“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

BravoUpright BiPed_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

I'm hearing you GEM! Start photoshopping up the team and see how spiffy the ID heavyweight would look ... with martini glasses.AussieID_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

First of all, in the absence of WLC, may I offer a thought or two about the "problem" of consciousness and/or the existence of an immaterial mind? Let's assume for the moment that there is no immaterial aspect to us. There is no soul or mind or spirit or whatever word one wants to use to denote a non-physical aspect of our being. And let's assume that the entire materialist project is correct, that there are no non-material things that exist, that are real. In other words (if I understand correctly) everything that actually exists is composed of sub-atomic particles in energy fields (in the current language of physics) and is thus explainable in those terms (the laws of physics). Since everything is material (or physical or natural, it's all of a piece for the purposes of this discussion) and we only have five senses by means of which we interact with, or are aware of, the material world, then it necessarily follows that all we know is what we can sense. Right? If all that exists is material, and the only way we can interact with the material world is by means of our five senses, then obviously we can only know of material things (since that's all that exists) and we can only know what we sense. The question then arises, How is it that I am aware that my senses sometimes deceive me? We ARE aware of this, are we not? If I were to fill a glass with water and then put a pencil in it the pencil would appear bent to me. But I know it's not bent. How would I know that? How would it even be possible for me to know that? If ALL I know is what I sense, then I would ONLY know that the pencil is bent when it is in a glass of water and that it is not bent when it is removed. But I DO know that the pencil is not really bent. The modus tollens argument now goes like this. If I was JUST a sensing machine then I could never know that my senses were deceiving me. But I do know that my senses deceive me. (The aforementioned pencil in a glass of water, mirages, the apparent convergence of parallel lines, mirages and other optical illusions, symbols, information, and so forth.) Therefore, there is more to me than my senses. We also know this because we are aware of the aforementioned laws of physics (oddly enough, part of the materialist ontology though as far as I know, no one has ever tasted, touched, heard, smelled, or felt E=mc^2, for example). We could construct another modus tollens argument. 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... This bears on the information problem because the existence of information of any kind requires at least the following things. The first principles of reason or the laws of rational thought. (Identity, Non-contradiction, Excluded Middle, Causality) A "local" language. (symbols and rules - here, English) "Free" will. (The symbols are manipulated, or arranged, according to the rules of logic and language, not the laws of physics.) Intentionality. (If I did not intend to communicate anything, I wouldn't be communicating. But I am communicating. So I DO INTEND to communicate. A mind. What else would we call that immaterial part of us that rationally, freely, and purposefully manipulates symbols to create messages? There is ACTUAL purpose in the universe and every time Richard Dawkins says there isn't he is purposefully saying so.) We also need a sender, a receiver, and a communication channel (always a material phenomenon). Well, so much for materialism. It's a ridiculous notion if you think about it for more than 2 or 3 minutes.tgpeeler_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

MI, you are still focused on the wrong end of the process. The issue is not whether "living things" were originally designed by a supernatural act. The issue is whether, in principle, A living thing, can be designed by a non-supernatural agent (such as a human being). You have not begun to demonstrate that this is necessarily impossible.Barry Arrington_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

Correction: The only living things known to exist [which are potentially capable of designing living things] are human beings.material.infantacy_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

The design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature). Abductive inference; historical possibilities: 1) A supernatural agent designed living things. We know that a supernatural act was required to produce a universe finely tuned for life. It is reasonable to conclude, lacking other credible or more likely past causes, that a similar act and/or a similar being was necessary for the genesis of living things, which defy natural explanations. By way of inference, the nature of the act which caused the universe is similar to that which caused living beings to come into existence; or a being with similar qualities (supernatural) was required to act in order for living things to come into existence. 2) A living thing designed living things. While this is a reasonable inference, we know of no living thing capable of such a feat. The only living things known to exist are human beings. From the beginning of recorded history, our understanding of living systems has been on the rise, and its pinnacle exists in the present. Since our current understanding of biology/chemistry/physics cannot currently produce living things, it is reasonable to conclude that in no time in our history was such possible either. Since we know of no other living being intelligent enough to design another living thing, this explanation is sorely lacking. 3) Material causes produced living things. While this will always remain a logical possibility, there are absolutely no known material/natural forces capable of producing living beings. Since we cannot appeal to the unknown as an explanation, this is entirely devoid of explanatory power. By way of logical inference, item 1 is the best explanation. A supernatural act was required to design living things.material.infantacy_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

While I am unaware of life forms that have been designed (and implemented) from raw materials, there are existing designs which have been modified and implemented using wholly natural means (e.g., genetic engineering). So we know that it is possible for an intelligent agent to modify an existing design (side question: are those modifications detectable?). I do not see it is possible to maintain that the design of a life form requires a supernatural means. However, I am at a loss of how EVERY life form (think complex life forms) could be designed and implemented using natural means. That to me is a far more interesting question.fmarotta_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Petrushka,
If there is no supernatural cause in the chain of designers, there is no need for the design hypothesis.
Yes there is - to know if stuff was designed. I'm pretty sure that regardless of what you or I believe, we would both use the same logic in most cases to determine whether a thing was designed. We might not even think about it. What does a 'supernatural cause in the chain of designers' have to do with it?ScottAndrews_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

If by “intervention” one means “design,” I suppose it does. One might even say that the design hypothesis requires at least one instance of design. Yes, Mark. That is glaringly obvious, but I don’t see how it advances the ball.
You have not addressed the primary issue, which is whether a chain of designers could exist without a first designer. If designer C was designed by designer B, and B by A, then A is required for C to exist. If A can be the result of natural processes, then the entire chain of design is the result of natural processes. This would merely be an extension of naturalistic evolution.Petrushka_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

No prize. Same reason.Barry Arrington_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

“The problem is the contest doesn’t address the burning issue, which is whether the ID hypothesis requires at least one supernatural intervention.” 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.Barry Arrington_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

Here's another try: Life is material. Matter is based on immaterial things. These immaterial things are fundamental particles which do not conform to physical laws. The fundamental particles are therefore, supernatural. Life, therefore, is supernatural. :)Collin_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

If by “intervention” one means “design,” I suppose it does. One might even say that the design hypothesis requires at least one instance of design. Yes, Mark. That is glaringly obvious, but I don’t see how it advances the ball.Barry Arrington_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

Where’s the supernatural?
The story is a metaphor or parable. If there is no supernatural cause in the chain of designers, there is no need for the design hypothesis. If the first designer is the result of supernatural creation or design, then all subsequent designers could not exist without the first, and supernatural intervention is required. The last domino would not fall without the first.Petrushka_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Under the law, if I recruit and pay someone to kill my wife, and that person builds a device that fires a gun when someone opens a door, and that results in a death, is the device responsible, or are the people in the chain of causation responsible?
Where's the supernatural? It's not a question of intervention. Design is intervention. But is it supernatural?ScottAndrews_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

I think he sees the point. I think he is correct that no one will win the prize. I don't think anyone expected to. The problem is the contest doesn't address the burning issue, which is whether the ID hypothesis requires at least one supernatural intervention. Even if the intervention satisfies the precept of Deism, that all things are embodied in creation, and no further interventions occur. That seems to be Michael Denton's position in Nature's Destiny. I suspect the ID community is rather divided on Nature's Destiny. I don't see it discussed as much as Darwin's Black Box. I certainly don't see many ID supporters agreeing with Denton that the mainstream description of evolution is correct. ------------------ Although I have no expectation of winning the prize, I do believe that ID needs to address its problem with big numbers. By which I mean, how does a finite, naturalistic designer acquire and manage the CSI (or FSCI, or whatever) necessary to design and build genomes? If functional space exceeds the particle count of the universe, and function is not connectable, there cannot be a database large enough to store it. On the other hand, if there can be some kind of shortcut or rule of thumb to make design possible without knowing the product of every gene sequence, then the information is either connected, compressible or algorithmic. In either case the quantity of FSCI is lower than what is usually asserted. Making all the probability calculations wrong.Petrushka_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

The question is not whether there has or has not been intervention. The question that motivated this thread is whether the ID hypothesis requires at least one instance of intervention.
Exactly - I am surprised Barry did not see this rather glaringly obvious point.markf_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

One can also make the point from the bottom up by asking the critic to explain how he extracts a supernatural entity from the ID methodolgies of "irreducible complexity" or "specified complexity." It can't be done. Case closed.StephenB_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

The question is not whether there has or has not been intervention. The question that motivated this thread is whether the ID hypothesis requires at least one instance of intervention. You are a lawyer, Barry. Under the law, if I recruit and pay someone to kill my wife, and that person builds a device that fires a gun when someone opens a door, and that results in a death, is the device responsible, or are the people in the chain of causation responsible? Suppose the people who commissioned and built the device are out of the country at the time of the killing? Are the people necessary or "required" in order for the death to occur? Requirements are not removed simply by being displaced in time and space.Petrushka_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Indeed, the question was the design of A living thing. I agree, I answered something else. However, the mighty big controversy is not about if a living thing, or a particular protein etc can be designed at all. I do not think that even Darwinists would deny the possibility of these. Instead, the big issue is if life around us is designed or not. I think those who claim that when ID is applied to all life around us it will lead to supernatural explanations are right, even if they are materialistic evolutionists. This is where the evidence leads...Alex73_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews. Exactly!!! I've been waiting for someone to make this rather glaringly obvious point.Barry Arrington_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

No prize. You have not demonstrated that the creation of a simple living thing is, in principle, more than an exercise in super-sophisticated physics and chemistry that is, in principle, beyond the capacity of, for example, human bio-engineers. The contest is not about the design of "all living things." It is about the design of "a living thing."Barry Arrington_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

Perhaps a little diagram will clarify things: Suppose: A->creates->B->creates->C->creates->D Lets say that for the sake of this thread, C is a human and D is a life form created by C. D would not exist without c; C would not exist without B; B would not exist without A. Therefore A is required in order for D to exist. If A is a supernatural entity (a deity, non-material cause, or a first cause, outside or prior to material reality), then a supernatural cause is necessary for D to exist.Petrushka_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

Alex, nice try but no prize. You have not demonstrated that the creation of a simple living thing is, in principle, more than an exercise in super-sophisticated physics and chemistry that is, in principle, beyond the capacity of, for example, human bio-engineers.Barry Arrington_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

If there was a valid answer to this question then it couldn't come from a materialist. How can anyone who believes that life came about without any intervention demonstrate that it requires intervention, and supernatural at that? Accidental or supernatural, but nowhere in between?ScottAndrews_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Here's my best shot: God is supernatural. God created all intelligence. Therefore no intelligence that is not created by a supernatural Being. If life exists, it was created or at least partially desigend by an intelligence. If it weren't for God, a supernatural being, no life would exist. Therefore, the supernatural is necessary for life even if the intelligence that creates it is, itself, natural.Collin_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

You forgot the word "necessarily." Arrington is not saying that life did not come about by supernatural means. Instead, he is saying that it did not HAVE to come about by supernatural means. I can be designed by natural means. Prove him wrong, get $1000.Collin_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

I'm using the term supernatural in it's common sense, to include any or all deities or non-material causes. If we are to carry on a dialog it is important to understand that everyone involved is doing his best to understand the problem and come to agreement on terms. For example, when evolutionists assert that the origin of life is not part of evolution, they are acknowledging a large unsolved problem. It's a mystery. It might be solved by invoking natural causes, or it might not be. But using the analogy of the Rube Goldberg device, the operation of the device can be described without knowing how it was constructed. The behavior of the device is deterministic in the ordinary sense of the term. It could receive instructions by remote control (just a s living things could be continuously subject to alterations by non-material intervention). So we could characterize the ID hypothesis as asserting at least one intervention (creation) and possibly multiple interventions. Possibly even continuous operation by remote control. But the ID hypothesis cannot stand if the machine self-assembled, or if it is possible for such machines to self-assemble. So either the ID hypothesis is unnecessary, or it requires at least one intervention.Petrushka_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

KF - that's exactly the point - what is necessary for designers to exist in the first place? In terms of the competition - are any supernatural acts required at all - is the existence of a non supernatural intelligent designer contingent on some supernatural act because if it is then the ability of the non supernatural designer to create life depends on a supernatural act.DrBot_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

If the designer of a living thing could not exist without itself being designed, then either the designer is itself entirely the product of natural causes, or it is the result of supernatural causes. If the designer is entirely the result of natural causes, the ID assumption is unnecessary. If the designer is the result of supernatural causes, then it is merely a link in a chain initiated by a necessary supernatural cause. the fact that the initial cause is in the past does not make it unnecessary. From a legal standpoint, a murder might be carried out by an Rube Goldberg device set up and left unattended. The fact that it operates unattended does not make its creator not responsible or not required. The terms of the contest only specify that a supernatural act be required. The rules are not limited in time. So if humans could not exist without a supernatural initiating event, they are merely the Rube Goldberg device. If humans could exist without a supernatural initiating event, then the ID hypothesis is unnecessary.Petrushka_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply