A “simple” summing up of the basic case for scientifically inferring design (in light of the logic of scientific induction per best explanation of the unobserved past)

_{kairosfocus

May 2, 2013

Design inference, ID Foundations, Irreducible Complexity, Philosophy, science education, Sciences and Theology, specified complexity, Video, worldview}

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

In answering yet another round of G’s talking points on design theory and those of us who advocate it, I have outlined a summary of design thinking and its links onward to debates on theology, that I think is worth being somewhat adapted, expanded and headlined.

With your indulgence:

_______________

>> The epistemological warrant for origins science is no mystery, as Meyer and others have summarised. {Let me clip from an earlier post in the same thread:

Let me give you an example of a genuine test (reported in Wiki’s article on the Infinite Monkeys theorem), on very easy terms, random document generation, as I have cited many times:

One computer program run by Dan Oliver of Scottsdale, Arizona, according to an article in The New Yorker, came up with a result on August 4, 2004: After the group had worked for 42,162,500,000 billion billion monkey-years, one of the “monkeys” typed, “VALENTINE. Cease toIdor:eFLP0FRjWK78aXzVOwm)-‘;8.t” The first 19 letters of this sequence can be found in “The Two Gentlemen of Verona”. Other teams have reproduced 18 characters from “Timon of Athens”, 17 from “Troilus and Cressida”, and 16 from “Richard II”.[24]

A website entitled The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, launched on July 1, 2003, contained a Java applet that simulates a large population of monkeys typing randomly, with the stated intention of seeing how long it takes the virtual monkeys to produce a complete Shakespearean play from beginning to end. For example, it produced this partial line from Henry IV, Part 2, reporting that it took “2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey-years” to reach 24 matching characters:

RUMOUR. Open your ears; 9r”5j5&?OWTY Z0d…

Of course this is chance generating the highly contingent outcome.

What about chance plus necessity, e.g. mutations and differential reproductive success of variants in environments? The answer is, that the non-foresighted — thus chance — variation is the source of high contingency. Differential reproductive success actually SUBTRACTS “inferior” varieties, it does not add. The source of variation is various chance processes, chance being understood in terms of processes creating variations uncorrelated with the functional outcomes of interest: i.e. non-foresighted.

If you have a case, make it . . . .

In making that case I suggest you start with OOL, and bear in mind Meyer’s remark on that subject in reply to hostile reviews:

The central argument of my book is that intelligent design—the activity of a conscious and rational deliberative agent—best explains the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living cell. I argue this because of two things that we know from our uniform and repeated experience, which following Charles Darwin I take to be the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. First, intelligent agents have demonstrated the capacity to produce large amounts of functionally specified information (especially in a digital form).

Notice the terminology he naturally uses and how close it is to the terms I and others have commonly used, functionally specific complex information. So much for that rhetorical gambit.

He continues:

Second, no undirected chemical process has demonstrated this power.

Got that?

Hence, intelligent design provides the best—most causally adequate—explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life from simpler non-living chemicals. In other words, intelligent design is the only explanation that cites a cause known to have the capacity to produce the key effect in question . . . . In order to [[scientifically refute this inductive conclusion] Falk would need to show that some undirected material cause has [[empirically] demonstrated the power to produce functional biological information apart from the guidance or activity a designing mind. Neither Falk, nor anyone working in origin-of-life biology, has succeeded in doing this . . .}

In effect, on identifying traces from the remote past, and on examining and observing candidate causes in the present and their effects, one may identify characteristic signs of certain acting causes. These, on observation, can be shown to be reliable indicators or signs of particular causes in some cases.

From this, by inductive reasoning on inference to best explanation, we may apply the Newtonian uniformity principle of like causing like.

It so turns out that FSCO/I is such a sign, reliably produced by design, and design is the only empirically grounded adequate cause known to produce such. Things like codes [as systems of communication], complex organised mechanisms, complex algorithms expressed in codes, linguistic expressions beyond a reasonable threshold of complexity, algorithm implementing arrangements of components in an information processing entity, and the like are cases in point.

It turns out that the world of the living cell is replete with such, and so we are inductively warranted in inferring design as best causal explanation. Not, on a priori imposition of teleology, or on begging metaphysical questions, or the like; but, on induction in light of tested, reliable signs of causal forces at work.

And in that context the Chi_500 expression,

Chi_500 = Ip*S – 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold

. . . is a metric that starts with our ability to measure explicit or information content, directly [an on/off switch such as for the light in a room has two possible states and stores one bit, two store two bits . . . ] or by considering the relevant analysis of observed patterns of configurations. It then uses our ability to observe functional specificity (does any and any configuration suffice, or do we need well-matched, properly arranged parts with limited room for variation and alternative arrangement before function breaks] to move beyond info carrying capacity to functionally specific info.

This is actually commonly observed in a world of info technology.

I have tried the experiment of opening up the background file for an empty basic Word document then noticing the many seemingly meaningless repetitive elements. So, I pick one effectively at random, and clip it out, saving the result. Then, I try opening the file from Word again. It reliably breaks. Seeming “junk digits” are plainly functionally required and specific.

But, as we saw from the infinite monkeys discussion, it is possible to hit on functionally specific patterns if they are short enough, by chance. Though, discovering when one has done so can be quite hard. The sum of the random document exercises is that spaces of about 10^50 are searchable within available resources. At 25 ASCII characters, at 7 bits per character, that is about 175 bits.

Taking in the fact that for each additional bit used in a system, the config space DOUBLES, the difference between 175 or so bits, and the solar system threshold adopted based on exhausting the capacity of the solar system’s 10^57 atoms and 10^17 s or so, is highly significant. At the {500-bit} threshold, we are in effect only able to take a sample in the ratio of one straw’s size to a cubical haystack as thick as our galaxy, 1,000 light years. As CR’s screen image case shows, and as imagining such a haystack superposed on our galactic neighbourhood would show, by sampling theory, we could only reasonably expect such a sample to be typical of the overwhelming bulk of the space, straw.

In short, we have a very reasonable practical threshold for cases where examples of functionally specific information and/or organisation are sufficiently complex that we can be comfortable that such cannot plausibly be accounted for on blind — undirected — chance and mechanical necessity.

{This allows us to apply the following flowchart of logical steps in a case . . . ladder of conditionals . . . structure, the per aspect design inference, and on a QUANTITATIVE approach grounded in a reasonable threshold metric model:

The per aspect explanatory filter that shows how design may be inferred on empirically tested, reliable sign

On the strength of that, we have every epistemic right to infer that cell based life shows signs pointing to design. {For instance, consider how ribosomes are used to create new proteins in the cell:

The step-by-step process of protein synthesis, controlled by the digital (= discrete state) information stored in DNA

And, in so doing, let us zoom in on the way that the Ribosome uses a control tape, mRNA, to step by step assemble a new amino acid chain, to make a protein:

Step by step protein synthesis in action, in the ribosome, based on the sequence of codes in the mRNA control tape (Courtesy, Wikipedia and LadyofHats)

This can be seen as an animation, courtesy Vuk Nikolic:

[vimeo 31830891]

Let us note the comparable utility of punched paper tape used in computers and numerically controlled industrial machines in a past generation:

Punched paper Tape, as used in older computers and numerically controlled machine tools (Courtesy Wiki & Siemens)

Given some onward objections, May 4th I add an info graphic on DNA . . .

Fig I.0: DNA as a stored code exhibiting functionally specific complex digital information (HT: NIH)

And a similar one on the implied communication system’s general, irreducibly complex architecture:

A communication system. Notice the required arrangement of a set of well-matched, corresponding components that are each necessary and jointly sufficient to achieve function, e.g. coder and decoder, transmitter and receiver, Transmitter, channel and receiver, etc.

In turn, that brings up the following clip from the ID Foundation series article on Irreducible Complexity, on Menuge’s criteria C1 – 5 for getting to such a system (which he presented in the context of the Flagellum):

But also, IC is a barrier to the usual suggested counter-argument, co-option or exaptation based on a conveniently available cluster of existing or duplicated parts. For instance, Angus Menuge has noted that:

For a working [bacterial] flagellum to be built by exaptation, the five following conditions would all have to be met:

C1: Availability. Among the parts available for recruitment to form the flagellum, there would need to be ones capable of performing the highly specialized tasks of paddle, rotor, and motor, even though all of these items serve some other function or no function.

C2: Synchronization. The availability of these parts would have to be synchronized so that at some point, either individually or in combination, they are all available at the same time.

C3: Localization. The selected parts must all be made available at the same ‘construction site,’ perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed.

C4: Coordination. The parts must be coordinated in just the right way: even if all of the parts of a flagellum are available at the right time, it is clear that the majority of ways of assembling them will be non-functional or irrelevant.

C5: Interface compatibility. The parts must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if a paddle, rotor, and motor are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly.

( Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science, pgs. 104-105 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). HT: ENV.)

In short, the co-ordinated and functional organisation of a complex system is itself a factor that needs credible explanation.

However, as Luskin notes for the iconic flagellum, “Those who purport to explain flagellar evolution almost always only address C1 and ignore C2-C5.” [ENV.]

And yet, unless all five factors are properly addressed, the matter has plainly not been adequately explained. Worse, the classic attempted rebuttal, the Type Three Secretory System [T3SS] is not only based on a subset of the genes for the flagellum [as part of the self-assembly the flagellum must push components out of the cell], but functionally, it works to help certain bacteria prey on eukaryote organisms. Thus, if anything the T3SS is not only a component part that has to be integrated under C1 – 5, but it is credibly derivative of the flagellum and an adaptation that is subsequent to the origin of Eukaryotes. Also, it is just one of several components, and is arguably itself an IC system. (Cf Dembski here.)

Going beyond all of this, in the well known Dover 2005 trial, and citing ENV, ID lab researcher Scott Minnich has testified to a direct confirmation of the IC status of the flagellum:

Scott Minnich has properly tested for irreducible complexity through genetic knock-out experiments he performed in his own laboratory at the University of Idaho. He presented this evidence during the Dover trial, which showed that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to its complement of thirty-five genes. As Minnich testified: “One mutation, one part knock out, it can’t swim. Put that single gene back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We’ve done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect.” [Dover Trial, Day 20 PM Testimony, pp. 107-108. Unfortunately, Judge Jones simply ignored this fact reported by the researcher who did the work, in the open court room.]

That is, using “knockout” techniques, the 35 relevant flagellar proteins in a target bacterium were knocked out then restored one by one.

The pattern for each DNA-sequence: OUT — no function, BACK IN — function restored.

Thus, the flagellum is credibly empirically confirmed as irreducibly complex. [Cf onward discussion on Knockout Studies, here.]

The kinematic von Neumann self-replicating machine [vNSR] concept is then readily applicable to the living cell:

jvn_self_replicator — The kinematic vNSR shows how stored coded information on a tape can be used to control a self-replicating automaton, relevant to both paper tape and the living cell

Mignea’s model of minimal requisites for a self-replicating cell [speech here], are then highly relevant as well:

self_replication_mignea — Mignea’s schematic of the requisites of kinematic self-replication, showing duplication and arrangement then separation into daughter automata. This requires stored algorithmic procedures, descriptions sufficient to construct components, means to execute instructions, materials handling, controlled energy flows, wastes disposal and more. (Source: Mignea, 2012, slide show as linked; fair use.)

HT CR, here’s a typical representation of cell replication through Mitosis:

[youtube C6hn3sA0ip0]

And, we may then ponder Michael Denton’s reflection on the automated world of the cell, in his foundational book, Evolution, a Theory in Crisis (1986):

To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter [[so each atom in it would be “the size of a tennis ball”] and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. We would see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units. The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical chamber more than a kilometer in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside of which we would see, all neatly stacked together in ordered arrays, the miles of coiled chains of the DNA molecules. A huge range of products and raw materials would shuttle along all the manifold conduits in a highly ordered fashion to and from all the various assembly plants in the outer regions of the cell.

We would wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of so many objects down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in perfect unison. We would see all around us, in every direction we looked, all sorts of robot-like machines . . . . We would see that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices used for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . . However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equaled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours . . . .

Unlike our own pseudo-automated assembly plants, where external controls are being continually applied, the cell’s manufacturing capability is entirely self-regulated . . . .[[Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler, 1986, pp. 327 – 331. This work is a classic that is still well worth reading. Emphases added. (NB: The 2009 work by Stephen Meyer of Discovery Institute, Signature in the Cell, brings this classic argument up to date. The main thesis of the book is that: “The universe is comprised of matter, energy, and the information that gives order [[better: functional organisation] to matter and energy, thereby bringing life into being. In the cell, information is carried by DNA, which functions like a software program. The signature in the cell is that of the master programmer of life.” Given the sharp response that has provoked, the onward e-book responses to attempted rebuttals, Signature of Controversy, would also be excellent, but sobering and sometimes saddening, reading.) ]}

An extension of this, gives us reason to infer that body plans similarly show signs of design. And, related arguments give us reason to infer that a cosmos fine tuned in many ways that converge on enabling such C-chemistry, aqueous medium cell based life on habitable terrestrial planets or similarly hospitable environments, also shows signs of design.

Not on a prioi impositions, but on induction from evidence we observe and reliable signs that we establish inductively. That is, scientifically.

Added, May 11: Remember, this focus on the cell is in the end because it is the root of the Darwinist three of life and as such origin of life is pivotal:

The Smithsonian's tree of life model, note the root in OOL — The Smithsonian’s tree of life model, note the root in OOL

Multiply that by the evidence that there is a definite, finitely remote beginning to the observed cosmos, some 13.7 BYA being a common estimate, and 10 – 20 BYA a widely supported ballpark. That says, it is contingent, has underlying enabling causal factors, and so is a contingent, caused being.

All of this to this point is scientific, with background logic and epistemology.

Not theology, revealed or natural.

It owes nothing to the teachings of any religious movement or institution.

However, it does provide surprising corroboration to the statements of two apostles who went out on a limb philosophically by committing the Christian faith in foundational documents to reason/communication being foundational to observed reality, our world. In short the NT concepts of the Logos [John 1, cf Col 1, Heb 1, Ac 17] and that the evident, discernible reality of God as intelligent creator from signs in the observed cosmos [Rom 1 cf Heb 11:1 – 6, Ac 17 and Eph 4:17 – 24], are supported by key findings of science over the past 100 or so years.

There are debates over timelines and interpretations of Genesis, as well there would be.

They do not matter, in the end, given the grounds advanced on the different sides of the debate. We can live with Gen 1 – 11 being a sweeping, often poetic survey meant only to establish that the world is not a chaos, and it is not a product of struggling with primordial chaos or wars of the gods or the like. The differences between the Masoretic genealogies and those in the ancient translation, the Septuagint, make me think we need to take pause on attempts to precisely date creation on such evidence. Schaeffer probably had something right in his suggestion that one would be better advised to see this as describing the flow and outline of Biblical history rather than a precise, sequential chronology. And that comes up once we can see how consistently reliable the OT is as reflecting its times and places, patterns and events, even down to getting names right.

So, debating Genesis is to follow a red herring and go off to pummel a strawman smeared with stereotypes and set up for rhetorical conflagration. A fallacy of distraction, polarisation and personalisation. As is too often found as a habitual pattern of objectors to design theory.

What is substantial is the evidence on origins of our world and of the world of cell based life in the light of its challenge to us in our comfortable scientism.

And, in that regard, we have again — this is the umpteenth time, G; and you have long since worn out patience and turning the other cheek in the face of personalities, once it became evident that denigration was a main rhetorical device at work — had good reason to see that design theory is a legitimate scientific endeavour, regardless of rhetorical games being played to make it appear otherwise.>>

_______________

In short, it is possible to address the design inference and wider design theory without resort to ideologically loaded debates. And, as a first priority, we should. END

______________

PS: In support of my follow up to EA at 153 below, at 157, it is worth adding (May 8th) the Trevors-Abel diagram from 2005 (SOURCE), contrasting the patterns of OSC, RSC and FSC:

Figure 4: Superimposition of Functional Sequence Complexity onto Figure 2. The Y₁axis plane plots the decreasing degree of algorithmic compressibility as complexity increases from order towards randomness. The Y₂(Z) axis plane shows where along the same complexity gradient (X-axis) that highly instructional sequences are generally found. The Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC) curve includes all algorithmic sequences that work at all (W). The peak of this curve (w*) represents “what works best.” The FSC curve is usually quite narrow and is located closer to the random end than to the ordered end of the complexity scale. Compression of an instructive sequence slides the FSC curve towards the right (away from order, towards maximum complexity, maximum Shannon uncertainty, and seeming randomness) with no loss of function.

Comments

F/N: We routinely see FSCO/I being made by design processes that are not blind watchmaker evolutionary. Venter et al show this in the case of living cells already, at a primitive level. P needs to think again. KFkairosfocus_{May 7, 2013
May
05
May
7
07
2013
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Joe: It is a mark of ideologues, that they are not really open to evidence and logic. That becomes evident from their response to same. In the case of the "default" talking point, it should be evident from the case structure and from the Meyer challenge, that design is inferred per aspect, after no less than two defaults have been given priority: mechanical necessity [broken by high contingency] and chance [broken by the sampling challenge: handful of beans from a truckload . . . ] and in a context of specific signs known to have only one adequate causal explanation, design. That is, inference to best explanation based on empirical evidence as an inductive exercise. And subject to the same strengths and weaknesses of such inductive exercises in science. Where also patently, the objectors are coming up very short on the sort of counter examples Newton highlighted. So the demand that we refuse to infer from sign to signified, tested and found reliable signified causal state, is a demand to reject what we know, as it is ideologically inconvenient. Selective hyperskepticism, in short. (Ideology over the logic of science, is another way to put it. But we can look at it this way: if they don't "know" what is causing FSCO/I in relevant contexts, it means they are unable to show that blind chance and mechanical necessity are not known adequate causes, and they are unwilling to accept what is.) This has been pointed out to EL et al over the past two years, any number of times. But it seems that talking points are being stuck with until they are to obviously overturned. Precisely the sort of sign of ideological agendas we are talking about. KFkairosfocus_{May 7, 2013
May
05
May
7
07
2013
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Unfortunately they already have their minds made up-
1. Could X likely have been produced by undirected natural causes? If so, don’t infer design. 2. Otherwise, infer design. The only question you’re asking in that case is about the capabilities of undirected natural causes. You don’t need to know anything about designers, human or otherwise, to answer it.
That’s a good summary of Dembski’s Explanatory Filter, but it highlights its fatal flaw, namely that design is the default.
No Patrick, that is NOT a good summary of the EF. However you did provide a good summary: 1. Could X likely have been produced by undirected natural causes? If so, don’t infer design. 2. Does X show any sign of being the result of an intentional agent? If so, infer design. 3. Otherwise, conclude that we don’t know. THAT is how the EF works, Patrick. And petrushka:
If you are going to assert design by means other than evolution you need to demonstrate that it is possible.
Well YOU need to do more than to baldly assert that unguided evolution can design. Good luck with that...Joe_{May 7, 2013
May
05
May
7
07
2013
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

Joe (and onwards P/MG and KS): 1 --> The focal case on the world of cell based life is OOL. And OOL is replete with BLATANT signs of design: FSCO/I, codes, algorithms, properly organised nanotech machines that implement such systems, etc etc etc. (Just look at the OP.) 2 --> It is important to note that, as this must start with chemically, thermodynamically and physically plausible mixes of chemicals in a pond or the like, the usual "out" of appealing to the asserted wonderful powers of "natural selection" -- is off the table. The origin of an encapsulated, intelligently gated, environment sensing and responding, metabolising automaton with a self replicating facility based on coded information is a major part of what has to be explained on OBSERVED evidence. 3 --> The only actually observed adequate causal source for the required FSCO/I is, design. With billions of cases and with the challenge of blind sampling of a large config space multiplied by the island of function implications of the need for multiple, well matched, interacting, coupled components to achieve function. For instance, illustrated by the isolation of protein fold domains in AA sequence space, as well as issues of chirality, cross-interfering reactions, prions as examples of possibilities of alternate non-functional folds, etc etc. 4 --> As for the notional assertion that the world of life generally looks as though it were produced by unguided macro-evolution, the first observation is that Dawkins -- notoriously -- was forced to admit up front in one of his books that biology is the study of complicated things that appear to be designed. He hoped to overturn that view, but was forced at outset to admit the general appearance was against him. 5 --> Similarly, it seems that the perception that it was all produced by blind watchmaker macroevo, faces the challenge that the famed tree of life based on fossils, the only icon to appear in Darwin's Origin, faces the problems that its root is missing, the main branches are missing, and the overall actual pattern of fossils is that major plans appear suddenly, and continue. Indeed, we see a forest of shrubs not a tree. Adaptations within a multitude of basic types, not a unified tree. Direct evidence indeed of islands of function. (And this starts -- as Darwin admitted -- with the Cambrian fossil life revolution, that shows sudden appearance of major forms, not a trunk with branches. Hence Meyer's forthcoming book.) 6 --> It does not help that between mosaic creatures and the conflicting molecular trees, there is no one coherent tree of life model, but a library of parts subject to re-use and modification. Sounds more like object oriented design with inheritance from a core library and variation to purpose, not branching, unified tree. 7 --> Instead, the better explanation for this announced perceived appearance is obvious, per Lewonin:
. . . 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 . . . [["Billions and billions of demons," NYRB, Jan 1997. (And, if you wish to assert that this is quote mined, kindly cf the wider citation here and the annotations thereto.)]
8 --> In short, KS's assertion is in the teeth of the actual facts, and reflects rather the swallowing of a priori materialism as worldview. Johnson has aptly summed up the implications, in his retort to Lewontin's famous 1997 NYRB article as just cited, in November that year:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. [[Emphasis added] That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
9 --> So, the problem is much like that which I recall from my youth in confronting Marxists. being controlled by an a priori, that shaped how they saw the world. Expose cracks in the foundation, and a seemingly endless string of objections and talking points will ensue, all controlled by the same a priori. the same fallacies will crop up again and again and again in manifold manifestations. Until, something decisive breaks, under the cumulative weight of failures. 10 --> In my estimation, what is happening on the broad view, is that the failure is going to be cultural/ community/ institutional, not in the scientific debates. Though, it is VITAL to first and foremost address the science and closely linked issues of logic, epistemology and worldviews. 11 --> Here is what I predict, on analogy of marxism (and with the case of Paul at Fair Havens in Ac 27 -- warning but being ignored by the manipulators and the masses very much in mind . . . only to lead to disaster): the inherent radical relativism, undermining of logic and capacity to truly know the world, as well as the inherent amorality that opens the door to ruthless nihilism, will cause a critical mass to rise up in opposition to a major cultural survival threat. 12 --> Then, that broad mass will be willing to hear out a credible but previously derided and marginalised alternative, which needs to be in place first. Hence the importance of doing the basic research and publicising it in the teeth of opposition, and the equal need to bring it together in fundamentally educational fora. When the storm has struck and the confident tricks have broken down, an alternative will be listened to. But given what has been going on, not until then. ++++++++ So, we need to hold on for a wild and chaotic, dangerous ride, given the balance of forces and the ruthless determination to cling to institutional power and cultural influence and domination on the part of the committed evolutionary materialists that we see at work. They are going to fight the evidence, the logic and the reasonable conclusions tooth and nail, with all the amoral ruthlessness of the dark triad -- machiavellianism, nihilism and sociopathy -- until they are decisively broken. The sort of nastiness we see in the penumbra of fever swamp sites, and the sort of evident ideological blindness and enabling behaviour in those that are a step up, are strong indications that this is what we are facing. In the midst of this, we have to make it plain that we are not in the same amoral nihilist condition that people in the [Eastern] Caribbean sum up: "none nuh betta dan none." It is doubly important to be reasonable, fact and logic based and decent in the face of ruthless, ideological irrationality and indecency. KF PS: Credible candidate designers will be identified by ability to carry out evidently intelligent contrivance towards purpose, in the face of particular circumstances and in light of forces and "raw materials" in hand. That is why Beavers are serious candidates to be non-human designers, and it is why on observing info systems in life, we have reason to deduce that designers were at work before the origin of earth's cell based life. It is also why we have reason to believe -- as the Nobel Equivalent prize holder Hoyle did -- that the physics of the cosmos looks contrived to set up a habitat for cell based life that uses aqueous medium Carbon chemistry involving proteins etc. As in:
Once we see that life is cosmic it is sensible to suppose that intelligence is cosmic. Now problems of order, such as the sequences of amino acids in the chains which constitute the enzymes and other proteins, are precisely the problems that become easy once a directed intelligence enters the picture, as was recognised long ago by James Clerk Maxwell in his invention of what is known in physics as the Maxwell demon. The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare’s plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true.” [[Evolution from Space (The Omni Lecture[ --> Jan 12th 1982]), Enslow Publishers, 1982, pg. 28.]
In short, if we see evident contrivance we have no problem associating it with candidates. On a basis of material family resemblance to the root capacities of known designers. P/MG's objection is specious -- and should long since have been known to be such,as the corrections have been easily accessible for a long, long time.kairosfocus_{May 7, 2013
May
05
May
7
07
2013
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

Billmaz @15
If you invoke an intelligence, you have to at least propose some valid hypothesis of what and who this intelligence is, or, at the very least, of how such an advanced intelligence can be involved in creating such UNintelligent organisms (in terms of their structure and function). If I were to design a human I’d do a much better job of it, (at least in its general design, not in the molecular mechanisms involved, obviously) and so would you. Why put the respiratory orifice (the trachea) next to the digestive orifice (the esophagus) for example, and cause untold chocking every year? Why make the heart a linear system (and thus subject to breakdown) rather than a parallel one? Why have an inadequate immune system, or one that turns on its owner (autoimmune disease). Why have cancer and all the other diseases of an inadequate genome? Why have disease at all? And so on. There are hundreds, thousands of these examples. If ID wants to be taken seriously, it has to do more than just detect intelligence. It has to have a grander vision. And I am still waiting for it. Because, you know, all of us want to be part of a Grand Scheme in which we actually are immortal and are part of a larger, grander picture. We all, and I include the atheists, even if they can’t admit it, crave God to exist. But He sure is making it difficult.
I hear this “bad design” argument a lot, but it might not be as easy as you think to redesign the human body and solve the “problems” you bring up. I personally would never second guess the Creator. Certainly there is a lot of suffering, death, and disease in this world. If you read the Creator’s Word, you will find the answer to this. In the beginning, everything was created “very good”. The animals were vegetarians in the beginning and it seems that there was no death in the original creation – at least death of nephesh chayyah – the Hebrew word in the Bible used to refer to man, land animals, birds, and man. There was no death among these creatures in the original creation. However, when man rebelled against the Creator, he brought punishment upon himself and the world he lives in. Death entered the world at that point. The whole creation was cursed. It seems that many changes took place in living creatures at that time. It is likely that animals became meat eaters. So there was a need for all creatures to develop offensive and defensive weapons at that time. It is very likely they came with the genetic information for these changes already pre-installed. Just exactly how all these changes took place is unknown, but God’s perfect world was ruined by sin. Plants, animals, and humans were all affected. So disease, suffering, and even death is not the creation of the Creator, but later invaders in God’s creation as a result of man’s rebellion against the Creator. ID is not able to identify the Creator because it is outside of science, but this is what the Bible teaches. The Bible tells us that death is the “last enemy” to be destroyed. The Creator would not have created such an evil thing. You claim that the Creator is making it difficult for us to learn about Him. But the creation itself screams “design” wherever we look. Of course, we also see the effects of man’s sin so that is why it can be confusing. We need to be able to understand why this world is broken. He reveals Himself through His world, but also through His Word. There we find the answers to many of the Big Questions that we all have. It’s not as hard as you think to learn about Him. I agree with Chance that Jesus is the answer here. He is presented as the Creator in the Bible. He Himself tells us that He made male and female at the beginning of creation. They were a part of God’s original perfect creation, but their sin brought it all crashing down. Chance gave a good explanation of how perfect love fits with perfect justice. God is love and therefore He does not want to punish us. He wants us to be with Him in heaven forever. But God is also holy and He hates all sin. He is just as well and He must punish sin. The punishment for sin is death, spiritual death – separation from a holy God forever. He cannot violate His justice so sin must be punished, but He loves us and doesn’t want to punish us. So, He found a way to satisfy both His love and His justice. On the cross, Jesus took the punishment for our sin that you and I deserve. In this way, God’s justice and wrath against sin was satisfied. It allows Him to forgive all who believe in Jesus without ignoring sin. A Judge must uphold justice and God is no different. Now, what we think is a just punishment and what God says is a just punishment seems to be quite different. We are human and our hearts are full of sin. Sin is a normal part of our lives and we have no idea how terrible it is. We have rebelled against an infinite, holy, and loving God. God would not send anyone to hell if it was not a just punishment. The cross is proof of that. He did all He could to save us, but if we reject His love, as a perfect Judge, He is not able to overlook our sin and let us into heaven. Separation from God is by definition “hell” and once we die, there is no longer any opportunity for mercy. To ignore our sin and simply let us into heaven would make light of Jesus’ sacrificial death. It would make light of the seriousness of sin. It would make light of justice. I recommend a book entitle “Just Love: Why God must punish sin” by Ben Cooper. You can get it on Kindle for $10. There is a part of hell that we humans will never understand until we get to heaven and can see things from the view of a holy God, but this book will help. The good news is that the Creator will eventually restore the creation to it's original perfect state. Death, disease, and suffering were not present in the beginning and so neither will they be present in heaven. This broken world will be restored and we will enjoy eternity in a world that is free from sin and it's harmful effects. God bless you in your pursuit of God!tjguy_{May 7, 2013
May
05
May
7
07
2013
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT}

And patrick sez:
Perhaps one could identify design by non-humans, but I don’t think it is possible to do so without making some assumptions about the nature and capabilities of the designers.
Yes, Patrick, we can assume that designers, successful designers anyway, are capable of designing the things they design. Just because ID is not about the designer does NOT mean we cannot make that assumption.Joe_{May 7, 2013
May
05
May
7
07
2013
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

And keiths sez:
In that context, the immediate question that arises is “If God is the designer, why did he make it look exactly as if unguided evolution were operating?”
Only the broken and deteriorating parts lok exactly like unguided evolution were operating. There still isn't any evidence that unguided evolution can do any more than that.Joe_{May 7, 2013
May
05
May
7
07
2013
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

CR: An interesting point. You are debating inference on reliable sign. A sign is perfectly reliable if its presence is a LOGICALLY sufficient basis to infer the signified on a reliable basis. However, a sign does not have to be perfectly reliable or be known to be perfectly reliable to be sufficiently good to put our trust in it. Indeed, in the real world we routinely work with things that are regarded as trustworthy in general, as more or less effective rules of thumb. And, in some cases, we are able to rise to that moral certainty that is sufficiently convincing that one would be irresponsible to act as though the matter were not so, on a momentous case. Reliable, beyond reasonable doubt. And of course, the model for this is the reasoning on best explanation of the evidence in a well run court room, as opposed to the sort of jump- to- already- desired- conclusions kangaroo court that has become all too notorious in our day. (Judge Jones et al, sadly -- on fair comment on evidence -- this means you. let's just say that to watch Inherit the Wind naively in preparation for hearing the case is not exactly an index of a well prepared and fair hearing to come.) Let me symbolise (building on preliminary remarks for the ID foundations series, here [yes, January 2011]):
I observe one or more signs [in a pattern], and infer the signified object, on a warrant: I: [si] –> O, on W a –> Here, as I will use “sign” [as opposed to "symbol"], the connexion is a more or less causal or natural one; e.g. a pattern of deer tracks on the ground is an index, pointing to a deer. (NB, 02:28: Sign can be used more broadly in technical semiotics to embrace “symbol” and other complexities, but this is not needed for our purposes. I am using “sign” much as it is used in medicine, at least since Hippocrates of Cos in C5 BC, i.e. to point to a disease on an objective, warranted indicator.) b –> If the sign is not a sufficient condition of the signified, the inference is not certain and is defeatable; though it may be inductively strong. (E.g. someone may imitate deer tracks.) c –> The warrant for an inference may in key cases require considerable background knowledge or cues from the context. d –> The act of inference may also be implicit or even intuitive, and I may not be able to articulate but may still be quite well-warranted to trust the inference. Especially, if it traces to senses I have good reason to accept are working well, and are acting in situations that I have no reason to believe will materially distort the inference. e –> The process of observation may be passive, where I simply respond to effects of the sign-emitting object; or it may involve active emission of signals or interaction with the object. For instance, we may contrast passive and active sonar sensing here, noting that both modes are used by sea-animals as well as technical systems. (NB: “Object” is here used in a very broad sense [u/d 02:17: it includes objects and credibly objective states of affairs].) f –> A sign can also be iconic, i.e sufficiently resembling [u/d, 02:17: or representing] the object to be recognisable as a representation, as a general class [a rock shaped like a face] or in specific [a sculptural portrait]. [u/d 02:28: In the case of a mace in its rest in Parliament, unless an elaborate form of a former weapon sits there, Parliament is not legitimately in session.]
The point is that a sign correlates strongly with a signified state of affairs. In some cases, it is actually logically sufficient. In others, it is simply highly reliable. So, we have a legitimate epistemic right to infer from sign to signified. This is not question-begging (contrary to EL's suggestion), as the basis on which the inference is made has to be established, and given the possibility of failing of logical sufficiency, and then of failing outright, we have the need to monitor the signs through a survey of cases. As is a commonplace of science [cf. Newton in The Opticks, Query 31], an empirically well established link is to be regarded as reliable, subject to future correction. Onward, we have the context of the many cases of FSCO/I as attested and found reliable index of design, multiplied by the analytical framework as long since repeatedly discussed as to why 500 - 1,000 bits of complexity in the context of functional specificity is a reasonable threshold for being sufficiently complex to credibly rule out blind chance and/or necessity as capable of routinely giving rise to FSCO/I. In short, we see that the matter is much like having a truckload of beans with 5 - 10 gold beads in there somewhere. We may make just one grab at random of a handful. It is utterly unlikely that we will pick up anything but the bulk of the population: beans. (S's dismissal of this sort of inference on sampling -- unfortunately, as has been typical of his strictures above -- is wrong. he needs to realise this is quite close to a whole line of reasoning in statistical thermodynamics that actually grounds the famous second law and explains why it is "time's arrow." The direction of spontaneous change is towards the bulk clusters of microstates.) The way to break such an inference is to apply Newton's frame of investigation, and reliably observe counterexamples. Let me therefore clip the relevant part of Opticks Query 31, c. 1704, as it appears that there is a dearth of understanding of basic scientific inductive reasoning:
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 [--> speculative] Hypotheses 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. By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover'd, and establish'd as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving the Explanations. [[Emphases added.]
And, yes, that clip comes from the often derided IOSE, which it seems to me the critics would profit from by forcing themselves to do what is indeed often tedious: seriously read something with which one violently disagrees. Also, yes, this is an early statement of the principles and methods of scientific investigation that are commonly taught in school. Let those who would deride or dismiss reckon first with substantially similar cases in the same way, on pain of selective hyperskepticism. I think it is appropriate to again state the Meyer challenge, as is cited in the OP:
. . . bear in mind Meyer’s remark on that subject in reply to hostile reviews:
The central argument of my book is that intelligent design—the activity of a conscious and rational deliberative agent—best explains the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living cell. I argue this because of two things that we know from our uniform and repeated experience, which following Charles Darwin I take to be the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. First, intelligent agents have demonstrated the capacity to produce large amounts of functionally specified information (especially in a digital form).
Notice the terminology he naturally uses and how close it is to the terms I and others have commonly used, functionally specific complex information. So much for that rhetorical gambit. He continues:
Second, no undirected chemical process has demonstrated this power.
Got that?
Hence, intelligent design provides the best—most causally adequate—explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life from simpler non-living chemicals. In other words, intelligent design is the only explanation that cites a cause known to have the capacity to produce the key effect in question . . . . In order to [[scientifically refute this inductive conclusion] Falk would need to show that some undirected material cause has [[empirically] demonstrated the power to produce functional biological information apart from the guidance or activity a designing mind. Neither Falk, nor anyone working in origin-of-life biology, has succeeded in doing this . . .}
In effect, on identifying traces from the remote past, and on examining and observing candidate causes in the present and their effects, one may identify characteristic signs of certain acting causes. These, on observation, can be shown to be reliable indicators or signs of particular causes in some cases. From this, by inductive reasoning on inference to best explanation, we may apply the Newtonian uniformity principle of like causing like. It so turns out that FSCO/I is such a sign, reliably produced by design, and design is the only empirically grounded adequate cause known to produce such. Things like codes [as systems of communication], complex organised mechanisms, complex algorithms expressed in codes, linguistic expressions beyond a reasonable threshold of complexity, algorithm implementing arrangements of components in an information processing entity, and the like are cases in point. It turns out that the world of the living cell is replete with such, and so we are inductively warranted in inferring design as best causal explanation. Not, on a priori imposition of teleology, or on begging metaphysical questions, or the like; but, on induction in light of tested, reliable signs of causal forces at work.
If objectors can meet the Meyer test, it would devastate design theory. The above thread's eloquent silence on such cases [multiplied by the actual rhetorical tactics of tangents, barbed rhetoric and attempted but failed challenges to or dismissals of core design concepts, the idea of function emerging from proper arrangement of multiple matched parts, and functional information concepts], is a strong testimony that such objectors cannot. Indeed, EL's reported tactic of refusing to accept that there is a cause known to be capable of producing FSCO/I, one that is the only such observed cause, is inadvertently, sadly eloquent on the balance of the matter on the merits. And, on the clear presence of a strong motivating force driving decisions away from inference to the evidently best empirically grounded explanation. KF PS: It should be noted that in, say, medicine, practitioners routinely work with tests and resulting signs that are less than 100% reliable, especially in clusters. The odds of three 90% reliable mutually corroborating independent signs all being wrong are like 1/10 of 1/10 of 1/10, or 1/1000. This is of course also the basis of the old Biblical principle that "in the mouth of two or three witnesses, shall a word be established." I would love to see how a reasonable person interacts with the cluster of signs that mutually point: (i) to cell based life being designed, (ii) to major body plans being designed, (iii) to our in-built language capacity [a big part of mindedness] being designed, (iv) to our solar system being rare and privileged, and (v) to the observed cosmos being designed. kairosfocus_{May 6, 2013
May
05
May
6
06
2013
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT}

Sigaba,
all you’ve done is reworded the definition of a classical information channel
I don’t think you are correct. I’ve read quite a bit of material on the transfer of information, and have yet to see it modeled in the same way. Perhaps your assessment is motivated by something other than familiarity. But let me not be too hasty, if you think you have a firm grasp on the issue, then by all means, please return and explain yourself. You ask “Is there some sort of provision that information must act on the world or something?” Let me know how you would identify information in any other way. ;)Upright BiPed_{May 6, 2013
May
05
May
6
06
2013
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

I want to provide a little more info on the logical relationship between the appearance of design and actual design, and show why there's no logical fallacy here. A: The appearance of design (FSCO/I) D: Actual design A→D is the premise. According to the definition of the contidional operator, here is the truth table and the justification for A→D: A D | A→D ------------------ T T | T - true positive T F | F - false positive F T | T - false negative F F | T - true negative IDT is compatible with three of the the above four permutations, and not the second, which is false by definition. A confirmed case of A without D would invalidate A→D. #1 true positive - If we see the appearance of design, then we are observing actual design. This is empirical if we exclude biological systems for the sake of argument. #2 false positive - If we see the appearance of design without actual design, the premise A→D is invalidated. #3 - false negative - We may not detect the appearance of design, yet actual design might still be the case, such as with the output of a pseudorandom number generator. #4 - true negative - Where we see no appearance of design, we needn't invoke design. More formally, we can draw these conclusions from the relationship A→D. - The appearance of design is sufficient for actual design. - Actual design is necessary for the appearance of design. - If A→D and A, therefore D (modus ponens). - If A→D and not D, therefore not A (modus tollens). - If not D then not A (contrapositive, ¬D→¬A). - "D therefore A" is affirming the consequent. - "Not A therefore not D" is denying the antecedent. We see a lot of inappropriate objections to ID claims, and personally I find it helpful to keep the above relationship in mind. I happen to think that the premise A→D might logically precede the inference to the best explanation (IBE) but I'm open to correction here.Chance Ratcliff_{May 6, 2013
May
05
May
6
06
2013
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

EL via Joe,
"To rule out a non-design mechanism simply because you have decided, a priori, that the appearance of design is evidence of design, is to assume your consequent"
Appearance of design implies actual design (A→D) That's the proper logical relationship. If we see the appearance of design, then actual design exists, according to a careful definition of appearance. We can define appearance of design as the presence of CSI or irreducible complexity, etc. In this case, there is no logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. EL must be presuming the converse relationship, which doesn't hold up.Chance Ratcliff_{May 6, 2013
May
05
May
6
06
2013
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

"To rule out a non-design mechanism simply because you have decided, a priori, that the appearance of design is evidence of design, is to assume your consequent"
I think the problem for EL is how to rule out a non-design mechanism. We know how to rule out design. She's inverting reason. She's decided a priori that non-design mechanisms can account for the appearance of design. It's not as if design proponents are trying to account for the overwhelming appearance of non-design mechanisms in nature.Chance Ratcliff_{May 6, 2013
May
05
May
6
06
2013
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

CentralScrutinizer @123, of course one could cheat that way and invalidate the entire experiment. One could also cheat by using existing valid code instead of going through the trouble of generating random samples. The example at #98 shows that it's possible to objectively set a threshold for function. As a thought experiment, I think it succeeds. But of course, if an actual experiment were conducted, parameters for success and failure would have to be well defined, as you suggest. However the nomenclature I used for the Context class suggests that real code is being compiled and executed, which implies a real programming language with its own well-defined rules for success and failure. There are a number of ways I could cheat the example, but in none of those cases would an actual executable code string of sufficient length have been generated at random, and that's the take-home point. ;)Chance Ratcliff_{May 6, 2013
May
05
May
6
06
2013
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Lizzie via Joe @122:
To rule out a non-design mechanism simply because you have decided, a priori, that the appearance of design is evidence of design, is to assume your consequent
I hope Lizzie didn't actually say this. After engaging in the debate so long she is still clueless about the design inference? I'm not asking her to accept it, just be able to accurately describe it. Sad.Eric Anderson_{May 6, 2013
May
05
May
6
06
2013
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

Joe: It appears, an obvious case of selective hyperskepticism. I draw Dr Liddle's attention (for at least the third time) to the per aspect design filter. Ever since Plato, it has been noted on record that three common causal patterns are seen. Monod's 1970 book, Chance and Necessity, gives two. The third is art or design or contrivance or intelligently, purposefully directed contingency. That which, for instance -- in our observation -- is responsible for texts of blog posts or algorithmic, step by step coded computer programs. Each tends to give off characteristic signs. Necessity leads to low contingency natural regularities, e.g. the order of a crystal. Chance can create high contingency, but typically will reflect the patterns of a population pattern. A handful of beans from a truck load will as a rule reflect typical patterns, not exceedingly rare exceptions. (FYI, lotteries have to be designed to be winnable.) Blind chance and mechanical necessity, will not be expected to normally give us FSCO/I. For reasons of exceeding rarity. As has been repeatedly explained. And, that is backed up by billions of test cases, the random document exercise reported in the OP being an example. But as billions of web and library documents demonstrate, design is fully and routinely capable of FSCO/I. So much so that it is reasonably regarded as a signature of design as causal process. The problem EL has is that such a signature in the case of the world of life and the case of the fine tuning of the cosmos -- which are indeed independent one of the other -- the warrant for design as best explanation points to possibilities that are obviously unacceptable for worldviews reasons. Not actual evidence and inductive logic reasons. So, clever but in the end fallacious ways are being found to try to deflect such. It is to be noted: billions of cases of FSCO/I by design, NIL observed by blind chance and mechanical necessity. KFkairosfocus_{May 6, 2013
May
05
May
6
06
2013
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

Chance Ratcliff @98 If we make the compile() function simply return THRESHOLD bits of random data as code, and make the execute() function always succeed, then isThisInformationFSCI() will always return true. Seems to me one would have to have a preexisting definition of what "success" means with regards to compilers and executors for your 'class' to have any illustrative value.CentralScrutinizer_{May 6, 2013
May
05
May
6
06
2013
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

Lizzie sez:
To rule out a non-design mechanism simply because you have decided, a priori, that the appearance of design is evidence of design, is to assume your consequent
Only a dolt would say something like that. Earth to Lizzie- non-design mechanisms have been ruld out because they have been tried and failed to produce anything of note. And we rule in the design inference because non-design mechanisms have failed AND it meets the design criteria (part of which includes eliminating non-design mechanisms just as science mandates). And in response to Eric, Lizzie sez:
I have to ask: why is it so hard for some people to step outside their own paper bag?
YOU tell us Lizzie- why is it so hard for YOU to step outside of your own paper bag and actually present some positive evidence for your tripe?Joe_{May 6, 2013
May
05
May
6
06
2013
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

Chance@115, Without that independent evidence for a designer we cannot say for sure if that was designed. ;)Joe_{May 6, 2013
May
05
May
6
06
2013
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

Look, Lizzie is clueless when it comes to science. That is just what the facts say. She really thinks that darwinian mechanisms can account for the appearence of design even though there isn't any evidence to support that claim. Then she sez that we need "independent" evidence for the designer- well the evidence for a designer in biology is independent from the evidence for a designer in physics. And she still doesn't understand that if the OoL is designed then the inference is they were designed to evolve and evolved by design. The TSZ ilk are just a clueless lot. (no kairosfocus, she cannot account for anything, let alone the OoL. All she has are bald assertions, false accusations and plenty of promissory notes)Joe_{May 6, 2013
May
05
May
6
06
2013
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

F/N: I have further remarked on LYO at 34 above, here. I have footnoted LYO's comment, on grounds of appeal to Hitler tactic. KFkairosfocus_{May 6, 2013
May
05
May
6
06
2013
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT}

Joe: Here is Paley in Ch 2 on the subject of the discovery of a self replication facility and its effect on the design inference:
Suppose, in the next place, that the person who found the watch should after some time discover that, in addition to all the properties which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing in the course of its movement another watch like itself -- the thing is conceivable; that it contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts -- a mold, for instance, or a complex adjustment of lathes, baffles, and other tools -- evidently and separately calculated for this purpose . . . . The first effect would be to increase his admiration of the contrivance, and his conviction of the consummate skill of the contriver. Whether he regarded the object of the contrivance, the distinct apparatus, the intricate, yet in many parts intelligible mechanism by which it was carried on, he would perceive in this new observation nothing but an additional reason for doing what he had already done -- for referring the construction of the watch to design and to supreme art . . . . He would reflect, that though the watch before him were, in some sense, the maker of the watch, which, was fabricated in the course of its movements, yet it was in a very different sense from that in which a carpenter, for instance, is the maker of a chair -- the author of its contrivance, the cause of the relation of its parts to their use.
Did EL address the origin of such self replication, on empirical observation of chance and necessity originating such? If not, should we not take account of the irreducible complexity involved in both communication systems and von Neumann self replicators, as was pointed out int eh OP above? As well as the issues on origin of a coding system for writing algorithms [cf DNA in the OP], i.e. language at the root of life? And, if that is a case where IC and FSCO/I point strongly to design, does that not then bring to bear design sitting at the table thereafter by right, not sufferance? So, is not failing to empirically account for OOL on blind chance and mechanical necessity the begging of the root-level question? KFkairosfocus_{May 5, 2013
May
05
May
5
05
2013
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

computerist @107, thanks for the support. For all I know, sigaba is off somewhere working it out, perhaps by writing some code. At least it's a possibility. However he only appeared mildly interested in engaging any substantive dialog, or discussing any details. There were a lot of dismissals, neglect of essential points, some political rhetoric, and perhaps a hint of curiosity in his comments. I thought his invitation to lay out some logic for FSCI detection in the form of a Boolean value function was an interesting challenge that warranted a response, and perhaps a bit of discussion. We'll see.Chance Ratcliff_{May 5, 2013
May
05
May
5
05
2013
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Joe @114: Ah, yes, the old "but, but biological things reproduce, therefore anything is possible and we can't infer design" garbage. Why is it so hard for some people to think their way out of a paper bag?Eric Anderson_{May 5, 2013
May
05
May
5
05
2013
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

Joe, yes of course. If we found something like this, a design inference would only be warranted if it was not capable of self-replication. Somebody better fix up the explanatory filter. :)Chance Ratcliff_{May 5, 2013
May
05
May
5
05
2013
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

Lizzie sez (in response to englishmaninistanbul 101) that if the alleged artifact reproduces then it wasn't designed because allegedly things that reproduce with unguided variation can do just about anything (even though the evidence is to the contrary). Poor Lizzie, she still doesn't understand that science requires positive evidence. They cannot account for simple replicators. They cannot account for those simple replicators becoming cells. And yet they are so sure, in the face of the evidence, that given replication with unguided variation, that those simple replcators gave rise to the diversity of life. As I said if it wasn't for ID they wouldn't have anything to talk about...Joe_{May 5, 2013
May
05
May
5
05
2013
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

F/N: It bears noting that design theory does not appeal to mind as such, but instead to intelligence, which is immediately inferred from behaviours in patterns reflective of insight, ability to form purposes, then manipulate entities to fulfill goals etc. E.g. to write a computer program, or a blog post. There is no need to do more than address relevant empirical clusters and commonly accepted explanatory constructs linked closely thereto. If we take mind -- whatever stuff it be made of -- to be a close associated term for something that shows independent intelligent behaviour, manifested in things like writing posts and programs etc, then that is enough. It is the class of intelligent entities, of which we are clearly members, that has shown the ability to create FSCO/I and we see no good empirically grounded reason to infer that such can arise by blind chance and mechanical necessity. What we then can see is that FSCO/I is an empirically grounded, tested, reliable sign of intelligence acting through design. Whatever stuff intelligence is or may be made of, it leaves characteristic signs that we can infer it. Much as how no man has yet seen an electron, but a major province of technology is named after such. And much as how we cannot directly see information but may so closely infer it from its manifestations that it is measurable and a major part of technology also. Where, functionally specific info rooted in deliberate and specific configuration is, again, a closely associated product of intelligent action. The problem for the objectors to design theory is at bottom, that such FSCO/I is a major feature of the world of cell based life, starting from DNA. And, similarly, similar features mark our evidently fine tuned observed universe, setting up a context that enables C-chemistry, aqueous medium cell based life. All of these point to intelligent design as a major causal force, and thus by close association, to intelligent designers of whatever form or substance, at the relevant points to cause that which is reflected in the signs we see. All I will say, is that it is interesting that -- despite repeated invitation to engage on substance (cf. also here at UD) -- on the cosmological side, where the implication of a cosmos building intelligent designer is directly at stake, there has been dead silence from objectors so far as I can see above. Telling. KFkairosfocus_{May 5, 2013
May
05
May
5
05
2013
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

Axel: Interesting isn't it that objectors over the past several days have done anything but try to actually substantiate their claim that FSCO/I can be shown to be produced by blind chance and mechanical necessity without intelligent action, with dozens of cases in hand. A lot of tangents, red herrings, and strawmen. Multiplied by some basic, basic misunderstandings. You are right that -- as an example of basic misunderstandings -- we should take up BM's:
I don’t reject anything since, like Socrates, I know nothing. I think we all need a little humility, and admit that we really don’t know anything. We believe, some of us, but belief is not knowledge.
I suspect Socrates did not literally mean that he knew nothing, as that would imply that he did not know he held this state of belief. This brings out as well the underlying incoherence at work. To claim that we do not know anything is an implicit knowledge claim, and is self refuting. Similarly, no-one has claimed that belief is equal to knowledge. That's a strawman. What has been claimed is that knowledge is justified, true belief, classically; or, post Gettier counter-examples and the like, knowledge is warranted, credibly true belief. A good example of such is the Royce-Trueblood point: error exists. If one labels this E and then puts up E AND NOT_E, one soon sees that the attempt to deny such leads to confirming the reality of E. E is undeniably true, it is believable and it is knowledge, warranted to certainty. So, true humility will reckon with the possibility of error but also with the possibility of truth and knowledge of the truth on important matters. But in fact, BM does not intend this to be a global view, just one targetted at the Christian faith, as his context makes plain. Which makes this a case of plain simple selective hyperskepticism. He would never dream of denying or dismissing the historical, factual foundation of a lot of classical history that has less or comparable warrant to the foundations of the Christian faith, but -- apparently because of an underlying hostility to the Christian gospel -- he is exerting a double standard of warrant, intended to block the evidence for Christian foundations from speaking. That is sad. Now, this blog, and this context is not really the time or place for a prolonged theological side-track debate, but this is a question of historical warrant, and one where skeptics hoping to push us on the horns of a dilemma learn a lesson. Nope it's not, if we reply we somehow prove ID is about theology -- as somebody already tried above. And nope, it is not that if you ignore we get to poison the well without response. Instead, this is a case where objectors show the gaps in their understanding of what constitutes warrant for a historical case, and of how inference to best explanation of evident facts speaks to such. All, with pretty direct onward application to addressing inference to the best explanation for the well observed fact of FSCO/I in the world of life. It is no surprise that objectors are making basically the same blunder in both cases: selective hyperskepticism, rooted in an underlying evidently visceral hostility to the very penumbra of the shadow of the possibility of God. What I will do is to lay out a list of twelve minimal facts collated by Habermas et al over the past generation, on points of Christian foundations that meet criteria such as multiple sources, embarrassment to the reporting source, hostile witness corroboration, etc. As a result these facts hold the support of the published scholarship across the spectrum of opinions, from conservative to rather radical scholarship, by an absolute majority to an overwhelming majority. The base of articles used is something like 3,000 now. Let me clip:
The easiest answer is to simply list the facts that meet the above criteria and are accepted by a majority to an overwhelming majority of recent and current scholarship after centuries of intense debate:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion [--> which implies his historicity!]. 2. He was buried. 3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope. 4. The tomb was empty (the most contested). 5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof). 6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers. 7. The resurrection was the central message. 8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem. 9. The Church was born and grew. 10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship. 11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic). 12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).
. . . . The list of facts is in some respects fairly obvious. That a Messiah candidate was captured, tried and crucified -- as Gamaliel hinted at -- was effectively the death-knell for most such movements in Israel in the era of Roman control; to have to report such a fate was normally embarrassing and discrediting to the extreme in a shame-honour culture. The Jews of C1 Judaea wanted a victorious Greater David to defeat the Romans and usher in the day of ultimate triumph for Israel, not a crucified suffering servant. In the cases where a movement continued, the near relatives took up the mantle. That is facts 1 - 3 right there. Facts 10 - 12 are notorious. While some (it looks like about 25% of the survey of scholarship, from what I have seen) reject no 4, in fact it is hard to see a message about a resurrection in C1 that did not imply that the body was living again, as Wright discusses here. Facts 5 - 9 are again, pretty clearly grounded. So, the challenge is to explain this cluster or important subsets of it, without begging questions and without selective hyperskepticism.
Now the trick is to take the credible facts and seek the best explanation. (In the linked, I lay out a table that does just that. I suggest that onlookers may want to look at the already linked and may want to look at Wallace's Cold Case Christianity, for a more detailed first level intro.) It will be easily seen that none of the major skeptical accounts over the past 2,000 years comes close to explaining the credible facts. In short, Christians have excellent reason to hold confidence in their foundations. Never mind the hostile, dismissive climate of our day, which too often takes on a raucous, smearing, abusive or even slanderous tone. And back on the ID issues, it is very clear that if objectors really had dozens of clear cases where FSCO/I was reliably produced by blind chance and mechanical necessity without intelligence coming in by the back door, they would have entire web sites trumpeting the facts, and would be in a position to crush the design theory argument on the merits. The ACTUAL tactics we see, red herrings, strawman caricatures, snide well poisoning, tell us that that is exactly what they cannot do. It is quite plain that -- as Meyer so aptly summed up -- there is exactly one empirically grounded adequate cause of FSCO/I: design. Where the world of life is chock full of FSCO/I, starting from DNA. KFkairosfocus_{May 5, 2013
May
05
May
5
05
2013
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

'I think we all need a little humility, and admit that we really don’t know anything.' A gross error, Billmaz. Absolutely wrong. Read Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy and find out how you can hone your unitive - as opposed to, analytical - intelligence. 'We believe, some of us, but belief is not knowledge.' Another gross error. Faith and knowledge form a continuum, and that goes for secular faith-knowledge, as well. I routinely turn on the light-switch without any certainty that it will turn on the light. I'm just an old-fashioned 'fundie'. Not trying to take the rise. I'm just in a kind of 'stream of consciousness' mode, at the moment. And I'm waiting for KF to clip my ear, any time now.Axel_{May 5, 2013
May
05
May
5
05
2013
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

Appearances are sometimes deceptive. We can't see the mind, but Mung can locate it 'locally'* (as Phil might put it) with a certain device he has. * i.e. not 'non locally'. (I pick up an awful lot on here.) Ou est Gregoire?Axel_{May 5, 2013
May
05
May
5
05
2013
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

'Matter alone does not display intentional states because matter does not have the ability to arrange itself.' - your #104, Andre I expect it's just 'counter-intuitive', Andre, mon ami. We just have a 'hunch' that matter does not have the ability to arrange itself. Isn't that right, sigbaba?Axel_{May 5, 2013
May
05
May
5
05
2013
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply