What if its True?

_{Barry Arrington
August 6, 2010

Intelligent Design

3}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Warning: This post is intended for those who have an open mind regarding the design hypothesis. If your mind is clamped so tightly shut that you are unable to even consider alternatives to your received dogma, it is probably better for you to just move along to the echo chamber of your choice.

Today, for the sake of argument only, let us make two assumptions:

1. First, let us assume that the design hypothesis is correct, i.e., that living things appear to be designed for a purpose because they were in fact designed for a purpose.

2. Second, let us assume that the design hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis, which means that ID proponents are not engaged in a scientific endeavor, or, as our opponents so often say, “ID is not science.”

From these assumptions, the following conclusion follows: If the design hypothesis is correct and at the same time the design hypothesis may not be advanced as a valid scientific hypothesis, then the structure of science prohibits it from discovering the truth about the origin of living things, and no matter how long and hard researchers operating within the confines of the scientific method work, they will forever fail to find the truth about the matter.

Now let us set all assumptions aside. Where does this leave us? No one can know with absolute certainty that the design hypothesis is false. It follows from the absence of absolute knowledge, that each person should be willing to accept at least the possibility that the design hypothesis is correct, however remote that possibility might seem to him. Once a person makes that concession, as every honest person must, the game is up. The question is no longer whether ID is science or non-science. The question is whether the search for the truth of the matter about the natural world should be structurally biased against a possibly true hypothesis. When the question is put this way, most people correctly conclude that we should not place ideological blinkers on when we set out to search for truth. Therefore, even if it is true that ID is not science (and I am not saying that it is), it follows that this is a problem not with ID, but with science. And if the problem is with science, this means that the way we conceive of the scientific enterprise should be changed. In other words, if our search for truth excludes a possibly true answer, then we should re-conceive our search for truth.

Comments

Onlookers: Petrushka of course selectively hyperskeptically refuses to accept that directed contingency is a commonly observed causal pattern in the present, or that it leaves empirically reliable signs, such as digitally coded, functionally specific complex information. Such as . . . the text of Petrushka's posts in this thread. Observe how, to date, none of he many objections above can provide us a case where dFSCI is observed to be produced by undirected chance and/or mechanical necessity. The whole internet, the software industry and great libraries, among other examples, stand in witness of how dFSCI is routinely and even reliably the product of ART, i.e. intelligence. (And note the difference between the ART-ificial and the "supernatural," a distinction marked ever since Plato's The Laws Bk X 360 BC.) Plainly, the accusation that ID requests an "exemption" from inferring from patterns of the present to cases in the past, is -- since P has been repeatedly corrected above but has refused to face plain facts -- sadly, willfully and foolishly false. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

P4S: FTK's discussion and transcript excerpts here are also interesting.kairosfocus_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

forensic science is an exercise in plausibly reconstructing based on causal patterns and traces observable and perhaps manipulable in the present, the unobserved or unobservable past that cannot be directly recreated; using inference to best explanation
The standard for the last 200 years is that the past can be explained by extrapolating phenomena and processes operating in the present. ID seems to request an exemption.Petrushka_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

PPPS: CY, forensic science is an exercise in plausibly reconstructing based on causal patterns and traces observable and perhaps manipulable in the present, the unobserved or unobservable past that cannot be directly recreated; using inference to best explanation -- and yes, that is what Sherlock Holmes was actually doing, as do his real-world "successors" . . . a significant fraction of practising scientists of various stripes. As such the epistemology of science issues it raises -- including the degree of warrant it may or may not be able to achieve in a given situation -- are quite relevant to the study of origins science.kairosfocus_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

PS: I believe Petrushka would benefit from looking not only at the Weak Argument Correctives and interacting with them on the merits (instead of the strawmen and red herrings), but also at the remarks here on the context and limitations of scientific investigations on origins, and the related challenge posed by design theory as a growing paradigm. PPS: EZ, please remember, Abel is in part speaking tongue firmly in satirical cheek (and yes, that happens in journals too); as can be seen by reading between the lines across the stream of ID supportive work that he has been a part of in recent years.kairosfocus_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

Onlookers: One of the points that is a sadly revealing illustration of a lot of what is going on in this thread and generally, is a denigratory remark made by EZ -- who I suspect has been taken in by a malicious bit of gotcha journalism word twisting that has been turned into a darwinist rhetorical commonplace "fact" -- all the way up in comment no 2:
Remember too Michael Behe’s Dover testimony when he admitted that his definition of science would include astrology. Be very careful.
This remark happens to be next to the RH column where fresh comments are, and it has stuck cross-ways in my craw. So, now, what is really going on here? 1 --> Five years back, at Dover, Behe was being grilled on the "proper" definition of theory in science, and (as this ENV report at the time on the incident shows) in 2001 he had pointed out that the term is used rather loosely by practising scientists in the literature:
I will just say that I think any explanation which rests wholly on empirical evidence and basic logic deserves the appellation 'scientific'.8" _________________ [Footnote] "8 On the other hand, if an explanation depends critically on specific tenets of a particular faith, such as the Trinity or Incarnation, or on sacred texts, then that of course is not a scientific explanation."
2 --> This was in contrast to the "official" definition proffered by the US NAS:
"In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, and tested hypotheses. The contention that evolution should be taught as "theory, not as fact" confuses the common use of these words through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences." (Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd Ed. (1999), pg. 2)
3 --> The NAS definition sounds suitably awesome, but in fact, scientists routinely use "theory: in ways that are far looser than this (even in journals), as the ENV article summarises:
This definition does not actually represent how scientists usually use the word in their technical writing. To witness this fact, perform a PubMed search for the phrase "new theory" (go to pub med and type " "new theory" " [leave in the double quotes]) and you'll find hundreds of hits showing scientists using the word "theory" to describe a "new" idea which can explain a lot of things, but may not yet be "well-substantiated" and may not yet enjoy evidentiary support from many scientific studies. Many scientists who have used the phrase "new theory" use the term based upon the new findings of a single study. The phrase "new theory" is antithetical to the idea of "extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection" and the phrase should not exist in scientific literature if the NAS is correct in its definition.
4 --> So, there is no one definitive and universal definition of "theory," no more than for "science," or scientific method(s)" etc etc. (BTW, this cuts across a LOT of question-begging definition games often used by Darwinist rhetors in the context of ID.) 5 --> What about the alleged admission that astrology is science? 6 --> The problem here is that the status of astrology vis a vis science [and there is actually a question of anachronism there if say one is projecting back 400 - 500 years ago. . . ] depends crucially on the time in question. (E.g. did you know that Kepler was an astrologer? And of course, Newton was an alchemist. At that time, such endeavours were legitimate intellectual efforts, though they were beginning to fade from the scene. Not because they were "occultic" or "esoteric" or "supernatural" or "superstitious" etc, but because they were found wanting in success relative to the agenda of describing, explaining, pr4edicting and controlling the patterns of objects and phenomena.] 7 --> ENV then tells us a key part of the story that you would not glean from the quote-mining exercise above:
Plaintiffs' attorney tried to twist Behe's statements into making it appear that Behe believed that astrology was a scientific theory. Behe did say that 500 years or so ago, when people knew much much less about the world and were trying to explain things, they had an idea that things on earth might have been influenced by things on stars. This was a historical fact. But Behe made it clear that today, astrology is known to be incorrect. This is just like phlogiston theory of burning--people once thought it was true, and once thought it was an empirically-based scientific theory, but today it would not stand up to scientific scrutiny. The problem with astrology is not that it could have fit the NAS or Behe's definition of science 500 years ago. The problem is that it is not supported by the evidence. [Which BTW is why in one of my very first scientific publications ever, in the Barbados Astronomical Society journal, I ripped into astrology; which is also why I blew my stack when someone tried to put the "astrology is science" talking point into my mouth . . . ] That is why, unlike ID, no serious scientists are advocating astrology as a good theory which could be presented to students in science classrooms. Nor do serious academics reference the peer-reviewed scientific literature in support of astrology, as serious scientists do for ID.
7 --> That is why as we open the UD weak Argument Correctives, we are forced to say:
We have noticed that some . . . false objections and attributions, largely products of an aggressive Darwinist agenda, have found their way into institutions of higher learning, the press, the United States court system, and even the European Union policy directives. Routinely, they find expression in carefully-crafted talking points, complete with derogatory labels and personal caricatures, all of which appear to have been part of a disinformation campaign calculated to mislead the public. Many who interact with us on this blog recycle this misinformation. Predictably, they tend to raise notoriously weak objections that have been answered thousands of times. What follows is a list of those objections and our best attempt to answer them in abbreviated form. If you have been sent here, you are now being asked to familiarize yourself with basic ID knowledge so that you can acquire the minimal amount of information necessary to conduct meaningful dialogue.
9 --> It is high time that this darwinist rhetorical trifecta fallacy pattern of (1) distractive red herrings led out to (2) caricatured strawmen soaked in (3) denigratory or even demonising ad hominems and ignited to cloud, confuse, choke, poison and polarise the atmosphere stops. ___________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

What does forensic science have to do with scientific definitional standards being applied fairly not only to ToE, but also to ID?
Forensics may not be the best word. What I'm looking for is a generic word for the scientific investigation of the past. If ID aspires to say something about how living things got that way, it needs to discuss their history. Otherwise evolution is the only design theory on the table.Petrushka_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, "This is simply rubbish. We kill people based on forensic science. We imprison people for life based on forensic science." What does forensic science have to do with scientific definitional standards being applied fairly not only to ToE, but also to ID? You're beginning to sound like Don Quixote - tilting at windmills.CannuckianYankee_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

StephenB, as I mentioned in [94] Petrushka, like many of the Darwinists who visit this site, in the unsupported assertion business. Don't bother him with facts and logic.Barry Arrington_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

[Indeed, philosophy can prove the existence of an uncaused cause with no help at all from science]. ---Petrushka: "And in doing so, proves that causation isn’t necessary." How exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that the philosohical case for an uncaused cause proves that causation is not necessary?StephenB_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, in 92. You are a typical Darwinist. You make an assertion with an air of supreme confidence. Yet you support your assertion with absolutely nothing. Assertions are not arguments, far less evidence.Barry Arrington_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Indeed, philosophy can prove the existence of an uncaused cause with no help at all from science...
And in doing so, proves that causation isn't necessary. It's one of those cases where a single exception disproves the case.Petrushka_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

If ID must meet those standards, then ToE must also meet those standards, and it doesn’t. ID doesn’t expect ToE to meet those standards; what ID expects is that the same standards, which render ToE science, be applied fairly to ID.
This is simply rubbish. We kill people based on forensic science. We imprison people for life based on forensic science. I find it odd that some of the same people who are happy when the legal system finds someone guilty based on forensic science are unwilling to accept the findings of 200 years of research. Tough jury. But not wanting to accept the jury's verdict is not evidence against it.Petrushka_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

Just wanted to let Upright BiPed know: I have read most of two of the references you provided and the reason I'm not on here talking about them is because it's turned out to be a busy family week for me. But I shall be back on when I've read them. The Abel paper is particularly interesting, not only because it's pretty current but also because although it sort of kind of supports the ID paradigm in it's call for research it's general attitude seems to be against the ID paradigm. But I could be wrong. Hope y'all are having a good summer break. I've got a mother-in-law birthday to deal with!! I'll be back. But not for a few days I suspect. All the best.ellazimm_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

---peepul: "something I cannot understand as a newcomer to this debate is what the ID position is on the infinite regress issue." Infinite regress is a logical/philosophical argument and, as you seem to understand, a rational way of understanding causation. Indeed, philosophy can prove the existence of an uncaused cause with no help at all from science, a point that is certainly compatible with the ID paradigm but in no way synonymous with it. Science as science does not concern itself with that philosophical problem. It is more concerned with drawing probabalistic arguments from facts in evidence. Thus, the best ID science can do is draw inferences from the effects of design and posit a designer as the best explanation. Thus, one can say that philosophy, properly applied, can prove the existence of an uncaused cause [usually interpreted as God] beyond a reasonable doubt while science can confirm that point from another vantage point with evidence for a designer.StephenB_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

---"veilsofmaya point is very simple." veilsofmaya's alleged point is totally nonsensical and so is your attempt to justify it. The only way to perform a design inference is to perform a design inference. ---veilsofmaya: "For example, it’s possible a fleet of alien ships could arrive tomorrow and claim their species has been manipulating life on our planet for billions of years. Thet could produce vast amounts of evidence and even perform demonstrations that support their claim." Science is based on an observation of facts in evidence, not on any scienario that might come out of your head. If such an event did occur, then ID science, which follows the evidence wherever it leads, would graciously step out of the way. Unlike Darwinism, it would not continue to hang around even after the evidence has destroyed its paradigm. If an ID scientist discovers that new evidence does not conform to his theory, he will abandon his theory. If a Darwinist discovers that new evidence does not conform to his theory, he says, "fit, damn you, fit."StephenB_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

Peepul, though this is a topic that could exhaust many volumes, briefly, In relation to the 'uncaused cause' which is necessary for this temporal universe, for mathematics itself to be held as consistently true, one is forced a-priori to assume God to be true. Thus the assumption of a 'uncaused cause' is in fact the very foundation of the 'scientific worldview' itself as you put it: This following formal mathematical proof shows that math cannot be held to be consistently true unless the highest infinity of God is held to be consistently true as a starting assumption: Gödel’s Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century Excerpt: Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume to be true but cannot prove "mathematically" to be true.” http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/ This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed 'Presuppositional apologetics'. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place. Proof That God Exists - easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe. Galileo Galilei The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner Excerpt: The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. further notes: Yet even more can be gleaned, 'scientifically' for the uncaused cause: Reflections on the 'infinite transcendent information' framework: The weight of mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. As well, mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light, because, from our non-speed of light perspective, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for the mass going the speed of light, whereas conversely, if mass could travel at the speed of light its size will stay the same while all other frames of reference not traveling the speed of light will disappear from its sight. Special Relativity - Time Dilation and Length Contraction - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY For us to hypothetically travel at the speed of light, in this universe, only gets us to first base as far as quantum entanglement, or teleportation, are concerned. That is to say, traveling at the speed of light only gets us to the place where time, as we understand it, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. gets us to the eternal, 'past and future folding into now', framework of time. This higher dimension 'eternal' inference for the time framework of light is warranted because light is not 'frozen within time' yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. "I've just developed a new theory of eternity." Albert Einstein http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/best-brainac/article37176-2.html "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." – Richard Swenson Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182 Also, hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them, but, and this is a big but; this 'timeless' travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework of time, i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our perspective. In information teleportation though the 'time not passing', eternal, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but also in our temporal framework. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us. Thus 'pure transcendent information' is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we have now examined; transcendent, eternal, infinite information is indeed real and the framework in which 'It' resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned). "An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality" Akiane - Child Prodigy - Artwork Music video - http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4204586 Logic also dictates 'a decision' must have been made, by the 'transcendent, eternal, infinite information' from the primary timeless (eternal) reality 'It' inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality with highly specified, irreducible complex, parameters from a infinite set of possibilities in the proper sequential order. Thus this infinite transcendent information, which is the primary reality of our reality, is shown to be alive by yet another line of evidence besides the findings of quantum mechanics. The First Cause Must Be A Personal Being - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4813914 As a side light to this, leading quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger has followed in John Archibald Wheeler's footsteps (1911-2008) by insisting reality, at its most foundational level, is 'information'. "It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom - at a very deep bottom, in most instances - an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that things physical are information-theoretic in origin." John Archibald Wheeler Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/8638/Default.aspx The restriction imposed by our physical limitations of us ever accessing complete infinite information to our temporal space-time framework/dimension (Wheeler; Zeilinger) does not detract, in any way, from the primacy and dominion of the infinite transcendent information framework that is now established by the quantum teleportation experiment as the primary reality of our reality. Of note: All of this evidence meshes extremely well with the theistic postulation of God possessing infinite and perfect knowledge. This seems like a fitting place for this following quote and verse: "To see the world in a grain of sand, and to see heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hands, and eternity in an hour." William Blake Psalm 19:1-2 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.bornagain77_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

Thanks for your information Bornagain77. I shall look at this material. All, something I cannot understand as a newcomer to this debate is what the ID position is on the infinite regress issue. The two ways out of this issue that I can see are :- - there is a designer who arose without being himself/herself designed - there is a designer who is uncreated and eternal, and who therefore needs no explanation. Does ID take a position on this? I think taking the second position is not compatible with science - deeming something as 'not needing explanation' is not something that is part of the scientific worldview.Peepul_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Barry #78 veilsofmaya continues to erect strawmen and refues to address ID as it is instead of as he distorts it. It is useless to argue with a person who refuses to see reason veilsofmaya raises a sound argument which directly addresses the main point in your post. If you read your post again Barry you will see it says nothing about the nature of ID and nor does veilofmaya's response. So it is a digression (a red herring even!) to criticise him for refusing to address "ID as it is". Your argument in essence was: If life was designed and if ID is not science, then science could never discover that life was designed. veilsofmaya point is very simple. There are ways of finding out that life is designed other than through ID, and these other ways are non-controversally scientific. Therefore science could discover life was designed without accepting ID as science. This argument applies whether you accept that intelligent design is a valid way of getting at the truth or not.markf_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

f --> Instead, Mr Arrington plainly put his focus on what is in front of us: objects, systems and processed that are full of dFSCI, and then asks us to assume that for argument this and other relevant empirical signs of intelligence speak truly but [filling in a few details] are blocked from being deemed scientific by the a prioris of the controlling magisterium. Mr Arrington then highlights that his suggests something is wrong with those a prioris; for, science should not ever be in the business of building in roadblocks that prevent it from ever discovering the truth about a phenomenon in the empirical world. g --> What does VOM do? He promptly distracts his attention from this, and projects unto Mr Arrington the notion of design theory assuming that designers cannot be studied scientifically. This is of course a strawmannish notion that simply forms no part of design theory -- we ourselves are designers, and we and our actions are routinely studied scientifically in many highly important fields of scientific study. h --> What instead is a focal point for design thought is that observed, empirically reliable signs of design as causal process point -- on inference to best explanation -- to the well-warranted conclusion that design is the relevant cause. And, the only "hidden" assumption that this chain of reasoning requires is that a designer at the relevant place and time is not ruled out a priori. (In short, if design is a possible cause, inference to design on empirically reliable sign should not be censored out on a priori imposition of Lewontinian materialism.) i --> VOM then loads his strawman with a subtle but poisonous ad hominem. He willfully refuses to accept that, ever since TMLO by Thaxton et al in 1984, modern design theory has consistently explicitly pointed out that the inference to design of life on earth [where we are observing the life to be explained] does not by itself entail any conclusions about whether the relevant designer(s) carrying out the design are within or beyond the observed physical cosmos. [The side of design theory, oddly, that does point to a designer beyond the observed cosmos, cosmological inference to design on finetuning, somehow is almost never a subject that ardent objectors to design theory are willing to discuss; yet it points to a powerful extracosmic designer or design group capable of building a matter-energy, space-time cosmos. Even more oddly, since the design in question is one that sets up a cosmos in which C-chemistry cell based life is facilitated, this wing of design theory does have something to suggest on candidate designers of life, whether or no the direct designer of life on earth is this particular designer or design group.] j --> VOM then plays the switcheroo from: (i) the explanatory filter is not intended to detect any and all cases of design, to (ii) the suggestion that the EF fails in its intended job: providing a structured process that allows us to credibly infer from particular relevant signs of design to the warranted conclusion that the cause of the relevant objects, systems or processes is design. (Not because he has found an observed case where the EF rules "design" incorrectly, but because he plainly fears that the EF is in fact quite reliable and worthy of trust when it rules "designed." To achieve high reliability on a positive ruling, the EF cheerfully accepts an incidence of failures to detect design. That tradeoff is well known in practical hypothesis testing.) k --> As a further strawmannish switcheroo, VOM suggests that the object of Mr Arrignton;s argument is "knowing that ID’s method of detecting design was “true”." In fact, the point of the again excerpted argument was to point out that there is a problem with how some wish to define science today if something that [at least potentially] accurately infers on empirical evidence and inductive reasoning from observations is ruled out of court by a priori definition; a definition that then locks out the possibility of discovering the relevant truth. In short, a question is being begged, and for ideological reasons -- as Lewontin explicitly confessed:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . ["Billions and billions of demons," NYRB 1997]
l --> His strawman-driven, tautology rebuttal then collapses. For, the issue on failure to accept truth is not on the truthfulness of detection of design, but the creation of an a priori assumption driven roadblock to learning the truth of the actual origin of living forms, if they actually are designed and exhibit empirically reliable signs of such design. m --> His second argument on assuming that the inference form empirically tested and hitherto reliable sign of edesign to postulated future empirical failure is then a selectively hyperskeptical objection. FYI VOM, ALL significant scientific theories, inferences and knowledge claims are subject to correction in light of future evidence. And, ever since Newton's Opticks, Query 31, we have been counselled:
As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses [abstract speculations] are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur.
n --> And, it has always been the clear commitment of design theorists [similar to say thermodynamicists], that should actual empirical evidence show that certain proposed signs of intelligence are not reliable, they would be conceded. In the case of digitally coded, functionally specific complex information, if that should turn out to with reasonable likelihood, originate from credibly undirected chance and blind mechanical forces,then the inference from dFSCI to design of life would collapse, and with it biological design theory. Just as empirically credible violations of the second law of thermodynamics through creation of say a relevant perpetual motion machine would cause a considerable body of physics to collapse. o --> So, the triumphalistic conclusion VOM makes at the end of 76, sadly, only suffices to demonstrate the underlying problems with his reasoning, especially selective hyper-skepticism and associated ideologised, closed-minded circularity. ____________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT}

To: kairosfocus at #83: You quote from the Bible, and then get upset when ID is associated with religion. Can you see the disservice you are doing ?Graham_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: As Mr Arrington has underscored, VOM -- sadly --seems to be here only to push an agenda of talking points that are based on distractive red herrings and caricaturing strawmen. Even when he has had to cite a correction that he is failing to address and is distorting the actual subject matter of design theory, he immediately returns to his distortions. That is sad. Let us therefore refresh our memory from 38 above: _____________ >> 7 –> You know or should know (and the Weak Argument correctives you seem to have neglected are there to help) that the real issue is that the cell exhibits digitally coded, functionally specific, complex algorithmic [and coded -- i.e. linguistic]information, or dFSCI as GPuccio abbreviates. 8 –> Now, dFSCI is a very familiar phenomenon in an information age, indeed it is the key element that makes the PC you are using to read this and make comments here work. 9 –> It is also a well known fact that such dFSCI, in every case where we directly observe the origin, is produced by intelligence . . . . 12 –> Now, one of the challenges on origin of life is that whenever and wherever it happened, it happened in a deep past we cannot observe, nor do we have generally accepted records. That is the source of the sting in Job when YHWH speaks out of the storm in ch 38:
1 . . . the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said: 2 “Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? 3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. 4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand . . .
13 –> Plainly, this is a very good and deep challenge to the project of origins science. 14 –> The best answer we can give is that once (i) we can establish an empirically reliable pattern in the present, (ii) we can observe traces of he past in the present, and (iii) we can see a credible set of initial circumstances that through those patterns would give rise to sufficiently similar traces, (iv) we may scientifically infer on best explanation, that the suggested circumstances and dynamics are a credible — albeit inevitably provisional — origins narrative. 15 –> Of course, one thing that we have no right to do, is to claim that such an inferential reconstruction is a fact beyond reasonable dispute or doubt. (Sadly, it is necessary to note this, as there is a tendency to over-claim the factual basis for evolutionary theories of origins.) 16 –> Coming back from epistemological underpinnings (and yes, science inescapably rests on philosophical foundations), we can note that there is a clear, empirically reliable pattern concerning dFSCI: it is a sign that — per a massive base of observations and without a credible counterexample that can stand basic scrutiny — reliably points to directed contingency as its origin. 17 –> That is, dFSCI, on empirical warrant, points to design its relevant causal factor. (Indeed, on the search space challenges, the other main source of contingency, chance, is not a credible source for dFSCI.) 18 –> So, we have good reason to see that the dFSCI in the cell is the product of intelligence, and not the credible product of chance circumstances, molecular noise and undirected chemical processes in Darwin’s hypothetical pond or a modern equivalent. 19 –> To overturn that, all that would be required is to empirically demonstrate that dFSCI can, with reasonable likelihood, be produced by undirected chance and mechanical necessity in a reasonable natural circumstance. Or even, just in a credible computer or experimental setup. [Genetic Algorithms, to name a favourite rabbit trail, are in fact designed, and build in a lot of intelligently sourced active information that allows them to outperform blind chance plus necessity.] >> ______________ a --> Does VOM provide us a credible observation in the present where an object, system or process exhibiting dFSCI is the product of undirected chance and/or mechanical necessity? Plainly, no -- he is constructing imaginary hypotheticals. b --> So, are we in a position where the inference from dFSCI in particular as a credible sign of design [purposefully directed contingency], has been overthrown? No. c --> Do we otherwise have good reason to believe that undirected chance circumstances and blind mechanical forces on the gamut of our observed cosmos have a credible capacity to generate digitally coded, symbolically functional and specific, complex information requiting at least 500 - 1,000 bits of storage capacity? No. d --> We therefore have a strong inductive inference from dFSCI as a sign to its signified causal factor: directed contingency, aka design. e --> Turning for a moment to VOM's latest comment, no 76 above, did Mr Arrington ever "explicitly [ask] us to make the assumption that the designer could not be studied scientifically," or did he ever imply this? Not at all, as already cited from the original post:
1. First, let us assume that the design hypothesis is correct, i.e., that living things [which of course inter alia exhibit dFSCI] appear to be designed for a purpose because they were in fact designed for a purpose. 2. Second, let us assume that the design hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis, which means that ID proponents are not engaged in a scientific endeavor, or, as our opponents so often say, “ID is not science.” [per imposition of so-called methodological naturalism] From these assumptions, the following conclusion follows: If the design hypothesis is correct and at the same time the design hypothesis may not be advanced as a valid scientific hypothesis, then the structure of science prohibits it from discovering the truth about the origin of living things, and no matter how long and hard researchers operating within the confines of the scientific method work, they will forever fail to find the truth about the matter. [i.e. MN leads to a censorship on science's capacity to search out the truth about origins, i.e it is ideological not scientific in its nature and intent]
[ . . . ]kairosfocus_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT}

second opinion, ID and ToE fit in a category of historical sciences. Neither of them can be empirically tested as you presume. We weren't there those billions of years ago to observe design or chance and necessity in action. We are forced to infer whatever we can observe from the remnants of those historical times, combined with what we can presently observe. These inferences cannot be tested in the empirical sense. What is happening here, is that some junior Darwinists have a limited understanding of various scientific methods, and so they apply empirical standards, which are common among other fields of science, such as physics and chemistry to ID in order to claim that it isn't science; while at the same time, they fail to apply such definitional standards to ToE itself. If ID must meet those standards, then ToE must also meet those standards, and it doesn't. ID doesn't expect ToE to meet those standards; what ID expects is that the same standards, which render ToE science, be applied fairly to ID.CannuckianYankee_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT}

Sorry, my previous previous post was a reply to kairosfocus (66).second opinion_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT}

I appreciate your detailed reply, but I would like to stay focused on the original post. What I was trying to say is that I agree with the conclusion that you should be critical about the way you conceive of the scientific enterprise (“the way we conceive of the scientific enterprise should be changed”), but that there are to logical flaws on the way to this conclusion that I disagree with. The first is that from the fact that there are no absolute certainties does not follow that ID is scientific. The second is that the fault lies not with science. Empirical science is necessarily biased towards things that are empirically testable. That is the whole point of the enterpise. The reason for this is (and that's why your definition of science leaves out something pretty important) that as was already pointed out by Bacon inferences are notoriously unreliable and thus must be empirically tested.second opinion_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT}

Graham, Design with a purpose would be design with design in mind; intentional, as opposed to directed by chance processes. I think we all know what this means.CannuckianYankee_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT}

veilsofmaya continues to erect strawmen and refues to address ID as it is instead of as he distorts it. It is useless to argue with a person who refuses to see reason.Barry Arrington_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

To Proponentist: The usual phrase is just 'designed', that is, something that has arisen from a process other than chance etc. But this time its 'designed for a purpose'. I think we all know what is meant by 'purpose', I would just like someone here to come out and say it.Graham_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

@kairosfocus (#69) You wrote:
2: VOM knows or should know that designers are not a part of ID qua a scientific study.
But how does this prevent the scenario I described from taking place in reality? It doesn't unless you assume more about the designer that the theory of ID suggests.
4: At no point in this argument is there a discussion of designers as such as main objects of scientific study.
Which is why I'm asking the question. Clearly, it wasn't because Barry explicitly asked us to make the assumption that the designer could not be studied scientifically. So why was it absent from the discussion? There must be some missing or hidden assumption here which is not obvious. In the absence of such an assumption, there is no reason to assume that, if some designer really did exist, this designer could not be studied or discovered by the methodical study of science. I've given an concrete scenario that illustrates this. As such… then the structure of science prohibits it from discovering the truth about the origin of living things, and no matter how long and hard researchers operating within the confines of the scientific method work, they will forever fail to find the truth about the matter. It's an unwarranted assumption about the designer as it appears to be based on presuppositions about the designer that are not evident. Could it be based on the assumption that the designer could not be a material being? Does the theory that ID purports to be science actually make this claim?
5: What is on the table is the issue of the scientific value of truth, and by implication the issue that methodological naturalism — the currently imposed “official” demarcation criterion — runs into trouble with truth seeking as a key scientific value and aim. […] … that they engineered say life forms credible to many, is not a matter of the scientific study of signs of intelligence in objects we inspect…
But you referring to the "truth" about how to detect things that are designed, not the "Truth" regarding if things were really designed. These are two separate things, as I've illustrated in my example. One need not accept ID as presented to end up with the right answer in Barry's hypothetical scenario. Imagine I perform an detailed study of natural objects that do not exhibit IC or dFSCI. Then imagine I "design" a new object using these observations so it too does not exhibit IC or dFSCI. Clearly, this object would fail the design detection test, Right? However, would this necessarily prevent you from knowing that this object was designed? Of course not. For example, you could have watched me design and construct the object right in front of you. Or, at some point in the future, I could create twenty exact copies of the same object. Any of these objects would fail the design test on their own, yet I'm guessing you would conclude they were designed when evaluated as a group. In either case, you would have reached the "truth" about their origin despite the fact that the first object did not exhibit IC or dFSCI. Furthermore, if knowing that ID's method of detecting design was "true" was actually the goal of Barry's hypothetical, scenario would have been... 01. Assume ID's design detection method accurate. 02. Assume that ID detection method is "not science" and therefore rejected by the scientific community. Conclusion: Science would reject ID's detection method, despite it being true. However, this seems to be a tautology. This is because the argument asks us to assume that both ID's detection method is true and that science would reject it. So, of course we assume that science would reject ID's detection method. However, we do not know if ID's method is correct, which is precisely the subject in question. As such, I could easily put the shoe on the other foot using the same technique. 01. Assume, in reality, ID's detection method falsely identifies biological life as being designed. 02. Assume ID accepts that it's detection theory is correct. Conclusion: ID would accept it's detection method as being correct despite being wrong. Ta-da! Suddenly, I too can make accusations such as … What is on the table is the issue of the scientific value of truth, and by implication the issue that [ID's design criteria — the currently criteria ID proponents are using to attempt to force their personal beliefs in the class room and academia] — runs into trouble with truth seeking as a key scientific value and aim.veilsofmaya_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

VOM, Pay attention to what Michael Behe said in answer to a similar question. I posted this in the thread regarding Behe's lecture: Tom: “I guess, I would put it this way: In the human world we see designed things all the time. And there’s no problem with the idea of design or creation, because we can see the designer. Now you’re positing a designer. The problem that science has with that is how, we cannot see; we have no evidence of a designer, so how does he get; or she get designs into the three dimensional world that we do see without being able to see the designer, without having other physical evidence in the same world we have other physical evidence of the designer in the human world?” Behe: “Well that’s an, a good question, and I should say; a conclusion of design or an idea of design or theory of design does not mean that all good questions we would like to have the answers for, either are answered or wont be difficult to answer, or maybe very difficult to answer. Um, I would say that, I would bring up examples where scientists would accept conclusions of design without physical evidence of the designer and ah, the standard example is the SETI program, search for extra-terrestrial intelligence; where scientists look for maybe radio signals, which might encode a message, which might be something you would not expect from unintelligent nature, and are actually eager to infer intelligent sources for those, even if you know in some view, they were sent off a billion years ago by a planet who’s sun has since engulfed the planet, for which there would be no physical evidence. Going beyond that, it’s true that in the history of science people have accepted ideas for which there was no physical evidence, and at least for a time, not had the glimmer of hope that there would be. One example is the Big Bang Theory, ah, where the only evidence for a long time for the Big Bang was the red shift of galaxies, which seemed to point to an expanding universe, which if you mentally reversed it, ah, indicated a universe which was much more dense and compact, and after you extrapolated that, the universe seemed to have a beginning. And, a number of scientists thought that this was a good explanation to the data, even though nobody had ever seen a universe exploding into existence before, nobody knew what could cause such a thing, a lot of people thought it had strong theistic overtones, maybe God did this, maybe the Big Bang needed a Big Banger, and so on. So I admit it would be interesting to know exactly how the design was placed into nature, whether it was all in the beginning and unfolded, whether design was added over time, or a million other possibilities. But I think currently the evidence we have is insufficient to answer that question. But I think the evidence may have, like the red shifts and more for the Big Bang is sufficient to make the basic conclusion that there is design in the world, even if we can’t answer a number of other questions.” So the question of if the designers are alien or some other form of entity other than a god is really irrelevant at this point. Do you ask if aliens started the Big Bang, and how they did it before you determine if the Big Bang might be the best current explanation for the origin of the universe? So we can come up with all sorts of conjecture regarding what could have been the designer, and how some either manufactured evidence of their own design and what not, but such conjecture in no way deals with the evidence at hand. So I have to ask; why raise it if it can't at present be answered?CannuckianYankee_{August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next