The Circularity of the Design Inference

_{Winston Ewert

November 14, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

Keith S is right. Sort of.

As highlighted in a recent post by vjtorley, Keith S has argued that Dembski’s Design Inference is a circular argument. As Keith describes the argument:

In other words, we conclude that something didn’t evolve only if we already know that it didn’t evolve. CSI is just window dressing for this rather uninteresting fact.

In its most basic form, a specified complexity argument takes a form something like:

Premise 1) The evolution of the bacterial flagellum is astronomically improbable.
Premise 2) The bacterial flagellum is highly specified.
Conclusion) The bacterial flagellum did not evolve.

Keith’s point is that in order to show that the bacterial flagellum did not evolve, we have to first show that the evolution of the bacterial flagellum is astronomically improbable, which is almost the same thing. Specified complexity moves the argument from arguing that evolution is improbable to arguing that evolution didn’t happen. The difficult part is showing that evolution is improbable. Once we’ve established that evolution is vastly improbable, it seems a very minor obvious point that it would therefore not have occurred.

In some cases, people have understood Dembski’s argument incorrectly, propounding or attack some variation on:

The evolution of the bacterial flagellum is highly improbable.
Therefore the bacterial flagellum exhibits high CSI
Therefore the evolution of the bacterial flagellum is highly improbable
Therefore the bacterial flagellum did not evolve.

This is indeed a very silly argument and people need to stop arguing about it. CSI and Specified complexity do not help in any way to establish that the evolution of the bacterial flagellum is improbable. Rather, the only way to establish that the bacterial flagellum exhibits CSI is to first show that it was improbable. Any attempt to use CSI to establish the improbability of evolution is deeply fallacious.

If specified complexity doesn’t help establish the improbability of evolution what good is it? What’s the point of the specified complexity argument? Consider the following argument:

Each snowflake pattern is astronomically improbable.
Therefore it doesn’t snow.

Obviously, it does snow, and the argument must be fallacious. The fact that an event or object is improbable is insufficient to establish that it formed by natural means. That’s why Dembski developed the notion of specified complexity, arguing that in order to reject chance events they must both be complex and specified. Hence, its not the same thing to say that the evolution of the bacterial flagellum is improbable and that it didn’t happen. If the bacterial flagellum were not specified, it would be perfectly possible to evolve it even thought it is vastly improbable.

The notion of specified complexity exists for one purpose: to give force to probability arguments. If we look at Behe’s irreducible complexity, Axe’s work on proteins, or practically any work by any intelligent design proponent, the work seeks to demonstrate that the Darwinian account of evolution is vastly improbable. Dembski’s work on specified complexity and design inference works to show why that improbability gives us reason to reject Darwinian evolution and accept design.

So Keith is right, arguing for the improbability of evolution on the basis of specified complexity is circular. However, specified complexity, as developed by Dembski, isn’t designed for the purpose of demonstrating the improbability of evolution. When used for its proper role, specified complexity is a valid, though limited argument.

Comments

Adapta: Biological entities aren’t fabricated from mechanical drawings with tolerances. Science FAIL. Well interesting that you didn't answer my challenge question to you, asking where is my nose (or part of such) specified. A drawing is a specification for a part. Something specifies the shape of that part of my nose. Since my nose is very symmetrical, I can say that there is a specification somewhere with a tolerance for the appearance of my nose. We could delineate corresponding chords on each nostril rim put numbers to them and fit a polynomial of certain degree to each and look at the coefficients, compare, and from that take a rough estimate of the tolerances for the coefficients. So there you have it, each coefficient is a dimension with a tolerance, and we have a rough guess for Dempski's CSI for the short chord where the rim of my nostril joins the face. My girlfriend has a slightly asymmetrical nose which adds to her appeal, so we would have to assign wider tolerances for the coefficients for her. This would mean a lower quantity of CSI for her nose compared to me UNLESS a designer intentionally wanted for some people that kind of visual appeal. Now how all this applies can be illustrated by persons having defective heart valves. If what I put here is at all useful then we should be able to say that there are specifications for defective heart valves which somehow have been deficient. If those specifications have dimensions that are deficient or if they have tolerances which are too relaxed, problems can arise with heart valves. Now if you can, please tell me where I go wrong here or at least tell me where the specifications for heart valves are stored as CSI. Or maybe in your world, heart valve morphology/function represents zero information. Science FAIL I spent a good bit of effort indicating to you the nature of the discontinuity between specifications and expression, based on Shannon information, and the categorization of uncertainty which can be applied to each. Now if my ability to edify on this has somehow failed please indicate how. Or maybe you already knew all that Shannon stuff, no? And was wasting your time?groovamos_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

Box @112, One problem I see in VJT's formulation is that #2 says "We can decide whether an object has an astronomically low probability of having been produced by unintelligent causes by determining whether it has CSI", but #6 says the reverse of that. And assuming that the phrase "low probability of having been produced by unintelligent natural causes" refers to low P(H|T), there is no need to pair that requirement with specificity as VJT does in #1 and #6, since the design inference follows immediately from low P(H|T) alone.R0bb_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

Adapa:
Biological entities aren’t fabricated from mechanical drawings with tolerances.
The original biological entities could have been.Joe_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

R0bb:
I recommend the paper that Dembski calls his “most up-to-date treatment of CSI”. Note the formulas that contain the factor P(T|H).
The updated part refers to the specification component of CSI.Joe_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

groovamos. There is a discontinuity between a mechanical drawing and a part fabricated to such. Biological entities aren't fabricated from mechanical drawings with tolerances. Science FAIL.Adapa_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

Adapa:
I’ll be looking forward to reading your original research that details this discontinuity in the DNA translation process.
Pick up a biology textbook and start reading- the research has been completed years ago and it is widely written about. Ignoring the evidence or refusing to discuss it won't make it go away.Joe_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

Adapta: I see. You can’t provide any evidence of this claimed discontinuity, just keep tossing out your usual buzzword salad. There is a discontinuity between a mechanical drawing and a part fabricated to such. If the part is made correctly, its dimensions are within the tolerances specified. The dimensions and their tolerances represent information which in themselves allow for uncertainty. The tighter the tolerances, the less uncertainty is allowed in the actual dimension referenced by such on the part. The greater the reduction of uncertainty the greater the informational content of the dimension on the drawing, which is in line with Shannon. However the part itself has an actual dimension which can be measured. It does not "have a tolerance", it has an actual dimension which can be measured. The measurement has an an associated accuracy. The higher the measurement accuracy, the greater the uncertainty of the actual dimension, which again is in line with Shannon. Also the higher the accuracy, the more digits are required to record the measurement, in line with Shannon. So now you should understand the discontinuity of which you somehow think we cannot define. The difference in the drawing and the part is a discontinuity, and the discontinuity can be said to underlie the different way uncertainty is applicable to each, the drawing and the part. Now I have a question. The outer rim of my nostril joins my face with a particular curve. Can you or anyone please tell me where is this curve specified, as analogous to how a dimension on a part is specified on a mechanical drawing?groovamos_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

I'm quoting VJTorley's version of Dembski’s argument from here. Winston Ewert must hold that it contains a mistake; otherwise he would have no reason to write his OP. I do hope Winston Ewert will show where VJTorley errs. VJTorley:
I’m sorry to say that KeithS has badly misconstrued Dembski’s argument: he assumes that the “could not” in premise 1 refers to absolute impossibility, whereas in fact, it simply refers to astronomical improbability. Here is Dr. Dembski’s argument, restated without circularity: 1. To safely conclude that an object is designed, we need to establish that it exhibits specificity, and that it has an astronomically low probability of having been produced by unintelligent natural causes. 2. We can decide whether an object has an astronomically low probability of having been produced by unintelligent causes by determining whether it has CSI (that is, a numerical value of specified complexity (SC) that exceeds a certain threshold). 3. To determine whether something has CSI, we use a multiplicative formula for SC that includes the factor P(T|H), which represents the probability of producing the object in question via “Darwinian and other material mechanisms.” 4. We compute that probability, plug it into the formula, and then take the negative log base 2 of the entire product to get an answer in “bits of SC”. The smaller P(T|H) is, the higher the SC value. 5. If the SC value exceeds the threshold, we conclude that it is certain beyond reasonable doubt that unintelligent processes did not produce the object. We deem it to have CSI and we conclude that it was designed. 6. To summarize: to establish that something has CSI, we need to show that it exhibits specificity, and that it has an astronomically low probability of having been producedby unguided evolution or any other unintelligent process. Once we know that it has CSI, we conclude that it is designed – that is, that it it is certain beyond all reasonable doubt that it was not produced by unguided evolution or any other unintelligent process.
Box_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

Adapa, are you familiar with the concept that information requires a medium in order to exist?Upright BiPed_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

@ Upright Biped I see. You can't provide any evidence of this claimed discontinuity, just keep tossing out your usual buzzword salad. Guess we'll never see your amazing original research published anywhere. Have you tried the DI's phony science magazine Bio-Complexity? They're really hurting for submissions I hear.Adapa_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

My #02 again. A paragraph as I A DNA molecule has I A sand castle has no I, and therefore no CSI. .Upright BiPed_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Mark
Now perhaps you can explain why you ask?
First, I want to do a comparative/contrast analysis among various forms of CSI ie., a sand castle, a written paragraph, a DNA molecule etc. Second, I want to find out if ID critics reject CSI because they they don't want it to be workable and search for ways to make it unworkable, or because it is unworkable. Third, I want to relate those scientific calculations (and the different approaches among them) to the informal cognitive process by which design is recognized intuitively. Fourth, I want to analyze the anti-ID bias against the informal cognitive process by which design is detected and the ways in which it is transferred to the criticism of ID science.StephenB_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

Adapa, No need to wait. The physicochemical discontinuity (between the arrangement of nucleic acids in a codon and the amino acids those arrangements represent to the system) has been well-known since the 1960s. When Nirenberg set out to crack the genetic code, his methodology required him to demonstrate that the relationships exist, because they cannot derived from the arrangement of the nucleic input - even in principle. Not even the arrangement of the nucleotides themselves can be derived from physical law - i.e. they exist independent of the minimum total potential energy principle. (Like I said, try to educate yourself to the issues at hand, that way you can target your insults more effectively, and hopefully you'll stop making statements that disagree with physical realty).Upright BiPed_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

KeithS
It isn’t a “minor fact”.
Yes, it was minor. It was a fair representation of his unclarified position and it preceded a question that asked for further clarification. I recognized that I could be misreading him. Indeed, he acknowledges that he should have been more clear about that point. Once he did, I made the appropriate adjustment. I realize and acknowledge that I had misunderstood him. On the other hand, your breach was major. Even after Winston asked you to acknowledge that Dembski's argument was not circular and explained why it is not circular, you continue to promote the same mistake. Indeed, you even tried to implicate him in your error, KeithS
With the circularity issue out of the way, I’d like to draw attention to the other flaws of Dembski’s CSI.
Thus, you imply that his post had confirmed your claim that Dembski's argument was circular when it did nothing of the kind. Yet you have still not confessed your error or amended your claims. You simply double down. Remarkable!StephenB_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed Also, work on your reading comprehension as well. I'll be looking forward to reading your original research that details this discontinuity in the DNA translation process. When and in which scientific journal will it be published?Adapa_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

SB #94
I am not insisting on an accurate measurement. I am asking Robb (or you, or Winston) for a step-by-step description of the process by which the CSI would be calculated.
Well that’s pretty tedious and I don’t see the point as the problems only illustrate the problems with the whole CSI concept – but here goes. Dembksi gives the formula on page 21 of the oft cited paper: -log2[M*N*Thetas(T )*P(T|H) To get a handle on it you might only consider piles of sand with same number of grains. So you could start by estimating the number of grains and the number of stable configurations of that number of grains. You could then heroically assume that with natural causes all stable configurations are equally likely. I guess you could do better than that if you knew more about the natural process that create piles of sand. Then: Thetas(T ) is the specificity of the sandcastle. That would be the number of possible configurations which could be described as simply or more simply than “sandcastle”. M*N is the number of opportunities to create such a pile of sand. I guess you could limit it to the number of opportunities for you to observe such a pile which would be roughly the total area of beach you had seen in your life divided by the average size of a pile of sand! P(T|H) is the probability of natural processes creating the pile of sand. Given our absurd assumptions this would be 1/(the number of stable configurations). As you can see it is all utterly absurd and meaningless but don’t blame me - that is the formula. Now perhaps you can explain why you ask?markf_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Adapa, Also, work on your reading comprehension as well.Upright BiPed_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

Keith #98, You must be pinching yourself. You have been right - well 'sort of' - for the very first time. Only a few days ago things were less comfy when you tried to defend your 'damp squib' with the absurd proposal to promote assumptions to facts. If you have already apologized I must have missed it. BTW I'm still not sure what it is you are exactly right about.Box_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed The product of translation cannot be reduced to physical law because of the natural (and necessary) discontinuity that exists between the arrangement of the medium and its post-translation effect. It is the organization of the system that establishes the effect, not physical law. Pity that such a disconnect only exists in your imagination. If you had any evidence for it you'd be a Nobel Prize winner by now. But alas, you don't.Adapa_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

It's Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution - Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 Excerpt of conclusion pg. 42: "To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662469/ Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/agbornagain77_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

Winston,
Do a search for “Laws of Math” you’ll find that many mathematical results are stated as laws.
Dembski's "Law of Conservation of Information" isn't merely a mathematical law. It's an empirical claim about physical reality:
Natural causes are incapable of generating CSI. I call this result the law of conservation of information, or LCI for short…
Dembski thought this was a non-obvious result, not a mere truth by definition. For example, he writes:
Nevertheless the sense that laws can sift chance and thereby generate CSI is deep-seated in the scientific community.
And also:
It is CSI that for Manfred Eigen constitutes the great mystery of life’s origin, and one he hopes eventually to unravel in terms of algorithms and natural laws.
Those statements make no sense if CSI, by definition, cannot be produced by "chance" and "law". Now, given that the circularity problem has been pointed out for at least eight years, I'm sure that by now Dembski is aware of it and has amended his position. However, the quotes I've provided make it clear that he was still in thrall to his mistake when he wrote Intelligent Design.keith s_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

StephenB, It isn't a "minor fact". The words you omitted completely change Winston's meaning, as you full well know, or should know (hi, KF!). Here's your "quote" of Winston, in which you "unintentionally forgot" to insert an ellipsis:
Keith S is right. Sort of. Dembski’s design argument is a circular argument.
Here's what Winston actually wrote:
Keith S is right. Sort of. As highlighted in a recent post by vjtorley, Keith S has argued that Dembski’s Design Inference is a circular argument.
I must say, it's interesting to see an IDer quote mine a fellow IDer for a change.keith s_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

KeithS
As KF would say: Please do better, Stephen.
LOL, Keiths. By all means, let's obsess over the minor fact that I unintentionally forgot to insert elliptical dots in a quote, which has been resolved, and ignore your ongoing misrepresentation of Dembski's argument, which you still will not acknowledge even after being corrected by the very person you appealed to for solace. Yes, indeed. Let's do better.StephenB_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Hi R0bb, You wrote:
I agree with Winston here. To restate his claim: For H=”natural selection” and T=”success”: The argument of specified complexity was never intended to show that P(T|H) << 1. It was intended to show that if P(T|H) << 1, then P(H|T) << 1. P.S. To be even more accurate, the above should be: For H=”natural selection” and T=”success”: The argument of specified complexity was never intended to show that P(T|H) <<<< 1. It was intended to show that if P(T|H) <<<< 1, then P(H|T) < 1/2.
But you haven't addressed the points I made to Winston, namely that 1) Dembski presents a lengthy argument in support of his claim that "chance" and "law" cannot produce CSI, and 2) he then dubs this the "Law of Conservation of Information". You don't need lengthy arguments to demonstrate something that is true by definition, and something that is true merely by definition doesn't merit the designation "Law".keith s_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

StephenB, Despite your elaborate dance, the truth remains. You blatantly misquoted Winston:
Keith S is right. Sort of. Dembski’s design argument is a circular argument.
...when Winston actually wrote this:
Keith S is right. Sort of. As highlighted in a recent post by vjtorley, Keith S has argued that Dembski’s Design Inference is a circular argument.
Box mistakenly trusted you instead of checking the OP. As KF would say: Please do better, Stephen.keith s_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

SB: Let’s say that I am evaluating the probability that wind, air, and erosion produced a well-formed sand castle on the beach. Assume that the object contains two million grains of sand, the time value of your choice, or any other quantitative facts you need to make the determination. Take me through the process. Pay special attention to the chronology involved in determining the probability that unguided forces were responsible for the object and the amount of complex specified information that it contains. Mark
The fact that it may be extremely difficult to estimate P(T|H) in practice is a problem with the CSI method not a prove that CSI doesn’t need such an estimate.
I am not insisting on an accurate measurement. I am asking Robb (or you, or Winston) for a step-by-step description of the process by which the CSI would be calculated.StephenB_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

...you [won't] say things that ignore physical reality.Upright BiPed_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Adapa, The product of translation cannot be reduced to physical law because of the natural (and necessary) discontinuity that exists between the arrangement of the medium and its post-translation effect. It is the organization of the system that establishes the effect, not physical law. Try to educate yourself. Your insults will become better, and you say things that ignore physical reality.Upright BiPed_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed Perhaps the reason you are such a vociferous ID critic is because you don’t understand the issues. Perhaps the reason ID makes zero headway in the scientific community is because what IDers keep dreaming up as problematic evolutionary issues aren't issues at all.Adapa_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic You have a massively difficult task in showing the evolutionary origin of multi-layered cellular information processing, cell-repair, feedback control loops, protein folds, epigenetics … etc Yeah, we know the ID argument by heart. "This is sooooo complex I can't imagine it evolved, therefore the Christian God, er the Intelligent Designer did it". You actually have the massively difficult task in showing the Designed origin of multi-layered cellular information processing, cell-repair, feedback control loops, protein folds, epigenetics. Science has a perfectly good empirically observed mechanism for explaining the evolution of complexity in biological life. What was that ID mechanism for the creation and manufacture of these "designs" again? Let us know when you come up with some positive evidence for your Intelligent Designer.Adapa_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply