RDFish Cannot Count to Three

_{Barry Arrington

December 5, 2015

Intelligent Design}

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

In a prior post RDFish starts off with a promisingly cogent observation:

We’re not arguing about “evolutionary adaptation”, but rather about the highly intricate, multi-component mechanisms we observe in organisms. Of course large populations and crossovers can help a bit with local optima, but saying these things will “tend to avoid” them is wishful thinking – there is just so much that can be assembled that way, which is why GAs come up with optimizations and not novel mechanisms. The important point, though, is not to argue about this in the abstract, because there is no way to demonstrate (yet) whether or not the combinatorial resources were sufficient or not.

Leading Mapou to respond:

Wow. RDFish is moving dangerously close to accepting the designer hypothesis (i.e., life requires consciousness)

To which RDFish responds indignantly:

HUH? Why in the world would you say that – I haven’t moved one iota in that direction, of course, because there isn’t a shred of evidence for it. I deny that evolutionary theory accounts for biological complexity, but that doesn’t lend any credence whatsoever to the notion that some conscious being thought up designs for all us creatures and built us somehow!

I am always amazed when one of our opponents reveals that the metaphysical blinders they are wearing restrict their vision to such a degree that they cannot see the blatantly obvious implications of their own conclusions.

Let’s lay it out step by step.

Given our current understanding of causation, there are three and only three possibilities regarding the provenance of “highly intricate, multi-component mechanisms we observe in organisms.” The first two possibilities, which in combination are often referred to as “natural causes,” are law and chance, including a combination of the two. The third possibility, Aristotle’s tertium quid, is the act of an intelligent agent.*

The project of modern evolutionary theory is to demonstrate that the highly intricate, multi-component mechanisms we observe in organisms can be reduced to purely natural causes.

The project of intelligent design is to demonstrate that intelligent agency is a better explanation for the highly intricate, multi-component mechanisms we observe in organisms.

Modern evolutionary theory and ID are playing a zero sum game. If modern evolutionary theory is correct about the sufficiency of natural causes to account for the observations, ID would be falsified. If ID is correct about the insufficiency of natural causes to account for the observations, that aspect of modern evolutionary theory would be falsified.

In the comment above, RDFish denies that evolutionary theory currently accounts for biological complexity.

Other things being equal, RDFish’s observation – to the extent it is true – undermines the standing of modern evolutionary theory.

Since we are playing a zero sum game, it follows that Mapou is generally correct; RDFish’s observation supports a design approach to the extent it undermines a non-design approach to origins, even if RDFish himself does not understand it.

RDfish again: “I deny that evolutionary theory accounts for biological complexity, but that doesn’t lend any credence whatsoever to the notion that some conscious being thought up designs for all us creatures and built us somehow!”

Uh, Fish, since it is one or the other, denying that one can explain the observations does tend to lend credence to the other (which is not to say that it establishes it, but it does tend in that direction).

__________

*There may, of course, be an unknown quartium quid (a fourth causal force in addition to law, chance and agency) that has escaped detection from the time of Aristotle to this moment. That is why I qualify with “given our current understanding of causation.” We do not know what we do not know, but if we must choose based on what we do know, there are only three choices.

Comments

Barry: Since we are playing a zero sum game, it follows that Mapou is generally correct; RDFish’s observation supports a design approach to the extent it undermines a non-design approach to origins, even if RDFish himself does not understand it.

Fish: It’s your confusion, I’m afraid. It’s not a zero sum game, quite obviously. Mapou insists that the “design alternative” necessarily involves consciousness. That is a strong claim – not even Dembski argues that. It is obviously possible, just as Dembski points out, for ID to be true in some sense (that is, for some definition of “intelligence”) without implying a conscious entity.
No, Fish, it is you who are confused about design theory. Either a fundamental teleology underlies the provenance of the “highly intricate, multi-component mechanisms we observe in organisms” or it does not. Modern evolutionary theory says it does not, that everything in biology is the product of blind, directionless forces. ID says it does. Dembski, qua ID theorist, is and has always been agnostic about the nature of that teleology. That does not change the fundamental equation; to the extent ID is true key aspects of modern evolutionary theory are false. And vice versa.Barry Arrington_{December 6, 2015
December
12
Dec
6
06
2015
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Barry: Modern evolutionary theory and ID are playing a zero sum game. If modern evolutionary theory is correct about the sufficiency of natural causes to account for the observations, ID would be falsified. If ID is correct about the insufficiency of natural causes to account for the observations, that aspect of modern evolutionary theory would be falsified.

Fish: Nope, that’s a false dichotomy. Both modern evolutionary theory and ID can be wrong of course (to the extent that ID is even meaningful enough to be judged right or wrong at all).
Apparently, my qualification (see the footnote in the OP) went sailing right over your head. Of course there might be a quartium quid (a fourth causal force in addition to law, chance and agency) or there might be a theory employing natural causes that looks nothing like modern evolutionary theory (though both of those things seem unlikely). We don’t know what we don’t know. But based on the only two games in town, to the extent one is proven to be true, the other will be proved to be false. This is obvious.Barry Arrington_{December 6, 2015
December
12
Dec
6
06
2015
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Fish:
Yet you provide no objective, empirically-based description of what “intelligent agency” entails, which renders your conclusion scientifically meaningless.
Consider the sentence you just wrote: “Yet you provide no objective, empirically-based description of what “intelligent agency” entails, which renders your conclusion scientifically meaningless” That sentence is the product of intelligent agency. A random letter generator operating at one letter per second would not be expected to put that sequence of words and spaces together in the 13.7-billion-year history of the universe. No known physical law can account for that sequences of letters and spaces. It follows that the best objective, empirically-based description of the causal provenance of the sequence is “act of intelligent agent.” And it follows from that, that your assertion is demonstrably false.Barry Arrington_{December 6, 2015
December
12
Dec
6
06
2015
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

BKA: The project of modern evolutionary theory is to demonstrate that the highly intricate, multi-component mechanisms we observe in organisms can be reduced to purely natural causes.

Fish: Not exactly, no.
Yes, exactly. From Origin of Species to this present moment the entire raison d'être of evolutionary theory has been to explain the apparent design of living things without resorting to a designer. This is so basic I can't believe anyone on either side of the debate would deny it.Barry Arrington_{December 6, 2015
December
12
Dec
6
06
2015
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

RDFish:
You obviously believe that “intelligent agents” are ontologically distinct entities . . .
Are you an intelligent agent Fish? If you answer "yes," then you share my true warranted belief that intelligent agents are ontologically distinct entities. If you answer "no," you are staggeringly stupid.Barry Arrington_{December 6, 2015
December
12
Dec
6
06
2015
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

Hi tjguy, Historical sciences can be supported by empirical evidence; obvious examples are cosmological and geological theories. But there is no evidence that RM&NS can produce intricate mechanisms, and no evidence that something "intelligent" was responsible for life. (I put "intelligent" in scare quotes because there is no empirically accessible set of characteristics associated with the word in the context of ID, which renders it scientifically meaningless).
ID is a scientific theory insofar as it points to an intelligent cause, but even IDers will tell you that ID theory cannot identify the Designer.
Simply assuming that the cause of living things was something with an "identity" (what, something with a name? an address? identifying marks?) is assuming far beyond the evidence.
Science can show us that as far as we know, law and chance do not/cannot account for what we see – which you seem to agree with.
No. As far as we know, law and chance are all that there is. I made this point in my response above. Moreover, you can't rule out "law + chance"; you can only rule out that we have figured it out yet. At the turn of the century, phenomena such as black body radiation, the photoelectric effect, and the transmission of light could not be explained by any combination of law and chance. Explanations were found, however, by introducing new laws, new types of entities, and new concepts that had not been previously imagined. You choose to posit some unknown sort of intelligent (conscious, rational) being as the explanation of life; one could be equally speculative and suggest some unknown sort of informational/organizational aspect is involved. Dembski allows that it may be some type of "impersonal telic force" for example.
You can choose to wait for some as of yet unknown law, cause, or natural process to be discovered that could perhaps explain it all, but that is looking less and less likely the more we learn about life and the universe.
No it isn't - it's just about the same, actually. There's a very long history of ascribing various mysteries to an "intelligent agent" when no other explanation can be found. Anyway, I happen to believe that there are aspects of the universe (such as conscious awareness) that are not understandable at all. Who says that human beings can understand everything? A mouse couldn't understand quantum physics no matter how hard it tried.
Let me ask you a question. Is it theoretically possible that the answer to the origin of life lies outside of science?
Yes of course - again, our mental abilities may be insufficient to comprehend certain things (I think it's likely).
Or do you, by your metaphysical beliefs, only permit an answer that fits your definition of “scientific”?
My definition of "scientific" has nothing to do with a prior metaphysical beliefs. I am neither a materialist/physicalist nor a dualist. As for "scientific", I use the same guide as Stephen Meyer and Darwin - results need to be based on our uniform and shared experience. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 5, 2015
December
12
Dec
5
05
2015
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

RD Fish says:
My comments are directed at the claim that “Intelligent Design Theory” is a scientific theory, rather than some set of metaphysical beliefs. You obviously believe that “intelligent agents” are ontologically distinct entities, but you don’t seem to realize that we cannot scientifically evaluate that belief, any more than we can scientifically evaluate the belief that human minds are reducible to physical cause without remainder, or any other metaphysical position. Since your argument is based upon the untestable metaphysical assumption that mental cause is ontologically distinct from physical (or “natural”) cause, there is no scientific case for ID.
Well, RD, you have just figured out the problem with historical science. In the end, all we can do is look at the data and interpret it, but we cannot really test our interpretations. That means that there is no such thing as a scientific theory of origins because nothing can really be tested. ID is a scientific theory insofar as it points to an intelligent cause, but even IDers will tell you that ID theory cannot identify the Designer. That part is beyond science, like you said. Science can show us that as far as we know, law and chance do not/cannot account for what we see - which you seem to agree with. Barry says that that leaves Intelligence or Agency as the only rational sufficient cause to explain what we see. I agree. At least I think that everyone could agree that the existence of such a Designer WOULD be a sufficient and rational answer to the problem. Intelligence/Causation/Agency - we know from experience that these things can easily account for design, complexity, efficiency, beauty, purpose, etc. Of course, that in and of itself does not/cannot prove that such a Designer does in fact exist, but the existence of these things fits best with that hypothesis in my view. I interpret their existence as strong evidence so support that hypothesis. Others will interpret these things differently, but again, I think the existence of these things fits best with the Design Hypothesis. You can choose to wait for some as of yet unknown law, cause, or natural process to be discovered that could perhaps explain it all, but that is looking less and less likely the more we learn about life and the universe. Still, we cannot ever prove a negative. We can never show that such a thing does not exist - in the same way one cannot prove that a Designer does not exist so if someone chooses to place his faith in such an unknown physical process, that's his/her choice. I choose the latter. But if you are looking for a scientific theory that can be fully tested, I think you are out of luck. Your personal rules for being able to test something basically rule out every "scientific" theory that exists concerning origins. Let me ask you a question. Is it theoretically possible that the answer to the origin of life lies outside of science? Or do you, by your metaphysical beliefs, only permit an answer that fits your definition of "scientific"?tjguy_{December 5, 2015
December
12
Dec
5
05
2015
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

Hi Barry Arrington,
Let’s lay it out step by step. Given our current understanding of causation, there are three and only three possibilities regarding the provenance of “highly intricate, multi-component mechanisms we observe in organisms.” The first two possibilities, which in combination are often referred to as “natural causes,” are law and chance, including a combination of the two. The third possibility, Aristotle’s tertium quid, is the act of an intelligent agent.*
My comments are directed at the claim that "Intelligent Design Theory" is a scientific theory, rather than some set of metaphysical beliefs. You obviously believe that "intelligent agents" are ontologically distinct entities, but you don't seem to realize that we cannot scientifically evaluate that belief, any more than we can scientifically evaluate the belief that human minds are reducible to physical cause without remainder, or any other metaphysical position. Since your argument is based upon the untestable metaphysical assumption that mental cause is ontologically distinct from physical (or "natural") cause, there is no scientific case for ID.
The project of modern evolutionary theory is to demonstrate that the highly intricate, multi-component mechanisms we observe in organisms can be reduced to purely natural causes.
Not exactly, no. The project of evolutionary biology is to provide actual explanations for biological systems, not just assert that all causes involved were "purely natural". It is far from clear what that would even mean.
The project of intelligent design is to demonstrate that intelligent agency is a better explanation for the highly intricate, multi-component mechanisms we observe in organisms.
Yet you provide no objective, empirically-based description of what "intelligent agency" entails, which renders your conclusion scientifically meaningless.
Modern evolutionary theory and ID are playing a zero sum game. If modern evolutionary theory is correct about the sufficiency of natural causes to account for the observations, ID would be falsified. If ID is correct about the insufficiency of natural causes to account for the observations, that aspect of modern evolutionary theory would be falsified.
Nope, that's a false dichotomy. Both modern evolutionary theory and ID can be wrong of course (to the extent that ID is even meaningful enough to be judged right or wrong at all).
Since we are playing a zero sum game, it follows that Mapou is generally correct; RDFish’s observation supports a design approach to the extent it undermines a non-design approach to origins, even if RDFish himself does not understand it.
It's your confusion, I'm afraid. It's not a zero sum game, quite obviously. Mapou insists that the "design alternative" necessarily involves consciousness. That is a strong claim - not even Dembski argues that. It is obviously possible, just as Dembski points out, for ID to be true in some sense (that is, for some definition of "intelligence") without implying a conscious entity. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 5, 2015
December
12
Dec
5
05
2015
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply