Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

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
"One cannot calculate any probabilities until one demonstrates a feasibility" No clue what your point in this remark is. I can, by the way, calculate the probability of flipping a coin heads one million times in a row, without demonstrating a feasible way to do that in my lifetime. "The calculations refer only to blind, undirected physical processes" Your compadres have argued they are path-independent. I would add to your statement that they refer to all at once scenarion not envisioned by evolution. "What if the finite resources can do it but only if directed?" Like by differential survival and reproduction? You seem ready to abandon the sort of calculations I thought were the hallmark of ID.DrREC
September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
Calling Dr. William Lane Craig! Calling Dr. William Lane Craig! White courtesy phone please.paragwinn
September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
DrREC:
If you (I don’t) accept the calculations that an organism’s functional specified complexity (or similar metric) exceeds the probabilistic resources of the universe, then the planning/information storage/functionalization of that design can’t possibly be a smaller amount.
1- One cannot calculate any probabilities until one demonstrates a feasibility 2- The calculations refer only to blind, undirected physical processes
If the finite resources of the universe can’t do it, then we’re discussing infinite resources, and therefore the supernatural.
What if the finite resources can do it but only if directed?Joseph
September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
UD Editor: DrBot is determined to sidetrack the contest onto the consciouness problem. We are just as determined not to let him. DrBot does say this though: "I won't take up the challenge because I don't think that a supernatural act is required to produce life, most scientists I know would probably agree, but I look forward to seeing some of the ID supporters taking it up, and thanks for issuing the challenge (I mean that sincerely)"DrBot
September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
DrBot asks two questions: 1. Does an immaterial mind count as supernatural? 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 just 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 here. 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: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-does-not-posit-supernatural-causes/ 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.” 2. Is a mind required when performing design? The question is not germane to the contest. Again, it is not necessary to solve the hard problem of consciousness to compete in this contest.Barry Arrington
September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
If you (I don't) accept the calculations that an organism's functional specified complexity (or similar metric) exceeds the probabilistic resources of the universe, then the planning/information storage/functionalization of that design can't possibly be a smaller amount. If the finite resources of the universe can't do it, then we're discussing infinite resources, and therefore the supernatural.DrREC
September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
DrBot: You have quickly cut to two core issues. Since this is Barry's contest, he would have to decide what the rules are and what starting assumptions are acceptable. But I think the point of this exercise is to demonstrate in a compelling way to those scientists who accept Neo-Darwinsm that a suspension of the laws of nature (that is, requiring the need for "supernatural" causes) is not a pre-requisite for accepting that hypothesis that intelligent causation is the best explanation for the existence of high levels of Complex Specified Information (CSI) and Irreducible Complexity (IC) in living systems. I imagine you will need to come up with a theory of intelligence that is acceptable to Darwinists (if that is possible) -- and define the relationship (if any) between 2nd Law "entropy" and biological information (CSI).EndoplasmicMessenger
September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
It would make more sense to offer a prize for anyone who could explain how a finite designer could store and access all the knowledge of fitness landscapes that would be required to design without evolutionary algorithms. How does the designer overcome the problem of large numbers suggested by the ID understanding of fitness landscapes as unconnectable? Of course an infinite or omniscient designer would have no problem.Petrushka
September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
A couple of questions: Does an immaterial mind count as supernatural? Is a mind required when performing design? Also, I've never been clear on the whole second law thing - If I design something (with my immaterial mind perhaps) then am I violating the SLOT by creating order from disorder?DrBot
September 12, 2011
September
09
Sep
12
12
2011
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
1 6 7 8

Leave a Reply