ID in the Laboratory: An Evidence Puzzle.

_{April 5, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

Here’s a question about ID I’ve had for a long time, and I hope some ID proponents are able to help me sort it out. I’ll get right to the point before starting in with the commentary.

When an intelligent agent demonstrates the ability to directly and purposefully modify the genes of a given creature, is that evidence for intelligent design?

When intelligent agents use selection and variation to produce particular desired results, is that evidence for intelligent design?

When intelligent agents use selection and variation to produce a ‘better’ antenna is that evidence for intelligent design?

More on this and some commentary below.

I suppose one immediate counter is, “It’s evidence for design, but natural design! ID’s explanations call upon the supernatural!” To this, I have two replies: First, the PS portion of this blog entry by Bill Dembski, and my own response in light of that (and other) statements by the major ID proponents, best encapsulated here.

With that in mind, let’s try another reply. “It’s evidence for design, but human design – and that makes it irrelevant for ID! Humans weren’t around billions of years ago!” I think this immediately falls to the SETI objection, for one: What particular humans are capable of doing does seem to be evidence for what intelligent agents, period, are capable of doing. Now, someone may argue that the mere fact that an intelligent agent is capable of X or Y does not constitute conclusive proof an intelligent agent was responsible for X or Y. Granted, but I’m not wondering about conclusive proof – merely evidence, even inconclusive evidence.

Now, if it’s valid to think about intelligent agents as an abstract class – I think it clearly is – then that makes me wonder if the following is A) testable, and B) an ID claim: “Intelligent agents are capable of performing acts X or Y.” Well, A certainly seems to be the sort of thing you can bolster with evidence – just get some intelligent agents to perform acts X or Y. Is it an ID claim? While ID proponents don’t talk about it enough, it really seems to be as well. After all, ID focuses heavily on what intelligent agents are uniquely capable of doing – so it seems that, at least to some degree, ID is bolstered with every accomplishment of an intelligent agent.

If this is true, though, then the fallout is considerable. “ID Research” is happening all over the place – not just in the labs and work of Dembski, Marks, Axe, Behe and company. It’s happening in Craig Venter’s lab. It’s happening over at IBM. ID becomes tied to and bolstered by, at least in part, any and all technological advances and successes.

So I ask you: Do I have this right? Or did I go wrong somewhere?

Comments

Nullasalus, I wish you would clarify one thing. When you ask if those things are "evidence of intelligent design" I'm not sure what you mean. I would say that they ARE intelligent design, but that they are not necessarily evidence for Intelligent Design Theory. Or rather, they are supportive of the possiblity of ID but not necessarily evidence that design actually happened. Only that it is plausible. They are also useful in developing hypotheses concerning how design may have been implemented.Collin_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

Hi Null,
Now, if it’s valid to think about intelligent agents as an abstract class – I think it clearly is – then that makes me wonder if the following is A) testable, and B) an ID claim: “Intelligent agents are capable of performing acts X or Y.”
Heinrich makes the critical point here: You would know that humans are capable of performing X or Y, but you don't know that agents - i.e. members of this abstract class - are capable of doing X or Y, because we have no sufficiently specific characterization of agency. ID does not try to characterize the abilities and limits of intelligent agency at all; rather, "intelligence" is synonymous with "omnipotence" in ID literature. Meleagar,
Intelligent design is a scientific fact – we know humans have it, and use it to generate physical results that are inexplicable otherwise, both in the field of biology and every other physical avenue.
In other words, we know humans can design things. Agreed. As far as we know, our design abilities are critically dependent upon our own complex physical biology, since nobody without a functioning brain is capable of designing anything at all. You might imagine or hypothesize that something which is not a complex biological organism like a human being might exist which has similar powers of perception and reasoning, but you have no way of supporting such a speculation with evidence.
Unless ID in humans is considered a supernatural force by evolutionary biologists, or unless they hold that the ID capability that humans exhibit is unique to them, then there is no reason whatsoever to not extend the empirically-known fact of ID manipulation of biological diversity as a theoretical explanation for biological phenomena which apparently fit the characteristics of ID-generated phenomena. The anti-ID rhetoric is nothing but a farce.
Actually, you have hit upon the very basis for my own anti-ID rhetoric, and I am not being farcical. I do not hold that intelligence is supernatural at all - on the contrary, it seems to me we have abundant evidence that intelligent behavior invariably arises from complex dynamical systems that are capable of assuming huge numbers of physical states, such as neural networks (natural or artificial). It is ID that suggests cognition may occur absent complex biological mechanism, but this idea has little evidence in its favor. Currently the only evidence for it comes from parapsychology, which is not typically brought up by leading ID authors in support of their position. But perhaps johnnyb is on to something in this regard (see below)!
The recent thread by mathgrrl asking for a precise formula for CSI demonstrates the hypocritical nature of the debate; where is Darwin’s precise mathematical formula for variation or natural selection? For supporting the claim that categorically non-intelligent, non-teleological forces are sufficient for the explanation of biological diversity?
I agree that we have little reason to believe that RM&NS can fully account for biological complexity/diversity. joynnyb I think you are on the right track - bravo! I've been waiting for ID proponents to acknowledge that their primary challenge is to demonstrate that cognitive powers transcend physical cause. Good luck with that!aiguy_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

Pity things are running so fast at UD these days that this thread is off the radar scope. I'm glad a few people at least find it worth pondering, at least. Really, it seems like one obvious reply to the "Where's all the ID research?" question. Well, ID is about the capability of minds and agents. Surely showing the capability of at least some minds and agents then qualifies? And for doubters, surely "an intelligent agent could never make a bacterial flagellum" is at least a gesture in the direction of a falsifiable claim. When Lenski succeeded in creating his limited 'artificial life form', did some potential claims about the limits of a mind and design get falsified?nullasalus_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

OT: Bacterial Flagella - Optimization of Molecule Counting - video - Bialek http://fora.tv/2010/11/03/More_Perfect_Than_We_Imagined_A_Physicists_View#chapter_12bornagain77_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

Mel:
It is an inescapable, scientific fact that ID (as exhibited by humans) is a necessary explanatory force when it comes to accounting for all currently known biological diversity. Unless ID in humans is considered a supernatural force by evolutionary biologists, or unless they hold that the ID capability that humans exhibit is unique to them, then there is no reason whatsoever to not extend the empirically-known fact of ID manipulation of biological diversity as a theoretical explanation for biological phenomena which apparently fit the characteristics of ID-generated phenomena.
Very cogent and stimulating point! Pity things are running so fast at UD these days that this thread is off the radar scope. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

Intelligent design is a scientific fact - we know humans have it, and use it to generate physical results that are inexplicable otherwise, both in the field of biology and every other physical avenue. Intelligent design as a known additional evolutionary force has been significantly affecting evolutionary outcomes for thousands of years through selective breeding, and for many years now through direct genetic manipulation. It is an inescapable, scientific fact that ID (as exhibited by humans) is a necessary explanatory force when it comes to accounting for all currently known biological diversity. Unless ID in humans is considered a supernatural force by evolutionary biologists, or unless they hold that the ID capability that humans exhibit is unique to them, then there is no reason whatsoever to not extend the empirically-known fact of ID manipulation of biological diversity as a theoretical explanation for biological phenomena which apparently fit the characteristics of ID-generated phenomena. The anti-ID rhetoric is nothing but a farce. The recent thread by mathgrrl asking for a precise formula for CSI demonstrates the hypocritical nature of the debate; where is Darwin's precise mathematical formula for variation or natural selection? For supporting the claim that categorically non-intelligent, non-teleological forces are sufficient for the explanation of biological diversity?Meleagar_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

Now, someone may argue that the mere fact that an intelligent agent is capable of X or Y does not constitute conclusive proof an intelligent agent was responsible for X or Y. Granted, but I’m not wondering about conclusive proof – merely evidence, even inconclusive evidence.
What would be nice would be some evidence for the existence of these putative intelligent agents. The examples you describe show that humans can design things (sometimes even intelligently), but if they're ruled out of designing (say) bacterial flagella, then what do you have left? Nobody would disagree that an omnipotent designer could design complicated objects, so you're not showing us anything new. Where does that leave you? An omnipotent designer can do anything (by definition), so the claim that some stuff could be designed is impossible to falsify. So you need to either produce evidence that said omnipotent designer exists and did stuff, or show evidence for some other, non-omnipotent, designer.Heinrich_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT}

Null: You are right. Let's look at your Q's (it will help to number them): _________ >>1: When an intelligent agent demonstrates the ability to directly and purposefully modify the genes of a given creature, is that evidence for intelligent design? KF ANS, 1: This is an instance of intelligent design in the observable present. Insofar as such then shows that FSCO/I is a reliable sign of design, that is evidence for the applicability of the explanatory filter. BTW, I hold that every book in every library is an instance of FSCO/I of known intelligent source, and most of the Internet's contents too. 2: When intelligent agents use selection and variation to produce particular desired results, is that evidence for intelligent design? KF ANS, 2: Instance, again, just a different specific method that uses targetted random search and hill climbing as a technique. As in, ART. 3: When intelligent agents use selection and variation to produce a ‘better’ antenna is that evidence for intelligent design? KF ANS, 3: Yes, again. However, in this case, the functional entity is not a self-replicating living form, but a technological system that exploits the known or modelled forces and materials of nature, towards goals in light of constraints. 4: if it’s valid to think about intelligent agents as an abstract class – I think it clearly is – then that makes me wonder if the following is A) testable, and B) an ID claim: “Intelligent agents are capable of performing acts X or Y.” KF ANS, 4: It is reasonable to think of the class of intelligent agents, capable of mindedness, intent, conception, purpose, in some cases explicit language, and design that they give effect by art. What acts Intelligent agents are capable of, can be identified through case studies of known cases, and extrapolations on material family resemblance thereto. So, for instance, if a truly autonomous robot is built, it would be an intelligent agent. I would argue that we are exactly this class of intelligent beings, with a C-chemistry cell based system architecture. 5: Well, A certainly seems to be the sort of thing you can bolster with evidence – just get some intelligent agents to perform acts X or Y. Is it an ID claim? KF ANS, 5: My answer to 4 shows how I believe this is precisely what is to be done and is being done. It is a design theory claim or implication or perhaps even assumption on our experience of the world, that intelligence exists, and agents with intelligence exist and act into the world by intent, skill, knowledge and purpose. Intelligence shows itself by characteristic signs, which may be observed form cases of intelligence in action. On material family resemblance, and testing that such signs are reliable, we may then reasonably infer from a pattern of signs to the signified Object or objective state of affairs, on a warrant: I:[si] --> O, on W >> __________ And, yes, I agree that a lot of activity not generally seen as within the design theory school of thought, is in fact design-relevant and supportive research. In fact, I also argue that the explanatory filter view helps us deepen our understanding of what we are trying to do in doing science. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 5, 2011
April
04
Apr
5
05
2011
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

null - I would claim that cognitive research would be a great application and exploration ground of ID-thinking. I did a prospectus on this for the BSG last year.johnnyb_{April 5, 2011
April
04
Apr
5
05
2011
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply