“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

I think you owe Elliott Sober a $1000. From the abstract:
The denial that this theory is religious rests on the fact that it does not specify the identity of the designer -- a supernatural God or a team of extra-terrestrials could have done the work. The present paper attempts to show that this reply underestimates the commitments of the mini-ID Theory. The mini-ID theory, when supplemented with four independently plausible further assumptions, entails the existence of a supernatural intelligent designer.
markf_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT}

I'm sure you would agree KF that pointing out that non supernatural designers like humans can design life doesn't answer any fundamental question, it just begs more questions. The real issue, and the real challenge, would be to demonstrate how first life could come about without a supernatural act (or that a non-living designer can exist), or that it does require something super-natural - acting outside the laws that govern our universe. In other words if there are no natural designers in the universe then can natural processes generate designers? Otherwise the challenge is simply begging infinite regress - do we need to infer another natural designer to explain the origins of the designer that designed life ... etc ...DrBot_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT}

Alex, contrast nature vs art, so what you have to address is Ventor 7.0 not 0.1 as at present. Or, are you about to go found the First Church of Craig Ventor?kairosfocus_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT}

I'd prefer to get a cheap notebook or netbook at that price -- more use for it!kairosfocus_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT}

Looks like inflation has driven up the price of cheap tuxedos!kairosfocus_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT}

Sorry: Creationists USED already existing design arguments -- starting with "that Bible-thumping fundy" -- NOT -- Plato in The Laws, Bk X, 360 BC, they did not own or patent them. The core of Creationism in the relevant sense is that it holds that we have an accurate revelatory report on the actual course of origins, which we are to accept and use to control scientific interpretations and explanations of evidence. Design thought works in precisely the opposite direction, from evidence in the present and validated dynamics, on the uniformity principle, to a provisional abductive explanation of the past. If you insist on further talking points in denial of this patent fact, then that tells me a lot about you and none of it good, I am afraid. Insistence on slander in the teeth of cogent and accessible correction is not exactly a good sign of doing due diligence. Finally, I find something that totally discredits your effort above, when you list among your implied list of dismissible "Creationist" works:
63. Thaxton CB, Bradley WL, Olsen RL (1984) The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Philosophical Library, New York).
Sorry, TMLO is exactly the opposite of a creationist work, it is the first technical modern design theory work, and examines the evidence and arguments in exactly the way I described. If you want to say that because TBO were theists you can label their case as "Creationist," then I have far more warrant to dismiss almost the whole modern evolutionary edifice as thinly disguised materialistic subversion of science; starting with DARWIN. Do you really want to go here, to the infamous Oct 13, 1880 letter to Karl Marx's son in law?
. . . though I am a strong advocate for free thought [NB: free-thought is an old synonym for skepticism, agnosticism or atheism] on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought [= in effect, in context, skepticism and atheism] is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science. [of course, as redefined in materialistic terms, begging he worldview issues] It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family [NB: especially his wife, Emma], if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.
I suggest that if you want to play at motive games and attack the man tactics, we have much bigger matches to light than you do. Instead, I would suggest you focus on the actual merits. As to your attempted derision of issues tied to thermodynamics by a fallacious appeal to collective authority, I suggest you work through the step by step argument here, starting from Clausius on the definition of and warrant for the 2nd law. This is a matter to be settled on empirical and analytical merits, not the ruling of some magisterium dressed in the holy lab coat. And, I find -- on my own analysis as presented -- that in fact the pivotal issue (as Thaxton et al stated) that emerges from such an analysis is the origin of energy conversion devices that exhibit functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information. The only empirically well warranted explanation of such is design. As in, we are right back to the issue of CSI. So, FSCO/I is an empirically well supported and reliable sign of design, even when it is inconvenient for a priori Lewontinian Materialists dressed in the Holy Lab Coats and duly shaking them at us. Get over it.kairosfocus_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT}

Hi Barry, Let me try. If I win, you can send the prize money for any charity we can agree on. Well... If life is designed, then there had to be a design process preceeding the actual implementation. The design does not need to be complete. Incomplete designs can be perfected through trial-and-error (e.g. Darwinian) like procedures, however, we all agree that these methods are inefficient, they cannot do anything more than some optimization on existing stuff. Consequently, the design had to be at least near complete, as there is no evidence that natural processes could make a major contribution to it. Living systems do not seem to work like a linear program. Instead they are an infinitely intricate network of interactions, within the cell, within the specimen, within the species and so on, up to the biosphere level. The more we look the more interactions can be observed that regulate the great cycle of life. The number of possible interactions are astronomical, as potentially almost anything can interact with anything else. As the design had to be near complete, it had to include a documentation of these interactions. Considering the number of components in the biosphere, (not just proteins and DNA, but really everything), the possible permutations of interactions will easily exceed 10^80, the estimated number of baryons in the entire universe. So to design life as we know it, there is not enough storage capacity for the validation process, so the design cannot be done within this universe, but had to come from the "outside".Alex73_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
02:05 AM
2
02
05
AM
PDT}

Oh, it is now 13 below!kairosfocus_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT}

F/N 1: Observe the force of point 25 as just linked, on defining life on being self-moved, and initiatory as a cause. F/N 2: Observe, again; cell based life on earth, the context of the discussion, would have been sufficiently caused if a 7.0 version of Venter's molecular nanotech lab had done it. Venter's 0.1 version is proof of concept. F/N 3: This morning I see my own contribution above, overnight, mysteriously missing. What gives?kairosfocus_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT}

Question-begging, through a raft of implicit complex questions. You need to address the difference between life and biological life, and the distinction between a necessary being and a contingent one. Start here where this precise issue was addressed here at UD in recent weeks. This sort of ill-informed philosophical skepticism through a weak attempt at a reductio, is an inadvertent demonstration, instead of the want of a substantial case on the merits, and of basic philosophical education.kairosfocus_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
01:35 AM
1
01
35
AM
PDT}

re-writing a piece of software is not a proof of concept when it comes to creating a computer from scratch. When we talk about designing life we are talking about the whole entity - the cellular mechanisms that also include DNA, not just editing the DNA in a living thing that already exists.DrBot_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT}

Just a thought... Why does it have to be an all-or-nothing approach? Establishing that life AS WE KNOW IT is a product of ID would not prove that ALL life EVERYWHERE is a product of ID. It's not hard to speculate that a completely different form of life could in fact be produced by abiogenesis followed by mutation plus natural selection elsewhere in the universe, and that that such a form of life could be responsible for designing life on Earth, à la directed panspermia. At the time that Francis Crick proposed directed panspermia, to hijack Dawkin's phrase, he apparently thought it possible to be a fulfilled atheist while basically subscribing to a form of ID. It might be wacky, but it's at least as undisprovable as "multiverse" and everybody seems to take that seriously even if they don't agree with it. Just to clarify: Would it be correct to rephrase "necessarily requires a supernatural act" as "necessarily rules out materialistic causes"?englishmaninistanbul_{September 13, 2011
September
09
Sep
13
13
2011
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT}

Since my post has been released from moderation, I'll try to clarify it. The best methods humans have for solving problems involving large numbers require genetic algorithms. The case I'm most familiar with is the travelling salesman problem. A number of corporations use GAs to plan their delivery routes. There are competitions involving the travelling salesman problem. Computers are routinely solving this problem with 10,000 stops and 10^150 possible route. http://brainz.org/15-real-world-applications-genetic-algorithms/ Since I posted it has become obvious that the "solution" to the contest challenge is that humans can design living things. (Well not yet, but it seems possible in the future.) My point would be that if humans ever design and make living things that are not copies of existing things, it will be through directed evolution or through simulations using genetic algorithms. This will only work if functional space is "smooth" enough to support it. It follows that if functional space meets this requirementm and humans can design and make living things, then evolution is possible. Otherwise, human designers will face the crisis of big numbers in a hopelessly rugged landscape, and supernatural intervention wins. There is no way for finite beings to construct a database of arbitrary, unconnectable functional sequences, so either evolution is possible and intervention is not required, or the designer has transfinite capabilities. It's always possible that there is some undiscovered shortcut to protein design, but that would still leave the formidable problems of regulation of development and constant adaptation to changing conditions. All of which compound the problem of big numbers.Petrushka_{September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT}

G'day Barry, Is the prize in $US or $Aust? Currently I can get $1,032.58 AUST for $1,000 US! Gotta go for the BIG prize! Do you know how many 'cheap tuxedoes' I could get for $1,000! PS: The evos keep going on about 'cheap tuxedoes', but is that because they're also nicknamed 'monkey suits'? Just thought ...AussieID_{September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

If it helps, I could really use $1000. xpmaterial.infantacy_{September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

No prize. The prize will be awarded 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)." It says "a living thing," not the "first living thing."Barry Arrington_{September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

Apologies, that is composer....lolDrREC_{September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

I didn't think the original post queried that. But maybe you'd like to at least refute her fairly compelling evidence: Long before the ID movement arose, creation scientists constantly invoked design arguments. Some deny this connection (48), but an extensive 1989 survey (50) of creationist literature notes the ubiquitous role of design: The venerable Argument from Design remains the chief weapon in creationist apologetics. Creationists consider it self-evident and incontrovertible. Although the theory of evolutionary adaptation stood the design argument completely on its head, creationists continue to appeal to Design without even a trace of defensiveness. It is featured in virtually every book or article promoting creation-science. ‘‘Actually,’’ says John Morris [(49)], Henry Morris’s son, ‘‘any living thing gives such strong evidence for design by an intelligent designer that only a willful ignorance of the data (II Peter 3:5) could lead one to assign such intricacy to chance.’’ Design as an argument against evolution has historically been a constant theme in creationist periodicals such as the Creation Science Research Quarterly. A cursory search shows that designarguments are invoked for tetrapod limbs (51), the yucca and its moth (52), the hummingbird (53), and long lists of adaptations from across biology (54, 55). All of these examples of design use some version of Behe’s irreducible complexity argument, and even Behe’s mousetrap is presaged by numerous articles claiming design for the traps of carnivorous plants (56–58). Even the bacterial flagellum, the iconic example of the ID movement, is found in the creation science literature before Behe promoted it (59, 60). In fact, creation science leaders have criticized the ID movement for stealing their arguments. Dembski often refers, for example, to the bacterial flagellum as a strong evidence for design (and indeed it is); but one of our ICR scientists (the late Dr. Dick Bliss) was using this example in his talks on creation a generation ago. And what about our monographs on the monarch butterfly, the bombardier beetle, and many other testimonies to divine design? Creationists have been documenting design for many years, going back to Paley’s watchmaker and beyond (61). The concept of design thus is central to both creation science and ID. Although ID claims to be agnostic on much of creation science, such as the age of the Earth, Noah’s Flood, and the like, when it comes to design, creation science and ID speak in one language. This language is that of William Paley, whose argument from design in his 1802 Natural Theology proclaimed that structural complexity of biological organisms was evidence for the existence of God (62). Like the irreducible complexity argument, the other prominent claims made by the ID movement, and often the specific terminology, trace back to creation science. ‘‘Specified complexity’’ entered the antievolution literature in Thaxton et al. (63), in the midst of a chapter that attempted to repair the infamous creation science shibboleth, much ridiculed by scientists, that a decrease in entropy in biological systems contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The authors grudgingly conceded that local decreases in entropy were not prohibited in open systems like the earth, which experience a continuous energy flow, but claimed that genetic information exhibits specified complexity, and that thermodynamic limitations block any nonintelligent increase in information. More generic ‘‘no new information’’ arguments had been made by the European creation scientist A. E. Wilder-Smith, who has been repeatedly cited as an inspiration by many ID proponents (64). Other ID arguments, such as the claim that there are no transitional fossils in the fossil record or that ‘‘microevolution’’ is proven but ‘‘macroevolution’’ is dubious, are indistinguishable from those in the creation science literature (37). Eugenie C. Scott, and Nicholas J. Matzke doi:10.1073/pnas.0701505104 PNAS published online May 9, 200 Etc..... 49. Morris JD (1989) Acts Facts 18:d. 50. McIver TA (1989) PhD thesis (Univ of California, Los Angeles). 51. Davis PW (1965) Creation Res Soc Q 2:27–31. 52. Clark HW (1965) Creation Res Soc Q 2:3–5. 53. Keithley WE (1977) Creation Res Soc Q 14:3–4. 54. Shute EV (1965) Creation Res Soc Q 2:22–26. 55. Shute EV (1965) Creation Res Soc Q 2:22–26. 56. Keithley WE (1972) Creation Res Soc Q 9:95. 57. Keithley WE (1982) Creation Res Soc Q 19:155:184. 58. Howe GF (1978) Creation Res Soc Q 15:39–40. 59. Anonymous (1992) Creation 15:23. 60. Lumsden RD (1994) Creation Res Soc Q 31:13–22. 61. Morris HM (2005) Back to Genesis, d. 62. Paley W (1802) Natural Theology (Faulder, London). 63. Thaxton CB, Bradley WL, Olsen RL (1984) The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Philosophical Library, New York). 64. Touchstone (2004) Touchstone: J Mere Christianity 17.DrREC_{September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

Whatever. I demonstrated that the design of a living thing requires a supernatural act. The universe being supernatural is supportive, not primary.material.infantacy_{September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

No prize. The contest does not challenge contestants to demonstrate that the universe requires a supernatural act. It challenges contestants to demonstrate that within the universe we already have "the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature)."Barry Arrington_{September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

And who designed Venter? But seriously, copying a program, and inserting my name would not get me hired by a tech firm. Copying Mussorgsky's Gates of Kiev, and throwing in an unplayed (Ventner's addition doesn't code, or do anything) stanza doesn't make me a composter. Maybe we have different opinions of what constitutes a designer.DrREC_{September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

I’ll take a stab at it. Supernatural: that which exists outside of and apart from the universe, that is, time and space. A supernatural act is a necessary condition for the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent because: 1) Living things must exist within the universe. 2) The universe requires a supernatural act. 3) Therefore the design of a living thing requires a supernatural act. The universe requires a supernatural act because: 1) That which begins to exist must have a cause. 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Since time and space came into existence with the universe, it requires a cause that is outside of, and apart from time and space. By definition, the creation of the universe is a supernatural act.material.infantacy_{September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

"The only real shortcut is intelligence." Proof? How have you determined this? Have you falsified all other hypotheses? Suppose a process that searches far fewer than all possibilities, with small successes at each generation, that never uses far far fewer resources than a search of all genome possibilities? Does it count as a shortcut? How do you calculate the probability of that?DrREC_{September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

You do realize, that that was a quote from Pandas & People?Starbuck_{September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

Kindly substantiate your claim by reference to here on, as a starter. In particular, explain the points I made at 11 above, in light of Thaxton et al. Otherwis3e you are playing at strawman games and guilt by association with the already tarred, as in listen to the ghost of a certain Sen McCarthy, please.kairosfocus_{September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

Aerodynamic lift is also compatible with the 2nd Law. However, that doesn't mean that the 2nd Law can explain aerodynamic lift or that there is any relationship between the two.EndoplasmicMessenger_{September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

The problem is much simpler than that. When we look at genomes of 100 k or 1 mn or 100 mn bases, we are looking at searches that so vastly swamp available resources that not even a search on the gamut of the cosmos has a good chance. The only real shortcut is intelligence. As we know from typing posts in this thread. No million monkeys pounding at keyboards here, folks. As the objectors full well know but will not acknowledge.kairosfocus_{September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

It worked! ;)kairosfocus_{September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

I need to get the hang of those smileys . . . :)kairosfocus_{September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

Onlookers: Observe, no-one is even trying to positively show the Forrest claim. No prizes for guessing why. Spell this: S-A-U-L A-L-I-N-S-K-Y distortion and demonisation of design thought . . .kairosfocus_{September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply