Once More from the Top on “Mechanism”

_{Barry Arrington

September 1, 2019

Intelligent Design}

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

We often get some variation of “Until ID proposes a ‘mechanism’ for how the design is accomplished, it cannot be taken seriously as an explanation for origins.”

Here is an example from frequent commenter Bob O’H (who, after years of participation on this site should know better):

If ID is correct, then the design has to have happened somehow, so a “how” theory has to exist.

OK, Bob, once more from the top:

Suppose someone printed your post on a piece of paper and handed it to an investigator. We’ll call him Johnny. The object of the investigation is to determine whether the text on the paper was produced by an intelligent agent or a random letter generator.

Johnny, using standard design detection techniques, concludes that the text exhibits CSI at greater than 500 bits, and reaches the screamingly obvious conclusion that it was designed and not the product of a random letter generator.

“Ha!” the skeptic says. “Johnny did not propose a mechanism by which someone designed the text. Therefore his design inference is invalid. If his design inference is correct, then the design has to have happened somehow, so a ‘how’ theory has to exist.”

Bob, is the objection to Johnny’s conclusion valid?

Comments

With respect to Intelligent Design and mechanisms, that would pertain to the methodology used to determine whether or not (intelligent) design exists. That is the science of ID-> the detection and study of design in nature. We study it so we can better understand it and hopefully answer those new questions.ET_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

To answer the new questions ID opens up requires new training and schooling. Scientists tend to be specialists and right now I don't know of any specialty that deals with these new questions. This proves ID isn't a dead end as it obviously opens up new questions that we, as humans, will clearly try to answer. But this will take time because what the Designer did is far beyond our capabilities. It's like asking an Amazon tribe to figure out how a smart phone was designed and manufactured. They will definitely be able to tell you it is an artifact, though.ET_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

@ EricMH- No one in ID says that we have detected design and that's it. Dembski says quite the opposite. And I gave you the prediction for design in biology: “Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” He goes on to say: ” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.”ET_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

EricMH:
This means the designer is a very mysterious sort of entity, because it must be non-stochastic in order to generate a positive CSI score. It must transcend stochastic mechanisms, as one commentator stated.
Archaeology, forensic science and SETI all must deal with beings that transcend stochastic mechanisms. So we do have plenty of experience with it.ET_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

@ET, yes, good points, but in any of those disciplines, if the researcher saw the artifact and said "it's designed, case closed" it would not be much of a discipline. Because the researcher knows stonehenge is designed, they are able to make certain specific predictions and insights from that fact. What are the specific predictions and insights we get from inferring ID in biology, something on the level of chemistry where we have a very concrete idea of what should be there if the thing is designed?EricMH_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

@BA77, very interesting list, but I would say those fall into the philosophical motivation and analogy category, just like belief in God motivated Newton to look for orderly laws that govern the universe. But, not like how the theory of gravity lets us predict where a rock will land when we throw it. As an example of what I'm looking for, if ID functioned like, say, chemistry, then we can identify gaps in the data we've collected, and make specific predictions about the sort of things that will fill those gaps. Just like with the table of elements, we identified gaps and were able to make predictions about what will fill those gaps. In bioinformatics, when DNA sequences are reconstructed, we know when certain proteins are missing, and can predict what sort of genes we need to still discover. Or, when reverse engineering source code, based on what the designer intended, we can make predictions about what sort of functionality we need to discover, and search it out. If ID were a positive science, it could make these sorts of specific positive predictions about what sort of pieces fill in gaps in the puzzle. I think ID is up to the challenge, but have yet to see such a positive approach.EricMH_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

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? Wm. Dembski
Yes, they can. Most, if not all, anti-IDists always try to force any theory of intelligent design to say something about the designer and the process involved BEFORE it can be considered as scientific. This is strange because in every use-able form of design detection in which there isn’t any direct observation or designer input, it works the other way, i.e. first we determine design (or not) and then we determine the process and/ or designer. IOW any and all of our knowledge about the process and/ or designer comes from first detecting and then understanding the design. IOW reality dictates the only possible way to make any determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question. If anyone doubts that fact then all you have to do is show me a scenario in which the designer(s) or the process(es) were determined without designer input, direct observation or by studying the design in question. If you can't than shut up and leave the design detection to those who know what they are doing. This is a virtue of design-centric venues. It allows us to neatly separate whether something is designed from how it was produced and/ or who produced it (when, where, why):
“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
Stonehenge- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when. Nasca Plain, Peru- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when. Puma Punku- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when. Any artifact (archeology/ anthropology)- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input. Fire investigation- if arson is determined (ie design); further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input. An artifact does not stop being an artifact just because we do not know who, what, when, where, why and how. But it would be stupid to dismiss the object as being an artifact just because no one was up to the task of demonstrating a method of production and/ or the designing agent. And even if we did determine a process by which the object in question may have been produced it does not follow that it will be the process used. As a comparison no need to look any further than abiogenesis and evolutionism. Evolutionists make those separate questions even though life’s origin bears directly on its subsequent diversity. And just because it is a separate question does not hinder anyone from trying to answer either or both. Forget about a process except for the vague “random mutations, random genetic drift, random recombination culled by natural selection”. And as for a way to test that premise “forgetaboutit”. Also evolutionism is all about the how and when yet it cannot answer those questions scientifically. That must be what pisses them off and causes them to flail away at ID with their ignorance-> if they could support their position's claims ID would be refuted. Intellegent Design is about the DESIGN not the designer(s). The design exists in the physical world and as such is open to scientific investigation. All that said we have made some progress. By going over the evidence we infer that our place in the cosmos was designed for (scientific) discovery. We have also figured out that targeted searches are very powerful design mechanisms when given a resource-rich configuration space.
Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence. -- William A. Dembski
ET_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

@BB, yes, in a certain respect. As ET and JohnnyB correctly point out, you don't need such a theory about the designer to detect the design itself. The CSI calculation is designer agnostic. And ET is correct that ID is not dead in the water when it comes to biology. I'd say it is floundering, but not due to the theoretical weakness of ID, but because the movement has become distracted away from pursuing the positive scientific research. However, without addressing the designer, there is a big question mark, as I've pointed out with my questions about eliminating chance and necessity. If we are not going to engage in special pleading, we need to include the designer in our chance hypothesis. This means the designer is a very mysterious sort of entity, because it must be non-stochastic in order to generate a positive CSI score. It must transcend stochastic mechanisms, as one commentator stated. And this is uncharted territory. In all my readings in probability and information theory, I have not seen such a thing described. And ID does itself a disservice if it just says this non-stochastic entity is a 'designer' or an 'intelligent agent', which are just placeholders like Behe disparages in his book 'Darwin Devolves'. This is where ID breaks from traditional methodological naturalism, because the entire theoretical content of methodological naturalism is stochastic processes. If ID truly has identified a new thing, a non-stochastic process, then this seems to be a major breakthrough, if it can be characterized scientifically and mathematically. On the other hand, if stochastic processes exhaust the range of scientific explanations, then ID's appeal to a non-stochastic process is non-scientific, and at that point passes into some other discipline like philosophy or theology.EricMH_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

Moreover, ID, unlike how Darwinists treat their theory, is a potentially falsifiable science: In fact, there is up to a 10 million dollar prize for anyone who can falsify ID
Falsify Intelligent Design and become a multi-millionaire - video - Official Natural Code Prize - Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNF2c3i6eJo - Entrepreneurs offer $10m prize for cracking mystery of DNA - June 2, 2019 Scientists challenged to create genetic code from simple chemicals Excerpt: Wealthy investors are offering a $10m prize to the first scientific team that can create a genetic code from simple chemicals — reproducing the unknown process that led billions of years ago to DNA as the vehicle for transmitting information in life on Earth. The Evolution 2.0 prize is an initiative by Perry Marshall, an online marketing entrepreneur based in Chicago. It will be judged by prominent scientists, including George Church, genetics professor at Harvard university, and Denis Noble, the Oxford university biologist who was the first to model the human heart on a computer.,,, Other backers of the prize include marketing businessman Robert Skrob, investment manager Gary Klopfenstein and serial entrepreneur Jon Correll. Their involvement is not purely altruistic. The full $10m will only be awarded for a patentable coding system, which the prize sponsors will attempt to commercialise in partnership with the winner. https://www.ft.com/content/dcb2ea12-83c8-11e9-9935-ad75bb96c849 The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 Excerpt of conclusion pg. 42: "To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662469/ Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag "Matter does not make rules. Matter is governed by rules." fifthmonarchyman - UD blogger "Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- " Dr Behe in 1997
bornagain77_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

A few notes: Contrary to what has been falsely alleged in this thread, ID is a driver of science, (instead of being a parasite on science like Darwinism is):
"It has become clear in the past ten years that the concept of design is not merely an add-on meta-description of biological systems, of no scientific consequence, but is in fact a driver of science. A whole cohort of young scientists is being trained to “think like engineers” when looking at biological systems, using terms explicitly related to engineering design concepts: design, purpose, optimal tradeoffs for multiple goals, information, control, decision making, etc. This approach is widely seen as a successful, predictive, quantitative theory of biology." David Snoke*, Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design - 2014 http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/viewArticle/BIO-C.2014.3 podcast: "David Snoke: Systems Biology and Intelligent Design, pt. 1" http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-11T17_19_09-07_00 podcast: David Snoke: Systems Biology and Intelligent Design, pt. 2 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-13T16_30_01-07_00 Can biological complexity be reverse engineered? - Sara Green - 2015 Excerpt: “But many biologists agree that there is a connection between the robustness of biological networks and their non-random connectivity distribution and hierarchical structure (Steinacher & Soyer, 2012). Other examples of design principles are bi-stable switches (Tyson et al. 2003) and overabundant sub-circuits in gene regulatory networks, called network motifs (Alon, 2007a, see below). To some researchers, such findings provide optimism that there is simplicity in the apparent complexity of biological systems (Csete and Doyle, 2002; Alon, 2007c). The quest for design principles reflects a hope that key properties of biological systems can be understood without knowing all the lower-level causal details. This is not only a point about practical convenience but also about the relevant level of analysis. The cancer biologist Lazebnik (2002) provocatively compared biomedical research strategies to the attempt to fix a radio by atomizing the system into component parts and studying these in isolation. If the malfunction of the system is connected to the orchestrated organization of parts and processes, searching for broken molecular components is bound to fail. Lazebnik therefore proposes an engineering approach to investigate how the components are wired together as a functional whole.” http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/12168/1/Can%20biological%20complexity%20be%20reverse%20engineered.pdf How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design - July 2014 Excerpt: Snoke lists various features in biology that have been found to function like goal-directed, top-down engineered systems: *"Negative feedback for stable operation." *"Frequency filtering" for extracting a signal from a noisy system. *Control and signaling to induce a response. *"Information storage" where information is stored for later use. In fact, Snoke observes: "This paradigm [of systems biology] is advancing the view that biology is essentially an information science with information operating on multiple hierarchical levels and in complex networks [13]. " *"Timing and synchronization," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that different processes and events happen in the right order. *"Addressing," where signaling molecules are tagged with an address to help them arrive at their intended target. *"Hierarchies of function," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that cellular processes and events happen at the right times and in the right order. *"Redundancy," as organisms contain backup systems or "fail-safes" if primary essential systems fail. *"Adaptation," where organisms are pre-engineered to be able to undergo small-scale adaptations to their environments. As Snoke explains, "These systems use randomization controlled by supersystems, just as the immune system uses randomization in a very controlled way," and "Only part of the system is allowed to vary randomly, while the rest is highly conserved.",,, Snoke observes that systems biology assumes that biological features are optimized, meaning, in part, that "just about everything in the cell does indeed have a role, i.e., that there is very little 'junk.'" He explains, "Some systems biologists go further than just assuming that every little thing has a purpose. Some argue that each item is fulfilling its purpose as well as is physically possible," and quotes additional authorities who assume that biological systems are optimized.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/when_biologists087871.html
As well, and again contrary to what has been falsely alleged in this thread, ID makes testable predictions: Intelligent Design, contrary to what many evolutionists (and Theistic Evolutionists) will say publicly, does in fact make solid predictions for science that we can test. In fact, Testable Predictions for ID and how they match up to what the scientific evidence is now telling us starts at the 15:23 minute mark of the following video:
Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - video (sound clears up at the 5:00 minute mark) - Oct. 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Fxsxzb90Cho#t=923 A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design? - March 2010 Excerpt: Regarding testability, ID (Intelligent Design) makes the following testable predictions: (1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information). (2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors. (3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms. (4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/a_response_to_questions_from_a.html A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - March 2011 - several examples of cited research http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html Yes, Intelligent Design Is Testable Science – A Resource Roundup – August 2017 Excerpt: The following links are of special interest and relevance: “How Do We Know Intelligent Design Is a Scientific ‘Theory’?” “Does Intelligent Design Help Science Generate New Knowledge?” “Straw Men Aside, What Is the Theory of Intelligent Design, Really?” “A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design” “Intelligent design has scientific merit because it uses the scientific method to make its claims and infers design by testing its positive predictions” “How Can We Positively Test Intelligent Design?” “FAQ: Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?” “How Can We Know Intelligent Design is Science?” “No ID Research? Let’s Help Out This Iowa State Student” “Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design” “Bibliography and Annotated List of Peer-Reviewed Publications Supporting Intelligent Design” And that’s just for starters. https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/yes-intelligent-design-is-testable-science-a-resource-roundup/
bornagain77_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian:
Eric, although I think that ID with respect to biology is dead in the water, …
What a joke. ID offers the only scientific explanation with respect to biology.
In particular, and correct me if I am getting your point wrong, ID is doing itself a disservice by refusing to address the nature (limitations) of the designer and the possible ways in which these designs are/were implemented.
Those don't have anything to do with ID. Also we know a designer's limitations by what said designer left behind. Duh. And we can only make a scientific determination about the how by studying the design and all relevant evidence. Evolution does more of a disservice by refusing to address the origin of life. How life originated dictates how it evolved.
Much like we have been doing for over a century with evolution.
You are confused as Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution, and peer-review is devoid of support for evolution via blind and mindless processes. You have nothing to account for the major innovations observed in the different Phyla. You have nothing to account for eukaryotes. Endosymbiosis is not your savior. Blind watchmaker evolution hasn't advanced our knowledge of biology one bit.ET_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Eric, although I think that ID with respect to biology is dead in the water, I think that you have made some very good points. In particular, and correct me if I am getting your point wrong, ID is doing itself a disservice by refusing to address the nature (limitations) of the designer and the possible ways in which these designs are/were implemented. By making these leaps, ID can become more respected as a field of science because these hypotheses can be investigated and tested. Much like we have been doing for over a century with evolution.Brother Brian_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

@ET, yes I get the argument, but how does that result in a positive scientific research program, besides high level guidance like 'look for structure', or 'an intelligent agent did it'? This is no different than what has guided most scientists before the modern era, and they seem to have mostly followed methodological naturalism in formulating their precise scientific theories. At the very least, ID is not scientific like the theory of gravity which provides very specific predictions that are precise enough that we can send people to the moon and launch missiles that can hit other countries. Of course, Darwinism doesn't meet this criterion either. I would also say Darwinism and evolution in general are more philosophical than they are scientific. However, the difference is that if Darwinism were true, then we could use Darwinian theory to make specific physical predictions, at least in principle. It's harder to see how this could happen with ID. I would most like to be wrong, and believe that I am, but the ID movement, with one or two notable exceptions, has not generated much positive science. It seems to have turned into an anti-Darwin and culture war/apologetics movement. If that's what the Discovery Institute wants to be, that is fine, but they should not promote themselves as providing a new scientific paradigm.EricMH_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

EricMH:
like I said, such predictions are high level philosophical sorts of claims.
Just because you say it doesn't make it so.
Nor is it clear ID is necessary to make such claims.
It is to me and many, many others. ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
Those are the core concepts of ID and to falsify Intelligent Design all one has to do is demonstrate that natural selection can produce irreducibly complex biological systems.ET_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

OT: https://www.popsci.com/evolution-linear-branch/ Popular Science: current title: Evolution doesn't work the way you think it does Proposed Fix: Evolution doesn't work (well, it's shorter, anyway)es58_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

@ET, like I said, such predictions are high level philosophical sorts of claims. Nor is it clear ID is necessary to make such claims. All we need to do is deny philosophical naturalism and scientism, which are philosophical positions. Finally, I would not call such claims science, at least not the sort of science that physics and chemistry are. Claiming ID is a philosophy and not a science is not at all controversial. Just about all the critics are fine with calling ID a philosophy. It is when ID claims to be a science on the level of physics and chemistry that the controversy arises.EricMH_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Well Eric, ID makes testable claims and can be potentially falsified. You want predictions? ID predicts there is more to life than what meets the eye. That life is not reducible to physics and chemistry. And that we will find signs of intelligent agency activity. IC is such a sign, Eric. And the failure of materialistic explanations does help ID as science mandates design inferences first eliminate materialistic explanations as part of parsimony.ET_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

@ET, like I said, I do not think ID cannot be a science. Just that currently it is not doing so well as such. Nor does the failure of Darwinism mean that ID is a science.EricMH_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

LoL! @ hazel- EricMH is wrong. ID has all the hallmarks of science. And there still isn't a scientific alternative to ID. What predictions are borne from blind watchmaker evolution? If you cannot say then clearly you are part of the problem
What further scientific investigations does one then propose?
Already covered.ET_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Kudos to EricMH at 104 for a candid assessment from an ID supporter.
I do not think ID cannot be science. Rather, from my perspective, ID made a good start, with bold claims, and actually established a scientific direction at the beginning. But since then, ID has lost its way and become enamored of creationism vs evolution, apologetics and the culture wars, and lost the actual scientific aspect it originally had. So, ID has failed to follow through, and is riding on the cultural momentum of the original claims without making progress.
This resonates with points I made earlier. One accepts ID as a scientific claim. Then what? What further scientific investigations does one then propose? Battling atheists and other culture war issues is not science, and doesn't further the ID cause: in fact, it reinforces the perception among some (many) that ID is in fact not a scientific enterprise, burt rather a philosophical/theological/cultural/political movement. At 81, EricMH made another good point:
So, if ID really is a science, what specific and testable predictions does it make that makes it more than methodological naturalism? If ID just says “it’s designed, so look for structure” ID has nothing more to offer than the traditional methodological naturalism + philosophical theism. If, on the other hand, the point of ID is just to eliminate the presupposition of philosophical naturalism from the sciences, that’s fine, but that’s the job of a philosopher, not of a science practitioner, and again ID is not a scientific theory.
hazel_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

Irreducible complexity is a testable claim. Discrete combinatorial objects is a testable claim. Sequence specificity is a testable claim. That transcription and translation just happen is not a testable claim. That the earth exists due to innumerable cosmic collisions and gravity, is an untestable claim.ET_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Science asks 3 basic Questions and ID attempts to answer them.
All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter. -Max Planck
Methodological naturalism? I think not...ET_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

@BA77 I've read through everything you posted. I do not believe you are carefully reading and understanding the distinctions I am making. Additionally, I do not think ID cannot be science. Rather, from my perspective, ID made a good start, with bold claims, and actually established a scientific direction at the beginning. But since then, ID has lost its way and become enamored of creationism vs evolution, apologetics and the culture wars, and lost the actual scientific aspect it originally had. So, ID has failed to follow through, and is riding on the cultural momentum of the original claims without making progress.EricMH_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

And you are, once again, wrong. Unlike Darwinism, ID is falsifiable and ID is a driver of science. I could reference those facts, but alas, I'm tired of you wasting my morning and referencing stuff that you do not even pay attention to. I'm out of here.bornagain77_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

@BA77, no, I think ID is failing to deliver on its promise to be a science. Further, I do not claim that science must follow methodological naturalism. I am stating that all successful science seems to do so. If ID claims to diverge from this pattern, then it needs to provide an alternative.EricMH_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

Has a troll taken over Eric's account?bornagain77_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

EreicMH:
Methodological naturalism does not need to explain the origin of anything.
Of course it does. One of the basic questions science asks is "how did it come to be this way (the way it is)?"
And the design inference is impossible to falsify.
All evidence to the contrary. IDists have said exactly what will falsify ID. Is there a scientific theory of archaeology or forensic science? Is there a scientific theory of evolution? If there is no one can link to it. If it can be demonstrated that nature can produce a living organisms, ID would be falsified. That said, proof-reading, error- correction, editing and splicing all require knowledge that doesn't exist in the basic molecules used to carry out those processes. That alone tells us there is something we cannot see ruling over life at the cellular level.ET_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

Geeze you are one confused little pup EricMH. You state,
you seem to be confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.
No I am not, you are the one is confused and who falsely believes that methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism can be kept in separate boxes. Yet, as William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, and Paul Nelson have pointed out, (and as should be glaringly obvious to you), to say that only materialistic answers are ever allowed to be given, i.e. methodological naturalism, is in effect to assume that philosophical naturalism is true and is to effectively cast by the wayside all the essential Theistic presuppositions, even the essential Christian, presuppositions, that enabled and continue to enable us to practice science in a coherent fashion in the first place.
"Methodological naturalism, Dembski observes, specifically excludes intelligent design from science because, by definition, design and teleology have been rendered “empirically undetectable.”1 1. William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design (Downers Grove, IL:2004), p. 169-171. Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson -September 22, 2014 Excerpt: On this final point, let’s give Meyer (2009, p. 437) himself the last word: [A]llowing methodological naturalism to function as an absolute “ground rule” of method for all of science would have a deleterious effect on the practice of certain scientific disciplines, especially the historical sciences. In origin-of-life research, for example, methodological naturalism artificially restricts inquiry and prevents scientists from exploring and examining some hypotheses that might provide the most likely, best, or causally adequate explanations. To be a truth- seeking endeavor, the question that origin-of-life research must address is not, “Which materialistic scenario seems most adequate?” but rather, “What actually caused life to arise on earth?” Clearly, one possible answer to that latter question is this: “Life was designed by an intelligent agent that existed before the advent of humans.” If one accepts methodological naturalism as normative, however, scientists may never consider this possibly true hypothesis. Such an exclusionary logic diminishes the significance of any claim of theoretical superiority for any remaining hypothesis and raises the possibility that the best “scientific” explanation (according to methodological naturalism) may not be the best in fact. https://evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1/ Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism - Paul Nelson - September 24, 2014 Excerpt: Assessing the Damage MN Does to Freedom of Inquiry Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism. If we say, "We cannot know that a mind caused x," laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds. MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact. "That’s crazy," you reply, "I certainly did write my email." Okay, then — to what does the pronoun "I" in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural? Who knows? Don’t get hung up on the "natural versus supernatural" distinction, which brings a world of mischief. You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent. If ID satisfied MN as that philosophical doctrine is usually stated, the decades-long dispute over both wouldn’t have happened. The whole point of invoking MN (by the National Center for Science Education, for instance, or other anti-ID organizations) is to try to exclude ID, before a debate about the evidence can occur, by indicting ID for inferring non-physical causes. That’s why pushing the MN emergency button is so useful to opponents of ID. Violate MN, if MN defines science, and the game is over.,,, ,,, Now here’s the twist. Tarter herself is an atheist. In her view, the extraterrestrial intelligence she seeks to discover was, like her own, produced by a long evolutionary process, in which the fundamental causes were all natural (material and physical). So surely, as a philosophical naturalist, Tarter could endorse MN? Nope — not without surrendering her SETI research goals at the same time. SETI requires the basic decision (logic) tree of "intelligence OR physics," which means isolating and seeking to detect some aspect of intelligence that is irreducible to physics. And that defies the "physics only, in the end" claim of MN.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set/
In further confusion, EricMH also claims that
"I am saying successful scientific theories seems to be of the former variety, to propose specific materialistic mechanisms that guide physical phenomena,"
If anything can be said to 'guide physical phenomena' it is certainly not 'materialistic mechanisms'. 'Materialistic mechanisms' do not 'guide' anything, physical or otherwise. There is not one example from science that you can give for your claim that a 'materialistic mechanisms guide physical phenomena'. For prime example, and contrary to popular belief, Newton certainly did not think that gravity was some kind of 'materialistic mechanism'.
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,,, The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,, from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present”: Sir Isaac Newton - Quoted from his book "Principia" http://gravitee.tripod.com/genschol.htm NEWTON'S REJECTION OF THE "NEWTONIAN WORLD VIEW": THE ROLE OF DIVINE WILL IN NEWTON'S NATURAL PHILOSOPHY Abstract: The significance of Isaac Newton for the history of Christianity and science is undeniable: his professional work culminated the Scientific Revolution that saw the birth of modern science, while his private writings evidence a lifelong interest in the relationship between God and the world. Yet the typical picture of Newton as a paragon of Enlightenment deism, endorsing the idea of a remote divine clockmaker and the separation of science from religion, is badly mistaken. In fact Newton rejected both the clockwork metaphor itself and the cold mechanical universe upon which it is based. His conception of the world reflects rather a deep commitment to the constant activity of the divine will, unencumbered by the "rational" restrictions that Descartes and Leibniz placed on God, the very sorts of restrictions that later appealed to the deists of the 18th century. http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/newton.htm
In fact, only immaterial minds have the capacity, within themselves, to guide physical objects towards a goal, i.e. teleology, which is something that methological naturalism explicitly denies, As humans, we witness this teleology of our immaterial minds constantly when we intelligently design objects from material substrates in order to accomplish goals that we have in mind. Moreover, as Dr. Egnor makes clear in the following article, we see this teleological design, i.e. goal directed guidance imposed on physical objects, reflected in nature.
Teleology and the Mind - Michael Egnor - August 16, 2016 Excerpt: From the hylemorphic perspective, there is an intimate link between the mind and teleology. The 19th-century philosopher Franz Brentano pointed out that the hallmark of the mind is that it is directed to something other than itself. That is, the mind has intentionality, which is the ability of a mental process to be about something, rather than to just be itself. Physical processes alone (understood without teleology) are not inherently about things. The mind is always about things. Stated another way, physical processes (understood without teleology) have no purpose. Mental processes always have purpose. In fact, purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) is what defines the mind. And we see the same purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) in nature. Intentionality is a form of teleology. Both intentionality and teleology are goal-directedness — intentionality is directedness in thought, and teleology is directedness in nature. Mind and teleology are both manifestations of purpose in nature. The mind is, within nature, the same kind of process that directs nature. In this sense, eliminative materialism is necessary if a materialist is to maintain a non-teleological Darwinian metaphysical perspective. It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts. The link between intentionality and teleology, and the undeniability of teleology, is even more clear if we consider our inescapable belief that other people have minds. The inference that other people have minds based on their purposeful (intentional-teleological) behavior, which is obviously correct and is essential to living a sane life, can be applied to our understanding of nature as well. Just as we know that other people have purposes (intentionality), we know just as certainly that nature has purposes (teleology). In a sense, intelligent design is the recognition of the same purpose-teleology-intentionality in nature that we recognize in ourselves and others. Teleology and intentionality are certainly the inferences to be drawn from the obvious purposeful arrangement of parts in nature, but I (as a loyal Thomist!) believe that teleology and intentionality are manifest in an even more fundamental way in nature. Any goal-directed natural change is teleological, even if purpose and arrangement of parts is not clearly manifest. The behavior of a single electron orbiting a proton is teleological, because the motion of the electron hews to specific ends (according to quantum mechanics). A pencil falling to the floor behaves teleologically (it does not fall up, or burst into flame, etc.). Purposeful arrangement of parts is teleology on an even more sophisticated scale, but teleology exists in even the most basic processes in nature. Physics is no less teleological than biology. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/teleology_and_t/
Bottom line EricMH you are stuck in the mud because of the false doctrine of methodological naturalism that you falsely imagine must somehow be essential to science. One final note, in your response to ET, you seem to have a very limited view of how we can scientifically detect the physical reality of immaterial information. Although there are many examples I can give, my favorite method for demonstrating the physical reality of immaterial information is with quantum teleportation: The coup de grace for demonstrating that immaterial information is its own distinct physical entity, separate from matter and energy, is Quantum Teleportation:
Quantum Teleportation Enters the Real World – September 19, 2016 Excerpt: Two separate teams of scientists have taken quantum teleportation from the lab into the real world. Researchers working in Calgary, Canada and Hefei, China, used existing fiber optics networks to transmit small units of information across cities via quantum entanglement — Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance.”,,, This isn’t teleportation in the “Star Trek” sense — the photons aren’t disappearing from one place and appearing in another. Instead, it’s the information that’s being teleported through quantum entanglement.,,, ,,, it is only the information that gets teleported from one place to another. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2016/09/19/quantum-teleportation-enters-real-world/#.V-HqWNEoDtR
The preceding experimental result should make the head spin of anyone who toes the methodological naturalism party line. :) of supplemental note:
Darwinism vs Biological Form - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate (27:15 minute mark – how quantum information theory relates to molecular biology) https://youtu.be/4f0hL3Nrdas?t=1635
bornagain77_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

@Asauber, my point is there are a vast multitude of things we observe in our everyday lives that are true, reliable, and understandable. But, most do not meet the level of rigor and prediction that characterize the sciences. ID claims to meet this level of rigor. But it is unclear how ID substantiates this claim as a positive science.EricMH_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

@ET you are mixing methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Methodological naturalism does not need to explain the origin of anything. The origin may well transcend the realm of science. The point of methodological naturalism is that it is a reliable way to understand and control the physical phenomena we face on a daily basis. Philosophical naturalism, on the other hand, is the proposition that the origin of everything is the same as the materialistic operation, and that proposition is unfounded. If Venter created life in the lab from scratch, I don't see how that is any different than a programmer writing a complex program. It maybe demonstrates that philosophical naturalism is false, but it does not give us a scientific theory of intelligent design. And the design inference is impossible to falsify. It is essentially a truism. Physics and chemistry operate according to chance and necessity, and so will always provide non positive CSI. On the other hand, if you perform a CSI calculation that gives a positive result, what does this demonstrate? E.g. with the run of heads example I gave before, this might just mean we have not accounted for all possible chance hypotheses. And once we have accounted for all chance hypotheses, can anything provide a positive CSI reading? E.g. maybe we have just left the intelligent agent out of our calculation, and that is what makes it positive. But, then we are engaged in special pleading. We can only avoid this if we include the intelligent agent in our chance hypothesis. But then, what is the nature of intelligence that if we include intelligent agency in our calculation then it must give us a positive CSI reading? For example, in your vitalist scenario, information from another realm is not going to give us a positive CSI reading, if we include this other realm in our calculation. We only get positive CSI if we leave some causal source out of our calculation, and again that is special pleading. So, CSI itself cannot tell us whether anything is an intelligent agent or not, because whatever cause for the effect that you leave out can be the source of the positive CSI, and the cause may or may not be intelligent. All CSI tells us is that our causal explanation for some effect is incomplete. In which case, it is no different than a Bayesian likelihood test. Nor does CSI eliminate chance and necessity, because we have to leave a chance and necessity cause out of our explanation in order to get positive CSI. So, again, ID does not contribute anything new here.EricMH_{September 4, 2019
September
09
Sep
4
04
2019
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply