Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why Inferring Design Does Not Require Knowledge of the Designer

William Dembski
November 29, 2005
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Critics of ID often charge that unless we have explicit knowledge of the designer, we cannot infer design. Thomas Reid, in critiquing David Hume, showed that this charge is unfounded. To see this, go here.

Comments
curtrozeboom, You say: The way I understand randomness, from a scientific perspective, it means "outside of the scope of knowledge in a particular context" ok randomness is scientific if and only if it is outside the scope of knowledge? so: science and knowledge are mutually exclusive? i think you better try again.pmob1
December 1, 2005
December
12
Dec
1
01
2005
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT
Oh no, here we go with the paranormal out-of-body experiences again. Should I cue up the Ghost Busters theme song again?DaveScot
November 30, 2005
November
11
Nov
30
30
2005
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
curt Random should be rigorously defined as "exceedingly difficult to predict" but in fact it's often used as "undirected". The letter penned by 30 some Nobel laureates to the Kansas school board defined evolution as being understood to be an undirected process. Not a random process but an undirected process. This is meaning conveyed to high schoolers - not random as difficult to predict but random as in undirected.DaveScot
November 30, 2005
November
11
Nov
30
30
2005
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
I suggest researching out of body experiences before commenting. Some common aspects of them do not lend themselves to reductionist explanations. At all.jaredl
November 30, 2005
November
11
Nov
30
30
2005
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
More question begging leap frog. Pav: 1) Define purpose. Is purpose our ability to identify a problem and/or apply selection to a range of solutions? How does that differ from design? 2) How does the infant know its parents' actions are intelligent? It and we know, in hindsight. We know because we can compare the actions of others against our own. We assume our actions to be intelligent. Therefore our ability to detect design would not come from our DNA, or soul, but from our own experience which starts initially with only our own actions as infants. I disagree that I am assuming a child's actions are due to nature alone. Whatever intelligence is, it is present as well, and from the child's perspective it is the only intelligent being in the universe. I don't know where you're going with the beehive example. Is a sunflower intelligent because its seeds use the Fibonacci(sp) sequence? What about hexagonal carbon molecules and snowflakes? I don't assume that life developed "all by itself", so that is not a question I am begging. I merely insist on better evidence of a design influence than my or others' subjective evaluation of patterns in nature. So, out-of-body experiences, which are totally subjective and unrecreatable, are evidence that consciousness is supernatural? Even though we understand some of the chemistry and physiology involved when they occur?curtrozeboom
November 30, 2005
November
11
Nov
30
30
2005
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
I feel like we're playing "beg the question" leap frog. ;) pmob1, I would question the use of the word "random" in your argument. You seem to be treating randomness as the compliment to design. The way I understand randomness, from a scientific perspective, it means "outside of the scope of knowledge in a particular context", not an independent force of chaos. Randomness is always relative and a designer can in fact be the source of that randomness, yes even if there is specification present. However, randomness is never in and of itself a natural force that can act in place of design. Randomness is therefore completely justifiable as the default assumtion, because it does not rule out either design or a natural cause. To answer your question to Pennock, yes, randomness becomes a meaningless term in the way you are using it.curtrozeboom
November 30, 2005
November
11
Nov
30
30
2005
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
curtrozeboom: "The rest of the world must seem horridly random, until they recognize something in common with their own actions, such as the need to put food in their mouths. They then progress to using arm movement to purposefully grasp objects, and then mimic their parent’s spoon-feeding and draw upon their early movement knowledge to eventually grasp the design purpose of a spoon. That would seem to me to be the beginning of our ability to detect design, not our intangible souls." If I understand you correctly, I see two problems with your example: (1) design and purpose, though related, are not interchangeable: design involves the interweaving of processes to bring about a certain purpose. (2) When the infant "apes" mom and dad, specifically mom and dad using a spoon, they're watching adults whose intelligence directs the proper use of the spoon: so intelligence is involved. But, again, your argument "begs the question", since you're assuming that what children do is completely due to nature. If, indeed, we are created, then when we look at living nature, we see a fusion/confluence of intelligence and nature. I mean, can you build a house made of wax, with the wax forming walls at exactly 60 degree angles, as bees do routinely? Now you say I'm "begging the question." Let's assume that's the case. I assume that an Intelligent Being is responsible for life. When we look at life, we find evidence of intelligence. We find evidence of design. If we turn that around, and say that you're "begging the question", then where is the evidence that life developed all by itself? (Even Darwin admitted of the "Creator")Where is the evidence that consciousness is purely "natural"? (Think of "out of body" experiences.)PaV
November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
If Humean limits on inductive generalization preclude knowledge of a Designed universe, then they necessarily preclude knowledge of a non-Designed universe: we simply don’t have enough universes to provide a minimum data sample for either possibility. Therefore, any honest follower of Hume can not give special place to a random universe. The same holds true for the more “modest” claim of intelligent design in living forms. If we lack requisite “side information” to demonstrate intelligent creation of species, then we also lack requisite side information to demonstrate random creation of species. Whatever inductive challenges make verification of design too “tenuous,” are also present and sufficient to make verification of randomness too “tenuous.” Darwinists such as Pennock exclude design by insisting on rigorous inductive criteria, a la Hume. But these are promptly ignored when the ball crosses the net, i.e. they sneak “random” into the back court, bandying the term as a known, familiar, quantitatively established constant or range. Upon closer inspection, “random” turns out to be vague and notional, or even an a priori. When pressed, they cough up the plea that “random” is simply the “default assumption.” No problem. All scientific assumptions must be testable, falsifiable, (probably quantitative.) Delineate it or concede. My simple question to the Pennocks is: Given that a thing is not pre-determined (as by a scientific law), how do you distinguish between that which is random and that which is designed? If you can distinguish between them, then it is indeed possible to detect design. If you can not distinguish between them, then “random” is a meaningless term.pmob1
November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
PaV said: But, if indeed, “man” shares in the “supernatural” being of his maker–which is what Judeo-Christianity means by the soul–then, we have, indeed, experiences of “supernatural” designers. In other words, the argument only works if we first concede the point they’re trying to demonstrate, which is, that everything has, as its cause, natural means. PaV, doesn't your argument beg the question? Why should we start from the basis of "man shares in the supernatural being of his maker" in order to explore the question of design? It would seem to me that in order to detect design you must first start with the assumption of only natural order and build up. Dembski's Explanatory Filter even does this. Can an infant, with no knowledge of design or Savior, detect design without first drawing upon its initial experience with moving its arms and legs purposefully? Their only experience at this stage with purpose is from within their own minds. The rest of the world must seem horridly random, until they recognize something in common with their own actions, such as the need to put food in their mouths. They then progress to using arm movement to purposefully grasp objects, and then mimic their parent's spoon-feeding and draw upon their early movement knowledge to eventually grasp the design purpose of a spoon. That would seem to me to be the beginning of our ability to detect design, not our intangible souls.curtrozeboom
November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
Pennock writes: It gets more difficult to work with the concept when speaking of extraterrestrial intelligence, and harder still when considering the possibility of animal or machine intelligence. But once one tries to move from natural to supernatural agents and powers as creationists desire, “design” loses any connection to reality as we know it or can know it scientifically. It strikes me that this is another instance of Darwinists "begging the question." They first infer that NS is sufficient to explain the phenomena of "man" completely. And then they, secondly, tell us that "once one tries to move from natural to supernatural agents and powers as creationists desire, “design” loses any connection to reality as we know it or can know it scientifically." But, if indeed, "man" shares in the "supernatural" being of his maker--which is what Judeo-Christianity means by the soul--then, we have, indeed, experiences of "supernatural" designers. In other words, the argument only works if we first concede the point they're trying to demonstrate, which is, that everything has, as its cause, natural means. From a Christian perspective, one could say that design, by definition, is the confluence of (supernatural) intelligence and nature. Without nature, design cannot be "imprinted"; and without "intelligence", design is not possible.PaV
November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
OK, there's something I don't understand. You say that it is impossible for a person to initially recognize a designer's actions as design. There's a "boot-strap" problem in our design recognition program, so to speak. But, wouldn't design recognition originate from watching our own actions first, presuming that since our actions are "intelligent" that they constitute design, and reasoning that observing similar actions in others also constitutes design? Is this what you mean when you say that design recognition is inherent in ourselves? If that is so, then I still fail to see how you avoid Hume's arguments.curtrozeboom
November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
Thanks for posting the chapter. 'Bout time some of us bought the whole book, eh? Thomas Reid gets down to brass tacks: "...it appears that whoever maintains that there is no force in the argument from final causes [design], denies the existence of any intelligent being but himself." Heh.dchammer
November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply