Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“How Stuff Works” on ID

William Dembski
October 9, 2005
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

http://people.howstuffworks.com/intelligent-design.htm/printable

Comments
Hey Alan Fox, Here's a great big clue for you. ID supporters are the defendants in Dover as they were in Cobb. You know the difference between defendants and complainants, right?DaveScot
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT
PaV, I think I disagree with your characterization here. Physics, Chemistry etc. don't have (much) room for people who deny gravity, hydrogen etc. because there is a deep history in these fields that demonstrate that there is evidence for these things. A physicist doesn't have a preconceived notion that the sun is a fusion reaction, they believe it because of the research that has been done for a long time. ID is a new field, and highly dependent on probability calculations, thus, it seems reasonable to me, that people might have made those calculations without having any particular expectation of what the result would give, and further, that there would be some disagreement in ID about whether those calculations infer design, much as many physicists are still making calculations (and disagreeing between eachother !) about whether the universe is closed or not. Tauttautologydna
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
Other methods of design inference. I think Bill has done a great job outlining the challenges of the design inference. However, I think there are some weaknesses to his method. I think I would like to add to his method and I would be interested in people discussing some of these ideas here, if you don't mind. To start, I think there is a useful distinction that can be made between Hard Design inference and Soft Design inference. I don't remember this distinction being explicitly stated in his books that I have read. For a Hard Design inference, I would say that applies to cases where one has explicit evidence for design. For example, historical data about the construction of the city of New York. For Soft Design inference, I would say this would apply to cases where there is not explicit data showing design, but it inferred along the lines of the methods developed by Bill. Do you think this is a fair distinction ? Now, to develop the soft design inference, we must be careful about background knowledge that we include, unaware, in our inference. For example, in inferring design in Mount Rushmore on mars, we consider the fact that the pattern on Mount Rushmore on mars is a pattern that human psychology recognizes as human faces. So, what I am curious about, is how does human psychology become intertwined with design inference. How is it to be considered ? Is it a factor, or should it be included ? Just a couple thoughts that I would be interested in hearing about, in addition to my first question, if anyone knows. Tauttautologydna
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT
OK, All I wanted to know was whether there was an example of any of these IDers. It's a pretty new field, so I figured there might be design theorists that do the calculations and don't get design. According to Benjii: "However, what I do know, is, that design theorists use methods of detection to see whether something is designed." Can someone tell me if there is an example of someone using these methods and not finding design in nature ? Best, Tauttautologydna
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
tautologydna I am probably the least qualified person here to comment, but here goes an attempt. :) As I read Dr. Dembski's work, it seemed to be saying that an intelligent agent cannot be positively ruled out. When attempting to discern whether something is the result of random chance or intelligent agency, only random chance can be excluded. The example he gave, if memory serves, was an inkblot. One can determine that chance is sufficient to cause the pattern, but one cannot rule out that the inkblot was drawn by an artist. This is not to lead to the conclusion that everything is designed, only that the filter can only rule on the sufficiency of chance. This is why the filter might conclude false negatives of design, but not false positives.Watchman
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
I think PaV answered the question really well. I really don't know how to answer Taut. Why not ask Bill Dembski? However, what I do know, is, that design theorists use methods of detection to see whether something is designed. To say that they are conjuring some god is as similar to what evolutionists, like Richard Dawkins, do when they infer disteleology from the scientific evidence. Science is the search for truth. If there are metaphysical implications, that is a purely subjective thought process. Yes, the designer can be G-D, aliens, or Stephen Jay Gould, but that doesn't matter. What matters is the science.Benjii
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
umm. scientists do the same thing with the preconceived notion that mud to man evolution is true. they go with that model then try to fit all new evidence into it. i dont buy mud to man evolution (the evidence that exists can easily be seen as common design as opposed to common ancestry), so does that mean that evo bio isnt a reasonable science since some disagree with the basic tenants? all the time i hear discoveries and how these suddenly have to be fit into the mud to man evolutionary scheme- even when the evidence contradicts the scheme to begin with.jboze3131
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
No, actually. By taut's logic, physics DOES make room for those who say gravity doesn't exist. You can come to a conclusion of gravity. You can come to a conclusion of no gravity. It's still under the umbrella of physics and gravity. In ID, you necessarily come to the conclusion of a designer. Otherwise, it's not ID. I think I've got the gist of that.... yeah.higgity
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
tautologydna wrote: "If design theory is a reasonable science, then there should be room for people that conclude that life wasn’t designed. Otherwise, it’s a science that has a predetermined notion of how the world is, and the science is just finding ‘evidence’ to support the preconceived notion." This is inane. By your logic (????), physics isn't a reasonable science because it doesn't make room for people who say that gravity doesn't exist.PaV
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
Benjii, I think it would be reasonable to be a design theorist, someone interested in developing the methods of design inference, and infer that life wasn't designed, don't you ? If design theory is a reasonable science, then there should be room for people that conclude that life wasn't designed. Otherwise, it's a science that has a predetermined notion of how the world is, and the science is just finding 'evidence' to support the preconceived notion. I like the idea of a design inference and specification, I just don't think a necessary conclusion from thinking about this problem is that nature was designed. That is why I would like to know examples of design theorists that don't believe nature was designed. Surely a design theorist isn't someone who already is convinced that nature was designed. I would classify a design theorist as one interested in developing methods of design inference. I thought the reason that most people here thought that people misunderstood design theory was because of the inference that all design theorists believe that some sort of god created the world. Best, Tauttautologydna
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
I think he might be asking if you can find someone in the design theory community who didn't start with the assumption that life was designed. I'm sure you're aware that that is a major criticism against ID: That ID is begging the question (i.e. If X, then Y. Let's assume X, so therefore Y must be true).higgity
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
I'm sorry if this still doesn't answer your question. However, I really can't make sense of what you are asking.Benjii
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
Why not David Chiu? Go to the DI website, and see for yourself. Taut: Why would they conclude that life is not designed? If it weren't they wouldn't be claiming design.Benjii
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
Re comment 10 Not David Chiu, no. Can you cite such an example from the people you mention, or anyone else? A real-world biological example.Alan Fox
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
Benjii, I am still confused. I didn't say turn their "analysis into life". I meant, focus their analysis on life, ie, focus their methods of design inference on the question of life. Are there any that, after doing so, conclude that life was not designed ? Thanks. Tauttautologydna
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
Sorry, I have no idea what you mean? Why would they turn their analysis into life? Dembski's law can be applied to the real world. All the examples that he gives in his book can be taken and applied in the natural world. I think David Chiu did that. Many design theorists are working on that. Hope that helps...Benjii
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
Benjii, I don't understand your comment. I am aware (and I a sure Alan Fox is) of all those design theorists. But all of them infer that a designer created life at some level. Can you give examples of design theorists that have turned their analysis to life and NOT inferred design ? I would like to know who they are, if you know of them. Also, I didn't say there is no criteria for design detection in "The Design Inference." That's what the whole book is about ! I just stated that the design inference isn't utilized on the case of creation in that particular book. It mostly focuses on design inferences that people typically make in day to day life, such as when a lottery is rigged, etc. Jtautologydna
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
Stephen Meyer is another theorist who has published work as well. Your claim is so wrong, Fox! This is the same argument that ID detractors use. Don't become like them, please!Benjii
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Tauto, I doubt your assessment is true. If you read the reviews, reviewers constantly laud Dembski for infusing new life into the design argument. There must be some criteria mentioned in his book for detecting design. Why else would it not be calle the 'Design Inference'?Benjii
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
Alan Fox wrote "Many people are waiting, in various stages of bated breath, for such an event." Never heard of Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe, David Chiu?Benjii
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
On topic, I thought the "How Stuff Works" piece a pretty fair analysis.Alan Fox
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
tauto writes: "I’m trying to find alternative examples of design inference being employed on the natural world." Many people are waiting, in various stages of bated breath, for such an event.Alan Fox
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
Re comment 4 DaveScot If ID has merit as science, why not pursue the science. Why do you need the law? Barry J. Marshall and Robin Warren persisted with the science and got their Nobel prize.Alan Fox
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
Folks, Could someone please give me an example of a design theorist, developing design inference methods, that doesn't find evidence for design in diversity ? I'm trying to find alternative examples of design inference being employed on the natural world. And Benjii, I've read it pretty closely. As far as I remember, there was no explicit example for detecting design in creation. The only evidence I have seen for the Explanatory Filter being used in that manner is in No Free Lunch. I can see why many here think it is unreasonable for journalists to conflate ID research with actually making the inference itself, but so far, I can't find an example of an IDer that doesn't believe a designer was involved in creation. tauttautologydna
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
Have any of you read the design inference? If you had, does he really make an empirical case for detecting design?Benjii
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
"did they have more quotes from ID proponents speaking about religion" They always do. The only hope they have of keeping Darwinian theory's unimpeachable exclusivity in public school is by successfully conflating it with an unconstitutional law regarding establishment of religion. The public has already spoken and as long as we still live in a democracy the public is the final arbiter. The most difficult governmental body to bring in line with public will is the judicial branch because its members are appointed for life and short of being found guilty of a high crime once on the bench they're there until death do us part. Thus it takes on the order of a generation of consistent public sentiment to change the makeup of the courts. The liberals used the 1955-1980 time period to remake the court and the conservatives have been swinging the pendulum back the other way from 1985 to present. No telling how long the conservative rule will last but we can expect at least a generation from this point forward.DaveScot
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Is it my imagination or did they have more quotes from ID proponents speaking about religion than about ID itself?mark_sprengel
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
Bill, the writer says that all you do is just make a negative case against evolution. Therefore, design is the answer. Is this true or is it a misrepresentation?Benjii
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
Wow. Three paragraphs in and I feel like I am reading an article entitled "Everything I Can Get Wrong About ID". Cells are IC? ID says one species can't evolve from another? ID wants equal time in the classroom? Holes in Darwin’s theory scientifically prove there is a designer? Hmm, even quoting “widespread claims” regarding DI funding? Good ink. A primer of Dover would help this writer as well. Looks like it could come out of the NSCE rough-draft waste bin.. Got this right on Behe though: “ natural selection can only choose among traits that are already functioning”. (Quotes Ken Miller’s attempt to rebut IC and not Behe’s response though.) And this from Dembski : “ Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”Charlie
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply