Step 1: Assume that Craig Venter succeeds in developing an artificial life form and releases it into the wild.
Step 2: Assume that a researcher (let’s call him John) later finds one of Venter’s life forms, examines it, and concludes that it was designed by an intelligent designer.
Step 3: John’s design inference is obviously correct. Note that John’s design inference is not any less correct if he (a) does not know who Craig Venter is; and (b) is unable to say who designed Craig Venter.
Now that was easy. Does it say anything about the paucity and/or weakness of our opponents’ arguments that they think the “Who designed the designer” argument is one of their best?
I like John Lennox’s response to Richard dawkins for the “Who designed the designer” argument, at the 8:30 minute mark in the following video:
‘It’s the old schoolboy question, ‘Who created God?’, I’m actually very surprised to find it as a central argument in your book because it assumes that God is created. And I’m not surprised therefore that you call the book “The God Delusion” because created gods are by definition a delusion. And if you say, ‘if there is a God you have to ask, ‘Who created God?’, that means you are reduced to thinking about created gods. Well none of us believe in created gods, and I think that argument is entirely beside the point and perhaps you should put it on your shelf marked celestial teapots, where it belongs.”
John Lennox – Science Is Impossible Without God – Video Remix Quotes
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6287271/
I remember reading in some books by Fred Hoyle especially his book “Intelligent Universe”, if indeed the universe is eternal, then the question about design becomes voidless because nothing designed the designer, life comes from life and it has been going on eternally. Of course Christians won’t like this, and neither will the Darwinists.
Who designed the design detector?
I like to use Stonehenge, but this is a nice update.
In either case, why do you assume it’s just one Designer?
No need to add entities but I do not deny there could be/ have been multiple designers.
Just sayin’
Because no one ever asks who designed the designers.
Outstanding!
I have long held the sentiment that the “who designed the designer argument” was weak and rather childish but I never said anything, not wanting to help in anyway, my opponents.
It is similar to asking such an inane question as what’s the beginning of the begining, or the end of the end based in a refusal to accept the finality of what is. When you get to the Supreme Being, the Cause of causes there is nothing more to add, that is the very definition of what we are speaking of and looking for and which is also required logically for any rational system. There must be something so defined, which contains all the inherent properties to be so defined by necessity according to natural and material philosophy and science, not to mention theology.
Only something OUTSIDE of ‘the natural’ or nature could be the first cause of it. Ergo, we must look to the SUPERnatural for the first cause…and only GOD (the only being who wasn’t caused) could be the first cause.
I failed to mention that that which is the beginning in itself, self sufficient and self existent must be naturally excellent for those same reasons and such a entity which must be arrived at logically in any system, puts an end to the search for causes. For everything in the uiverse must have a cause including that which is mentioned as self caused but the difference is one is self caused and self existent and sufficient the others are not. We know of those that are not by experience materially according to laws but we only know of the hidden and more subtle one through the light of intellect which discovers it logically and reasonably just as mathematics are discovered. Therefore one is not smart to ask what is the cause of the Final cause or one is undisciplined and immature and flippant.
The question “Who designed the designer” is intended as a rhetorical question. An actual answer is not expected.
The purpose of raising that question is to show that the argument “It is complex, therefore it must have been designed” will lead to an infinite regression.
I don’t see that your “demolition” has done anything to avoid that infinite regression problem.
Strong argument within the context of CSI.
Neil –
Though you only made one point, you are wrong on two 🙂
First of all, if it does lead to an infinite regression, that doesn’t make it false. If the universe has an infinite past then there is nothing wrong with the regression being infinite.
Second, you are wrong in that it necessarily leads to an infinite regression. The assumption is that a designer must be complex. This is not so. It may be, but it is not a necessary property. Since agency is a different causal category altogether, it may be simple even though it has complex effects in material substances.
Think of an atom. Even though it is simple, it is complex to model within a computer. That is because there is an “impedance mismatch” between the model of the atom and the atom itself. So, although being very simple, it requires a very complex machine to simulate. Likewise, agency could be simple, yet have complex outcomes in a dissimilar domain (i.e. in its material effects).
to Blue Savannah,
“Only something OUTSIDE of ‘the natural’ or nature could be the first cause of it. Ergo, we must look to the SUPERnatural for the first cause…and only GOD (the only being who wasn’t caused) could be the first cause.”
I completely disagree with that. Why are the rules of nature limited to this universe. What if the term nature can be applied to that which exists outside this universe, it works alongside with the multi-verse theory. Now I myself don’t believe the in the multi-verse theory. Think about it in another universe there could be agents way smarter then us…they exist outside of the universe. This is one reason why I don’t think the thought of a multi-verse really destroys anything. It just pushes the idea back a bit.
Neil R,
Furthermore, the question is irrelevant when we consider that ID proposes design and not a designer necessarily. Dawkins asks the question because he’s assuming that design proponents believe the designer is God, and if God is the designer, who designed Him? If he wants to take the religious route, fine, but ID hasn’t proposed that route.
If he wants to talk about the implications of ID, then fine (as well); we have many arguments in that area that destroy the premise of the question in the first place. The problem with people who propose such questions is that they haven’t kept their metaphysical assumptions separate from truly scientific questions. The question is not in itself scientific, but religious.
But we can also discuss it from a philosophical perspective with the problem of an infinite regress. It is materialism that has a problem with infinite regresses, not theism.
Theism proposes a necessary first cause – based on first principles of reason; that is itself uncaused. We call this first cause God. When we talk about God from a philosophical perspective we don’t necessarily need to “personalize” him. However, I believe that philosophical theism offers a grander and more reasonable perspective that God IS personal and ultimately intelligent and eternal. God solves the problem of the infinite regress from which materialism cannot escape; not even with a multiverse. A first cause only need be complex if such a cause is material; but a “material first cause” presents its own problems in that it cannot be eternal.
*I forgot to mention that perhaps the intelligent agents have the power to create a different universe, just like we have the capabilities to create computer games (or worlds). Or maybe they warped into our own and created life on earth. I know it sounds silly but it’s still a possibility
. That’s why intelligent design does NOTHING to answer the question of who the designer is.
Thank you, CY. Neil must not have read the first comment – I hope he reads yours.
Concerning cosmological ID I’ve always wondered why it is almost never pointed out that the “who designed the designer” challenge is completely irrelevant, for the simple reason that even the most secular scientists now agree that time (along with space, matter, and energy) came into being at the birth of the universe.
Assuming the universe was designed (evidence from fine tuning), the origin of time at the birth of the universe means that the designer has no past (present or future, for that matter) since he/she/it created* time.
That which has no past has no origin or history, and therefore no designer by definition.
This seems obvious to me, and renders the “who designed the designer” argument a category mistake:
On the other hand, I could be one of those mindless, uneducated, knuckle-dragging Christian religious fundamentalists who can’t think logically, but who writes AI computer code and earns his living as a software engineer in aerospace R&D.
* The use of the past tense here is obviously inappropriate for reasons given in the text that follows. However, this is the only option given the constraints of language.
Jack,
Thanks. Another aspect of Neil’s post, which didn’t strike me at first, but now has – “The purpose of raising that question is to show that the argument ‘It is complex, therefore it must have been designed’ will lead to an infinite regression.”
True, it will lead to an infinite regression if one’s a priori is materialism. Why is it necessary to start from materialism? The materialist will say that through materialism we find the scientific method. Well that’s fine, but the question itself is not scientific, so why would the scientific method even be relevant?
I swear, the way these arguments are twisted around two entirely different premises (that of metaphysical materialism and that of science) can draw a person into the quandary easily if not on guard; such that what may appear reasonable on the surface begins to appear reasonable in the thick and thin; but it’s not.
Good one Barry. Thank you.
johnnyb (13)
I don’t think I am wrong on any. You respond to me as if I am making that “who designed the designer?” argument. But I am not. I was only commenting on why some people use that argument, and thus on what would need to be demolished. For myself, I don’t much like using such rhetorical devices, and prefer to keep to the real issues.
Neil R,
You state to Johnnyb:
“You respond to me as if I am making that “who designed the designer?” argument. But I am not.”
But your statement at 11…:
“I don’t see that your ‘demolition’ has done anything to avoid that infinite regression problem.”
….seems to lend credence to the argument. What gives?
The problem is not with any particular instantiation of the design argument, the problem comes up when people try to broaden into universal applicability, i.e. one where exceptions are not allowed. That is when the argument leads to logical incoherence. All ID has to do is limit the argument to specific cases that can be evaluated at their own merits, and the criticism would not come up. By claiming that the argument is universally valid, as you did in an earlier post, it becomes a legitimate target for geralised analysis and it will be shown to be incoherent, time and time again.
From the responses here, most people do allow at least one exception. If there can be one exception, can’t there be more? Why does the argument not get expanded to include whatever exceptions are necessary to make it logically coherent? That would be make it more precise and less open to this particular criticism.
Until that is done, people will continue to point out the logical weakness of the generalised design argument, and rightly so, in my opinion.
fG
FG,
“From the responses here, most people do allow at least one exception. If there can be one exception, can’t there be more?”
What is the one exception you’re referring to?
The exception at the beginning of the causal chain implied by the universal design argument, obviously.
fG
F/N: NR thanks for your inadvertent rhetorical favour.
For, at 12, you have inadvertently exposed the key holes in the heart of the Dawkins “who designed the designer” objection, and in the whole style of argument thereby exemplified:
1 –> You unfortunately begin with a strawman caricature of the key design inference:
2 –> But you know or should know by now that this is exactly what design thinkers do not think or argue, so — after all this time at UD — why have you put up such a caricature?
3 –> Surely, if your argument has to pivot on a caricature of your opponents [and Dawkins et al have had every opportunity to know better, as have you, just cf the UD Weak Argument Correctives top right this and every UD page, or the NWE enc article on ID or my new favourite simple 101 Bevets’ page here], then it cannot be strong, can it?
4 –> So, let’s correct, straight off. The design inference — spelled out in steps [cf here for an introduction on the per aspect explanatory filter that you need to make the acquaintance of, on duties of care to fairness and accuracy in discussion] is that,
5 –> With that cleared up and a few misconceptions clarified along the way, we can then see why the design argument does NOT infer from complexity alone.
6 –> But, does the appearance of complexity and specification lead to an infinite regress of causes as the designer must be more complex than the designed entity?
7 –> Not at all.
8 –> The design argument is only a first level inference per inductive evidence, i.e. on best explanation, THIS OBSERVED CSI OBJECT, K, which is highly contingent [or we would explain by mechanical necessity — e.g. a dropped heavy object near Earth’s surface reliably falls at 9.8 N/kg — right off], complex and specified, manifests signs that point to its design.
9 –> That highlighted contingency then raises an implication in logic and epistemology — thence worldview analysis, based on the issue of cause. Namely: THAT WHICH HAS A BEGINNING OR MAY CEASE FROM BEING HAS A CAUSE.
10 –> To see why, go fetch a match box. Pull a match, close the box, strike on the friction strip. Allow to burn about 1/2 way then tilt up the head. The flame will gutter down maybe even go out.
11 –> This is because heat, oxidiser and fuel [incorporating a chain reaction] are each necessary and together sufficient causal factors for a fire.
12 –> So, when you tilt up the match head, you are removing a necessary causal factor and the flame then ceases. It began when the sufficient cluster of necessary factors was brought together, and it ceases if one or more of such is/are removed.
13 –> A fire is an event with a beginning, and it may cease from being. Those factors that — once absent — can block its beginning or if removed can cause its cessation, are NECESSARY causal factors. And, for the flame to be, a SUFFICIENT cluster of factors that includes a cluster of the necessary factors, is required.
14 –> Ironically, since science is so concerned with causal mechanisms, and cause-effect patterns, it is astonishing how rarely students are exposed nowadays to a reasonable 101 level discussion of the logic of cause and effect, and what it does to warrant our knowledge of mechanism claims etc!
15 –> But he matter goes on, to a worldview level issue. For the logical possibility now surfaces of a second class of beings, those that are not contingent.
[ . . . ]
16 –> That is, we see here the possibility of a being that has no external, necessary causal factors. Such a being would have no beginning, and no possibility of ceasing from existence.
17 –> For instance, a true proposition such as the truth, p, asserted in the expression, 2 + 3 = 5 is such a possible necessary being. This truth was always so, and cannot cease to be so.
18 –> As well, if such a candidate necessary being is logically possible, it will be actual, on the force of the necessity of its being, i.e. independence of external causal factors. In short, once we see a serious candidate necessary being, we need to show its logical impossibility to properly deny its actuality. For instance, the truth expressed in 2 + 3 = 5 is logically possible, is not logically impossible [on pain of absurdity!], and is actual.
19 –> Going further, our observed cosmos is credibly contingent, being estimated to have begun some 13.7 BYA, on the usual timeline, and at minimum, it is. So, it credibly has necessary external causal factors, and this points to a root cause being a necessary being, even through multiverse speculations. (And those who want to enmesh themselves in the paradoxes of Hilbert’s Hotel Infinity are welcome to them; traversing an actual countable infinity is an absurdity.)
20 –> So, our observed cosmos is credibly caused, in a situation where this points to a grounding necessary being that is capable of causing a cosmos such as observed (with all its functionally specific complex organisation that facilitates C-chemistry, observed intelligent life, cf. here).
21 –> Q: Does this now lead on to a necessary infinite regress?
22 –> A: Obviously not. The perception of an implied step by step infinite regress of causes, was predicated on missing the possibility of a second class of beings, necessary beings. Once we see that possibility, the perceived implication of infinite regress evaporates.
23 –> Oddly, so does the inference that a designer is necessarily more complex than its design. For, if we observe ourselves, as known designers, we notice that we are COMPLEX UNITIES.
24 –> We are not just agglomerations of parts, but we are unified selves, with particular identities. And, it is that unified self — mind, or even soul, if you will — that is the experienced locus of our intelligence, our capacity to think, infer, argue and reason, will, decide and act.
25 –> Or, as Plato aptly argued in The Laws Bk X, 2350 years ago, we are SELF-MOVED, living wholes — and notice how the argument moves towards a cosmological design inference:
26 –> So, we have reason to see that it is a valid possibility to seat the source of our intelligence in that unified, thus essentially simple, wholeness, not in any material configuration of parts.
27 –> In other words — as is unfortunately usual — Dawkins is begging the question by arguing in an implicitly a priori materialistic circle. Just as Lewontin did.
28 –> So, the who designed the designer argument collapses into a tissue of strawman mischaracterisations, failure to understand the nature of cause and the possibility of necessary beings, and question-begging.
29 –> Which brings us right back to the main issue:
The real issue then, is how will we respond to this, without setting up strawman distortions of the design argument or begging questions in a materialistic circle.
GEM of TKI
Who designed the designer? Nothing! or so says Victor J. Stanger here: http://www.colorado.edu/philos.....ething.pdf
What has to be baloney statement of the decade is found in above article: “Because something is the more natural state of affairs and is thus more likely than nothing—more than twice as likely according to one calculation.” But, on the other hand I expect nothing less from Dr. Stenger.
Srdjan
FG:
Please reflect on contingent vs necessary beings, as is introduced just above.
GEM of TKI
Neil R. I am astonished that you rely on the infinite regress argument here.
You are correct in this sense. In my example Craig Ventor is certainly more complex than the life forms he creates.* So what? This does not lead to an infinite regress, because the issue is not “who is the ultimate designer of all things including Craig Ventor?” The issue is whether our researcher (John) has made a correct design inference with respect to this particular artificial life form Craig Ventor created. As we saw, John’s design inference was correct even if he does not know who Ventor is (much less who designed him). Thus, your response is simply not germane.
*[Whether as a general principle a designer must be more complex than that which is designed I leave for another day]
Who Designed The Designer Question Demolished by asking ONE counter question.
Just ask…”Since the Judeo-Christian God is by definition uncreated, which designer are you referring to?”
FG,
“The exception at the beginning of the causal chain implied by the universal design argument, obviously.”
Well you see that’s where you’re wrong. It’s not an exception to the rule of causality; it is the rule. Without the rule you end up with the problem (actually an absurdity) of infinite regresses from which you can’t escape if you’re a materialist. It’s not implied by the argument, it’s implied by reasoning through the problem.
Here’s the reasoning:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
If this is so, then if the cause of the universe was a material cause, that cause is part of an infinite material chain of causes. The idea of an Infinite chain of material causes is absurd. That’s the problem of infinite regresses.
This leads not to the only exception, because we’re dealing here with material causes. To escape the problem you don’t propose a material exception. It’s actually materialism that proposes an exception to the rule; that you can have an absurd infinite regress; since the existence of God is unacceptable.
God, then is not an exception, but a rule for causation. For anything to exist there must be an immaterial and infinite first cause. This is why theists state that God is the “necessary” first cause.
But Barry, the way the design inference is formulated, it is not limited to a particular example like the one you present here. It is presented as a very general rule, as per your earlier post.
The moment someone uses the inference, in a non-controversial, way like your concrete example, anyone is warranted use exactly the same inference on any other example of CSI and IC one cares to investigate. Why not, after all? Nothing i the inference forbids this. It is not up to you to say that the inference can be used on this and that and the other, but not on the first life form.
If you don’t want people to use it on the first life form where it creates the infinite regress, you should phrase it in such a way that people can immediately see that it isn’t meant to be used in that particular instance.
Either that, or agree that the first life form doesn’t contain CSI and IC and is therefore exempt from the inference.
Don’t blame us for following the inference where it leads. Instead, re-word it such that it is obviously not applicable to First Life, and this counter argument will melt away all by itself.
fG
Faded Glory writes: “But Barry, the way the design inference is formulated, it is not limited to a particular example like the one you present here. It is presented as a very general rule, as per your earlier post.”
This statement is simply false.
ID never asks “What is the source of all design?” It asks, “Is this particular thing designed?” And it answers this question by determining whether that particular thing exhibits complex specified information (or irreducible complexity, which is a subset of CSI).
Faded Glory writes: “The moment someone uses the inference, in a non-controversial, way like your concrete example, anyone is warranted use exactly the same inference on any other example of CSI and IC one cares to investigate. Why not, after all?”
You are exactly correct. Anyone is warranted to use exactly the same inference with respect to any other example of CSI or IC. Why does this surprise you? This is what we have been saying all along. Indeed, this is the essence of the ID project.
Faded Glory writes: “Don’t blame us for following the inference where it leads. Instead, re-word it such that it is obviously not applicable to First Life, and this counter argument will melt away all by itself.”
Actually, I would never blame anyone for following the ID inference where it leads. I would blame someone for following the inference where it does not lead, i.e. to the infinite regress. As even you agree, my example shows that the inference does not lead to there.
Barry, I disagree that it is false to state that the design inference as you presented it is a very general rule.
Let me copy it here out again, straight from your OP in the other thread:
———-
Question to be Investigated: What is the origin of complex specified information (CSI) and irreducibly complex (IC) mechanisms seen in even the simplest living things?
Hypothesis: CSI and IC have never been directly observed to have arisen though chance or mechanical necessity or a combination of the two. Conversely, CSI and IC are routinely observed to have been produced by intelligent agents. Moreover, intelligent agents leave behind indicia of their acts that can be objectively discerned. Therefore, using abductive reasoning, the best explanation for CSI and IC is “act of intelligent agent.”
The intelligent design project is, essentially, the scientific investigation of this hypothesis.
—————-
Right at the start you say that even the simplest living things contain CSI and IC. So why can’t we consider the first life forms, which presumably are the simplest living things, and apply your inference?
Doing so one concludes from your argument that these simplest life forms were generated by something intelligent.
Unless we agree that it is possible for non-living things to be intelligent (I am open to that suggestion, by the way), it fllows immediately that therefore first life, the simplest of living things, is generated by something that is alive.
Which, of course, is a logical absurdity.
Therefore, there is a problem somehere in the way you have formulated your argument. As a scientific hypothesis it fails miserably. That is all I am saying.
I really don’t know how I can make it any clearer than this.
fG
FG:
I have already pointed you, twice, to your answer.
Please cf 27 f above.
You need to distinguish contingency and necessity of being, instead of unconscieously begging the question of materialism.
GEM of TKI
Kairosfocus, I am sorry but I confess that I have problems reading and understanding your posts. I find them very long and complicated and I struggle to distill the points you are making. To avoid misrepresenting you I think it better if I don’t reply at all. Nothing personal, and I hope you don’t take offense.
Best regards,
fG
FG:
Pardon, but you are standing up in a public forum where you have made some pretty strong claims on major matters.
If you are ill-equipped to address the decisive issues on the merits — which pivot on issues over cause-effect bonds and contingent vs necessary beings [I assume you do not need details on the Hilbert Hotel type paradox], then maybe you should not be making the sort of strong claims you are making. It would then be better to be asking questions instead of claiming to have demonstrated strong claims.
If I may compress a few points, maybe it will help, but note the below leaves off a lot of things that deal with side issues that may come up from objectors [remember, much of what we write at UD has to be defensively written in the light of likely objections from clever people], so kindly cf 27 f above for those.
In steps:
1: Light a match and watch it burn half way then turn it head-up. See it try to go out ass it tries to burn already burned fuel?
2: You have just seen a necessary causal factor in action, one that is needed if something is to happen and if absent it blocks the result, in this case a fire.
3: Things like that are contingent beings, as they depend on external necessary factors to begin or to continue to exist.
4: You should be able to see from this that if something begins to exist or may cease from existing, it has a cause — I am here cutting out the side points that deal with all sorts of objections, objectors cf what was already above as a first exposure.
5: This raises the issue of the possibility of another class of being, one that has no external dependence on necessary causal factors.
6: If such a being exists, it will not begin to exist, it does not depend on something else for its existence, and it cannot cease from existing. (The truth in the expression 2 + 3 = 5 is a case in point.)
7: Once you have a serious candidate to be a necessary being, then if it is not IMPOSSIBLE, it will be actual, just as the truth in 2 + 3 = 5 is necessary, did not begin and will never cease to be. (Maybe the discussion here will help on this point.)
8: Now, observe our cosmos, which credibly had a beginning, often dated at 13.7 BYA. That means our observed cosmos is contingent and is not independent, it is not a necessary being.
9: Further observe [cf intro here] how it is evidently fine tuned in ways that support C-chemistry, cell based life.
10: Even through multiverse speculations [cf p. 2 on the just linked], the root cause of such a contingent cosmos will be a necessary being, one with the capability to create such a fine tuned cosmos.
11: Picking up Plato’s point [cf 27 – 28 above], just like us such a being is self-moved, and capable of purpose and effecting that purpose. In a very real sense such a being is intelligent, purposeful and living, but obviously is prior to the sort of material cosmos that is the basis for biological life.
12: So, your claim above that design thinkers are locked up to a non-living designer is false, and the claim that we face an infinite regress of causes a la “Who designed the designer” (as NR made) is also false.
____________
I hope this helps.
If it does not why not simply ask me to explain the particular points where you are having trouble?
(Wouldn’t that be a more reasonable response, instead of in effect claiming that I am so complex you find it more reasonable to simply brush aside whatever I have to say?)
Good day
GEM of TKI
F/N: In addition FG, Barry is right, the design inference is made on a case by case basis, that THIS object or phenomenon shows empirically reliable signs of design. So, on best explanation we infer to design of these cases. Cf here at Bevets for a simple discussion with onward links.
F/N 2: Did you follow the line of reasoning in CY’s presentation on contingent and necessary beings, which is a simpler version of more or less the same argument, but as a result has in it some openings that clever objectors may want to use?
F/N 3: have you done the match experiment yet? (What does it tell you about necessary and sufficient causal factors and contingency?)
F/N 4: Can you think of a time or place where the truth in the expression 2 + 3 = 5 was not so, or could even possibly have not been so?
Hi kairosfocus,
Your posts make me want to bury my head in the sand. No offense.
Mung:
Pull dat tongue out of your cheek before you bite it!
G
F/N 5: Let’s draw up some comparisons.
1: A fire, e.g. on a matchstick had a beginning and may cease, so it has a cause (based on a combination of fuel, heat and oxidiser).
2: The truth in the expression
2 + 3 = 5 . . .
. . . did not have a beginning, does not depend on external causal factors and will not cease to be.
3: A fire is a contingent being, and the truth in the above expression is a necessary being.
4: Our observed cosmos is a contingent being
5: The root-cause of our observed cosmos [this has room in it for multiverse speculations] is a candidate to be a necessary being.
6: Since our observed cosmos seems to be fine tuned, it is seriously argued that this necessary being is intelligent, purposeful, and capable of building a cosmos.
7: With that sort of necessary being, we are dealing with something that is self-moved [moved by a SELF] and so is intelligent and alive but antecedent to the possibility of biological life in our cosmos, indeed causally antecedent to the existence of our cosmos.
8: The inference to infinite regress or the claimed alternative to intelligence that is non-living fall to the ground, i.e. the dilemma’s horns are not rooted in a solid skull and can do no harm.
Does that help?
GEM of TKI
PS: And some are inclined to call a necessary, intelligent, eternal being that purposes to and actually creates a cosmos fitted for C-chemistry, cell based life, “God.” Thus, we see that the real issue is whether such a being as described is impossible. If a candidate necessary being like this is not IMpossible, it is ACTUAL, in all possible worlds.
–> A serious point to ponder on the side of worldview level issues connected to origins science and design theory.
“A serious point to ponder on the side of worldview level issues connected to origins science and design theory.”
– KF
The only serious objection to a design theory then is an argument against the possibility of God. Thus we find religious questions such as: “who designed the designer,” religious charges such as “God of the gaps” and religious claims such as “I don’t believe in fairies or flying spaghetti monsters;” all which have nothing to do with the science.
They’re serious objections but only from the POV of a priori materialism. Once we break that a priori we don’t end up with “anything is possible (as in fairies or flying spaghetti monsters);” rather we end up with what is necessary for existence and what is necessary for IC and CSI. This is what they don’t seem to get.
Barry, isn’t it obvious that you need a more complex argument to explain your three-step argument?
And then a yet more complex argument to explain that one.
Now, THAT’s an infinite regress!
If I’m not mistaken, infinite regression is not an issue for this reason (perhaps I’m restating what has been said.)
A) Apply the design inference to simple living things, such as cells.
B) Determine whether these living things were designed.
C) If they were, identify the source of the design.
D) Apply steps A and B to the source of the design.
If we’re on step A or B with regard to cells, what is the purpose of asking what will happen one or a thousand iterations down the line, except perhaps having an excuse to abandon the line of reasoning?
I’ve noticed that many of the objections to ID are based only on the supposed negative ramifications if it is valid. If it’s true, science will stop. If it’s true, we’ll have infinite regression. How is that any more valid than asking whether life or morality have any meaning if we are all accidents?
SA:
Correct.
And that is Barry’s point.
GEM of TKI
PS: Then, multiply by the point that when we apply the explanatory filter to the contingent, credibly fine-tuned cosmos we inhabit [also cf intro at UD here], it points to a necessary being with causal power and purpose to design and implement — however done — a cosmos suited for C-chemistry, cell based life. This terminates speculations on infinite regresses of design or causation more generally.
FG:
The invitation to discuss is still open.
GEM of TKI
FG:
Let’s start with this:
1: Can you propose a place and time or conditions under which we can have a world where the truth expressed in 2 + 3 = 5, fails?
2: If so, under what specific “possible world” conditions does such a truth fail?
3: If not, does this not mean that we see here a clear case of a necessary being?
4: Go get your match-box or book, and pull, strike and half-burn a match, then tilt it head up so it goes out. Does this show that we see how an external necessary causal factor affects the flame?
5: Contrast contingent and necessary beings, in terms of dependence on or independence of external necessary causal factors.
6: If a necessary being has no dependence on external necessary factors, how can it NOT-be in any possible world?
7: By contrast, in light of the match experiment, do contingent beings depend on a sufficient cluster of causal factors to begin (including all necessary factors), do they require a sufficient cluster of factors to continue, and will they cease if one or more necessary causal factors is removed?
8: Our observed cosmos is commonly seen as having begun some 13.7 BYA [or more broadly 10 – 20 BYA], on many grounds rooted in astronomical and astrophysical science. Is this then a credible contingent being?
9: Would this not then entail that the best explanation for it is that it has external, necessary causal factors?
10: Does this not point, onwards to a necessary being of some sort as the root of our observed cosmos, even through a multiverse? [That is, if we live in a contingent world, does that not require something that always was and will always be as its root? Why or why not?]
11: Further, the evidence points to our cosmos being credibly fine-tuned for C-chemistry, cell based life. What would that suggest as regards the best candidate to be the required necessary being?
GEM of TKI
kairosfocus,
I don’t know if you have seen it, but Barry has made a new OP to specifically address my objection to his argument.
In response, I have asked him two straightforward questions:
1. Can he apply his argument to first life, and show that it does not lead to the logical contradiction that first life was created by something that was alive itself?
2. If he doesn’t want to do this, why not?
Feel free to respond to these questions as well, if you like. All the other things you mention in your posts are undoubtedly valuable, but my interest in the topic stretches only as far as the answers to these two questions.
fG
Barry, you missed out a bit – how is Step 2 accomplished?
FG:
Pardon a direct response: why is it that you are being so patently evasive of the specific underlying answer to the issues you raise?
If sustained, that suggests that you are only here to try to score talking points, instead of engage in genuine and serious discussion.
You have on your plate, from several possible angles, a significant — and BTW longstanding — alternative to your:
Quick first answer, so long as the possibility of a necessary being is on the table, and so long as a possible necessary being is purposeful, and capable of designing and implementing a fine-tuned cosmos in which C-chemistry cell based intelligent life is possible, then there is no implication of the living coming from the non living.
Second answer, as the issue we are looking at is first life in our solar system, and particularly on our planet, the onward origin of the designers of that first life are irrelevant to answering the specific question: where did biological life on earth — with all the CSI/FSCI in it that in our experience is a reliable sign of design — come from.
And, BTW, that is the basic point Barry was making.
If we have clear signs of design in the heart of cell based life, we should treat them seriously, instead of playing at rhetorical games and a priori impositions of evolutionary materialist thinking.
Your second question, pardon me, is more of an accusation — and an unwarranted one — than a question:
Barry has pointed out the immateriality of your inferences, repeatedly. In reply you are insinuating that he is trying to dodge issues.
That’s not Cricket.
When I took up your issues, first in response to NR then in specific response to you, you found a lame excuse to duck away from addressing the issue of contingent and necessary beings.
That’s not Cricket, either.
The obvious implication is that you are not serious, if you keep on commenting like that.
Please, stop.
go do the experiment with the matchstick, and come back on the issue of contingency and necessary causal factors as constraints on contingent beings. In particular, reflect on the concept that that which has a beginning has a cause and that which may cease from being has a cause.
Then, by way of contrast, address the issue of whether you can find any place or time or circumstances in a logically and physically possible world where the truth in the expression 2 + 3 = 5 would not hold.
In short, that truth is an example of a necessary being.
Then, go look at the implications that our observed cosmos is credibly contingent and fine-tuned for C-chemistry cell based life.
Then, think about what a purposing, creative necessary being that has no beginning and can have no end, would be, if not ALIVE in a very meaningful and widely understood sense of the term. (After all, for just one example, the phrase The Living God has been around in our civilisation for thousands of years.)
If you don’t like an example from the Judaeo-Christian tradition, why not look at Plato in The Laws Bk X. Focus on the clip:
GEM of TKI
PS: And, that the living should ultimately come from a cosmos that is contingent and fine tuned, thus pointing to a Necessary Being that is living in a very real and meaningful sense of that term is not a contradiction or an absurdity, nor is this a particularly religious appeal or a science stopper etc. You will observe that this chain of inference is not a priori, nor is it based on an appeal to any religious tradition or scripture etc. The logic — if you would follow it (you have found one excuse or another to duck and dodge repeatedly) — is that contingent beings have necessary causal factors and that there are beings that do not have such causal factors. The onward worldviews inference is that on the evidence of a contingent cosmos and a fine tuned contingent cosmos, the underlying best candidate to be the necessary being is purposeful, powerful and creative. In Plato’s terms, is self-moved and ensouled, thus living. There, patently, is no contradiction or absurdity in inferring that life and cosmos from ultimate necessary being that is living and active.
Dr Liddle:
Have you forgotten that Venter actually signs his name explicitly into his designed life forms?
Step 2 is trivial.
GEM of TKI
kairosfocus (58),
You are quite right, of course. Venter does add markers to his designed organisms.
Which is one reason why many of us have a real problem with the ID view that you can’t determine who or what the designer is – if you do enough investigation then you can identify the designer. In the case of Venter’s organisms, you can read the coded message.
The real issue is not with Barry’s 3 steps – it’s the lack of the fourth step that’s the problem (Step 4 being “carry out invetsigations to determine who the designer is”).
No, I hadn’t forgotten, kf.
So keep going – how do we know that Craig Venter’s name is incorporated into his life forms?
(Assuming of course, that we do not know anything about Craig Venter, including the fact that he, and creatures like him, exist).
Dr Liddle:
Snap!
He has used a code [based on the letters used in our names for the various chemicals involved], and we may infer that the future scientist reads the code.
The design inference then is on the likelihood of the DNA coding for such a special sequence, in a code and language, which we may assume by then is comparable to ancient Egyptian for us.
GEM of TKI
how do we know that Craig Venter’s name is incorporated into his life forms?
He took out a full page ad in numerous newspapers across the country?
kf
Of my trap, I think, kf 🙂
You don’t see the problem?
OK: how do you know it is “a special sequence”?
Remember, that you know nothing about Craig Venter – whether he has a name, whether he writes things in an alphabet, and, if he does, what alphabet he uses, etc.
IF we knew, as we do, that Craig Venter is/was a human genetic engineer who speaks English, which is an alphabetic language system, then conceivably, we might infer that there was a message in the coding sequence, and, given our knowledge of his personality, what it might be.
If we knew nothing of about that, we would not only have no clue as to what sequences were “special”, we wouldn’t even know where to start looking.
F/N: Mung nails it 🙂
Dr Liddle:
Pardon, but I think I need to be fairly direct.
Your latest exchange above is inadvertently, and sadly, revealing.
A complex coded pattern is detected, indeed it is based on a known fact.
And, your objection is:
Now, onlookers, all of this is in response to Barry’s comment:
To which your initial objection was:
And of course, my initial reaction was:
Dr Liddle, you have here played a distractive tangent game and strawman caricature argument that is all too revealing.
It should be patent that Barry’s proposed step 2 in his scenario is entirely feasible, and the imagined retort that you have to know — or know about — the designer before you can recognise that design was there, patently fails, as we have a known point that complex c0ded information is a characteristic sign of intelligence, as we have known since the days of the Rosetta stone and before.
Remember, onlookers, we ALREADY are capable of scanning genomes. So, Barry’s step 2 is quite obviously feasible. And furthermore, the point of the argument is that — with detection in hand — the inference to design of the particular entity is legitimate, even if we may want to have onward debates on who designed Mr Venter. That is the who designed the designer objection is a fallacy of irrelevance, in context one plainly intended by Dawkins to cloud the real issue by appealing to the poisonous atmosphere he and ilk have significantly contributed to creating.
The tangential exercise above therefore comes across as a rhetoric of distraction and strawmanisation tactic rather than any serious response to a serious enough issue.
Please, do better than this.
GEM of TKI
kf:
kf, it seems to me that the straw man is Barry’s.
Yes, I agree with you that there is complex coded information in the cell.
It’s the Craig Venter thing that makes no sense – we know there is coded information in the cell, because we can see that DNA sequences, for instance, result in specific effects in the cell.
And, as you know, obviously, biologists posit that it got there by Darwinian mechanisms.
The Craig Venter thing is a complete distraction. The bit of the genome that has Craig Venter’s name on it presumably does nothing at all (goodness knows what it might do if were actually read as a gene). So without knowing something about Craig Venter you couldn’t even infer that it contained information, let alone that it was designed.
Except, interestingly, for one thing, which actually supports the Darwinian case, not yours: a future geneticist, trying to make a phylogeny from genetically engineered products of Venter’s lab might be sorely puzzled by the appearance, across what otherwise appear to be lineages, of a particular section of apparently functionless genetic material.
Clear evidence of horizontal transfer, but with no apparent mechanism. At that point our future investigator might smell a rat – could it be that ancient humans were capable of intelligent genetic engeneering? And, with that hypothesis, they might manage to decode Venter’s name, and correlated it with some ancient texts (perhaps Mung’s newspaper ads).
In other words, it would be the departure from nested hierarchies that would give the clue that something other than straightforward Darwinian processes was going on.
Dr. Liddle, please consider:
“Partly there is profound misunderstanding, partly there is culpable misrepresentation.”
Dr Liddle:
What are the odds that we would find in a genome a code for the name of a certain scientist, based on the protein AA names?
This is FSCI, with some reasonable threshold of complexity.
And the ability to see the text written in the genome code, is telling on all sorts of levels.
[We can here read assume for the sake of the OP that the code segment reads, “Copyright Craig Ventor and Associates, USA and International, 2020. No duplication without permission. Protected by various International treaties. It is a Federal violation to remove this notice.” Or the like. Then, let us come back form this tangent and address the point in the OP. ]
GEM of TKI
kf: my point is made with your post withing the square brackets.
It is easy enough to decode something if you know what you are looking for.
What I am asking is how, in the absense of ANY information about the designer you would spot that the a string of nucleotides contained a name?
In other words, take that string of nucleotides with Craig Venter’s name in it, and say how you would distinguish it from any other randomly generated string without benefit of any knowledge regarding the designer.
And it’s actually completely on point wrt the OP, as it demonstrates just how a design inference made on the basis of non-functional code depends on at least a reasonably detailed hypothesis concerning attributes of the designer.
To put the problem more generally: how would you distinguish between a randomly generated string and one with a coded message without knowing anything about the sender of the message?
Elizabeth Liddle:
Why is that even relevant to the argument put forth in the OP?
Dr Liddle:
It is now quite obvious thsat the real agenda here is to avoid addressing barry’s atrgument.
To do so, you have decided to attack step 2 by a series of deiversions.
When you hav e been presented with reasonable solutions, at the latest level a proposed copyright notice in code, following what Venter is already doing, you now want to raise essentialy English Grammar objections.
Have you ever done Kellogg type sentence diagrams of more sophisticated linguistic parsing tree analyses?
If so, you will know that a noun — just as a pronoun — is readily detectable in the structure of a coded sentence.
But that is beside the point, the point is that we have a reasonable procedure in Barry’s OP:
Okay, it is quite plain where the matter is ont eh merits.
For 2 simply read the copyright notice, and ask what are the odds that something like that should appear by chance.
All John needs is to know that by the structure Venter would be a noun.
GEM of TKI
I’m not avoiding Barry’s argument at all.
I’m saying that his argument rests on false premises – the premise that you could infer a designer from examining one of Venter’s genomes, without any other clue.
And if you nonetheless did decide that there was a designer, and you happened to be correct, you’d be no more correct than a child who randomly answers a math question and is occasionally correct.
Being correct tells you nothing unless you got there by valid inference.
But if what Barry is saying is inferring design is possible, I quite agree.
And I gave an example of how a future geneticist might infer design from one of Venter’s genomes – not from decoding his name in the first instance but by noting the jump across lineages.
Dr Liddle.
Pardon, but the assertions just made are manifestly false.
Once on signs there is warrant to infer that an object X is designed, that is a credibly established datum. Whether Y, a candidate designer is or is not contingent and perhaps an object of design in turn is strictly irrelevant to the warrant for X.
What you are really arguing is that not even if we find something like a coded in copyright notice, would you be willing to accept that this is a reasonable sign that points to design. Let us look:
That’s a 196 ASCII character string, well past the 72 character threshold.
That is well past any reasonable threshold beyond which on CSI we would have good reason to infer design.
So, the above rejection is quite an admission on your part, and not to your credit.
By that standard, I am within my rights to treat he just above post as so much lucky noise and disregard it as anything of substance pointing to a real designer.
In short, you are here plainly wandering into the territory of selective hyperskepticism.
Which is self referentially absurd.
Please, think again.
GEM of TKI
OK, kf, I’ll back off 🙂 On reflection I agree the point is tangential, and doesn’t seem to be getting across, anyway.
So I’ll say my last word on the subject of the OP, which is that I don’t think “who designed the designer?” is anyone’s best argument.
KF, If you found this string in a piece of computer code (where it, on analysis, didn’t seem to do anything functional) could you tell which bit is my name and which is garbage:
010223040dff02010001deadbeefff01070 d0d1a01070303010105030f040e03ff040 a0effeffdfeebaeddff003010010703030 f040e00f040e00f040e00f040e00f040e0 0223040dff0201000101070d0d1a010703
03011a0dff0201070d0d1a01070303010d
ff02
Please tell me which one is which – and remember, designers sometimes fill spare memory with garbage to confound attempts at back engineering so arguing that you wouldn’t find garbage in a designed artifact is a non starter.
If the whole of human civilization were destroyed – every trace wiped from existence – except for one of ventures engineered organisms – the encoded copyright notice would look like random junk and there would be no way to determine otherwise because any understanding of its function (even recognizing it as serving a purpose) relies on having knowledge of humans and how the English language might be encoded into DNA. That’s the point EL is trying to get across.
But is it really garbage if it’s there to serve a purpose?
And is that another way of saying you may be able to detect design, but you can never detect non-design?
Elizabeth, your objection to Barry’s argument boils down in it’s essence to the following:
John could never infer that the organism was designed without knowing various things about Craig Venter.
You must say that it is not possible for John to infer design in the absence of specific knowledge about the designer, Craig Venter.
So John may have watched a television show showing how aliens designed a similar organism, and that might have led him to infer design for this organism, but that is not possible, you say. You say he must posses certain facts about the actual designer.
forests @ 2 “if indeed the universe is eternal”
But we know the universe is not eternal. Reason tells us it is not and the universe itself “tells” us it is not by means of the laws of thermodynamics.
Imagine a car (universe) sitting in the parking lot and it is running (entropy). We are standing there, and I ask you: “Who started the car?”
You say nobody started it. It’s always been running. I would say, nonsense, somebody had to start it. If it has “always” been running it would have exhausted its fuel supply by now and would not be running. But it is running. Therefore it has NOT always been running. Therefore, someone started it. The analogy holds for the universe. Energy is neither being created or destroyed. That means there is a finite amount of it. That means entropy has a limit, somewhere, that eventually will be reached. And then the universe will be dead. But it’s not dead. Therefore the limit has not been reached. Therefore the universe furnaces (stars) have not been burning forever. They STARTED burning at some point.
This omits considerations of design (the car for moving or maybe just for burning gasoline) and the universe for life, but it should clearly illustrate that the universe is not infinite. Another way, it seems, that we would know that the universe is finite, is that we can count things in it. We can measure things in it. We can measure things about it (albeit imperfectly, perhaps). By definition the universe is not finite.
p.s. BA, fabulous argument, simple, to the point, and I would have said impossible to misunderstand but after perusing comments by the usual suspects, I give too much credit, apparently…
Dr BOT:
Pardon, but distractive.
We are precisely not in a case where the copyright notice or some other sign cannot be read.
If it or another similar sign pointing to intelligence were not present, there would be no issue of an inference to design.
I gave this as a WLOG concrete case to move the discussion back on tract, the logic of what Barry put in the OP.
the determination not to get back on track is what is telling the astute onlooker that something is very wrong indeed with the position being taken by objectors.
GEM of TKI
PS: Please try to remember, the design inference does not offer itself as a universal decoding machine able to detect any and all cases of design.
Just the opposite, it is seeking to identify empirically tested and reliable signs that point to cases that cannot reasonably be assigned to non-design; which is why the per aspect explanatory filter has TWO successive defaults, necessity and chance.
But it now seems that not even a 196 ASCII character copyright notice in a known language, using a known code, will be enough to point to design for the sort of objectors we are dealing with.
That needs to be put on record.
PPS: pardon butterfingers this morning: track!
Unbelievable!
KF, what is the point of using your explanatory filter to detect design in an artifact that has a human readable copyright notice embedded in it, by a person who stated publicly that the artifact was designed and that he encoded said copyright notice in it?
I thought the whole point of the EF was in identifying design in objects of unknown provenance where no knowledge of the designer was required.
If we see an object containing a copyright notice we don’t need to apply the EF because there is a label on the object that says THIS WAS DESIGNED!!!
But this, of course, misses the whole point. The copyright notice is an example of something that could be indistinguishable from random junk to an entity with no knowledge of humans or their language. So it is an example of where a design inference could only be made with prior knowledge of the designer.
That doesn’t mean you can’t make a design inference from other features of an object, just that this is a really terribly example for ID advocates to use.
Dr Bot,
This is precisely a test case to see whether the point that on abundant test cases where we do directly know the cause, and where FSCI shows itself an actually reliable index, we will be willing to accept the induction on inference to best explanation anchored in that body of evidence.
So far it seems the answer from Dr Liddle is no, and your answer also is clearly no.
That is sad.
GEM of TKI
All this test case shows is that where we know there was a designer, and we have knowledge about the designer, we can infer that the thing they designed was designed because of what we know about the designer.
It is flawed reasoning like this, and intransigence in the face of cogent correction, that gets in the way of turning ID from an ill defined conjecture into a rigorous empirical science. Sad indeed.
It is the fact that it is in a known language and in a known code – created by humans – that speaks design in this case.
Let me put things a different way – what I understand from this claim is that the explanatory filter is a reliable indicator of design for objects that we know are designed and where we have lots of knowledge about the designer.
what I don’t get is why this means that the EF is a reliable indicator of design for anything of unknown provenance – of for anything for that matter if it can only be shown to be good at detecting that known designs are designs.
I have a great car detector – it can tell you with 100% accuracy if an object is a car, so long as you already know that the object is a car – therefore I claim it can tell if I don’t know if something is a car, it will reliably tell me if it is or not!
DrBot: “[blah, blah, blah]”
KF: “… which is why the per aspect explanatory filter has TWO successive defaults, necessity and chance.”
DrBot, should you ever care to rationally assault the “explanatory filter”, you ought to go after that “chance” thingie.
Oh, wait! Doing that could easily turn into a frontal attack on Darwinism.
Not sure what you are on about there. I’m not actually attacking the EF, just the fact that pointing to a known design and claiming that the EF can reliably indicate that it is designed does tell us if it can reliably indicate design for anything other than objects that are already known to be designed.
How do you test the EF to verify that it is not just the prior knowledge about the objects designer that is indicating design?
That is unrelated. I think it is likely that the EF, if properly formalized, could reliably tell us if objects are the result of a design process, but not if that process was intentional or not.
Dr Bot:
I have to assume you have had considerable training in science, and therefore in the inductive method of acquiring empirically reliable though provisional knowledge. As in observe, hypothesise, predict and test, generalise, keep an open mind, etc.
In that light, this does not make the grade:
In short, you will only accept that something is designed if you more or less directly know the designer.
So, we can safely assume that you conclude that Stonehenge is not an artifact of design, and the Pyramids of Egypt or Central America, or Linear B script etc are not artifacts of design.
At least, if you were to be consistent — and patently ridiculous — in your reasoning.
Just so, you are underscoring the real problem, selective hyperskepticism, as was already pointed out.
The principle is, that we have an apparent pattern CSI, or more specifically FSCI. We see that it seems to have characteristics that would point to design or reflect design. We use some analysis to dress it up, say the Chi_500 metric:
Chi_500 = I*S – 500, in bits beyond the solar system threshold (our practical cosmos).
If we see something functionally specific — E, from a zone T that is separately describable as a narrow zone of possibilities in a wider space W, is such that W would need 500 bits or more to uniquely tag the number of possibilities, then we are entitled to infer to design on seeing E. That’s because the scope of relevant search on a random walk is comparable to pulling a single straw sized sample from a cubical hay stack a light month across. So, overwhelmingly the sample will be hay not needle, even if a solar system worth of needles lurks in the haystack, in planet sized clumps. And, the only credible way to move to needle is with an intelligent search.
Now, we have a huge base of test cases for the reliability of inferring design on FSCI, e.g. a whole Internet worth. There are no credible exceptions where on known cause, chance and or necessity has given us 500 or more bits worth of FSCI.
But routinely intelligence generates FSCI. (Cf discussions here, as you have had every opportunity to peruse and ponder.)
So, on inference to best explanation — as has been pointed out over and over and over, but willfully ignored or dismissed — we are entitled to treat FSCI as a reliable sign of intelligence. Such as seeing a 196 ASCII character copyright notice in a genome.
But then the real problem surfaces: the genome is full of components well beyond 500 bits, that are FSCI. So, the same sign would lead us to infer that the ordinary genome we commonly observe is also designed.
Which would cut clean across the dominant evolutionary materialism that is an a priori point of orthodoxy among our culture’s secularist intellectual elites and by extension with their fellow travellers.
So at this point the real issue is to deal with a mind-closing a priori, not the actual quality of the evidence, for we just saw that NO evidence will convince the elites, even on pain of utter absurdity like pretending you do not know the scientific method and how it works — at least when Lewontinian censorship is not imposed.
Let’s remind ourselves of the dangerously fierce big game that’s afoot in these woods:
So, Dr Bot, please, do better than that.
GEM of TKI
F/N: I maxed out on links, so kindly cf here for the summary on the formalisation of the CSI metric as cited above. Particularly note the application to specific biological cases based on peer reviewed, published work. (This is beginning to sound like the gap between the conventional wisdom and its drumbeat talking points and the credible truth on say Vietnam. Not to mention on the history of modern Israel . . . and so on, and so much more . . . time to look at this parable again.)
Why would you think that? There would be nothing consistent in reasoning that way, but maybe you have a different idea of what consistent means?
There is plenty of evidence of the activities and behavior of the designers in this case, examples of artifacts they created for the purposes of constructing designed objects, and they appear to be very close ancestors of us. We have no similar archaeological evidence for the design and construction of the devils causeway. Many in the past saw it as obviously designed (and I think a few still do!).
KF,
What has that got to do with anything – we are discussing how to detect design without any knowledge of the designer so the divinity or not of the designer is supposed to be irrelevant. I have no objection to the idea of God, just to a methodology that allows us to invoke God whenever we have an explanatory gap to fill.
Onlookers:
The above two responses underscore the force of my point in my comment just above.
There is an a priori imposition of materialism that has taken over current science, censoring it and turning the scientific method into nonsense.
Evidently ther eis an inability to see that if FSCI — as explained in linked — is a tested and reliable sign of deisgn, then we have good scientific reason to trust it.
And when it points in directions that due to their lock-in of evolutionary materialism the secularist elites find uncomfortable, the use of a priori censorship to dismiss it stands revealed for question-begging.
GEM of TKI
DrBot @92,
I think you mean the Giant’s Causeway
Which, among other geological phenomena, does look designed to non-geologists. It was the foundation of a bridge from Ireland to Scotland (ending in Fingal’s Cave where there are similar formations) built by two giants so they could meet and fight.
I remain to be convinced that the EF could do a better job in explaining the feature.
Prof FXG:
the Giant’s Causeway is a known product of a known natural process driven by mechanical necessity, formation of columnar jointed basalt.
That is, it is a crystal, or rather a cluster of crystals.
It would halt at the first node of the EF, as necessity for the key feature, the regularity of the rock.
Orgel addressed that issue in 1973, it should not even be on the table.
GEM of TKI
PS: Do, kindly save us a lot of going in circles by working through this (esp. parts B and C) in context. Especially note Figs I.2 – 6.
Prof FXG:
Lol, yes, my mistake – I had ‘Devils dyke’ in the back of my mind which is in Sussex.
Utter rubbish. This has nothing to do with materialism, it is about the EF. All you are doing is distracting with strawmen and drumbeat repetitions on your favorite talking points.
Prof FXG:
Lol, yes, my mistake – I had ‘Devils dyke’ in the back of my mind which is in Sussex.
KF:
Utter rubbish. This has nothing to do with materialism, it is about the EF. All you are doing is distracting with strawmen and drumbeat repetitions on your favorite talking points.
oops, having some connection issues, sorry for the double-ish post
PPS: Section A and fig I.1 may help too.
Dr Bot:
You already saw one clip, I suggest you read here on to see why I say that here is a serious problem of a priori materialism, up to and including he US NAS and that ilk.
One may dismiss facts if one wants, but that simply shows that one is dismissive of facts, which have been amply documented.
GEM of TKI
F/N: Given what has been done above, onlookers, pardon my actually clipping the above linked:
________
>> These articles thus lend telling force and context to the following declaration in the 2008 version of a well known, long-running US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) booklet:
The US National Science Teachers Association [[NSTA] as of July 2000, and over the signature of its Board of Directors, is even more explicit in making the same question-begging imposition of naturalism through its radical redefinition of the nature of science for educational purposes:
By strongest contrast with such attempted dismissals by the NAS and NSTA etc, the design inference (a major focus for their ire) is actually a legitimate inductive argument made based on a well supported empirical observation. For we routinely observe that intelligent agents act into our world, and when they do so they often leave characteristic signs of art-ificial — or, intelligent — action; such as functionally specified, complex information.
Thus: on empirical evidence and empirically reliable well-tested signs, we may properly and reasonably contrast “natural” causes traceable to chance and/or mechanical necessity from “intelligent” or “artificial” — as opposed to “supernatural” — causes.
So, on the strength of this very well-supported observation, and the common-sense principle that “like causes like,” it is a well justified and properly scientific induction to infer from such observed signs to the action of such agents. This, regardless of possible onward worldview level implications and debates — which it is no business of science to censor itself over.
That is, the contrast Lewontin, Sagan and Coyne (among many others) have drawn between a materialistic world of scientifically warranted, “progressive” truth and an irrational clinging to superstitious belief in the “demonic” supernatural, is not just an odd personal view, but instead, a fallacy that (regrettably) holds growing official support in leading scientific and educational institutions.
University of California law professor Philip Johnson’s response to Lewontin in November 1997 is therefore quite relevant:
In short, the root problem is not the evidence as such, but the a priori imposition of ideological materialism on origins science. Worse, Lewontin and others apparently do not realise that the claim, assumption or inference that “science [[is] the only begetter of truth” is not a claim within science but instead a philosophical claim about how we get warranted, credibly true belief, i.e. knowledge. So, they have contradicted themselves: appealing to non-scientific knowledge claims to try to deny the possibility of knowledge beyond science! >>
_______
There is a real problem here, one that needs to be faced, not dismissed.
I’m afraid my point was a little obscure. The origin of the Causeway is well known now. However, it was not known to the pagan Celts (or whichever people) came up with the myth about the giants. Thus, if the Celts were to apply the EF given the state of science at the time, it would go something like this:
Necessity – Nope. Don’t know of any natural forces that make rocks like those.
Chance – Not likely!
Design – It was the giants as dunnit.
My point is that the EF is highly subject to the state of scientific knowledge at the time it’s applied. As such it yields false design positives.
This is well known and has been gone over many times before. You’ll no doubt point to the box in your figure I.6 that says “further enquiries” and state that a design inference doesn’t preclude additional research.
In this case, what’s the point of a provisional conclusion of design? What is gained above simply saying “I don’t know”, which is current scientific practice?
It helps further a theistic political cause? i.e. it has nothing to do with science, apart perhaps from its value in arguing that the science should stop because design has been detected?
DrBot:
lol.
You need to show me that toaster works without any toast in it!
It’s an inference DrBot. The inference has to be based on something.
If we can’t apply the EF, or CSI, to things known to be designed, what is the basis for an inference to things not known?
Prof FXB:
Pardon, but — had you read the already referenced — the EF was never supposed to be divorced from a reasonable process of scientific investigation.
Remember, the first default for any particular aspect of a phenomenon is mechanical necessity, and the second is chance circumstances/factors or forces.
it is only when these two are surpassed that CSI would be accepted as present and design would be inferred.
That is, the phenomenon would have to show itself highly contingent under given circumstances of initiation, then to be complex and specific, to be reckoned as CSI and thence designed.
If your objection is that the design inference is therefore subject to the state of the art for scientific investigations, then that seems to be selectively hyperskeptical, as that is true of ANY scientific investigation.
You will observe that he first serious scientific investigations rapidly and correctly inferred that these phenomena were those of crystal formation, similar to other cases that have been observed.
Such is radically diverse form say the discovery of a 196 character Copyright notice written into the genome of an organism, a case of digitally coded functionally specific complex info beyond the 1,000 bit threshold.
Which is what is the specific matter under discussion here.
Are you prepared to argue that forces of crystallisation, by mechanical necessity would write such a notice? Or, that within the span of our solar system or even our observed cosmos, that a chance config could reasonably be expected to result in such?
This does not at all seem plausible or reasonable, and sure looks a lot like “anything but” inference to design.
Which is exactly what I have pointed out as the problem.
GEM of TKI
DrBot:
DrBot:
such as
DrBot:
right
Dr Bot:
This is becoming more and more obvious.
We have here a test case, were digitally coded, functionally specific complex info is present, in the form of a text in English, decoded via an investigation of the use of codes to write such text into genomes.
In the thought exercise case, a 196 character text in English, a copyright notice is found.
The “text in English, a copyright notice” part is a specification, FYI, one that sets the observed instance in a separately describable, very narrow zone in the field of possible strings of DNA of that length. We know that the resources of our observed cosmos could not scan as much as 1 in 10^150 of the set of configs. We also know that the sequence of the DNA chain is essentially unconstrained by blind chemical forces.
So, we are dealing with high contingency, so not driven by necessity.
of the two options for such, chance is so maximally unlikely to be in that UNrepresentative zone of the field of possibilities that the logical inference would be to design. Now, simply from the sort of message, that would also seem reasonable as an artifact of design. (We already have the signature block part, we can expect copyrighted genomes within the decade.)
this case therefore serves admirably to expose what is really going on.
NO amount of reasonably accessible evidence would ever suffice to lead to a different conclusion on your part, so this is selective hyperskepticism in action.
Period.
GEM of TKI
KF,
That is my objection and that is true of any scientific investigation. However, under truly scientific investigation, the scientist concludes “I don’t know”. Under the EF, the design theorist concludes “design”.
Why?
What is gained?
F/N: Onlookers, cf the thought experiment here to see the game afoot.
??? I don’t understand your response – it doesn’t actually address the arguments I was making. Perhaps you just don’t understand them.
prof FXG
Under scientific investigations the investigator routinely reports results with high confidence, with the recognition that matters of fact are more certain than those of explanation of facts.
GEM of TKI
–DrBot: “There is plenty of evidence of the activities and behavior of the designers in this case, examples of artifacts they created for the purposes of constructing designed objects, and they appear to be very close ancestors of us.”
How do you [or the scientists who informed you about them] know that the artifacts were artifacts as opposed to naturally forming accumulations of wind, water, sand, and erosion?