What if its True?

_{Barry Arrington

August 6, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; 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

PP: A GA is -- designed, so it will be a design transmitter. It works by -- using knowledge of the domain, and of how the objective function varies as you move the "dna" of population members. That is on what Marks and Dembski have been discussing as active information. You may want to go over by Evo Informatics Lab to see how they -- Marks and Dembski -- discuss key cases in point. Try out this dissection of AVIDA here. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

Thanks Bornagain77, I'll certainly look at the shorter video, and maybe also at the longer! Has Dr Ross written that material down also? PeepulPeepul_{August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus, thank you very much for your reply. As an outsider to the ID community, one thing I do not understand is the claim that genetic algorithms cannot produce the same outcome as design. In a genetic algorithm, the software has a number of components, which are designed - but they do not encode information about the optimum solution. Are there are any papers or technical reference material from an ID perspective that you can share on this?Peepul_{August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

I think the atheist philosopher of science Bradley Monton said something like: "We're not really interested in whether or not ID is science. What we're really interested in is whether or not ID is true, because if it's true, then does it really matter if we call it science?" I've been curious, though. What if it is true that some supernatural designer created the design we see in the universe, and that science by methodology excludes supernatural causation. If this is the case, then by implication, science will be permanently unable to explain certain events. If for the sake of argument, metaphysical naturalism were disproven, would you be willing to rethink whether or not science should hold to methodological naturalism?Drew Mazanec_{August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

Hi Barry, In your OP you have given essentially the same argument that Mike Gene has been giving for years. I think it's a good argument. If you got it from Mike, you might want to share the credit.Bilbo I_{August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

Peepul states; "It’s also the case that the scientific evidence we have rules out the literal biblical creation story." Peepul it depends on whose definition of 'literal' you want to use. Dr. Hugh Ross has made a compelling case for the 'Old Earth' creation model that is, in my view, far more consistent with scripture than the 'Young Earth' model, as well as being far superior to both the 'Young Earth' and the Naturalistic/Evolutionary models as far being consistent towards the scientific evidence. Here is his hour long lecture video on the subject: "Creation as Science" - Hugh Ross - A Testable Creation Model - video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1680357583183645446 Here is a shorter 8 min. video by Dr. Ross that gives a pretty good taste of the strength of his model as far as being robust to predicting the trend of future evidence: Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236bornagain77_{August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

PP: Why do you say this?
To make the case convincing, there needs to be evidence of and descriptions of the designer. Is there any? Without that the case is weak . . .
That sounds a lot like distractive special pleading to me, i.e. because ID is about inference from empirical sign to signified, and to the class of causal process, directed contingency, i.e to that 'tweredun. I would think that it is an important first demonstration to see that something happened, before turning to issues over whodunit, or even how. Just now I had to point out to Avocationist in the computational intelligence thread that: ______________ >> 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 he 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.] >> _______________ Now, I find it extremely interesting that consistently, Darwinist objectors to intelligent design do not take up this direct empirical evidence challenge but instead as a rule find some tangent to drag a red herring away from, and lead it out to a strawman argument. Indeed, your own example is a case in point. Now, that sort of predominant distractive and evasive rhetorical pattern coming from objectors tells us strongly that the argument is not at all as weak as you have asserted. Just the opposite, in fact. It seems instead that he strength of the inference from especially dFSCI to the signified directed contingency as the relevant cause is strong. It credibly warrants a that tweredun conclusion, which then raises a most unwelcome question for those determined to impose a priori Lewontinian materialism on origins science: whodunit. And, that is the real problem, it seems. In short, design theory raises questions that can challenge a comfortable evolutionary materialist darwinian orthodoxy. That orthodoxy has responded largely on ideological and rhetorical grounds. (This is discussed in the Weak Argument Correctives and we need not detail it here. Besides, if one is sufficiently determined, mere argument and evidence will be insufficient to break the hold of a reigning orthodoxy. It will take a public breakdown of the system to do that, and based on some of the indefensible harsher measures and specious arguments currently being sued in defence of the Darwinian magisterium, that is predictably coming, maybe faster than one thinks.) Indeed, I find the original post by Mr Arrington captures much of the problem aptly, and that the responses from objectors reveal more about the problem of a faltering orthodoxy than about the issue at stake. The real issue, in the end is what warrants a knowledge claim, not whether it is properly labelled with a now prestigious term such as "science" or not. GEM of TKI PS: Onlookers, you may find the discussion here helpfulkairosfocus_{August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

Mung: "I’ve been accused of being excessive, but never of being excessively creative." Well, to be excessively pedantically precise, you still haven't ;)Ilion_{August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

Personally, if the ID community can generate genuine scientific material that challenges evolution, I have no problem with that. To make the case convincing, there needs to be evidence of and descriptions of the designer. Is there any? Without that the case is weak. It's also the case that the scientific evidence we have rules out the literal biblical creation story. It is definitely not true. Does the ID community accept that too?Peepul_{August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Henrich [sic], a little challenge for you. Please provide a quote from an ID book or research paper that follows: “The Designer designed the world to make it the way it is, just to confuse us.” If you cannot, then retract it as a partisan distortion.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what I'm meant to be distorting. Perhaps I could have made my point more clearly, though. The problem with positing a designer is that there is nothing stopping us from positing a designer who made the world look like it wasn't designed: it seems that this is called the Omphalos Hypothesis (and taken to the extreme, you get Last Thursdayism). This perfectly fits with what we observe (it can't not!), so scientifically at least is the best hypothesis. Now, I'm not saying that anyone in ID is claiming that this is so, but I also don't see how ID avoids making this the best explanation. The only way out of it is to limit how the designer behaved, but ID refuses to do that. I think I've just argued that if Barry is to be logically consistent, he has to follow Last Thursdayism. I hope for his sake he's kind to cats. :-)Heinrich_{August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT}

UB: Thanks! No more from me 'til I've read them. It's after 9AM here (England) so I'll probably have to start doing family stuff soon so don't hold your breath!! :-) Later all. Have a good Saturday. Do something fun away from your computer.ellazimm_{August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT}

Mung, Barry suggested that, for the sake of argument, we assume that the theory of ID as presented is true. Furthermore, Barry suggested we assume that ID in its current form is not a scientific hypnosis. From these assumptions, Barry went on to conclude that, if this were actually the case in reality, we would be forever unable to discover that design was true due to some unnamed flaw in science. However, for the sake of argument, when I too make the same assumptions, I did not reach the same conclusion. Why is this? For Barry to reach this conclusion, It would seem he must make specific assumptions about the designer which are not present in the theory of ID. Namely, should some abstract designer actually exist, the designer would not reveal this fact to us in leu of discovering it ourselves. But, given the assumptions above, it's unclear why Barry has excluded this scenario. As far as I know, ID makes no claims about the designer beyond the implication of design, which requires the ability to make choices as an intelligent agent. However, it's unclear how Barry knows one of the choices this agent would not make is to revel this fact to us. Apparently, either I do not understand the theory that ID is attempting to promote as a science or Barry is making assumptions about the designer which are not present if the theory of ID itself. Again, I'm taking the "explanation" that ID presents seriously and assuming it's actually true. However, in doing so, I do not reach the same conclusion. This is what prompted my hypothetical designer scenario and my question to Barry regarding why he apparently excludes it.veilsofmaya_{August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT}

EZ, 1995, http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29 2006 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B75DC-4M3J0X8-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5ff1765a7e3edb2caafe25561554f5e2 2008 http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCSJ/2008/00000002/00000001/252TOCSJ.PDF 2009 http://www.bioscience.org/2009/v14/af/3426/3426.pdf 2009 http://www.scitopics.com/The_Cybernetic_Cut.html 2010 http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247 Or even better....try this from 1968… http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1970/JASA12-70Polanyi.htmlUpright BiPed_{August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT}

UB: Fair point; give me the reference again and I promise to read the paper before contributing here again. I haven't read Signature in the Cell yet. I listen to ID the Future and have done for several years. I read Evolution News and Views. I try and keep up with what's going on. CY: We'll have to agree to disagree about Dawkins. As I said, I'm not here to push my view and he can defend himself so I'm gonna walk away from that discussion. No offence intended or taken. Mung: Sorry, haven't got money to pay you to write a book. Maybe after I win the lottery. :-)ellazimm_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT}

I buried my talent =PMung_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

Prothero has been thoroughly debilitated as a voice of rational discourse. Actually he did to himself. But hey, perhaps he keeps a nice lawn, or doesn't where those shoes with that shirt. Everyone has a talent of some sort.Upright BiPed_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT}

Slow down. It is really hard to understand you. Does post mean posit? Are you being sarcastic? If so, when does the sarcasm begin and where does it end? I can’t tell.
But if I supply an indicator of where the sarcasm begins and ends, what fun is that? Isn't it more rewarding to discover that sarcasm is being employed, and where, than to have it pointed out? :) Yes, the first "post" was meant to be a "posit."
Sarcasm does not translate well on the blogosphere although many people think it is excessively creative.
I've been accused of being excessive, but never of being excessively creative. THANKS!Mung_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

Look, I don’t want to push my viewpoint but I’m happy to be clear about it. For a really good examination of the fossil record I recommend the book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald Prothero.
Let's be honest. Fossils don't speak. They say nothing. The title of this book employs a FIGURE OF SPEECH. Pause. Think. So what we are left with is PEOPLE who SAY THINGS ABOUT FOSSILS. Agreed? People Who Say Things About Fossils and Why It Matters. Such a catchy title. But it sort of reduces the author to yet other person who is merely saying something about fossils amongst all the other people who say things about fossils and who have ever said anything about fossils. What I, Donald Prothero, Say About Fossils and Why It Matters. Oh yeah. How did the publishers miss that one? ok, here's my submission for a title: Fossils Don't Lie: And Here's Why WOW! BRILLIANT! Another title: Fossils Don't Lie About People, But People Lie About Fossils: And Here's Why STUNNING! SUCH TRUTH! Contact me for the rights to these titles, and if you are willing to pay me enough, I'll even write a book!Mung_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT}

Mung, Slow down. It is really hard to understand you. Does post mean posit? Are you being sarcastic? If so, when does the sarcasm begin and where does it end? I can't tell. Sarcasm does not translate well on the blogosphere although many people think it is excessively creative.Collin_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT}

ok, so I'M WRONG. I do always try to be willing to admit when I am wrong. Id DOES posit DESIGNERS. NEWS FLASH!!! How else would we have any inkling of what DESIGN might look like, unless we had some knowledge of DESIGNERS? So help me out here. How does this scenario with unknown space aliens fit in with what we KNOW about DESIGN from KNOWN DESIGNERS?Mung_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

Um. No.Mung_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT}

Why have you excluded this particular scenario, given that ID supposedly does not posit any particular designer in particular?
OMG Barry! GOTCHA! This particular scenario is about DESIGNERS. It must be confusing, a theory which does not post a particular designer in particular MUST THEREFORE posit non-particular DESIGNERS!!! Right?Mung_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

Mr Barrington, I hope that you repeat this post periodically. It would be good to be reminded of this on occasion.Collin_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

el, "Dawkins has said, very clearly and several times, that the evidence for evolution is overpowering without the fossil record. It’s not the base." Yes, I know what Dawkins has said. I've been following his writing for several years now. What he doesn't do though, is look at other perspectives unless he's out to slander and misrepresent those perspectives; so I don't put much weight to what he has said. The thing about Dawkins is he's a master of persuasion for those who already accept his views, or for those who like you may be on the fence. The problem is, he doesn't fairly evaluate the other side. He thinks Darwinian evolution is fact, and that those who disagree with it are stupid, lazy or wicked. He won't debate with opponents unless he can control the show. He particularly won't debate ID, because he identifies ID as "Creationism," and he doesn't debate Creationists. Why should I then, listen to him any further than I already have, if he won't allow a level playing field? The one writing in which he clearly addresses design is "The Blind Watchmaker;" but he's debating Paley from two Centuries ago, and not the current design proponents. He hasn't shown evolution to be true; he has persuaded a large following that it is true, but that's another issue altogether. And I do believe he downplays the fossil record for the very reason I indicated. The fossil record is highly problematic for his view.CannuckianYankee_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

Barry, You seem to have excluded one particular scenario for reasons which are unclear. 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. This discovery would not be due to some discovery by researchers here on earth but with the decision of the designer(s) to clearly reveal themselves to us. As such, the suggesting that we must forever be in the dark regarding the cause of biological complexity we observe appears to be an unwarranted assumption based on what the designer would or would not do at some point in the future. Why have you excluded this particular scenario, given that ID supposedly does not posit any particular designer in particular?veilsofmaya_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

EZ, I find it odd that you've read all these books but were not capable (?) of absorbing the Abel paper I referenced on your earlier visit to UD. In the interest of not assuming a comfortable position in the family echo chamber, have you read Signature in the Cell perhaps in this quest to understand ID? Or do you plan to? Just askin.Upright BiPed_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

CY: Dawkins has said, very clearly and several times, that the evidence for evolution is overpowering without the fossil record. It's not the base. Darwin had less evidence to go on and, even admitting the fossil record was not as complete as he would have liked, especially in his day, he still came to his conclusion based on other lines of evidence. The fossil record is bound to be incomplete (it's a crap shoot, which lifeforms get fossilised and which don't) and does not contradict the modern evolutionary synthesis. It could falsify the theory however; it has a veto power. So far, it hasn't. And no, I don't think that is why Dawkins downplays the fossil record. Plus, more and more fossils are being discovered every day and, as of yet, none have disproven evolutionary theory. I am here because I am interested in other viewpoints. And I should hope we all consider all the evidence. Why do you think I'm here? I want to understand why you disagree with me. Look, I don't want to push my viewpoint but I'm happy to be clear about it. For a really good examination of the fossil record I recommend the book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald Prothero. It's recent, it's comprehensive and it's not a screed. Jerry Coyne's book Why Evolution is True does a very good job discussing all the lines of evidence in separate chapters. And then there's Dawkins' book The Greatest Show on Earth. Kenneth Miller's book Only a Theory is also excellent. I respect your view and your doubt. Doubt is good, it keeps you on your toes. I'm not here to convert anyone. But I'm happy to be clear about my own view. I hope I am being respectful of yours.ellazimm_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

arpruss, The actual sequencing of nucleotides in DNA has been studied for underlying pattern. Agency choice was determined to be the only recognizable cause that could lead to the aperiodic sequencing tied to specific function. This conclusion was printed in the peer-reviewed press in 1995, and has been repeated since. Polanyi's similar conclusions go back to the late sixties. They still stand. A cause that stands alone, as the only discernable force that can create the effect in question, should certainly be allowed at the table.Upright BiPed_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

Henrich, a little challenge for you. Please provide a quote from an ID book or research paper that follows: "The Designer designed the world to make it the way it is, just to confuse us." If you cannot, then retract it as a partisan distortion.Upright BiPed_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

Charles, I'm glad to see you posting. Please hang around if you can.Upright BiPed_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply