The “Who Designed the Designer” Argument Demolished in Three Easy Steps

_{Barry Arrington

August 5, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

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?

Comments

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. fGfaded_Glory_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT}

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 TKIkairosfocus_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT}

FG: The invitation to discuss is still open. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT}

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.kairosfocus_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT}

SA: Correct. And that is Barry's point. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT}

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?ScottAndrews_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT}

Now, THAT's an infinite regress!kairosfocus_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

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.Mung_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

"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.CannuckianYankee_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

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.kairosfocus_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

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 . . .
and some time back somebody tried to make clever objections to this point, so let us put it this way too: || + ||| --> |||||
. . . 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 TKIkairosfocus_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Mung: Pull dat tongue out of your cheek before you bite it! Gkairosfocus_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

Hi kairosfocus, Your posts make me want to bury my head in the sand. No offense.Mung_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

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?kairosfocus_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

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?)kairosfocus_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

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 TKIkairosfocus_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

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, fGfaded_Glory_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

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 TKIkairosfocus_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

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. fGfaded_Glory_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

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 Arrington_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

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. fGfaded_Glory_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

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.CannuckianYankee_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

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?"Bantay_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

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]Barry Arrington_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

FG: Please reflect on contingent vs necessary beings, as is introduced just above. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

Who designed the designer? Nothing! or so says Victor J. Stanger here: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/Something.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. Srdjaninunison_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT}

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.
(Notice as well, that truth is an abstract, non-material being. It is not just a name, it is an actual property locked into the core of any logically and physically possible world. [This is a big part of the reason for the universal applicability, reliability and elucidating power of mathematics in science; it captures necessary being properties of reality, so we can trust it to show us what else must be so once we see that some things are so. And at a more sophisticated level, we also see why the expression 1 + e^i*pi = 0 is so elegant and powerful; it is rooted in and expresses necessary being properties of the observed cosmos, or any possible cosmos, and that is why we are routinely able to use its related analysis on the complex plane or the complex frequency domain in mathematics and the physical sciences and technology. Major mystery to materialists solved, in passing.])
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:
Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second. [[ . . . .] Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it? Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life? Ath. I do. Cle. Certainly we should. Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life? [[ . . . . ] Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul? Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things? Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things. Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer? Cle. Exactly. Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler? [[ . . . . ] Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.]
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:
we have credible evidence and analysis that points to CSI and/or FSCO/I as empirically and analytically reliable signs of intelligent design as cause. So, when we see such in say the digitally coded DNA of the living cell and in its elaboration to create body plans such as our own from the zygote, that strongly points to design as the best explanation of these features of our natural world.
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 TKIkairosfocus_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT}

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:
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.
1 --> You unfortunately begin with a strawman caricature of the key design inference:
“It is complex, therefore it must have been designed” . . .
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,
(a) on both broad observation and related infinite monkeys/needle in the haystack search analyses, (b) a highly contingent object or process or phenomenon, which (c ) also exhibits the JOINT pattern of complexity AND specificity in a zone of possibilities that is independently describable [such as the text of this post, or the hardware in a computer, or the like, etc], (d) exhibits complex specified information (and particularly the subset, functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, FSCO/I) is not a plausible result of forces and circumstances of blind chance and blind mechanical necessity, but instead (e) such CSI or FSCO/I is routinely observed to be the product of known, capable intelligence. (Note, embodiment in a physical body is not a known necessary characteristic of intelligence.) (f) So, on inference to best [abductive] explanation on both observations and analysis, the best explanation for instances of FSCO/I or broader CSI, is intelligently directed configuration based on choice and capability. (g) So also, by that inductive argument, we may define Intelligent Design much as the NWE does:
the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" [1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. According to adherents, intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it also can be detected in at least some features of living things . . .
(h) Or, we may use the similar definition that appears top right this and every UD page, just one link away -- i.e. ther eis a duty of care to fairness and accuracy being failed here, NR:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence.
(i) So, we may see that the heart of ID may be reduced to an equation, whereby once we can infer an information content I = - log p [or by direct observation of storage, as Shannon also used in his original paper], and where we can also identify specificity S as 1/0 based on vulnerability to perturbation or other procedures that result in seeing that an observed case E comes from a narrow defined zone T in the space of possibilities W that are large enough to be beyond the search capacity of blind chance and necessity [ 500 bits: solar system, 1,000 bits, observed cosmos]: Chi_500 = I*S - 500, bits beyond the threshold. [And kindly note the biological cases highlighted here.] (j) As was discussed recently here at UD, the 10^102 Planck time quantum states [PTQS's] for our solar system's 10^57 atoms, since its founding, are 48 orders of magnitude below the cardinality of the set of possibilities for just 500 bits of info storage capacity, or about 72 ASCII characters. (k) Translating into an image, if we were to make a cubical hay bale 1/10 of a light year on the side [light, moving at 300 m/microsecond -- a more reasonable presentation of the speed of light for technical uses] would take over a month to traverse that distance], big enough to more than swallow up our solar system, and were to take a single straw sized sample at random, it would be overwhelmingly likely to be straw not needle. That is the comparable ratio of the 10^102 PTQS's to the set of possibilities of just 500 bits. (l) In such a situation, the only reasonable explanation of picking up a needle on one go, would be intelligence and capacity, e.g. a scanner that guided our 5 - 15 BY search. (m) Which is of course an inference to design.
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!
(And BTW, once we recognise the reality of necessary causal factors the notion that quantum mechanical events are cause-less evaporates, as they have many necessary factors, and they follow patterns of behaviour constrained by those factors. E.g. no neutron outside a nucleus, and no decay of the neutron is possible.)
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. [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT}

The exception at the beginning of the causal chain implied by the universal design argument, obviously. fGfaded_Glory_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT}

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?CannuckianYankee_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply