“Put Up or Shut Up!” OK, UD Puts Up $1,000.00 Prize

_{Barry Arrington

September 12, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

ID is often disparaged as “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.” One assumes the point being made is that ID is a stalking horse for theistic creationists. Now, as has been explained on this site many times, while many ID proponents are theists, ID itself stands apart from theistic belief. For the umpteenth time, ID does not posit a supernatural designer. Nor does ID posit any suspension of the laws of nature.
To drive this point home UD is going to put its money where its mouth is. UD hereby offers a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature).
Update: Some commenters have gotten bogged down on whether an immaterial mind counts as supernatural. The answer is “no.” If an immaterial mind counts as supernatural and all intelligent agents including humans have immaterial minds, then all volitional acts of all intelligent agents would be supernatural acts. That’s a silly way to construe the word “supernatural.” It is not how the word is used in ordinary English usage and it is not how the word is used for purposes of this contest. Resolving the hard problem of consciousness is not necessary for this contest. Therefore, we will simply avoid it, and contestants shall operate under the assumption I made in this post. Specifically, I wrote: “Therefore, I am going to make a bold assumption for the sake of argument. Let us assume for the sake of argument that intelligent agents do NOT have free will, i.e., that the tertium quid does not exist. Let us assume instead, for the sake of argument, that the cause of all activity of all intelligent agents can be reduced to physical causes.”

Comments

Yes, though of a lesser extent. But, I'd say it perhaps is in the same species as the miracles created by God. Miracles are essentially creating something out of nothing. While I as a mere mortal cannot quite do that, in every act of ID I do create something that previously did not exist, in the strict information theoretic sense that all actions of a C&N mechanism did exist before actually being instantiated.Eric Holloway_{September 15, 2011
September
09
Sep
15
15
2011
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

DrBot:
If you incrementally search through that space, blindly and un-intelligently, the you will uncover every possible design that could ever exist.
Fair enough. The subject of searches and GAs came up and I went off on a bit of rant which wasn't entirely relevant.
Yes, GA’s have limits and so does biological evolution, and so do Human designers.
We haven't seen anything from a GA that would indicate it has the capabilities attributed to evolution. What we see are capabilities closer to what we observe in evolution. They have an edge, a limit.
GA’s can find solutions that designers don’t, and vice versa.
Not so, ever. Every solution found by a GA was found by whichever designer created the GA.ScottAndrews_{September 15, 2011
September
09
Sep
15
15
2011
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

EH: Was it a miracle -- as commonly understood -- for you to write your post? Gkairosfocus_{September 15, 2011
September
09
Sep
15
15
2011
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

And you will find nothing, because, being blind and unintelligent, you will move on from function to non-function without knowing the difference.
Please pay closer attention to what I said: If you incrementally search through that space, blindly and un-intelligently, the you will uncover every possible design that could ever exist. The point is that the search space contains all possible designs, and it is searchable. The method used to search determines how navigable the space is and consequently what areas of the search space can be reached.
Searches look for solutions to specific problems, and must be told what constitutes a solution
Or non specific problems. Look at multi target GA's and the like. As for being told about solutions, that can be implicit in the environment, as with life. There is no 'target' in the sense we use the work for search algorithms, there are just differential reproduction rates and a 'solution' is anything that can still replicate.
Every demonstration I’ve ever examined of a GA is both an impressive accomplishment and a demonstration of the limits of GAs.
Yes, GA's have limits and so does biological evolution, and so do Human designers. GA's can find solutions that designers don't, and vice versa. The behavior of a GA is constrained and results in design iterations and consequent patterns of descent that are distinguishable. We observe similar patterns in biology, for example nested hierarchies.
It doesn’t matter. Even if CDs could vary and be selected, they could never make a useful step-by-step transition to DVDs. But that’s beside the point.
No, that is entirely my point about metaphors. That there are, according to you, no stepwise routes from a CD to a DVD says nothing about evolution or searches - not everything is evolvable and not every search space is navigable using any search algorithm. Citing an apparently non evolvable transition between two different human designed objects has no bearing on what evolution can achieve with evolvable systems. It is a straw man argument.DrBot_{September 15, 2011
September
09
Sep
15
15
2011
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Several of us have argued, unopposed, that in the absence of evolution or evolutionary algorithms, it is impossible to design a living thing that is not a copy of an existing thing, or a slight modification.
Except evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life.
It is simply not possible to store the data on functional sequences in the physical resources available in the universe.
That is just a bald assertion.
Problems involving large numbers are currently being addressed by evolutionary algorithms.
Evolutionary algorithms do not mimic blind, undirected physical processes- ie they are ID.Joseph_{September 15, 2011
September
09
Sep
15
15
2011
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

First, a definition of terms: Aligned with the laws of nature means the entity operates entirely according to chance and necessity.
Reference please- you don't get to baldly declare stuff.Joseph_{September 15, 2011
September
09
Sep
15
15
2011
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

ID doesn't require the supernatural at any point in the "chain".Joseph_{September 15, 2011
September
09
Sep
15
15
2011
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

Here I show that all acts of ID are necessarily contrary to the laws of nature, and therefore supernatural. First, a definition of terms: Aligned with the laws of nature means the entity operates entirely according to chance and necessity. Contrary to the laws of nature means the entity does not operate entirely according to chance and necessity. It may do so partially, but to any degree which it doesn't then the entity is going against C&N and is consequently contrary to the laws of nature. Therefore, any entity that creates products according to a process not entirely bound by C&N is performing a supernatural act. Second, lets assume for the sake of argument that an intelligent agent is somehow the product of C&N. Perhaps it is an alien mind from some alternate dimension where Darwinism (a form of C&N) actually works and creates minds. Now, a process of C&N can only ever produce entities that are themselves entirely ruled by C&N. Therefore, everything the intelligent agent produces, even life, is a product of C&N. This agent in fact does produce a living being (LB). Let's apply the explanatory filter to LB. We know the history of LB, that it is the product of C&N. Therefore, we can explain its origin entirely according to C&N. Consequently, since the explanatory filter can only posit ID when an entity cannot be explained by C&N, no product whatsoever produced by the intelligent agent can ever be considered ID. The only way an intelligent agent can produce ID is if its product creation process is not entirely ruled by nor reducible to C&N. But, if this is the case, then the intelligent agent's creation of ID is contrary to the laws of physics. And, if its act is contrary to the laws of physics, then its act is supernatural. Therefore, any creation of ID is always a supernatural act. QED.Eric Holloway_{September 15, 2011
September
09
Sep
15
15
2011
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

#3 is the point Mr. Barrington is unclear on. Petrushka states that the real question is whether ID *requires* a supernatural act *somewhere* in the chain leading to the creation of life. Mr. Barrington explicitly states that is the intent of his question. So, I in turn show that ID *necessitates* such a supernatural act. Even if it is not necessarily required in the *final* design of the living being, is is definitely required in the causal chain. As Petrushka points out, the question has never really been whether ID implies the proximate causal agent of a living being be supernatural. Rather, the question has always been: does ID necessarily imply a supernatural agent *somewhere* in the causal chain. In short, either Mr. Barrington owes me $1000, or he is trying to avoid the issue.Eric Holloway_{September 15, 2011
September
09
Sep
15
15
2011
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

rhampton7 wrote: "I’ll offer anyone $1000 if they can prove that anything described as truly (scientifically/mathematically) random within this universe – like radioactive decay – by necessity excludes Divine Providence." You seem to be equating "truly random" with "scientifically/mathematically random." What is your basis for doing this? It is important for you to clarify this point, because if the two are not the same thing, then your offer conflates two quite different demands which would require two quite different proofs.Timaeus_{September 15, 2011
September
09
Sep
15
15
2011
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

Red herring. The issue is that design theory is held to infer from empirically tested signs that a particular object or process is credibly directly the work of design. This has been falsely accused of being an inference to the supernatural. Now that that accusation stands exposed as at 13 above -- just for this thread, we see not any serious response but a diversion. Absolutely telling.kairosfocus_{September 15, 2011
September
09
Sep
15
15
2011
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT}

In short the context is obviously the commonly heard accusation that inference to design of life is inference to the supernatural rather than to art. This was answered at 13 above, but of course MF ignores whatever I have to say on flimsy and transparent -- but obviously convenient, passive aggressive -- excuses.kairosfocus_{September 15, 2011
September
09
Sep
15
15
2011
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT}

The uncertainties are plainly manufactured: a: unless otherwise notified, the supernatural is used in the ordinary sense -- any special one needs to be justified b: the issue is causal process, so the issue is whether design and implementation of life requires a miracle or could in reasonable principle be done by engineering -- which was of course shown long since. c: If a causal process is a design process, the miracle would obviously have to be part of that process, not in some vague background.kairosfocus_{September 15, 2011
September
09
Sep
15
15
2011
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

I applaud Barry for offering a prize for demonstrating that the ID hypothesis is necessary or required in order to explain living things. And I appreciate the opportunity participate in the discussion. I haven't had any serious problems with the terms of the contest. I realized after a few posts that the underlying premise is that humans, in principle if not in fact, can design living things. So I never expected anyone to win the money. What surprised me is the claim that this contest bears on the issue of whether the ID hypothesis requires at least one supernatural event.
If that does not address the issue of whether the ID hypothesis requires at least one supernatural intervention, it is difficult to imagine what would. 21.1.1.2.2
So if no one wins, the ID hypothesis is not affirmed. It isn't disproved, but the contest demonstrates that no one has demonstrated that natural causes are insufficient. I ventured over to "evolution News and Views" to see what they had to say. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/the_false_dichotomy_between_in050701.html Apparently it is within the scope of the ID hypothesis to say that God can use natural causes to effect design. If so, the ID inference falls back on the argument that it is not the existence of life, but the quantity of information encoded in life that makes intervention the best explanation. What surprised me in this contest is the assertion that humans can, in principle, using only the resources of the physical universe, manage this quantity of information. It is often pointed out that the number of possible coding sequences exceeds the number of particles in the universe. There have been references to improvements in technology, but no conceptual description of how this quantity of information might be acquired, stored or accessed by humans. (I'm assuming that when the contest refers to design, it implies original design, not a copy. It implies original protein coding sequences and original regulatory networks.) There is also the problem of designing, without copying, the cellular machinery and translation system of cells. It would be interesting to see a conceptual description of how humans would manage that quantity of information. I have an idea about how these problems could be approached, but I'm interested in the assertion, implied in this contest, that natural means and methods are sufficient. I would like to see an ID advocate present a specific plan of attack on the problem of large numbers, using only the resources available in the physical universe.Petrushka_{September 15, 2011
September
09
Sep
15
15
2011
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT}

If only material things existed then I could only be aware of material things. But I am aware of all sorts of immaterial things that actually exist in nature. (laws of physics, mathematics, laws of reason, economic laws, etc…) Therefore, abstract things exist. And if abstract things exist, things that I cannot sense, then how is it that I know of them????????? We have a mind, an immaterial part of us that can manipulate symbols and thus calculate, reason, remember, plan, etc… The trouble with this argument is that it makes an unwarranted jump from saying that since we are more than just our senses (yes, we are intelligent), then immaterial "things" must exist. The equivocation creeps in here because the nature of the existence of "immaterial things" is not defined. Are the laws of mathematics, or the law of gravity, or our conceptions of them in our brains, "things"? It's less misleading to think of them as relationships. Then it's easier to see how a machine, or an organism, can have a pretty good picture of the world, just by dint of being made of lots of little parts organized by design or evolution, without the need for any additional magic, which is of course what "immaterial things" are. Or does a computer need an "immaterial mind" too?therealzilch_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT}

The challenge was: UD hereby offers a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature). This is unclear in at last three respects: * What counts as "supernatural" * What counts as "necessarily" - logically necessary, physically necessary? * Whether the act has to be part of the design process or just be necessary for the design process to happen (in whatever sense of "necessary" is intended) So it is not clear what contestants have to do and Barry seems to be the sole judge of whether they have done it.markf_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT}

Becaue you did not demonstrate that which the contest required you to demonstrate in order to win the prize.Barry Arrington_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

There's no reason for ID to exclude supernatural agents because it says nothing about them one way or the other. What's more, ID is about looking for design, not excluding it. In the absence of a positive, it cannot distinguish between design and non-design. If I carefully arrange leaves on the ground to look random, there's no way to distinguish between my design and random leaves. If it isn't determined that radioactive decay is designed, design in general cannot be excluded, and therefore neither can supernatural design in particular be excluded. Hopefully it's clear that this is not the same thing as attributing radioactive decay to supernatural design.ScottAndrews_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

At least tell me why I didn't win!! :-) 15.1.3 (backed up by 6.1) and 25.1.1.3tgpeeler_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

As a corollary, I'll offer anyone $1000 if they can prove that anything described as truly (scientifically/mathematically) random within this universe - like radioactive decay - by necessity excludes Divine Providence. That is to say, ID theory does not claim that natural, material causation - even a universe comprised entirely of such causes - by necessity excludes a supernatural, intelligent agent as the source for said causation.rhampton7_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

"Right, the OP is about the direct design of living things, which I concur hasn’t been shown to require a supernatural act." You admit you failed to demonstrate that which the OP requied you to demonstate as a condition of winning the prize. So, nope, we don't owe you $1,000.Barry Arrington_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

DrBot,
If you incrementally search through that space, blindly and un-intelligently, the you will uncover every possible design that could ever exist.
And you will find nothing, because, being blind and unintelligent, you will move on from function to non-function without knowing the difference.
CD’s don’t reproduce with variety or go through a developmental cycle.
It doesn't matter. Even if CDs could vary and be selected, they could never make a useful step-by-step transition to DVDs. But that's beside the point. Searches look for solutions to specific problems, and must be told what constitutes a solution. Find me the best way to configure this circuit. Improve the reception of this antenna. A blind search can't come up with wheels and axles, placing a load on top and having a horse pull it. It certainly can't come up with a car. Or the horse. Every demonstration I've ever examined of a GA is both an impressive accomplishment and a demonstration of the limits of GAs.ScottAndrews_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

Right, the OP is about the direct design of living things, which I concur hasn't been shown to require a supernatural act, though I suspect it does. However, my argument does show that the ID hypothesis does require at least one supernatural act, per your response to Petrushka: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/put-up-or-shut-up-ok-ud-puts-up-1000-00-prize/comment-page-1/#comment-399359 "This statement is absurd. The contest is: “UD hereby offers a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature).” If that does not address the issue of whether the ID hypothesis requires at least one supernatural intervention, it is difficult to imagine what would." Somewhere in the causal chain that resulted in the design of a living being there had to be a supernatural act, according to my argument. So, according to what you say here, you owe me $1000.Eric Holloway_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

A search searches. It does not innovate.
Define innovation - if it is finding new solutions then searches innovate. Lets go back to basics, if your space of possible solutions is, for example, any configuration of matter, (i.e. anything possible) then any design that is possible falls within that space. If you incrementally search through that space, blindly and un-intelligently, the you will uncover every possible design that could ever exist. A search can, in theory, find any solution that a designer can produce. The issue is the nature of the search because some solutions are not reachable with some search techniques, and in some types of error landscape. Intelligence is a mechanism that can help make large jumps across solution spaces, but it can also constrain movement - the work on using GA's to design electronic circuits or antenna is good evidence of this because the GA's find solutions that intelligent designers tend to exclude - they generate inovation.
If usability is a fitness measure, you can never, ever make the transition from CDs to DVDs through incremental changes.
Yes. Metaphors are great, you can invoke a totally inappropriate metaphor for a subject, point out how wrong it is, then pretend it is evidence that supports your position. CD's don't reproduce with variety or go through a developmental cycle.
A search cannot accomplish it. Only design can. I wonder if anyone disagrees.
Searches can accomplish it, but it depends on the search system you use, and the solution domain, solution space topology etc. Search is a design method so I don't entirely disagree, you just have to know the subject properly to understand why.DrBot_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

I really don't get this. Doesn't it seem really likely that given the way technology is going, humans are going to be able to design and make life forms in labs within at least the next hundred years? So of course nobody could win this challenge, since that's obviously not supernatural. The challenge should really be something like "UD hereby offers a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by some unknown thing like a mind that exists outside of time and space and can still influence what happens inside ordinary time and space necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature). Of course, this would be too easy if you just take an ordinary idea of what supernatural is. It seems to me that nobody is going to be convinced one way or another about intelligent design by a bunch of playing around with words like this.Geoff99_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

Senses plainly meant, 4 and 5.kairosfocus_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

However, the construction of such designs requires a power beyond the rule of chance and necessity, otherwise ID can be reduced to chance and necessity.
This seems more than a little bit like the various versions of the regress argument put forth by several posters. They differ in details, but not in logic.Petrushka_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Perhaps you are saying that natural is a subset of supernatural, therefore anything natural is also supernatural. That might be logical, but it isn't the common understanding.Petrushka_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Try number 3. If the supernatural exists, then it is something that violates known laws of physics. If the supernatural exists, then it follows its own laws. Therefore, the supernatural's laws supercede natural law. Therefore, the supernatural law is in the same realm as natural law. Therefore, nature and supernature are the same. Therefore, whatever is called natural is also supernatural. Therefore, all life is created by a supernatural act. :)Collin_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

:)Collin_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply