Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What if Shakespeare Were an Alien?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

William Shakespeare is widely regarded as the world’s greatest playwright, towering head and shoulders over all who came before and all who came after.  Maybe Shakespeare was so good because he wasn’t a human at all but a member of a hyper-intelligent alien race who happened to be visiting earth in the late 1500’s.  If you subscribe to Cromwell’s rule, you cannot dismiss this hypothesis out of hand.  It is not logically impossible.  Therefore, Cromwell’s rule suggests that we should assign some probability to the possibility even if it is one in a hundred billion.  Otherwise, like the “green cheese” example in the Wikipedia article, we would not be convinced even if we were to find the schematics to Shakespeare’s spaceship in a dusty old attic in Statford-upon-Avon.

Now assume that you are trying to determine whether a design inference is appropriate with respect to Hamlet.  You conclude that Hamlet is rich in complex specified information and infer that the best explanation for the provenance of the play is “intelligent design.”  Many times here at UD our materialist friends have argued that we can infer design only if we know the designer was human.  For example, we are often told that if we were to argue that an arrowhead is designed, we could do so only on the basis of our knowledge that Indians were humans who designed things like ourselves.

Now, since it is not logically impossible, assume for the sake of argument that Shakespeare was an alien.  If that were the case, Hamlet was not written by a human.

Here’s the question:  Is our design inference invalid if Shakespeare turns out to have been an alien?

Comments
Jerad:
So, when can we expect some preliminary conclusions?
The preliminary conclusion is that the unverse and living organisms are intelligently designed.
It helps explain why we see the various ‘records’ that we have:
How would knowing who the designer was do that?
Since ID claims it is a better explanation than modern evolutionary theory.
There isn't any "modern evolutionary theory".
Not based on what I hear from the Discovery Institute. Casely Luskin is quite adamant about that. He says most mutations destroy information and are detrimental to function.
Reference please.
I’m quite confident in ‘my position’ as are millions of working scientists who are doing research, the results of which are consistent with the modern evolutionary synthesis and are helping to fill in more and more details every day.
And yet they have no idea regarding anything evolution. Heck they don't even know what makes an organism what it is. Unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution is totally useless and no one is doing any unguided/ blind watchmaker research.Joe
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
#55
Well, let us know when you have decided intelligent design is present.
We have. However we do not have your agenda.
So, when can we expect some preliminary conclusions? What research projects are in progress? What questions are being investigated? Inquiring minds want to know.
So what? How does knowing the designer add anything?
It helps explain why we see the various 'records' that we have: the fossils, the genomes of existing flora and fauna, the morphology and the bio-geographic distribution. The ID community does care about explaining those surely. Since ID claims it is a better explanation than modern evolutionary theory.
But,since the common ID view is that mutations are overwhelmingly negative
That is also incorrect.
Not based on what I hear from the Discovery Institute. Casely Luskin is quite adamant about that. He says most mutations destroy information and are detrimental to function. He recently republished an interview he did about how various dog breeds are less well adapted than their antecedents.
You know, Jerad, if your position had something, anything, we wouldn’t be talking about ID. So I take it that it bothers you that your position has nothing- no hypotheses, no theory, no entailments and no models.
Not at all. I'm quite confident in 'my position' as are millions of working scientists who are doing research, the results of which are consistent with the modern evolutionary synthesis and are helping to fill in more and more details every day. One might also say that intelligent design, as a paradigm, reigned supreme for thousands of years. Why do think it's no longer taken seriously by a vast majority of PhD-level biologists around the world?Jerad
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
Jerad:
Well, let us know when you have decided intelligent design is present.
We have. However we do not have your agenda.
Depending on the class/nature/type of designer eh?
Why?
IF the intelligent design was all front-loaded then we might be looking at a now absent (or even now non-existent) designer.
So what? How does knowing the designer add anything?
But,since the common ID view is that mutations are overwhelmingly negative
That is also incorrect. You know, Jerad, if your position had something, anything, we wouldn't be talking about ID. So I take it that it bothers you that your position has nothing- no hypotheses, no theory, no entailments and no models.Joe
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
#51
LoL! All of that comes AFTER we have determined intelligent design is present. And guess what? You position still has absolutely NOTHING.
Well, let us know when you have decided intelligent design is present.
That is your uneducated opinion. To real investigators saying something was intelligently designed tells them quite a bit. For one it eliminates entire classes of causes. For another it tells them which way to take their investigation.
Depending on the class/nature/type of designer eh? IF the intelligent design was all front-loaded then we might be looking at a now absent (or even now non-existent) designer. But,since the common ID view is that mutations are overwhelmingly negative one would expect the fossil record to show the earliest life-forms were the most 'advanced'. IF the intelligent design is ongoing, i.e. lots and lots of input over millions of years, then we have an active but limited designer. One who could not create its magnum opus in one go. One who has to constantly tinker to get things moving in the right direction. Knowing that Joe favours Lee Spetner's contention that mutations are directed I'm guessing he's thinking along these lines even though he won't say so. Unless he can point to his elusive 'extra programming' which he believes fervently in. Epigenetics? Mitochondrial DNA? Owing to the lack of equipment/labs/documentation/workshops/etc we are assuming one who is either exceedingly tidy or not based on earth? A bit trickier if it's an ongoing process.Jerad
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
Mark Frank:
1) If you are going to conclude something is designed you need to have a design hypothesis which includes some kind of description of the designer
Nonsense. We just need the entailments of the design.
2) The argument “all things with characteristic X that we know the provenance were designed, life has characteristic X therefore we can infer it was designed” could equally well be expressed “all things with characteristic X that we know the provenance were designed by humans, life has characteristic X therefore we can infer it was designed by humans”
Wrong again, as usual. If we know that humans could not have done it then we infer some other intelligent agency did. That is how science works, Mark. Man am I happy that our opponents are not investigators.Joe
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
LoL! @ keith s:
Barry deleted an entire thread.
2 comments. Barry deleted his OP and my 2 comments and keith s exaggerates it. Very typical.Joe
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
Jerad:
It hardly matters; ID proponents are incredibly reluctant to be specific about their hypothesised designer or its abilities or when it implemented its designs or what designs it implemented or how it implemented its designs.
LoL! All of that comes AFTER we have determined intelligent design is present. And guess what? You position still has absolutely NOTHING.
Which is why ID, as it currently stands, has no explanatory power.
That is your uneducated opinion. To real investigators saying something was intelligently designed tells them quite a bit. For one it eliminates entire classes of causes. For another it tells them which way to take their investigation.Joe
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT
Andre said: "Keith S demands integrity! Y’all better adhere to his high moral standards! But he is not so sure because he can’t really trust his own mind!" Andre, some people actually have integrity, and many people just claim to have integrity because of their belief in a God. If believing in a God were the source of integrity, all and only God believers would have impeccable integrity. A realistic look at humans clearly shows that believing in a God does not produce or guarantee integrity.Pachyaena
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
You should be, ...
Well, apparently we're not discussing life forms so if you want to disucss life forms make your own post about life forms. Good day, sir...Sebestyen
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT
Andre said: "We have found a building inside a life form……." LOLPachyaena
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT
Sebestyen said: "We weren’t even talking about life forms. Jeez…" You should be, since it's already known that buildings (whether small or big) are designed.Pachyaena
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT
Barry said: "Many times here at UD our materialist friends have argued that we can infer design only if we know the designer was human." Not exactly. Non-IDers justifiably argue that way if the item brought up is something designed by humans but some designed things are not designed by humans, such as bee hives, beaver dams, and bird nests. It's actually you IDers who constantly compare things that are designed-created by humans with what you claim are intelligently designed features in/of life forms and other things in the cosmos, and then using your comparisons you assert that most or all (IDers obviously won't agree on most or all) of the cosmos is designed-created (by a particular supernatural God).Pachyaena
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT
Well what do you know! We have found a building inside a life form....... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008102334.htmAndre
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT
Well, when you find a “small building” in a life form, let me know.
We weren't even talking about life forms. Jeez...Sebestyen
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT
Sebestyen said: "And I would argue that if “Curiosity” would find a small building on Mars, nobody of those who oppose ID would doubt that it was “intelligently designed” regardless if we know anything about the designer or its motives." Well, when you find a "small building" in a life form, let me know.Pachyaena
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT
Keith S Since when does integrity matter to you? You're the one that has been unwilling to reason, learn or speak truth...... I think the irony meter has just exploded..... Keith S demands integrity! Y'all better adhere to his high moral standards! But he is not so sure because he can't really trust his own mind!Andre
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PDT
Keith S That is not what Barry said in his statement stop this deliberate nonsense! Barry is saying that Christianity is the standard and he tries to follow it he does not say his own moral efforts are better! Seriously!Andre
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
02:39 AM
2
02
39
AM
PDT
Andre, He's saying what he's saying:
Being a Christian gives me a standard of integrity far beyond what the world requires.
Surreptitiously deleting an entire thread to save face is not what I'd call an act of integrity.keith s
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT
#38 You could be right, I'm not judging him on it. I was just curious so I looked. Mr Arrington himself would be best qualified to interpret what he 'said' on his website.Jerad
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT
I understand it differently. I read it that Barry is saying that Christianity has a standard higher than the world requires, it does not mean Barry's is higher than others.... Being a Christian does not make you a better person or increase your morals! Being a Christian means you are under grace..... Barry being a Christians knows this truth so it is highly unlikely that he is saying he has better morals than others!Andre
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT
#36 Andre, the statement 'Being a Christian gives me a standard of integrity far beyond what the world requires.' is, in fact, clearly displayed on Barry's website. http://www.bankruptcylawyer4denver.com/bankruptcy-attorney-barry-arrington/barrys-personal-statement Even if it's in a separate text box the rendering of the statement implies it is a quote from him. Barry's 'personal statement' upholds and amplifies that statement. I am not criticising him for his views, I was just curious and went to see for myself.Jerad
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT
Keith S You are not a moral authority, you are a very hypocritical, unethical, double standard, obtuse liar. Why don't you focus on your own issues? I don't like TSZ because its a slime pit of angry irrational people, you being one of them if you did not know..... Lastly, you misrepresented what Barry says, you know it, yet you still do it, just like you have been unwilling to accept that your whole Bomb was a house of cards..... Barry can certainly speak for himself if he chooses to, but you need to man up yourself. Can we expect you to be honest and open? I don't think so because once you start believing your own manufactured lies, it is too late. I don't respect you, lets get that clear.... you are a fraud......Andre
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
Andre, Your fear of TSZ is bizarre. Regarding #33, are you claiming that I misrepresented Barry? Where? Here are the two references I made to his website:
ETA: Particularly in light of this statement on Barry’s website (H/T timothya at AtBC):
Being a Christian gives me a standard of integrity far beyond what the world requires.
And:
I think he is ashamed of what he did, because he knows that it falls short of his claimed standards:
Being a Christian gives me a standard of integrity far beyond what the world requires.
Neither of those is a misrepresentation, as you already know. (By the way, you do realize that you aren't doing Barry any favors by continuing to call attention to this, don't you? He obviously just wants it all to go away, so the last thing he needs is someone like you defending him.)keith s
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT
Keith S That is a cop-out the discussion started here the discussion can continue here, I have told you before I have no interest in your game of belittling and ridiculing people by ambushing them on a thread where open discussion is matter of fact not welcome..... You started by calling me a little twerp...... just to set the tone, that means 1 of two things....... Keith S is a Douche bag or Keith S is an even bigger Douche bag! You are not an honest person, you are a disgrace to yourself.Andre
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT
Keith S You are dishonest..... Here is what Barry said and please take note he does not say what you claim! Where did Barry say?
Being a Christian gives me a standard of integrity far beyond what the world requires.
I am now a Colorado Christian bankruptcy lawyer / attorney in Centennial, Littleton and Aurora, seeking excellence in all I do. To some, being a Christian might seem like having a divided mind, being passive or lacking focus. To me, it means having insight into how people think and behave, and having a standard of integrity far beyond what the world requires. While serving my clients, I am also serving God as a Christian lawyer / attorney. Now if you actually knew anything about Christianity you would know that striving to be like Christ is actually a standard way above what the world requires. I strive for that daily but I am very well aware of the limits of my own moral efforts..... Lastly when you do chosse to quote someone, please do it properly!
Andre
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT
Andre, I started an entire thread at TSZ just for you to discuss your precious PCD. Have you forgotten already? It's still there, waiting for you.keith s
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT
Keith S
Instead, he’s been avoiding my question for days.
That is rich coming from you, double standards much Keith? Lets have an open, honest and duscussion about PCD...... Will you?Andre
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT
#10
It seems that it would follow that you reject your fellow materialists who insist that we cannot make a design inference unless we know the putative designer was human.
I rather suspect that their point is that we have only observed human designers (although the Japanese puffer fish definitely should count) and therefore you cannot extrapolate an undefined, undetected, non-human designer who operated at some time, some where for some reason. It hardly matters; ID proponents are incredibly reluctant to be specific about their hypothesised designer or its abilities or when it implemented its designs or what designs it implemented or how it implemented its designs. Which is why ID, as it currently stands, has no explanatory power.Jerad
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT
Andre,
So Barry deleted a post big deal! This is his site and he may do as he damn well pleases!
If you think that's his "excuse", then why doesn't he just come out and say so? Instead, he's been avoiding my question for days. I think he is ashamed of what he did, because he knows that it falls short of his claimed standards:
Being a Christian gives me a standard of integrity far beyond what the world requires.
keith s
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT
... I would argue 1) If you are going to conclude something is designed you need to have a design hypothesis which includes some kind of description of the designer and its motives or you have no way of assigning a probability to that hypothesis – an alien is such a hypothesis but very, very implausible.
And I would argue that if "Curiosity" would find a small building on Mars, nobody of those who oppose ID would doubt that it was "intelligently designed" regardless if we know anything about the designer or its motives. It would just be obvious to anyone with a sane mind. It would certainly spark a lot of discussion about the nature of the designer, but there certainly wouldn't be any debate about wether the building came into existence by natural forces or not. SebestyenSebestyen
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply