificially restrict the set of possible causal factors ahead of time [in a context where it so happens that the credibility of a certain worldview that likes to call itself "scientific" is at stake] is therefore to beg the question, and it robs science of its true force as an empirically constrained search for learning and understanding the truth about the universe, however imperfect the status of the search may be at any given time. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

hey kairosfocus, An interesting comment. I'm going to restrict myself to the side issues and ask for clarification on this one bit:
There is no good reason to confine scientific research to the exploration of natural causes, especially if such causes are interpreted to mean “originating in chance plus necessity only.” For instance, computer science and information science investigate situations which most certainly involve agency. Extending, we may scientifically explore drug action using the same techniques used in general biochemistry. I recall that many objects and phenomena profitably studied in materials science and optical science are agent produced. Even the classic spring which is foundational to Hooke’s law is an artificial object, as is the pendulum that in the classic story lies at the foundation of modern science. And much more.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Some of the early arguments against the experimental laboratory (see Leviathan and the Air-Pump by Shapin and Shaffer) were based on the idea that the laboratory was an artificial environment. As indeed it was. But the artificial conditions of the laboratory are meant to illustrate natural processes by observing those processes under controlled conditions. It sounds to me like you're saying that the very existence of the laboratory contradicts naturalistic science. Are you? Because I thought that argument was put to bed a couple of hundred years ago. But maybe you're saying something else.getawitness_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

H'mm: While looking at developments in LED lighting, decided to take a look back here. A note or two, to address key conceptual issues: 1] Jor, 96: As long as the possibility of a supernatural designer exists within the ID framework it cannot be considered a scientific proposition no matter how many folks believe it is This depends on the current attempt to redefine science as in effect the best evolutionary materialist explanation of the cosmos from hydrogen to humans. But, this is inaccurate to the history of science over the past 500 years, misrepresents the work and views of not only many scientific pioneers but also many practitioners today, and is question-begging. In fact, this precisely exhibits the corruption of science by imposition of materialist ideology that the remark at the top of the RH column in this blog discusses. A far more sensible view of science is that it seeks to accurately describe, explain, predict and influence or control phenomena in the natural and human worlds, in light of empirical investigation, theoretical analysis and associated discussion among the community of peers. Design Theory is very compatible with such an understanding, which does not try to smuggle in metaphysical controls on what sort of explanations will be acceptable, so long as they are well supported by relevant empirical data. 2] to further the idea as a scientific proposition, ID proponents should be working hard to pinpoint the designer, or at least rule out a supernatural designer, since he/she/it is the key to the whole concept. Not at all. The point of ID as a properly scientific investigation comes out forcefully in Dembaski's classic definition by question and answer:
intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? . . . Proponents of intelligent design, known as design theorists, purport to study such signs formally, rigorously, and scientifically. Intelligent design may therefore be defined as the science that studies signs of intelligence.
The reliable detection of agency in the causal process of an observed phenomenon (as opposed to the phenomenon being the product of chance + mechanical necessity only) is already an important and relevant empirically anchored scientific question with several very interesting contexts. Indeed, it is plain from the attitude and behaviour of too many champions of the evolutionary materialist paradigm, the serious pursuit of the question has the capacity to trigger a major scientific revolution. The onward question of designer identification is also interesting, and has some pretty serious applications. [For instance, the boys over at Langley have a major interest in such investigations.] 3] I’d expect them to be working to prove that the tools they use to identify biological structures that are supposedly too complex to have evolved can distinguish between apparent design and real design. It is already known that in every case where we directly know the causal story, complex specified information, irreducible complexity and organised complexity are the products of agent action. As my always linked discusses, we also know that the statistical considerations underlying statistical thermodynamics give an excellent account for why that is likely to be so. Namely, when we deal with sufficiently contingent arrangements of entities of interest [ability to store say 500 - 1,000 or more bits of information-storing capacity is a useful yardstick], we see a configuration space that is so large that islands and archipelagos of functionality are so isolated that chance-based search strategies are maximally unlikely to reach to such zones of function on the gamut of our observed universe. And that holds regardless of the degree of functional filtering we impose after selecting an arbitrary cell in the config space. [In short, random variation across possible configurations and functional or competitive functional selection are dynamically impotent in such cases, due to exhaustion of probabilistic resources. Genetic algorithms as a rule reward closeness to islands of functionality, regardless of actual functionality, so do not form an exception to this observation.] So, we have an acceptably reliable indicator, already -- indeed, this is quite similar to what we do when we make many types of statistical inference, and for that matter when we infer to message not lucky noise in a noisy communication situation. But, on certain cases of interest, it lends support to worldviews that the evolutionary materialists are uncomfortable with, so in too many cases we see resort to uncivil behaviour to dismiss or suppress such work. That's a shame. 4] . . . scientifically valid (i.e., exploring natural causes) research There is no good reason to confine scientific research to the exploration of natural causes, especially if such causes are interpreted to mean "originating in chance plus necessity only." For instance, computer science and information science investigate situations which most certainly involve agency. Extending, we may scientifically explore drug action using the same techniques used in general biochemistry. I recall that many objects and phenomena profitably studied in materials science and optical science are agent produced. Even the classic spring which is foundational to Hooke's law is an artificial object, as is the pendulum that in the classic story lies at the foundation of modern science. And much more. 5] Duncan, 98: Information and intelligence clearly do have their own properties, but are you suggesting that they exist of themselves, in some sort of metaphysical state, floating around, waiting to be adopted (or perhaps arranging to be)? I mean precisely what I said, and illustrated: information [a characteristic product of agents in action as we observe it] has materially different properties from those of matter and energy. We have to live with and try to understand the roots of that fact, not try to dismiss it with a rhetorical tactic. 6] Intelligence and information in relation to living things may not be physical concepts, but they are always consequential of a material agent. We know no such thing, sir. We have observed agents, but have no good reason for inferring or assuming or asserting that agents -- including ourselves -- must be material only entities. Indeed, we have good grounds for inferring/ observing that agent action is radically different from matter-energy cause-effect chains. Otherwise, as was already linked, we end up in self-referential incoherence, through undermining the credibility of the very minds we must use to think even materialistic thoughts. 7] D, 105, I don’t mean ‘caused by’, I mean ‘inextricably linked to’. The salient point is, when the material agent is removed the information ceases to exist. We know no such thing. This is a bare assertion that assumes/asserts far too much about the metaphysics of reality, including mind, and information. A better approach is to not5 foreclose possibilities ahead of time by not assuming evolutionary materialism is the truth about the cosmos and its origin. IOW, we should reject the imposed rule used by too many scientists and philosophers of science, known as methodological naturalism. A better and historically well-justified approach is already discussed above. 8] doesn’t this then beg the question that if we want to say that materialistic explanations aren’t up to the job (cf: Premise 2) then how can we rely on explanations dependent upon materialism to support our case? Premise 2, OP: Premise 2: Materialistic explanations have been spectacularly unsuccessful in explaining such systems — we have no positive evidence for thinking that material mechanisms can generate them In short, it is an observed -- but often hotly denied or dismissed -- fact that evolutionary materialist accounts and models that try to trace all relevant phenomena to chance and necessity only, spectacularly fail in the key relevant cases. If you are uncomfortable with that formulation, perhaps, we could simply substitute that in the relevant cases models/explanations based on chance + necessity only consistently (and for good and inescapable reason tracing to exhaustion of available probabilistic resources) fail to account for CSI/IC/OC. This, after up to 150 years of trying in some cases [Cambrian body plan revolution], and certainly several decades on OOL, with massive resources dedicated to the task. [Cf my always linked for an introductory summary on this.] However, there is a major institutional commitment to methodological naturalism, which blocks level playing field consideration of the obvious force of the point from premise 3: Intelligent agency is known [though massive observation and experience] to have the causal power to produce systems that display IC/SC/OC. In short, there is an institutional roadblock to considering the fact that we know that chance, necessity and agency act into causal situations. There is a name for that: begging the question. Once the question is un-begged, it is immediately apparent that, conclusion: Therefore, biological systems that exhibit IC/SC/OC are likely to be designed. Nor does this shut off science -- even if one goes on to the further worldview level -- as opposed to scientific -- inference that the most likely candidate for the designer is the God of Theism. For, one is free to investigate to see if we can overturn premise 2 as adjusted or in its original form. One is free to undertake investigations into the mechanisms and principles used in the systems that are understood as having been desitned, just as we do in optics or pharmacology etc. And much more. So, let us move on beyond power games, question-begging, self-referentially inconsistent worldviews masquerading as "science" and unjust career-busting. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

sorry my first paragraph is a quote from tyke that i am responding to.Frost122585_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

So while positing naturalistic alien designers does not solve the ultimate question of where the Universe came from, it doesn’t rule out a materialistic origin either. But then, asserting the existence of an even more complex entity, like God merely puts off the question of ultimate origins also. I respectfully disagree. There is a reason Dembski states in his writing that methodological materialism is not compatible with ID. And this has to do wit the design inference. IF aliens display Specified complexity then they require an intelligent design inference. Meaning that something intelligent must have design them. If it is a natural intelligence built into the universe then some atheists would totally reject his concept as a form of a God because it could be viewed as qualitatively "higher." The point here is that information transcends matter as ID holds. This is in part anti-materialist. Some atheists will not find this compatible with their "belief" system. As for your comment about there must be a designer for God or w/e the intelligent designer is this is incorrect. If we don’t know the nature of the designer we can only admit the possibility that it was designed. We can presuppose such because we don’t know its nature or where it exists. To apply the materialists concept of cause and effect to something that might not be totally materialistic in nature would be a fallacy. Manny ID people think God is the designer and that God exists as the prime reality. This is just a belief or philosophical position but it is a possibility and to rule it out would be incorrect. This is why it is called intelligent design. Where does the information originally come from. Where did the instructions come from. Where did the complexity come from. Modern science points to a neutral nor non intelligent causation. This non-materialistic intelligence can however be detected and defined as intelligence by its observable effects in the physical realm. If you have a problem with an intelligence that transcends physical matter than ID is not compatible with your view. Read the definition of the site. “Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution -- an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.” ID requires something more than material causation hence, intelligence or information but ID doesn’t require a God- Especially a benevolent God of the bible. ID advocates would be called “Informational Idealists” if the physical scientific evidence for ID wasn’t so strong right now.Frost122585_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

-----Lazarus: A response to #76 Are you aware that the academy, the press, and even the government have all slandered and smeared ID scientists and used every means available to ruin their careers? Are you aware that these slanders and smears are part of a broader strategy to use the researchers religious faith as pretext for accusing them of practicing faith-based science, ignoring the fact that the science itself cannot logically be faith based? Are you aware that these same institutions quote people like you to keep the lie alive? Are you aware that religion and science are totally compatible because the creator God, whom you claim to believe in, revealed himself in Scripture AND IN NATURE? If you are NOT aware of these things, then you are a naïve, possibly nominal Christian. You disregard your own teaching, which bids believers to “be as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves.” Indeed, if you think that God did not “leave clues” for scientists to find, you don’t even read your own bible. If you ARE aware of these things, then you are an anti-Christian bigot, seeking to harass other bloggers on this site and disrupt the logical flow of ideas. This would indicate that you need to get a life. Under the circumstances, then, I offer a conditional piece of advice. If you are a Christian, go to you dictionary and look up the word, ”proportionality.” Christian bloggers on this site no doubt do take their faith seriously, but they are not ideologues. That is why they instinctively use good judgment about introducing religious themes as a complement to scientific discoveries. If you are a troll, start studying the science of intelligent design. I have found that the vast majority of those who criticize intelligent design cannot even define the relevant terms accurately, which means, of course, that, in spite of their arrogance, they seldom know what they are talking about. They embody the dubious virtue of “triumphant stupidity.” So, whether you are real or phony, the solution to your problem is to make a disciplined effort to get a clue. Educated people do not spend all their time googling; they actually read books.. Also, while reading your Bible, meditate on this one: “My people perish for lack of knowledge.”StephenB_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

Hello again, duncan (post 105): "Perhaps ‘consequential’ is not the word I mean? I don’t mean ‘caused by’, I mean ‘inextricably linked to’. The salient point is, when the material agent is removed the information ceases to exist. Do you believe the contrary, and that, for example, the information held by the 99% of now extinct species does still exist?" Yes, it does seem upon first glance that information is linked to material. Ie: remove the material conduit and information is destroyed. However, I do still stand behind my last post. There is a closed chain of causation between intelligence and information. And now a new thought jumps across my mind. Does the destruction of the conduit actually destroy the information? If material only acts as a conduit, this means that the information existed before it was sent through the conduit. Destruction of the conduit (material) would only seem to destroy that specific *transfer* of the information. In the case of biology, if life and evolution are a necessary result of and are guided by the laws of nature, then wouldn't the information at the foundation of our natural laws hold the information necessary for the creation of life and evolution? IOW, if life is seen as a guided search program, the space it is searching as it evolves is a space set up by the laws of nature. Thus any information that life discovers and the active information to arrive at those targets already existed within the program of our universe and the search space of our universe's natural laws. So, I guess the next question: "Is the universe founded upon material?" duncan: "My main question remains, though, what is the difference between Dr Dembski’s premise 3 and his conclusion? Doesn’t premise 3 have to mean ‘MATERIALISTIC intelligent agent’, otherwise it’s just a circular argument? And doesn’t this then beg the question that if we want to say that materialistic explanations aren’t up to the job (cf: Premise 2) then how can we rely on explanations dependent upon materialism to support our case?" Good questions. I'll have to give that some more thought.CJYman_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Carl Sachs in 31 above—what a kind and thoughtful response! I’d ban the guy altogether, but then maybe it’s healthy to see that intolerant religious types don’t much like ID either. Nevertheless I’ve a few bones to pick with you in 20: “ID must be totally neutral on all God-talk if it’s going to be introduced in public schools as a scientific alternative to evolution.” My sense is that introducing ID into government schools is not a goal of most ID advocates and it has nothing to do with why ID is and should remain separate from theology and biblical studies. “Hence design theorists are trying to re-cast the debate as one between a scientific theory which is at least compatible with monotheism (though not implying it) and one that is incompatible with monotheism.” Getting ID into the schools is NOT the motive for what you otherwise encapsulate rather nicely. The genius of ID is that it has seen through to the philosophical assumptions behind the culture war. Getting this out in the open where it can be discussed is no small achievement. “This is part of why, so far as I understand it, design theorists have been severely critical of ‘theistic evolutionists,’ or for that matter, any person of faith who accepts neo-Darwinian evolution.” Hmm … I’m not interested in people’s professions of personal faith (live and let live!), but I am irked by what I see as outragiously illogical arguments coming from the TE side. Am I irked more by the TEs’ faith in Darwin than the atheists’ faith in the same? Yes, generally so, but not just because I see the TE as a traitor. Rather it’s what I see as his seemingly disingenuous confusion, his apparent fear of being marked as an intellectual heretic, his inability to engage in rational disputation. Though I see the TE and the atheist Darwinist in error on scientific and philosophical levels, the TE, as you suggest, is most in error—i.e., ID “is at least compatible with monotheism (though not implying it) [whereas Darwinism] is incompatible with monotheism.” When you look for motive—when you read the ID lit—I think you will see some brilliant and thoughtful and sincere folks. They are not absolutists who seek to turn the tables on Darwin and make ID the state religion. No, it’s the lack of pluralism on an intellectual level that they loathe.Rude_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

CJYman, post 103 Thanks for joining in! Perhaps ‘consequential’ is not the word I mean? I don’t mean ‘caused by’, I mean ‘inextricably linked to’. The salient point is, when the material agent is removed the information ceases to exist. Do you believe the contrary, and that, for example, the information held by the 99% of now extinct species does still exist? My main question remains, though, what is the difference between Dr Dembski’s premise 3 and his conclusion? Doesn’t premise 3 have to mean ‘MATERIALISTIC intelligent agent’, otherwise it’s just a circular argument? And doesn’t this then beg the question that if we want to say that materialistic explanations aren’t up to the job (cf: Premise 2) then how can we rely on explanations dependent upon materialism to support our case?duncan_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

Lazarus, I don't think you are insane or dumb as Frost122585 unkindly accused you. I think you are raising some good points, and that is why the moderators have allowed you to stay. Although you are often expressing yourself in a somewhat ad-hoc or careless way, and that is perhaps partly the limitation of the medium like this blog. Try to think about what you write before posting it. It is your careless and categorically or fanatically sounding statements like "Science tells us nothing worth knowing" that irritate people. The crucial part of the disagreement and confusion here in this forum, and in the world in the last 500 years, is about the nature of knowledge - Science, or scientia in Latin means knowledge. Historically and philosophically, it is the problem of knowledge, or of the kinds of knowledge, its value, how we acquire it and what it means. If you get a chance, try reading John Henry Newman's "The Idea of a University" which contains some of his most effective writing "...the high protecting power of all knowledge and science, of fact and principle, of inquiry and discovery of experiment and speculation..." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Newman ) As any Christian ought to know and profess, there is knowledge in the Bible just as there is knowledge in natural sciences. And the interesting question(s) about some scientific or science related or science guiding knowledge in the Bible still hasn't been settled satisfactorily. But these are difficult things to argue about even for the experts, so be patient. And it is also a difficult battle for the ID to deal with the knowledge of what it means to be "intelligent" and "designed," and, once discovered, what such knowledge ought to mean to scientists be they theists or atheists. Your point, that for a Christian the knowledge presented by the Bible, (how to save one's soul for eternity, how to be good, ethical, happy, how to live in peace, harmony, etc.) ought to be one's primary concern, should be understood and well taken. Such knowledge is of more importance than the knowledge of how to find cure for cancer or how to fly to the Moon. But is doesn't mean that knowledge of how to cure cancer is useless, or that acquiring knowledge of how to fly to the Moon shouldn't be a good and fun thing to do. In fact, the same questions should matter to atheists as well. You are also correct that those who idolize modern (natural) science, those who make it the sole source of all meaningful knowledge, or the absolute knowledge, and discard the knowledge in the Bible as nonsense, are making a crucial mistake. (Re post 74: "You have let science be your god and you will be judged by it.") Indeed, such people do it at their own peril.rockyr_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Hello duncan, post 98 "Intelligence and information in relation to living things may not be physical concepts, but they are always consequential of a material agent." I disagree. They are consequential of an intelligent agent -- not necessarily material. 1. Coded information (ie. sequential arrangement of nucleotides in DNA) is not caused by the properties of the materials (the nucleotides) which are merely used to *transfer* information. 2. If information is precluded by intelligence, and if intelligence is necessarily founded upon information, then ... 3. We have a closed loop travelling from information (not caused by material properties as per #1) to intelligence (which is then subsequently also not caused *only* by material properties) and back to information, with no room for strictly material causation. Material is only used as a conduit. 4. Thus, both information and intelligence may be non-material or at the very least contain non-material properties (good bye materialism). After all, all that we can observe is that information and intelligence flows through material yet is not caused *only* by the properties of that material.CJYman_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

In addition to what Tyke stated- We can only deal with what we can observe- that is we can observe the design and not the designer(s). And until we can observe the designer(s) that part of the equation may well be beyond science.
Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production. A design inference therefore does not avoid the problem of how a designing intelligence might have produced an object. It simply makes it a separate question.” Wm. Dembski- pg 112 of No Free Lunch
The same goes for the designer(s).Joseph_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Regarding alien designers needing to be more complex: That's true (well, at least they need to be as complex) but as for the next point of regression (who/what created them) the only answer is that we don't know. It is perfectly plausible that a ten million year old civilization has figured out their own origins--perhaps by design, perhaps by evolution, perhaps by some other naturalistic mechanism we currently have no means of detecting or understanding. Unless or until we met that civilization, we would never know. So while positing naturalistic alien designers does not solve the ultimate question of where the Universe came from, it doesn't rule out a materialistic origin either. But then, asserting the existence of an even more complex entity, like God merely puts off the question of ultimate origins also. If there is a supernatural creator of the Universe we still cannot tell empirically if (a) why such a being exists (b) why such a being is worthy of worship (this is a matter of religion and faith, not science, not even ID). Even if one day we determine there must be a designer of the Universe, we still may not be able to tell if said designer is God, Q, or an alien child doing his homework assignment in third grade hyper-physics. (P.S. Paragraphs really do help, guys!)tyke_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply