Design inference Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design in action . . .

Spread the love

In Burkina Faso, Africa:

. . . and, in the Netherlands:

Let me add, in Japan:

See if you can spot the pattern WmAD highlights in the introduction to NFL and elsewhere:

. . . (1) A designer conceives a purpose. (2) To accomplish that purpose, the designer forms a plan. (3) To execute the plan, the designer specifies building materials and assembly instructions. (4) Finally, the designer or some surrogate applies the assembly instructions to the building materials. (No Free Lunch, p. xi. HT: ENV.)

Are we getting a feel for what design as process and as artifact looks like?

Is it reasonable to argue that functionally specific, complex organisation and/or linked information (FSCO/I) is credibly produced by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity?

For instance, the ATP Synthase molecular machine:

[youtube XI8m6o0gXDY]

On what evidence and on what analysis and assumptions? END

30 Replies to “Intelligent Design in action . . .

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Design as process vs design as artifact vs proposed design as result of blind watchmaker chance and/or mechanical necessity, in action. What makes best sense, why?

  2. 2
    GaryGaulin says:

    KF asks:

    Design as process vs design as artifact vs proposed design as result of blind watchmaker chance and/or mechanical necessity, in action. What makes best sense, why?

    Scientific theories are for explaining how a “process” works or happened, which makes “Design as process” the right one to use for a scientific Theory of Intelligent Design.

    Hypothesizing that an artifact came from intelligent “design” is a hypothesis, not a theory. Even where 100% were to (for sake of argument or out of religious belief) agree that it is true the hypothesis does not explain how the intelligent process that produced the design works.

    It’s good to try to test hypotheses. That’s part of the scientific method, which leads to figuring out more about a process. In the case of the premise/hypothesis for the Theory of Intelligent Design a non-Darwinian scientific model for the process of “intelligent cause” is needed for the premise to scientifically hold true:

    The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

    The above hypothesis does not explain how intelligent cause works and as a result cannot scientifically explain how it happened. But it’s a great start towards an epic scientific theory. It’s something that all the messy arguing over hypotheses leads to discovering. In that sense we are becoming a great example of the scientific method in action even though it’s filled with moments that make others wonder whether any of us (including me) are even sane or not.

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    GG, a theory of design detection on tested reliable sign is of scientific, empirical character. Not all validly scientific theories explain how things work, e.g. classically Newton’s theory of gravitation which was controversial on the issue of action at a distance. In all theories, on pain of infinite regress, there will be explanatory primitives; and, commonly there will be unobserveds inferred from signs. Thus it is with the intelligence you used to compose your comment and so it is with the electrons used in the device you used to compose it. In short your metatheory on the nature of scientific theory fails the empirical test. KF

  4. 4
    GaryGaulin says:

    Yes Albert Einstein ended up antiquating what Newton (best known for his “Laws” that mathematically approximate measurable forces but does not need to explain how they work) had for theory. That’s more or less the fate of theories that are missing detail.

    The Discovery Institute wanted this “best theory” wins thinking included in the Kansas public school science standards. In that case though it suggested that the DI had a better explanation for how “evolution” works and the public hearing showed they had no theory of their own just hunches from what looks “designed” to them, which resulted in the proposed changes being voted out by the school board.

    The only way to prevent repeating history is keep the “detection” part in its proper place in the scientific model needed to in-silico demonstrate “intelligent cause” in biology. Exactly where that is can be seen in the “Intelligence Generator and Detector” models where a reliable detection method is necessary for objectively qualifying and quantifying “intelligent” behavior of any kind:

    http://intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/

    As in electronics a generator (of the biological behavior in question) is connected to one or more detectors of what is happening in the system. In your case you have to start with a testable model of genetic systems before being able to reliably conclude that what you think you see happening is intelligent or not. It’s a lot of computer modeling work, but that’s what you get for your diabolical hypothesizing leading to your stumbling upon the scientific theory of the century.

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    GG, that Einstein provided a later theory of gravitation based on warping the fabric of space time did not invalidate the scientific character of Newton’s work, it was progress within science 235 years later. If we are not at 1905 but in the 1680s comparatively speaking does not render that phase non-scientific. Further to this, a proposed mechanism that lacks empirical warrant as being able to produce the effect in question — here processes of blind chance and necessity and FSCO/I — does not render the proposed theory a good explanation. And BTW all of this is an exercise in history and philosophy of science, illustrating its relevance. KF

  6. 6
    GaryGaulin says:

    Quote KF:

    And BTW all of this is an exercise in history and philosophy of science, illustrating its relevance.

    Ah yes, the conference for an alternative philosophy to the one philosophers now favor:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-599213

    Philosophers are free to philosophize such things as “proposed design as result of blind watchmaker chance and/or mechanical necessity” but that does not make their conclusions a scientific theory for explaining how “intelligent cause” works. It’s still part of the mix of hypotheses being argued/tested which can maybe have benefit towards scientific theory, but at that point anthropomorphic generalizations like “blind watchmaker” do not help write a Theory of Operation for the ID model that then needs its “theory” included in documentation to explain how it works.

    Both Einstein and Newton thought up a “cosmological model” that (where available) can be programmed into a computer, then theory followed. But hypothesizing blind watchmakers and other generalizations does not model what science would qualify as an “intelligent cause”.

    I can accept that philosophy might at times be useful for ideas and await being impressed. It’s just that this is in the hypothesis formulation and testing phase of the “scientific method” where you are looking for clues as to how something works, a “leave no stone unturned” sort of thing.

    I’m hoping that the philosophers find a way to place themselves in the scientific method that’s right now very in action at UD. But it’s not the sort of thing where philosophizing changes the scientific method we were born reasoning with. A scientific theory for something like intelligent cause must explain a programmable model, not a philosophy.

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    GG,

    With all due respects, you are again setting up a strawman. (You would be well advised to go to UD’s resources tab and to look at the sections there.)

    It would be much more reasonable were you to switch tracks and begin by looking at the vids on winning Iron by traditional means in Burkina Faso and the Netherlands, seeing the purpose, skill and knowledge base involved, the way ore recognition per signs, identification of flux, the recognition of the utility of clays as a basis for process units, characteristics of high calorific value charcoal, need for forced draft and so on led to astonishing convergences and how distinct circumstances led to differences. The third case on swordmaking in Japan based on the results of such winning and intelligent sorting of resulting iron-carbon alloys shows how a lore can arise giving a tradition of excellence and shaping a characteristic and quite subtle steel product. It is also interesting to see how artistic/spiritual factors including aesthetics and a sense of interaction with a spiritual world are part of the process.

    Notice, how it was felt that ordinary means of lighting a fire are not good enough; some tradition is needed to mark this as something special. Likewise observe how special hoes made with the iron won by a complex and involved process steeped in community approaches and the traditions of a clan carried by its elders acting in concert, are formally gifted to officials involved with this demonstration of a traditional process now fading into the past as it is patently less efficient, less productive and on opportunity cost vastly more expensive on a per artifact basis than modern processes. Car crash steel and cheap steel from China now dominate the trade.

    Then, contrast the nanomolecular technology at work in the cell through the case of the pivotal ATP synthase rotary action process unit, ATP manufacturing molecular machine — with a nano tech electrical motor being an integral part of the unit. ATP, of course being a key energy battery molecule used by cellular life — this is central to biological life as we observe it.

    Onward, we may with profit consider the code-using D/RNA system that builds proteins including ATP synthase, noting a telling parallel between such algorithm expressing strings and our own computer technologies and use of text strings such as those in this thread. Where language, codes, algorithms and functionally specific complex strings are strong signs of design, purpose and intelligence, manifested in language.

    Does it not astonish us to find language and coded algorithms joined to executing process units in the heart of life based on cells?

    If it does not, it should.

    Where, given description languages of node-arc engineered systems (e.g. as AutoCAD uses), we can reduce organised functional systems to strings of structured y/n questions, providing a metric for complexity and showing that study of strings exhibiting FSCO/I is WLOG.

    A very useful 3rd party explanation of ID can be found at the NWE article on ID — as opposed to Wikipedia’s long running hatchet job articles:

    Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection” [1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. According to adherents, intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it also can be detected in at least some features of living things.

    Greater clarity on the topic may be gained from a discussion of what ID is not considered to be by its leading theorists. Intelligent design generally is not defined the same as creationism, with proponents maintaining that ID relies on scientific evidence rather than on Scripture or religious doctrines. ID makes no claims about biblical chronology, and technically a person does not have to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature. As a theory, ID also does not specify the identity or nature of the designer, so it is not the same as natural theology, which reasons from nature to the existence and attributes of God. ID does not claim that all species of living things were created in their present forms, and it does not claim to provide a complete account of the history of the universe or of living things.

    ID also is not considered by its theorists to be an “argument from ignorance”; that is, intelligent design is not to be inferred simply on the basis that the cause of something is unknown (any more than a person accused of willful intent can be convicted without evidence). According to various adherents, ID does not claim that design must be optimal; something may be intelligently designed even if it is flawed (as are many objects made by humans).

    ID may be considered to consist only of the minimal assertion that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent agent. It conflicts with views claiming that there is no real design in the cosmos (e.g., materialistic philosophy) or in living things (e.g., Darwinian evolution) or that design, though real, is undetectable (e.g., some forms of theistic evolution).

    The scientific study of signs of design is not a study of designers.

    It is enough to revolutionise origins studies to understand per exploring reliable empirical, observable signs that certain features of the cosmos and/or the world of life are currently best explained — that points to the logic of abduction or inference to the best explanation — on design as cause and not the usual blind watchmaker type processes suggested as a designer substitute.

    Along the way ponder Dawkins’ telling admission that biology is the study of complicated things that appear to be designed. An indicator that there is evidence pointing to design but it is to be argued or even insisted on that such is misleading. A claim like that can only be properly grounded on strong demonstration that FSCO/I etc can be and observably are fashioned by blind watchmaker type chance and necessity processes. Something which simply has not been done.

    It is a principle of abductive reasoning, a form of inductive reasoning, that serious candidate explanations must show themselves capable of effects to be explained. Design is on trillions of examples capable of FSCO/I. There are no good examples of blind watchmaker type processes being seen to cause FSCO/I. Which, of course is a short summary for functionally specific complex organisation and/or information. Text in this thread providing cases in point.

    In that context the actuality of observed designers establishes the general possibility of designers and grounds the study of characteristic features of certain designs that distinguishes them from blind watchmaker, fundamentally non intelligent, blind, non telic causal factors.

    That is, design as of right sits to the table as a major, fundamental explanatory category with the possibility of empirically investigating such on the table.

    Where also, certain circumstances will allow us to — essentially by extending forensic and/or historical techniques — characterise short lists of candidates.

    Finding an Icehenge on Pluto in a context where no earlier human explorers are a possible explanation would decisively point to extraterrestrial intelligent cause. A more serious Wow Signal may lead SETI to conclude that an intelligent signal not mere noise has been detected from an extraterrestrial source. The discovery of marks of fine tuning in the physics of our cosmos points to design beyond the cosmos.

    And if you want to study the ways of design, TRIZ is a good place to begin: http://www.triz-journal.com/triz-what-is-triz/ .

    KF

    PS: Serious study of the history and philosophy of science shows us there is no simple one size fits all THE scientific method that fits all and only cases of science. The great hunt for demarcation criteria that decisively ring fence Science and give it a claim to superior epistemic status is now a longstanding failure. There are generic empirical inductive processes used in science but such overlap considerably with many other fields of serious study. And in particular, epistemology and logic have a lot to say to science. Where BTW a dominant feature of science, Mathematics — the logical and systematic analysis of structure and quantity, is not a scientific discipline. Indeed, it seems it is now the last stronghold of Platonism!

    PPS: Standford Enc of Phil, on Sci Method:

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entr.....ic-method/

    6. Discourse on scientific method

    Despite philosophical disagreements, the idea of the scientific method still figures prominently in contemporary discourse on many different topics, both within science and in society at large. Often, reference to scientific method is used in ways that convey either the legend of a single, universal method characteristic of all science, or grants to a particular method or set of methods privilege as a special ‘gold standard’, often with reference to particular philosophers to vindicate the claims. Discourse on scientific method also typically arises when there is a need to distinguish between science and other activities, or for justifying the special status conveyed to science. In these areas, the philosophical attempts at identifying a set of methods characteristic for scientific endeavors are closely related to the philosophy of science’s classical problem of demarcation (see the entry on science and pseudo-science) and to the philosophical analysis of the social dimension of scientific knowledge and the role of science in democratic society.

    6.1 “The scientific method” in science education and as seen by scientists

    One of the settings in which the legend of a single, universal scientific method has been particularly strong is science education (see, e.g., Bauer 1992; McComas 1996; Wivagg & Allchin 2002).[5] Often, ‘the scientific method’ is presented in textbooks and educational web pages as a fixed four or five step procedure starting from observations and description of a phenomenon and progressing over formulation of a hypothesis which explains the phenomenon, designing and conducting experiments to test the hypothesis, analyzing the results, and ending with drawing a conclusion. Such references to a universal scientific method can be found in educational material at all levels of science education (Blachowicz 2009), and numerous studies have shown that the idea of a general and universal scientific method often form part of both students’ and teachers’ conception of science (see, e.g., Aikenhead 1987; Osborne et al. 2003) . . . .

    Occasionally, scientists make sweeping statements about a simple and distinct scientific method, as exemplified by Feynman’s simplified version of a conjectures and refutations method presented, for example, in the last of his 1964 Cornell Messenger lectures.[6] However, just as often scientists have come to the same conclusion as recent philosophy of science that there is not any unique, easily described scientific method. For example, the physicist and Nobel Laureate Weinberg described in the paper “The Methods of Science … And Those By Which We Live” (1995) how

    The fact that the standards of scientific success shift with time does not only make the philosophy of science difficult; it also raises problems for the public understanding of science. We do not have a fixed scientific method to rally around and defend. (1995: 8) . . .

  8. 8
    GaryGaulin says:

    KF your generalizations and metaphors still do not explain how intelligent cause works.

    You should not be brushing off the scientific theory I had to write for you. At least try to find something that adds to it. Click on my name above for the .pdf

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    GG, I presented intelligent designers as observed fact. Cf videos above. KF

  10. 10
    Virgil Cain says:

    Gary Gaulin:

    Scientific theories are for explaining how a “process” works or happened, which makes “Design as process” the right one to use for a scientific Theory of Intelligent Design.

    That means there isn’t any theory of archaeology nor forensic science. And that means a theory is not required to do science.

    Hypothesizing that an artifact came from intelligent “design” is a hypothesis, not a theory.

    But it is a testable hypothesis which is more than evolutionism can offer.

    Even where 100% were to (for sake of argument or out of religious belief) agree that it is true the hypothesis does not explain how the intelligent process that produced the design works.

    And that is not required to determine if something was intelligently designed or not. And as reality says the how comes after and may never come at all.

  11. 11
    Algorithm Eh says:

    There is obviously intelligence involved in the iron smelting processes, but their is also a large degree of selection acting on random events. For example, it is unlikely that the hardening of the metal through water quenching was the result of intentional design. It was more likely a “happy accident”. Someone was probably impatient with the cooling process and decided to use water to speed it up. The “happy accident” is that they noticed that the metal became harder when you did this.

  12. 12
    Virgil Cain says:

    Algorithm Eh:

    For example, it is unlikely that the hardening of the metal through water quenching was the result of intentional design.

    It is pretty clear that it was. The people doing the smelting would be aware of the cooling properties of water and would have used that knowledge for their process.

  13. 13
    Algorithm Eh says:

    VC: “It is pretty clear that it was. The people doing the smelting would be aware of the cooling properties of water and would have used that knowledge for their process.”

    And how would they be aware of the cooling properties of water on hot metal? Was it designed or accidental? Given that they didn’t have any understanding of chemistry, atomic structures, etc. it is very unlikely that they knew that quenching hot metal in water would harden it. Trial and error and passing along the knowledge of the outcome is the more likely explanation.

  14. 14
    Virgil Cain says:

    Algorithm Eh:

    And how would they be aware of the cooling properties of water on hot metal?

    Because they used it in other cases- to put out fires and to crack rocks that were heated.

    Trial and error and passing along the knowledge of the outcome is the more likely explanation.

    Trial and error is still intelligent design.

  15. 15
    Algorithm Eh says:

    VC: “Because they used it in other cases- to put out fires and to crack rocks that were heated.”

    And how does this inform them about how it hardens refined metal?

    “Trial and error is still intelligent design.”

    It is definitely an intelligent process. You will get no argument from me.

    But it is not “design” as we normally use the term. Do you honestly think that someone in the bronze age (or earlier) sat down and proposed that rapid cooling would reduce crystallinity and thereby increase the hardness of alloy? I am not saying that this absolutely did not occur, but it is far more likely that it was happenstance (luck, serendipity, call it what you like). The intelligence comes into play in linking the two (quenching and hardening), and in what they did with this knowledge.

  16. 16
    Virgil Cain says:

    Algorithm:

    But it is not “design” as we normally use the term.

    Thomas Edison would disagree- as would many, many others. Intelligence comes into play by methodologically trying different things until you get the desired result.

    Air cool the smelted metals and see that you get tool with X characteristics. Rapidly cool the smelted metals and observe that you now get Y.

  17. 17
    Algorithm Eh says:

    VC: “Thomas Edison would disagree- as would many, many others. Intelligence comes into play by methodologically trying different things until you get the desired result.”

    Paraphrasing TE, he did not have any failures; he discovered a thousand ways NOT to make a light bulb. But right from the beginning he had a goal in mind, making a light bulb. My point is that the hardening of the metal probably was not the initial goal when the first person dumped the hot metal in water. It was probably a happy accident, as was nylon and silly puddy.

    This doe not make the discovery any less intelligent. A moron would do it and just be entertained by the steam. The intelligence comes from playing with the process once it was discovered.

  18. 18
    Virgil Cain says:

    Algoritm:

    My point is that the hardening of the metal probably was not the initial goal when the first person dumped the hot metal in water.

    We have no way of knowing but my money would be on the contrary position. That it was a purposeful move

  19. 19
    Algorithm Eh says:

    VC: “We have no way of knowing but my money would be on the contrary position. That it was a purposeful move.”

    I never said that it wasn’t a purposeful move. I am just suggesting that it was originally done for a different purpose.

    I don’t see how humans at the very beginning of working with metals had sufficient knowledge to predict that quenching would reduce crystallization and harden the metal, especially when they had little to no knowledge of crystal formation in metal. However, it is easy to envision someone completing the initial heating and hammering and wanting to continue the finishing work without having to wait for it to cool naturally. Water is an excellent way of doing this. But once it was discovered, human ingenuity took over.

  20. 20
    GaryGaulin says:

    GG, I presented intelligent designers as observed fact. Cf videos above. KF

    You presented videos of people working with iron, not the intelligent cause(s) that created them.

    Your diversion was just more of the usual bait-and-switch.

  21. 21
    Virgil Cain says:

    Algorithm:

    I don’t see how humans at the very beginning of working with metals had sufficient knowledge to predict that quenching would reduce crystallization and harden the metal, especially when they had little to no knowledge of crystal formation in metal.

    And I am sure they knew that quickly cooling something makes it hard.

  22. 22
    Algorithm Eh says:

    DELETED, trollish and obscene . . . attn just drawn to it by AE who requested deletion and pointed to hacking of accounts at UD. That’s worrying. KF

  23. 23
    kairosfocus says:

    GG, And people acting purposefully, skillfully and successfully to achieve goals that create end products manifesting FSCO/I are not intelligent designers in action? This does not compute . . . KF

  24. 24
    kairosfocus says:

    VC, GG, AE et al, kindly fix tone. KF

  25. 25
    kairosfocus says:

    GG & AE, exploratory trial and error exploiting happy results and even taking advantage of accidental outcomes are part of design. Indeed that is how blacksmithing and then large scale iron and steel making developed until the chemistry was more deeply understood. That too is part of the lesson in the OP, right next to astonishing convergences. KF

  26. 26
    GaryGaulin says:

    GG & AE, exploratory trial and error exploiting happy results and even taking advantage of accidental outcomes are part of design.

    I’m glad you agree with what I have for theory. And how does the intelligent cause of all living things take advantage of accidental outcomes? Best guesses?

  27. 27
    kairosfocus says:

    GG, First you need to cf the Smith Model. Second, intelligence and embodies intelligence are not equivalent. Third, I am not sure there is just one intelligent cause of all biological forms. If you mean origin of life on earth, all that is in principle required is a sufficiently advanced molecular nanotech lab. As has been often pointed out including here at UD. Inference to design on sign is not inference to particular designers. KF

  28. 28
    Algorithm Eh says:

    KairosFocus, just for the record, I did not make the comment at 22. Somebody obviously hacked my account. Please delete this comment.

  29. 29
    kairosfocus says:

    Done, hacking is a worrying development.

  30. 30
    GaryGaulin says:

    GG, First you need to cf the Smith Model.

    From theory, same thing but further simplified and better organized to show what makes us “feel”:

    https://sites.google.com/site/intelligenceprograms/Home/Causation.png

    https://sites.google.com/site/intelligenceprograms/Home/TrehubModel.GIF

    Also look up “David Heiserman, machine intelligence” and see robotic models here:

    http://www.camppeavy.com/

    Some of my virtual models:

    http://intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/

    It would have been a big help for you to have studied the model and its theory, instead of dismissing everything without even knowing what it is.

Leave a Reply