“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

DrBot, A search searches. It does not innovate. You don't get to DVDs from CDs by a search. You can perhaps improve upon something with a GA, but only by specifying which alterations are possible and defining what is an improvement. If usability is a fitness measure, you can never, ever make the transition from CDs to DVDs through incremental changes. (Very simple compared to living organisms.) A search cannot accomplish it. Only design can. I wonder if anyone disagrees.ScottAndrews_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

Sorry no. Please read the OP carefully and fully.Barry Arrington_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Since as far as we know no embodied agent can do this, such an agent is most likely disembodied (i.e. supernatural).
Is the choice necessarily between a known embodied agent and a disembodied agent, or are there other options?ScottAndrews_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

As for the monkeys, well, selection is when something matches the target and inheritance is just letting the monkeys keep typing.
Inheritance - When existing features are copied. Monkeys keep typing - just creating more random noise. They are very obviously not the same thing Joseph. At best the metaphor would get closer if the monkeys were making minor changes to a script, passing it to a group of editors with vague and constantly changing standards who then pass back approved scripts to the monkeys, who then make some more changes, and so on. But even then it is still only a crude metaphor.DrBot_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus, I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me or correcting me. I dont know what FN means. If you are disagreeing , I dont see how the dictionary definitions are in disagreement with me. I still didn't see suspension of as a definition but rather more of the super, above, exceeding, other, which I agree are the main meanings. In my statement I was specifically critical of the ie- suspension of natural laws idea of the meaning, as being too limited and even a bit innaccurate if offered as the general and main meaning of supernatural. Other than that I'm sure you understand I am in complete general agreement with the main idea.Michael Servetus_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT}

Evolution, in the context of searches, is NOT a random search.
Evolution, in the context of the blind watchmaker, isn't a search and it is random as natural selection is only a minor player: The Strength of Natural Selection in the Wild
Natural selection disappears as a biological force and reappears as a statistical artifact. The change is not trivial. It is one thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution; it is quite another thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of various regression correlations between quantitative characteristics. It hardly appears obvious that if natural selection is simply a matter of correlations established between quantitative traits, that Darwin's theory has any content beyond the phenomenological, and in the most obvious sense, is no theory at all. Be that as it may, the real burden of Kingsolver's study lies in the quantitative conclusions it reaches. Two correlations are at issue. The first is linear, and corresponds to what in population genetics is called directional selection; and the second quadratic, and corresponds either to stabilizing or disruptive selection. These are the cornerstones of the modern hill and valley model of much of mathematical population genetics. Kingsolver reported a median absolute value of 0.16 for linear selection, and a median absolute value of 0.10 for quadratic selection. Thus an increase of one standard deviation in, say, beak finch length, could be expected to change fitness by only 16 percent in the case of linear selection, and 10 percent in the case of quadratic selection. These figures are commonly understood to represent a very weak correlation. Thus if a change in the length of a beak's finch by one standard deviation explains 16 percent of the change in the population's fitness, 84 percent of the change is not explained by selection at all.
As for the monkeys, well, selection is when something matches the target and inheritance is just letting the monkeys keep typing.Joseph_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

Pardon, but the issue is design of cell based life . . .kairosfocus_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT}

Some theologians argue that they have solved the problem of infinite regress. This thread stipulates natural means, so that's what needs to be addressed. No theology. If the infinite regress of designers can be resolved without reference to an undesigned designer, then the point of the contest is moot. Simply bring on the solution and be done with it. But pushing the regress backward does not solve the problem. If the undesigned designer is ultimately the result of natural processes, then the ID hypothesis is unnecessary.Petrushka_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT}

All embodied intelligent agents, that we know of, can only construct designs that are ruled by chance and necessity. 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. Since this power is beyond chance and necessity, it must be created by an agent who can create things not bound by chance and necessity. Since as far as we know no embodied agent can do this, such an agent is most likely disembodied (i.e. supernatural). Note that the current lack of ability on the part of embodied intelligent agents is not a matter of degree. It isn't the case that as we develop more clever techniques we'll get closer and closer to creating new agents that can intelligently design. The ability to create such agents is a boolean property, and cannot be approximated through by a chance and necessity artifact of any level of sophistication whatsoever. We just flat out do not have the ability to create intelligent agents. Therefore, I believe it is most accurate to say, upon the state of our knowledge, that the design of an intelligent agent requires a supernatural act. Whether all designs of living beings require a similar supernatural act is not addressed here, but as long as living beings exist, and require intelligent design to exist, then there must be a supernatural act somewhere in the chain to create at the very least an intelligent designer. Does this suffice for the $1000?Eric Holloway_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT}

Paley: Look a watch. It was obviously designed. Materialist: Your position is unscientific because if that watch really is designed, God has to exist. Paley: Lulwut?englishmaninistanbul_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT}

The claim is made elsewhere on this thread that this line of reasoning has been refuted many times. I haven't been able to find an instance that isn't theistic, and this thread is arguing that no supernatural designer is implied by ID. Even if the argument has been refuted elsewhere, this is a thread of record, considering the prize involved. I am specifically requesting a response to the post above, 12.1.2.2. It might have been better to substitute "designs" for "creates." I don't think it matters, though.Petrushka_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
01:37 AM
1
01
37
AM
PDT}

NS is a CULLER, a subtract-er of information (on failure to perform adequately) so it is not the actual info source. So, the source is held to be chance variation, i.e chance. Which is manifestly inadequate in the teeth of the search space challenge, hence the million monkeys challenge.
Where in the monkeys metaphor is the inheritance and the selection? Monkeys banging typewriters in the hope of finding a fixed target is at best a crude approximation of a random search. Evolution, in the context of searches, is NOT a random search. Monkeys at typewriters is a metaphor for a DIFFERENT TYPE OF SEARCH than evolution. This isn't rocket science, even my first year undergraduate students are able to understand these differences so I have to be blunt KF - your drumbeat repetition of this long dealt with talking point simply illustrates that you are severely in need of a proper education when it comes to the field of computational search methods.DrBot_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
12:27 AM
12
12
27
AM
PDT}

Actually Petrushka, I and others have demolished the infinite regress argument so many times on this site that we no longer bother addressing it. It is boring.
The simplest approach Barry is to just make this explicit in the challenge - amend the challenge as follows: “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, where that agent is entirely the product of natural events, necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature).”DrBot_{September 14, 2011
September
09
Sep
14
14
2011
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT}

Alas, I would not even try photoshop games, but the link shows the sorts of suits I have in mind. A bit of imagination, with a Dembski, or a Behe, or a Meyer decked out in a numbered, monogrammed cheap tux suit -- a step up from polo tee shirts! -- with a nice badge featuring the flagellum on the shield and the log reduced Chi metric would be great: Chi_500 = I*S - 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold . . . I favour orange or a touch of the green [but then I have Irish roots back in there . . . ] Tag team debates with tux suited teams . . . (Now, Forrest or Scott in a cheap tux would be worth the price for the DVD alone.)kairosfocus_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT}

MI: Design is premised on intelligence, skill, knowledge and purpose, not embodiment as a human being. Cf the discussion here on beavers.kairosfocus_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

Cell based life is art, and uses ART-ificial (computer) language.kairosfocus_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT}

F/N: Vocab correction needed:
MS: I think that saying, ” the laws of nature ie.- the suspension of natural laws”– is a very limited and inaccurate usage of the word supernatural. Supernatural definitely has the connotation of being supernatural as in above and beyond(exceeding) natural, not necessarily the suspension of.
Let's go to the tape . . . Am HD: >> su·per·nat·u·ral (spr-nchr-l) adj. 1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. 2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. 3. Of or relating to a deity. 4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous. 5. Of or relating to the miraculous. n. That which is supernatural. super·natu·ral·ly adv. super·natu·ral·ness n. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. >> That is the NORMAL meaning of this term. And, in that context, the work of engineers etc. is most definitely not regarded as supernatural, but instead -- cf "state of the art" technology [a clue . . . ] -- as art [Gk., TECHNE, in Plato's term in The Laws, Bk X], cf. here on and here on. That we see this sort of attempted agenda-serving redefinition of supernatural is revealing as to what is really going on. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT}

MI: The original post, in context of cell based C-Chemistry aqueous medium life as observed, can -- without material distortion -- be rendered as a hyp to be confirmed, thusly:
necessarily, IF life is the product of design, THEN "a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature)" is required as an aspect of that design
This means the same as, that it is to be evaluated whether it is impossible to design a life form of the relevant type without having to do one or more miracles. That is, inference to design of the relevant form of life is necessarily an inference to the supernatural -- and notice that modal operator again. In this form, it should be obvious what Mr Arrington is getting at: he is demanding substantiation of the often repeated ASSERTION that the design inference on the origin of life in the relevant forms is an inference to "the supernatural." Should such be provided in a reasonable form, he has put a prize on the table. What I provided at 13 above, is a way to dismiss the assertion by proof of concept and reasonable extrapolation. Namely, Venter et al (the other genetic engineers) show that molecular nanotech is capable of manipulating the key components of life, it being taken for granted that he disciplines of organic and biological chemistry suffice to show that such can be synthesised, in principle. [And I don't doubt that sufficiently sophisticated programmable nanomachines could assemble life chemicals, as the Ribosome shows.] Now, I have seen where, from the very first design theory technical work, Thaxton et al in TMLO in 1984, this possibility has been accepted and affirmed. Indeed, it is a part of the basis for another ID principle, that is so often twisted into an attack point by rhetors who should know better: the mere fact of an inference on warrant to design of life forms, is not an inference to a designer of any particular kind, within or beyond the cosmos, apart form that designers are intelligent, knowledgeable, skilled and purposeful. It seems that -- on the most charitable interpretation -- such rhetors are begging the question in the teeth of the accessible evidence. And even on such relatively charitable interpretation -- instead of outright willful big lie propaganda tactics -- there is an evident design to smear as "creationists in cheap tuxedos" that is plainly unwarranted. The whole "natural vs supernatural" dichotomy exercise is fallacious, once one sees that ever since PLATO, the obvious alternative on the table is nature vs art. And, as the one who has pioneered and often highlighted this point around UD, I notice that there is a distinct unwillingness on the part of objectors to ID to acknowledge this fairly obvious point. There is something very wrong, and frankly very irresponsible, in the thinking of far too many objectors to design theory. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT}

(1)...ID does not posit a supernatural designer. and (2)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). and (3)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. So... one is supposed to show that something requires the supernatural (point 2 above) and one is also supposed to work under the assumption that that something in not supernatural (point 3 above)? That sounds like a rigged contest to me. And no, ID does not require all designers (of living things) to be supernatural. But in order to show that (1) is wrong one doesn't have to show (2). One only has to show that at least ONE instance of the design of living things requires something supernatural. Again, the contest is rigged.HawksTwo_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT}

Here is my entry: God is supernatural. Life is given by God. (This is my belief as to where Life comes from) -Life is the “Intelligent Agent”. -Life is immaterial, invisible, spiritual, eternal, and immortal; therefore, Life is supernatural. -Matter is material, visible, physical, temporal, and mortal; therefore, Matter is natural. -“A living thing” is created by Life that is contained by Matter. -All living things require action from Life in order to live. -Life, being supernatural, cannot be created nor destroyed, but the Matter that contains it changes form, which gives the illusion that Life is created and/or destroyed. But it is not. Material form and Death is the illusion. -The perception of “Intelligence” within Matter originates from the “Intelligent Agent”, which is Life. -The perception of “Design” within Matter originates from the effects of Life upon Matter, which is order. -In order to fully understand “Intelligent Design”, one must seek Life within the supernatural. -The “laws of nature” are attempts to describe the working of the supernatural from the perspective of the natural without recognizing the supernatural. -The perspective of the natural leads to a materialist worldview (Anti-Religion religion). -A materialist worldview is “blind” to a spiritual worldview. -A spiritual worldview is seen from the perspective of the supernatural. -The perspective of the supernatural and the secrect to the mystery of Life, which is the same as the secrect to the mystery of Intelligent Design, which is the same as the secret to the mystery of God, is contained within the words of the Holy Bible. -Unfortunately for the materialist, there is no book written for them other than that which they write for themselves. -Consequently, the “laws of nature” remain incomplete because it is impossible for a materialist to figure out how to suspend them. -When Life, and the supernatural, are brought into light, the “laws of nature” will be made complete. -When the “laws of nature” are made complete, it will be shown that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act.John W Kelly_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

It has also occured to me that ultimately the supernatural must be natural, primordial and first. I said and do believe that intelligence rises above what nature can produce and yet any supernatural intelligence must exist on its own and be self existent not to mention eternal and nearly unthinkable, yet it must be so. Of course I am speaking of creaturely intelligence as we know it not divine intelligence, yet life to the divine must be natural to itself. So what to call such a thing, which is like existence collapsing in on itslef under its own weight being incapable logically of bearing it, and logic being also a part of that order also collapsing under its own weight. What is left? The only thing left to think , is that which has already been thought by others, that our very ideas of nature are reflections of this present order which is insufficient unto itself and does not match what it has produced, this providing us the room to question to search, to doubt and to wonder. This implies another order which this order receives its impression from, which is true reality, a reality beyond the materials we see and that make it up. From this we understand that the things that are seen were made by things unseen. Though that is simple bible, it lines up and ends up agreeing with reason, just not materialist atheistic philosophyMichael Servetus_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT}

I think that saying, " the laws of nature ie.- the suspension of natural laws"-- is a very limited and inaccurate usage of the word supernatural. Supernatural definitely has the connotation of being supernatural as in above and beyond(exceeding) natural, not necessarily the suspension of. That being said, my mind is naturally drawn to the think of life and intelligence themselves as being inescapeably supernatural, that is as not existing on their own as naturally occuring fruits of the materials of nature alone but in need of some sort of infusion and direction above and beyond their limited nature. I also think the bible and reason lead that way as well. Nature to my mind equal exactly lifelesness and death, that is more naturally occuring, that seems to be the law that is in operation and towards which all things return when left to themselves. Life is the opposite, an opposing force, a definite miracle according to numbers. It is like observing a stream flow upward, we would instantly know that it is not the ordinary act of nature though it involves natures works. Death is the return to a natural state, life is a vacation from the laws of nature, which the gospel offers the promise of eternal life too.Michael Servetus_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

Barry, see my post at 15.1.3. The "design" of life is necessarily dependent upon a "language of life." This language is "outside" of nature (physics). Therefore, the design of life requires a super-natural cause (of the language of life, at least).tgpeeler_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

One of the factors that all life have in common is DNA. All living things have a genetic code which contains biological information that is expressed in the phenotype (and behavior?) of the organism. I don't know what the current status of viruses is, but even if they are not considered to be alive when dormant they still have RNA, at least, and therefore contain biological information. Per my recent post at 6.1 in this thread, reason, language, "free will," intentionality, and a mind (Mind in the case of original life, I would argue) are required for the creation of any kind of information. All of these things are outside the laws of physics (nature), that is, they cannot be described or explained by reference to physical laws (see Yockey 2005 or my own reasoning above). Therefore, some things outside of the laws of nature are required for FIRST LIFE (at least) to come to be (I note GEMs post on Venter). There has to be a biological language (that I suspect 'we' - an editorial 'we' if there ever was one) that I would bet is amazingly complex and which I'd also bet 'we' still understand very little of it. Maybe 'we' know what the alphabet is and how to form a few phrases but 'we' certainly can't "write" Shakespeare yet or more appropriately understand how it is written. Yet. This biological language is impossible to describe in terms of the laws of physics/nature. Therefore, something outside of "nature" is necessary for the origin of this biological language and the life expressed by it. (See Küppers 1995 that the question of the origin of life is the question of the origin of information. He's a materialist so he gets the answer wrong but at least he recognizes the right question to ask.) I can dress it up if you like but that's the guts of it. :-)tgpeeler_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

Second, here you’re asking us to demonstrate a negative...
It is, of course, impossible to demonstrate that something cannot be done. At least in cases where the task and available resources are not clearly specified. But design usually requires knowledge of the properties of the materials being used. In the case of coding sequences, there is no database of functional coding sequences. Based on calculations that nearly everyone agrees on, there cannot, in principle, be such a database in the real world. And if there were, the problem is compounded by the necessity of knowing the subtle effects of all the non-coding sequences. Something made more complex by them being affected by location. The problem of big numbers that is argued to make evolution impossible also makes design impossible. At least by an entity bound by the resources of the natural universe.Petrushka_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

I've only seen it addressed in the context of theology. I've never seen it addressed without reference to a deity or non-material entity. Perhaps there's some standard write-up or page that could be linked that satisfies the terms of this thread, that there is no reference to anything supernatural.Petrushka_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

For the record, this is not a protest, it's an observation.
You have not begun to demonstrate that this is necessarily impossible.
A couple of points. First, this is not in the OP. This is the first mention of "impossible" here in the thread. The OP asks us 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)." To paraphrase, the design of life is contingent on a supernatural act. Second, here you're asking us to demonstrate a negative, by asking for a demonstration of the impossibility of a thing. This doesn't seem completely reasonable. Lest I be accused of whining, I’ll withhold further commentmaterial.infantacy_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

You have not begun to demonstrate that this is necessarily impossible.
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. It is simply not possible to store the data on functional sequences in the physical resources available in the universe. This view is strongly supported by the same math used to infer ID. Problems involving large numbers are currently being addressed by evolutionary algorithms. If humans ever do design a novel life form that is not a copy of anything existing, it will require simulations of evolution and by using directed evolution. A more interesting question would be can a non-supernatural designer design a life form without using evolution or evolutionary algorithms.Petrushka_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

Actually Petrushka, I and others have demolished the infinite regress argument so many times on this site that we no longer bother addressing it. It is boring.Barry Arrington_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

Your wording in the challenge seems consistent with a necessary cause ("requires"). In both cases I have demonstrated such, IMO. The requirement that we demonstrate the impossibility of such is absent from the OP. With no disrespect intended, each attempt here brings elucidation of your intent, which is not clear in the OP. I'm trying to satisfy the challenge as it is written, not as I suppose you intended. My original entry demonstrated the necessity of a supernatural act (a necessary cause/condition) which defeats a material explanation. You seemed to miss this point, and instead disqualified me for demonstrating that the universe required a supernatural act. I'll protest no more. Best, m.i.material.infantacy_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply