Stephen Meyer on ID’s Scientific Bona Fides

_{William Dembski
July 13, 2010

Intelligent Design}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Comments

"gpuccio: Why? Because aliens would not be able to do what Venter deems himself capable to realize? (I mean creating life, not traveling in the universe )." The aliens/designers can do anything we can imagine and thus, we must accept that it is possible to spin straw into gold. We have no method to exclude such a possibility so we must accept it as a valid construct. Maybe those stories we called fairytales were really testimonials.Acipenser_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: Really. If it is easy to imagine, I’d like to hear the details of how you directly measure reproductive advantage. Are you kidding? For instance, if the system is an agar culture, you can just measure the diameter of the colony after a standard time. And even if you did not measure anything, you could just let the new clone expand spontaneously, and that would be at least as efficient as NS (even more, if you intervene with some selective rewarding as soon as a definite level of expansion is achieved. Where is your problem?gpuccio_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Acipenser & Petrushka: . Will one of you answer how (by what process) one can ever make a determination that a solitary artifact found on an otherwise desolate planet was the product of some form of intelligent design? . Is there a scientific means to make such a determination? Must it be intuition? Something else?William J. Murray_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: ID proponents presented the case of the sand sculpture, and I asked if ID had an actual metric, a procedure for distinguishing natural sand sculptures such as fossils from human crafted replicas. Again, fossils are not "natural sand sculptures". The form in them comes from the biological being. I wondered if there is a method for eliminating false positives that does not require finding a plausible naturalistic history. Yes, there is. CSI is the way. The confutation of the ID detection through CSI could be achieved by presenting a credible naturalistic model based on RV + any necessity mechanism. The detailed natural history is not necessary. But if no such model exists (and RV + NS is not a credible model) than ID remains the best explanation.gpuccio_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

Acipenser: It is one thing to postulate intelligent life in the universe. It is quite another to postulate intelligent life traveling the universe creating life with their technology. From that point it would be a reasonable inference that straw can be spun into gold. Why? Because aliens would not be able to do what Venter deems himself capable to realize? (I mean creating life, not traveling in the universe :) ). Or is your problem with the traveling? Anyway, I really don't know why I am defending the alien hypothesis: it is certainly not mine. Its purpose was only to demonstrate that intelligence can be conceived even out of the human reference.gpuccio_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: it's simple: In an algorithm based on RV + NS, RV has to build the function of reproductive advantage, otherwise no selection is possible. So, it's not true that there is no target. The algorithm works only with the function of reproductive advantage, so that's the only valid target for the system. If in a lab we measure reproductive advantage in a lab system, and reward it actively, we will have an equeivalent of NS, only more powerful (the active reward can certainly be more efficient than just waiting for spontaneous expansion. That wouls be a first example of how intelligent selection is better than NS. But the true point is that IS can measure and reward any possible property. Szostac in his experiment has meausred, selected and rewarded sticking to ATP. Any intelligent designer can measure and reward any kind of fucntion, or simply of property, at any minimal level. So, intelligent selection can select specific properties even if they do not immediately confer a reproductive advantage, and use them in the general program of the design. In the case of antibody maturation, just think what would happend if the organism modified the initial antibody by random hypermutation and then just waited to see if any reproductive advantage had emerged. That would never work. Instead, the immune system does the intelligent thing. It changes the initial antibody by hypervariation, and then immediately it tests it against the stored epitope. If the affinity has incresed, the new cell clone is promoted, otherwise it is inhibited. That's why antibody maturation has all the characteristics of intelligent design: targeted hypermutation, intelligent selection through fine measurement of the desired function, and active rewarding/inhibiting of the mutated clones. And it works! The affinity drastically increases in a few months. Obviously, here the intelligent algorithm is embedded in the immune system. Guees by whom?gpuccio_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Instead you have assailed a limited method for what it is not and has never claimed to be: a universal method that detects any and all designs, beyond any rational doubt or question.
Actually, I merely asked for input on a fescases relevant to this thread. ID proponents presented the case of the sand sculpture, and I asked if ID had an actual metric, a procedure for distinguishing natural sand sculptures such as fossils from human crafted replicas. Someone on this thread said dog breeds were obviously the result of artificial selection, so I asked if ID had a method that would distinguish the histories of peacocks from that of show birds. I also asked how ID eliminated false positives without presenting a case for natural formation of things like the martian face. I wondered if there is a method for eliminating false positives that does not require finding a plausible naturalistic history.Petrushka_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

"gpuccio: The possible existence of intelligent aliens is considered a very serious possibility by many mainstream scientists. Not everybody is so obstinate in denying reasonable inferences as you seem to be." It is one thing to postulate intelligent life in the universe. It is quite another to postulate intelligent life traveling the universe creating life with their technology. From that point it would be a reasonable inference that straw can be spun into gold.Acipenser_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

We can well imagine a form of intelligent selection where reproductive advantage is directly measured by the system, and actively rewarded by immediate expansion. That would be a form of intelligent selection which, though measuring the same function as NS, would be more efficient.”
Really. If it is easy to imagine, I'd like to hear the details of how you directly measure reproductive advantage. Sound like the old Soviet 5-year plans that were going to be more efficient than capitalism.Petrushka_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

I state again here that NS is only a tiny subset of case b2.
I guess I had trouble following how a process that has no goal or target or anticipation could be a subset of "Intelligent selection through knowledge of the function to be achieved."Petrushka_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: Any practitioner of serious empirical methods knows that a method or technique does not have to apply to all and any cases in order to be useful and effective, or even reliable and trustworthy within its context of use. You have repeatedly been presented with a warrant for the inference from functionally specific, complex information to its routinely observed -- and only observed -- source [intelligence], in the context that other major causal factors [chance and/or necessity] are seen as not sufficiently capable to be a credible source. You have not been able to produce the classic rebuttal to an inductive case on inference to best explanation: a counter example. Instead you have assailed a limited method for what it is not and has never claimed to be: a universal method that detects any and all designs, beyond any rational doubt or question. Such a standard is not a proper standard of criticism within science, as you know or should know. Kindly therefore refrain from setting up and knocking over strawmen. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Acipenser: The possible existence of intelligent aliens is considered a very serious possibility by many mainstream scientists. Not everybody is so obstinate in denying reasonable inferences as you seem to be.gpuccio_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: You present three examples of selection but ignore and fail to present the case applicable to biology. Not true. Please read again: "I state again here that NS is only a tiny subset of case b2. In NS, the only function which is recognized is reproductive advantage. And in true NS, that function is not really rewarded actively by the system: it just “self-rewards itself” through expansion in the population. We can well imagine a form of intelligent selection where reproductive advantage is directly measured by the system, and actively rewarded by immediate expansion. That would be a form of intelligent selection which, though measuring the same function as NS, would be more efficient." You seem really confused about that. Your blind beliefs prevent you from a very simple reasoning: there is a very specific target in NS: reproductive advantage. That's the function which can be recognized, that's the function that RV must be able to build. And, as I said, it is a very specific function, which reduces NS to a tiny, powerless subset of IS. Please, answer that, instead of hiding behind myths like "no target". Some of your compatriots, earlier in this thread, claimed that dog breeds were obviously designed. That kind of statement seems common among design proponents. You just look at something, tote up its CSI, and voila, you know if it is natural or designed. So I’d like to know if this claim is BS, or whether it can be applied in an instance where we have known dissimilar histories. I have never commented on dog breeds. I am really not interested in them (I leave them to Dawkins). I don't know the subject very well, and I don't believe it is relevant to the ID theory. It is possible, IMO, that "races" in a species (be it dogs or humans) are connected just to sexual re-shuffling of alleles. That can be random or designed (in the case of dog breeders), but I am not sure if design detection could distinguish between the two cases, because I have really no idea of how to define the function or compute the complexity. That's why I am not interested to analyze that particular scenario.gpuccio_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

"StepehnB: Petrushka and Acipenser continue to avoid my question about whether naturalistic forces could have formed the image of a beat up 1959 Ford without the engine." If the image is made of sand then humans made it. It really isn't any more complex than that. "gpuccio: Your argument is false. Conscious intelligence is a property of humans. We have no reasons to affirm that other beings cannot be conscious and intelligent like humans. Can you exclude, or consider unlikely, that intelligent aliens may exist?" It wasn't an argument it was a question. But in any case, gpuccio, do you have any reason to believe that straw cannot be spun into gold?Acipenser_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

gpuccio: You present three examples of selection but ignore and fail to present the case applicable to biology. The case where there is no target. The case where there is no anticipatory mutation. The case where there is no known solution. The case where, for reasons too complex to anticipate, children having some characteristic have more offspring than children not having the characteristic. As for why you would want to be able to tell the history of peacocks from the history of show fowl, it goes to the heart of whether you can say anything about the history of a living thing simply by toting up its CSI, or whatever. Some of your compatriots, earlier in this thread, claimed that dog breeds were obviously designed. That kind of statement seems common among design proponents. You just look at something, tote up its CSI, and voila, you know if it is natural or designed. So I'd like to know if this claim is BS, or whether it can be applied in an instance where we have known dissimilar histories. I pick on you because you seem to think there is some intrinsic difference between natural and artificial selection, as if they have different capabilities.Petrushka_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

"WJM: First, the theory that other creatures might have intelligence is not “nothing but speculation”, because we already have one creature with intelligence; that is evidence that creatures in the universe can be intelligent." It is speculation that there are other 'intelligent' (as we've used it in sand sculture creation)and will remain so until we have evidence to the contrary. If it weren't you would have simply provided the example I requested. "WJM: Second, even if it was speculation, so? Is such speculation non-scientific? Can it not lead to fruitful scientific enquiry, such as the speculation, in years past, that other stars might have planets orbiting them? Or was such speculation a waste of scientific time and effort?" Speculation in and of itself is fine the trouble arises when someone mistakes such speculations as being factual. "WJM: Why do you avoid simply answering the questions I ask in the manner I ask them? Let’s say you’re right and we know how all crop circles are made now; before we knew, we didn’t know. All we had were strange geometric patterns in the crops. Why didn’t everyone just assume it was a natural phenomena? Why did everyone conclude that they had to be the product of some form of intelligence?" Why didn't you provide me with the example I requested? Or even admit that you were constrained by the same evidence that everyone else is constrained by? Of course 'we' knew crop circles were of human origins. Afterall people created them and I doubt they did so unknowingly. That everyone did not conclude the same thing does not influence the human-nature of the crop circle constructs. No one concluded natural phenomena because the crop circles are human art work and we are very familiar with human artwork and what it looks like. Much like sand sculptures. "WJM: You attribute comments to me in 171 I didn’t make." my apologies!Acipenser_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: Can you apply design detection to distinguish between the histories of peacocks and Japanese show fowl? Why should I do such a bizarre thing?gpuccio_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: You keep saying there is some elemental difference between natural selection and inteligent selection. I say it and I argue for that. From my post #94: "b) Intelligent selection. That is probably one of the most powerful option for an intelligent designer. If evolutionary algorithms have proved anything, it’s that intelligent selection can very well do the magic. Even Dawkins’ infamous Weasel clearly demonstrates that you can easily reach a solution by a random search if you already know it. Indeed, there are at least three different ways a designer can use intelligent selection, IOW thre different ways an “oracle” can optimize an algorithm for the search of biological funtion, operationg through a random variation engine: b1) Intelligent selection though previous knowledge of the solution. That’s exactly the case of the Weasel. The designer already knows the solution, and he just “matches” the various variations against the solution. Easy, but nor specially useful. The same result can certainly be reached through direct guided variation. But, if guided variation is not available, and if the designer knows the solution, intelligent selection of random variation remains a very efficient procedure. b2) Intelligent selection through knowledge of the function to be achieved, and measurement of that function after random variation. That’s the case of the Szostac paper, of antibody maturation, and in general of all bottom up protein engineering. It’s very efficient, too, because direct measurement of the function allows very fine and sensitive selection, and really optimizes the search. It’s interesting to note that this case includes, as a very tiny subset of it, what is usually called “natural selection”. Indeed, natural selection is just a very raw and limited form of intelligent selection where only one function can be measured: reproductive advantage. b3) Finally, an importan accessory method for intelligent design in biology is targeted random mutation. IOW, the mutations can be random, but with specific constraints which are based on previous knowledge of the search space, which, as Dembski and Marks have shown, is a very effective way of introducing active information in the search. We have again an example of that in antibody maturation, where selective hypermutation (restricted to the perinent parts of the gene) is applied to the existing antibody to increase its affinity, and the results are evaluated, and then selected positively or negatively, through a measurement of function (binding to the stored antigen). It’s important to consider that all the above mechanisms could have been used together, or differently in different cases." I state again here that NS is only a tiny subset of case b2. In NS, the only function which is recognized is reproductive advantage. And in true NS, that function is not really rewarded actively by the system: it just "self-rewards itself" through expansion in the population. We can well imagine a form of intelligent selection where reproductive advantage is directly measured by the system, and actively rewarded by immediate expansion. That would be a form of intelligent selection which, though measuring the same function as NS, would be more efficient. As intelligent selection can measure any function we want, and in any degree, and actively reward it, it is obvious that it is hugely more powerful than NS. Can you unbderstand that? That's an argument.gpuccio_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

It’s used by the immune system to increase antibody specificity. It works. And it’s a design method.
You keep saying that. You keep saying there is some elemental difference between natural selection and inteligent selection. Can you apply design detection to distinguish between the histories of peacocks and Japanese show fowl?Petrushka_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: The algorithm occurs anywhere there is self-replication. The traveling salesman solving algorithm? Please, explain.gpuccio_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: please read again (if ever you red it) my post #94 here. I don't understand what it is that you call "evolution" in your 224. A form of computation? What form of compitation? One of my scenarios (targeted RV + intelligent selection) is a very effective way to evaluate "the effects of small changes to protein coding sequences". It's a method used in protein engineering. It's used by the immune system to increase antibody specificity. It works. And it's a design method.gpuccio_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Did the travelling salesman problem solving algorithm arise spontaneously in biological replicators?
The algorithm occurs anywhere there is self-replication.Petrushka_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

Let me understand: all that complex functional information, whose existence our friends darwinists always deny with unrestrained passion, is now becoming evidence against design?
Yep. Evolution is the only form of computation that can deal with those astronomical numbers that design proponents keep tossing out. Want to disagree? Fine. Show us an alternative for anticipating the effects of small changes to protein coding sequences. Show us a non-evolutionary way to anticipate need in ecosystems.Petrushka_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

Acipenser: "Well let’s see if humans are the only known source of such intelligent designs than postulating any other intelligenct sources is nothing but speculation." First, the theory that other creatures might have intelligence is not "nothing but speculation", because we already have one creature with intelligence; that is evidence that creatures in the universe can be intelligent. Second, even if it was speculation, so? Is such speculation non-scientific? Can it not lead to fruitful scientific enquiry, such as the speculation, in years past, that other stars might have planets orbiting them? Or was such speculation a waste of scientific time and effort? Acipenser: "Crop circles are a known instance of human activity. We know who made them and how they made them by their own admissions and demonstrations." Why do you avoid simply answering the questions I ask in the manner I ask them? Let's say you're right and we know how all crop circles are made now; before we knew, we didn't know. All we had were strange geometric patterns in the crops. Why didn't everyone just assume it was a natural phenomena? Why did everyone conclude that they had to be the product of some form of intelligence? You attribute comments to me in 171 I didn't make. Petrushka said: "You operate the way you would operate in any forensic investigation. If the inference is obvious, as with sand sculptures, you make it. If the inference is not so obvious, as with stone faces or large stone balls, you have to do some work. In some cases experts may never agree." . What does that mean, "if the inference is obvious"? "Obvious" to whom? We're talking about, putatively, what looks like it might be an alien-design spacecraft. How is it going to be "obvious" to anyone? Are you talking about intuition? Do you mean that for some investigators, the object on the planet might "obviously" be, to them, in a non-scientific way, "the product of intelligence", and to others, "obviously not" such an artifact? You're not telling me how we should make a decision about what we should consider the object, you're just avoiding the essential point to the whole debate by saying "well, if it's obvious ..." without explaing how it can be obvious, or why people should disagree, or how a finding either way should be made. Is it made in a scientific way? Or is it just plain-old intuition?William J. Murray_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: you will never stop surprising me. Did the travelling salesman problem solving algorithm arise spontaneously in biological replicators? You must know facts of which I am not aware. Please share.gpuccio_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: There’s a way around that you know. Write up your thoughts and publish them on the Biologic Institute journal. Why is everybody always giving me advices on what I should do? Al Kafir is counseling my readings, others have adviced me on where to blog, and Petrushka absolutely wants me to publish! But I am stupid and obstinate, and I suppose I will go on my own way. Petrushka, what's the problem? Can't you read my posts on this blog?gpuccio_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

I have nothing against evolutionary algorithms: they are obviously designed.
Not so. They arise spontaneously with the simplest replicators. Evolution will happen wherever there is self-replication.Petrushka_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: All that complexity argues against a designer. That really can compete with Al Kafir's statement on the short peptides thread for the title of "most ludicrous statement ever heard": "Probably too complex to have been designed, since complex-system theory shows that evolved systems tend to be more complicated than designed systems for a given function." Let me understand: all that complex functional information, whose existence our friends darwinists always deny with unrestrained passion, is now becoming evidence against design? Ah, what a mystery is the darwinists mind!gpuccio_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

I have answered those points many times, and given specific possible scenarios..
There's a way around that you know. Write up your thoughts and publish them on the Biologic Institute journal.Petrushka_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: All that complexity argues against a designer. In all the history of mathematics, we have found only one successful approach to traversing gradients in enormous spaces, and that is using evolutionary algorithms. I have nothing against evolutionary algorithms: they are obviously designed. And your faith in gap solving naturalistic research is based on such a confused epistemology, that I will not even begin to try to counter it...gpuccio_{July 18, 2010
July
07
Jul
18
18
2010
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 14 15 16 17 18 … 24 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply