They Won’t Dance; They Won’t Mourn

_{Barry Arrington

March 17, 2018

Intelligent Design}

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

“We played your a melody, but you would not dance, a dirge but you would not mourn.”

When we are discussing philosophy as it relates to ID, some A-Mat will invariably jump into the combox and howl “I thought this was a science blog; let’s get back to the science.”

Well, a few weeks ago GP put up an extraordinary brilliant science-heavy post. The Ubiquitin System: Functional Complexity and Semiosis joined together. As of today, there were 414 comments. I scrolled through the combox and noted there were ZERO comments from A-Mats.

Keep that in mind next time the A-Mats howl. We put up science posts, and they ignore them. We put up philosophy posts and the criticize them for not being science posts. Proving once again that coherence is not the A-Mats’ strong suit.

Comments

jdk:
as you’re assuming the astronauts would somehow know how to compare what they found to these amino acid sequences.
So the astronauts would have to know the symbols represented amino acids before they could infer the symbols on the wall were intelligently designed? Really?ET_{March 21, 2018
March
03
Mar
21
21
2018
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

to UB at 68 I wrote, "Seems like you are saying that written or spoken representations of pi, and by extension all mathematics I would think, don’t have a physical nature subject to the laws of physics, in the same way a molecule does. If that’s what your saying, that seems pretty clear." You didn't respond to that: is that the gist of what you are saying? Your explanation was certainly not sufficient to support your claim that “the physical requirements of pi has been unequivocally found in a biological object.” You also didn't respond to my question, "On the other hand, I don’t know why you would call a pheromone a symbol."jdk_{March 21, 2018
March
03
Mar
21
21
2018
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

To gpuccio at 71: Yes, although this situation is much more contrived, as you're assuming the astronauts would somehow know how to compare what they found to these amino acid sequences.jdk_{March 21, 2018
March
03
Mar
21
21
2018
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

jdk- There isn't any methodology to test the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. At least ID has a testable methodology. For example no one knows how to test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved by means of natural selection, drift or any other blind and mindless process. Yet ID can test the claim they were intelligently designed. Newton's four rules of scientific investigation come into play. As does Dr Behe's criteria: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”ET_{March 21, 2018
March
03
Mar
21
21
2018
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

Allan Keith:
But pretending that we can detect design in biology is just that. Pretending. There may very well be design in biology, but extrapolating from our ability to detect human design to the design of some supernatural being is just wishful thinking.
Wow. ID does NOT require the supernatural. And our knowledge of human and other animal design is just that- knowledge. And our knowledge of what mother nature is capable of is also knowledge. So we take all of that knowledge and use it to form an inference with respect to what we observe in biology. And guess what? To refute any design inference all one has to do is step up and demonstrate non-telic processes can produce it. But no one can with respect to biology. The evolutionists don't even have a methodology to test their claims whereas ID does. And yes, we can use our tried and true design detection techniques and apply them to biology. Pretending we can see the work of a blind watchmaker is just that- pretending.ET_{March 21, 2018
March
03
Mar
21
21
2018
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

Allan Keith: In my mental experiment, we know nothing about the possible designer. Would you infer design or not?gpuccio_{March 21, 2018
March
03
Mar
21
21
2018
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

Allan Keith, You say this:
we are very good at detecting human design
And this:
But pretending that we can detect design in biology is just that.
The problem is human beings are biological. That's a whopper for you to miss. Andrewasauber_{March 21, 2018
March
03
Mar
21
21
2018
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

Allen Keith But pretending that we can detect design in biology is just that. Pretending. It is not "pretending". It is developing a method to conclusively determine design, successfully testing it on known objects of design and then applying it to biology. It is not "pretending". You can argue that the methodology is flawed or that results when applied to biology are misinterpreted but to call it "pretending" shows a lack of understanding as to what it is about.tribune7_{March 21, 2018
March
03
Mar
21
21
2018
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

jdk at #58: "Similar, I would find the presence of pi to some large number of digits a sign of design." Thank you. Now, let's say, always in my mental experiment, that the astronauts find instead, on the same wall and in the same distant planet, the symbolic representation, always in binary form and through an appropriate code, of the aminoacid sequence of 20000 functional proteins. Would you infer design?gpuccio_{March 21, 2018
March
03
Mar
21
21
2018
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT}

Okay. So the prospect here is that a mature high school teacher and technologist just isn't able to grasp rate-independence -- i.e. that when he writes "Jack Krebs, ID Critic" in ink on a piece of paper, the physical properties of the medium neither determines the shape of letters he writes, nor the sequence that they appear in the message. Or rather, he grasps it all perfectly well, and sensing the potential of a coherent scientific description, simply doesn't want to subject his ideological presumptions to any significantly well-documented physical evidence to the contrary. Since the first proposition is patently absurd, the second is likely true, and will certainly need a positioning statement to give it some cover.Upright BiPed_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT}

I hope to back up to 58, and my discussion with gpuccio, in response to his question about what I am interested in and what I feel I am qualified to discuss.jdk_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT}

Not particularly
What do you not understand?
not in respect to 62 where you claim that “the physical requirements of pi has been unequivocally found in a biological object.”
Rate independence is one of the documented physical requirements of the symbol pi - i.e. without rate independence, the symbol pi would not exist.Upright BiPed_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

Not particularly, and certainly not in respect to 62 where you claim that "the physical requirements of pi has been unequivocally found in a biological object." Seems like you are saying that written or spoken representations of pi, and by extension all mathematics I would think, don't have a physical nature subject to the laws of physics, in the same way a molecule does. If that's what your saying, that seems pretty clear. On the other hand, I don't know why you would call a pheromone a symbol.jdk_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

Rate-independence is not difficult at all to understand. It basically refers to the fact that physical interactions are described and determined by the exchange of energy and rates of exchange of energy. In shorthand, a rate independent symbol system is independent of such energetic factors - i.e. the medium does not determine a symbol or a sequence of symbols. Allow me to clip previous writing as an explanation:
There is a fundamental principle within physics sometimes referred to as the minimum total potential energy principle. This principle is related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and simply states that any physical object (regardless of its size or composition, as big as a planet or as small as a molecule) will distort and twist, and naturally orient itself to seek its lowest potential energy state. To the average reader, this principle might seem difficult to understand, but it’s a principle we each see in effect around us all the time. For instance, we see it in the way a tree branch covered in snow will hang down low as it counteracts the additional weight of the snow, or the way that the propeller on a toy plane is spun by a tightly wound rubber band until the rubber band becomes loose again. In short, this principle can be thought of in general terms as the natural tendency of any object to seek a balance of all the various forces acting upon it at any given time. Since all symbols are physical objects, they are all subject to this fundamental principle. There are symbolic representations that function directly as a result of the medium physically assuming its lowest potential energy state. This includes the vast majority of all informational mediums. A pheromone, for instance, is a perfect example. A pheromone is a chemical compound that serves as a symbol by assuming its lowest potential energy state. In other words, any given pheromone is a combination of a certain number of specific atoms that (when bound together as a compound) assumes a certain physical structure according to its nature - and it is that specific three-dimensional structure that the system recognizes and responds to. However, there is another class of symbolic representation whose individuating characteristics (i.e. the properties that make a representation individually recognizable within its system) are not established by the medium assuming its lowest potential energy state. This is a very unique class of symbolic representation, and is considerably rarer among all forms of information-bearing mediums. As a simple example, the word “apple” written in ink on a piece of paper is a material structure not unlike the pheromone. In general terms, the atoms that make up the ink will interact with the atoms that make up the paper, and together they will assume their combined lowest potential energy state (i.e. a piece of paper stained with ink markings). However, what is actually recognized within the system is solely the arrangement of the ink markings (the shape and sequence of the letters) and that arrangement has nothing whatsoever to do with the lowest potential energy state of ink and paper. This is to say that the arrangement of the letters could be changed to any number of other arrangements, signifying any number of other messages, with every variation being completely undetermined by the lowest potential energy state of ink and paper. Unlike the pheromone, the pattern of a rate-independent symbol literally does not have a "physical nature” to assume. Instead, the pattern is imposed on the medium and is therefore independent of the minimum total potential energy state of the medium.
Is that explanation sufficient?Upright BiPed_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

Pi is a very specific number that arises from clear basic concepts in geometry. Given a base, it has a unique representation. I do not know what your first sentence above means. Yes, pi is part of a larger set of symbols that humans have invented in order to express mathematical facts.jdk_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

Pi is a rate-independent symbol, requiring interpretation. It is a part of a language structure, in this specific case, a system of symbols that expresses mathematical values among alternatives. Agreed?Upright BiPed_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

"The physical requirements of pi has been unequivocally found in a biological object, yes. Precisely." Really? Tell me about that. I think you mean that "something that stands for something" has been found, but that is way, way too general to be in any way analogous to pi being found.jdk_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

Exactly. Pi is a symbolic expression that stands for something. The physical requirements of pi has been unequivocally found in a biological object, yes. Precisely. It is found right at the point where something is specified among alternatives. The question is not has pi, or any other symbolic expression, been found. Rather, the question is what are you intellectually prepared to do to ignore the physical evidence of it.Upright BiPed_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

Pi was found in a biological object?jdk_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

I suppose that if such a sequence were found embedded somehow in a biological object, I would infer design, although I find it hard to imagine what we would even find to establish that.
It was predicted what we would find. Then, through experiment, it was found. Then the fact that we found it was described through the language of physics, about 50 years ago. Looking away isn't going to change the empirical facts, or the recorded history.Upright BiPed_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

GP and jdk, I think that we are very good at detecting design when we have some understanding of the nature of the designer. His possible tools, his capabilities, his limitations. In short, we are very good at detecting human design. And, I would argue, that we would be able to detect the designs of beings with similar tools, capabilities and limitations. But pretending that we can detect design in biology is just that. Pretending. There may very well be design in biology, but extrapolating from our ability to detect human design to the design of some supernatural being is just wishful thinking. Just my two cents.Allan Keith_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

Nice response, gpuccio No, I don't reject the idea that we can detect design. A watch is designed. However, in that case we know something about the existence and capabilities of beings who could have both designed and built the watch. Similar, I would find the presence of pi to some large number of digits a sign of design. I accept the argument, for instance, that finding such a sequence in a message from outer space would indicate the presence of intelligent aliens. And I suppose that if such a sequence were found embedded somehow in a biological object, I would infer design, although I find it hard to imagine what we would even find to establish that.
Finally, I would like a clarification about your statement: “I am quite skeptical about the second issue, partially because my inclination about the first question is that if this intelligence does exist, it is continually and pervasively present in all aspects of the world, including all the experiences we can ever have about what we consider natural processes.” What do you mean exactly? That we cannot infer design for a watch, because some basic intelligence, if it does exist, is continually and pervasively present in all aspects of the world? Am I missing something?
I am referring to those phenomena commonly studied by science as occurring by "natural processes". See above for my thoughts about watches and other things designed and built by known living creatures.jdk_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

jdk: Thank you for your answer. As you probably know, I am more interested in the second aspect, as related to biological objects. There is nothing wrong in being skeptical, but I would like to understand: do you reject the principle of design detection in itself? IOWs, don't you believe that we can detect design for some manuscript about which we have no direct information? Or for some complex machine? As you have a mathematical backgorund, I would like to offer here again a mental experiment that I have proposed other times. Let's say that some future astronauts arrive to a distant planet. There are no traces of life on it, and no evidence of past civilizations. And the astronauts know nothing at all about the history of the planet. However, they find a big stone wall with strange inscriptions on it. The inscriptions in themselves are compatible with some natural origin: they could have been made by natural events, weather, and so on. But looking at them, the astronauts realize that they are, in some way, in a linear sequence. Moreover, they realize that the scratches can be categorized into two basic forms, and that if read as binary symbols with an appropriate code the sequence corresponds exactly to the first 10^6 decimal figures of pi. Now, a simple question: would you infer design for the origin of those inscriptions? And, if your answer is yes, a second simple question. If you realized that exactly the same situation can be observed in some biological object, what would you infer? Finally, I would like a clarification about your statement: "I am quite skeptical about the second issue, partially because my inclination about the first question is that if this intelligence does exist, it is continually and pervasively present in all aspects of the world, including all the experiences we can ever have about what we consider natural processes." What do you mean exactly? That we cannot infer design for a watch, because some basic intelligence, if it does exist, is continually and pervasively present in all aspects of the world? Am I missing something? Thank you in advance for your attention.gpuccio_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

in brief, what would be your main comment about ID as a scientific approach, in the light of your interests?
A beginning comment I can make is that your question combines two separate issues: 1) whether some type of intelligence informs the universe, in its creation or possibly its functioning, such that interesting things happen, such as all the physics and resulting chemistry and biology that result in such things as atoms, molecules, elements, stars, life, etc. 2) whether somehow we can determine that some things happen in a way that could not happen by natural processes alone: i.e., by some direct application of intelligence in a way that is usually not present in most natural processes. That is, somehow what we call science can determine that this intelligence exists and acts occasionally in the world. I am open, although strongly agnostic, about the first issue. (By strongly agnostic, I mean I don't think there is any way for us to know anything about the nature of such an intelligence, or in general for us to answer the question "why is the universe as it is?")" I am quite skeptical about the second issue, partially because my inclination about the first question is that if this intelligence does exist, it is continually and pervasively present in all aspects of the world, including all the experiences we can ever have about what we consider natural processes.jdk_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

jdk: "I am interested in various philosophical issues about the nature of the universe, and about the difference between science, and its limitations, and broader metaphysical beliefs. I am also interested in the nature of human nature, again differentiating, perhaps, between both a scientific and an experiential perspective from various metaphysical positions." Interesting. But in brief, what would be your main comment about ID as a scientific approach, in the light of your interests?gpuccio_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

jdk: "Adding to the list, I am interested in probability and its application to the real world, and as a long-time math teacher, I believe I am qualified to talk about certain aspects of that topic" So have you considered my OP about the probabilistic resources of biological systems? What are the limits of Random Variation? A simple evaluation of the probabilistic resources of our biological world https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-are-the-limits-of-random-variation-a-simple-evaluation-of-the-probabilistic-resources-of-our-biological-world/ Have you any comments about that?gpuccio_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

Good. And I don't recall talking to the press for many years: certainly not within the last two years. Can you provide a source?jdk_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

As I said, it appears to be a rather comfortable position you seek. You can say whatever you want about ID subject matter and not be bothered by any physical evidence or reason to the contrary. Given that the preponderance of evidence supporting intelligence only grows in quantity and quality over time, giving up on that evidence may turn out to be a strategic winner for you. Anything can be sterilized with a quick dose of disinterest at the ready, right? And by the way, the exchange I am referring to is certainly not 15 years old, it’s not even two years old. I’ll step aside.Upright BiPed_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Adding to the list, I am interested in probability and its application to the real world, and as a long-time math teacher, I believe I am qualified to talk about certain aspects of that topic,jdk_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

UB, you are referring to events that happened 12-15 years ago. My life and some of my interests have changed. You write,
Jack, did you ever tell the press that you were uncomfortable characterizing ID as religion because there were “aspects of ID that didn’t interest” you and you “were unqualified to talk about it” ?
No, I doubt that I said that because in fact those are aspects that I am interested in and am qualified to talk about, as I have said in my reply to gpuccio.jdk_{March 20, 2018
March
03
Mar
20
20
2018
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply