Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Arguing for Resemblance of Design (RD) instead of Intelligent Design (ID)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[This is a follow on essay to Good and bad reasons for rejecting ID]

The irony is that one of the books most widely credited for inspiring the ID movement didn’t actually argue for ID! That book was Michael Denton’s book Evolution A Theory In Crisis. This book deeply influenced Phil Johnson, Michael Behe, and many others.

So what was Denton’s conclusion at the end of his book? He said the mystery of biology is as enigmatic today as it was at the time of Darwin’s voyage on the Beagle. He offered no explanation for the apparent design in biology, and offered no suggestion that ID nor creation should even be put on the table as answers. He just stated no one has figured out the mystery of biology.

Despite this, his book became and ID classic. How can it be a book that didn’t once argue for ID end up sparking the ID movement? Consider this statement by Dawkins:

Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived ­ including Newton, who may have been the greatest of all ­ believed in God. But it was hard to be an atheist before Darwin: the illusion of living design is so overwhelming.

Richard Dawkins
You ask the questions

So even Dawkins acknowledges the resemblance of design in biology. I would argue it is simply natural for people, once they are convinced that something resembles design, if they are open to the idea, they’ll infer design naturally provided you can make a credible case that the analogy of biology to man-made designs cannot be explained by appeals to naturalistic mechanisms (like Darwinian evolution). Denton did exactly that.

So why formally remove claims of Intelligence out of ID theory? Before answering that question, consider the effect of including the claim of ID on 2 types of people.:

Type 1: sympathetic to ID — they’ll naturally accept ID as the cause, we don’t need to make the inference for them, they’ll make it on their own like Phil Johnson and Michael Behe did after reading Denton’s book, so claiming “ID is the most adequate explanation” really doesn’t have an effect on their decision most of the time.

Type 2: the hardened critic — they’ll naturally reject ID not matter what you say, whether you claim there is an Intelligent Designer or not, they’ll find a way to reject ID

If one insists ID is true, this is what you could be faced with — it gives the critic the following sort of red herrings to give the appearance he’s winning the case against ID. A smart anti-IDist would argue his case as follows:

1. Where is the Designer?
2. Who is the Designer?
3. Give me an experiment demonstrating the Designer?
4. How many experiments have you run to demonstrate the Intelligent Designer?
5. Just because something seems improbable doesn’t automatically mean there is Intelligent Design?
6. Can you tell me how you define intelligence?
7. What was the mechanism of design?……

you can’t answer these questions so your theory stinks.

But look at Denton’s book, he brilliantly avoided all those distracting questions. And the result? The modern ID movement was sparked into existence.

No need to put the issue of the Designer on the table. It doesn’t help the ID case, it just leads to distractions. Just argue the facts. The Intelligent Designer made the facts, and the facts will testify of Him.

You can also have a little fun pounding the anti-ID critic and demand:

1. give me a theory that explains the resemblance
2. give me an experiment that create the resemblance without intelligent manipulation
3. give me evidence the resemblance can naturally arise
4. show that chance can generate the resemblance
5. show that there can be a violation of No Free Lunch such that Darwinian evolution can do better than chance

etc.

What is the result of this strategy? Well consider recently, I offered a modest claim that finding 500 fair coins all heads is not consistent with the chance hypothesis. I’ll paraphrase what a critic said in response to my innocent claim:

if you have 500 flips of a fair coin that all come up heads, that outcome is perfectly consistent with fair coins

😯

See! I didn’t have to get bogged down into discussion of who the Intelligent Designer is, how did He do the design, etc. Critics would much rather go into those red herring discussions than go anywhere near the issue of the resemblance of design and the inadequacy of natural mechanisms to create that resemblance.

An ID proponent gains no advantage in such debates by insisting: “life can’t arise by chance, therefore the Intelligent Designer did it”. You can say you believe this statement, but you can’t formally make that inference with the same confidence you’d make with a theorem of math. And even if you could, what does it gain you, the critic won’t be more convinced nor will people on the sideline be more convinced.

It was the very fact Denton didn’t overplay his hand, that he wasn’t trying to say “God did it” at every turn of the page” (as you find in the Answers in Genesis website), that he ended up being very persuasive to me.

I prefer to say “I believe in ID, I can’t prove ID is true, but I can show that biology resembles designs and known natural processes are not expected to create that resemblance.”. With such an approach, notions like CSI will become credible whereby CSI is only a measure of resemblance to a design, it doesn’t actually mandate ID is the only explanation. And I point out, not even Bill Dembski would argue in practice that ID need be the only explanation (even though we all know he believes in his heart that it is):

Thus, a scientist may view design and its appeal to a designer as simply a fruitful device for understanding the world, not attaching any significance to questions such as whether a theory of design is in some ultimate sense true or whether the designer actually exists. Philosophers of science would call this a constructive empiricist approach to design. Scientists in the business of manufacturing theoretical entities like quarks, strings, and cold dark matter could therefore view the designer as just one more theoretical entity to be added to the list. I follow here Ludwig Wittgenstein, who wrote, “What a Copernicus or a Darwin really achieved was not the discovery of a true theory but of a fertile new point of view.”

No Free Lunch

It suffices for me that ID is a believable explanation, whether others share that belief is up to them. Nothing I do can bring the Intelligent Designer into their experiments, but I think I can argue for the resemblance of design quite forcefully. I think this strategy is empirically and theoretically defensible. I think our colleague and critic RDFish and others have made a good point about the problem of defining intelligence and how this problematic for ID.

A second point RDFIsh made is that an Intelligent Designer is always a sufficient condition to explain every phenomenon. A point I agree with. The issue is then whether there are phenomenon in principle where an Intelligent Designer is not only a sufficient explanation, but a necessary one. Do I think there are certain designs that in principle can’t be explained by natural causes? Yes. Do I think such designs appear in biology? Yes, but that is a separate post.

The point of this essay is that Resemblance of Design arguments are more defensible than ID arguments. Am I proposing we re-label ID theory? No. Its scandalous title is a good marketing point. 🙂 I am merely pointing out, I don’t feel comfortable saying, “it looks designed therefore definitely the Intelligent Designer did it”. I’m content to say, “it looks designed”. The facts of resemblance will argue for ID. Argue the facts, argue the resemblance.

Finally, if neither Denton nor Berlinski were convinced the Intelligent Designer made the designs of biology (and they are clearly ID sympathetic by most standards), why should I presume any one will automatically accept ID when presented with the facts? People make up their minds on their own whether there is a need for an Intelligent Designer, we don’t have try to draw conclusions for them. In my experience, it’s pointless to even try.

Comments
RDFish- You also forgot to respond to the following: Please tell us how we are to determine how something was designed BEFORE determining it was designed and BEFORE studying the thing in question. You do understand that all you are doing is proving that you are an arse on an agenda...Joe
July 3, 2013
July
07
Jul
3
03
2013
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
Q- What produced the first living cell? A- Intelligence! Q- What do you mean by Intellgence? A- Agency! Q- How can you tell when agencies act? A- We find signs of counterflow and work! Q- What are signs of couterflow and work? A- Complex specified information! Q- How do you know that CSI and IC are signs of counterflow and work? A- Every time we have observed CSI & IC and knew the cause it has always been via agency actions-> always, 100% of the time. And we have never observed nature, operating freely producing either CSI nor IC- never, 0% of the time. Therefor when we observe CSI or IC and don't know the cause it is safe to infer intentional design.Joe
July 3, 2013
July
07
Jul
3
03
2013
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
RDFish, What part of the following don't you understand: In the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY POSSIBLE way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. And why can't you respond to this: Q- What designed and built Stonehenge? A- Intelligence! Q- What do you mean by Intellgence? A- Agency Q- How can you tell when agencies act? A- We find signs of counterflow and work Do you even know how forensic science and archaeology work?Joe
July 3, 2013
July
07
Jul
3
03
2013
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
RDFish @65: Thank you for your clarification. You have some interesting thoughts, but, as the saying goes, "Thou doth protest too much." Saying things like "ID is a 100% vacuous hypothesis" is nonsense. You are bringing to the table a significant amount of hyperskepticism and pedanticism that is unwarranted. Couple of specific items:
In my view, everybody knows what conscious awareness is, and a simple definition such as “That which we lose when we fall into a dreamless sleep and regaing when we awaken” is perfectly clear.
Ah, I see. So everyone knows what "conscious awareness" is and we can use that term without incurring wrath. But if we use the word "intelligence," suddenly it is unintelligible and we can't proceed until we have pinned down some hyper-technical definition that satisfies everyone.
This is very confused. Let’s say Alice thinks that libertarian free will is entailed by the term “intelligence” (this is actually a fairly common situation), but Bob thinks that “intelligence” makes no particular claim about volition at all.
When we say something was human designed, we can draw that conclusion without getting into a long drawn-out debate over whether it involves libertarian free will. When archaeologists first came across Stonehenge or the statutes on Easter Island, they were quickly able to identify that the structures were designed, and they didn't have to debate libertarian free will. If SETI finds a signal from space that fits their parameters, they will be able to infer design without being paralyzed by hand-wringing navel gazing over whether the sender has "libertarian free will" or any other technical definition of intelligence. No-one in their right mind would say that SETI is "100% vacuous" just because they can't -- indeed have wisely never attempted to -- give some all-encompassing and definitive definition of what they mean by the "intelligence" making up the last "I" in their acronym. ID doesn't get into highly-technical definitions of ID, not because of some failure of the theory, but because it isn't necessary. If you need to know what ID proponents are talking about when they refer to intelligence it is adequate to look in the mirror. Human intelligence is, if not a perfect and complete analogy, at least a wholly adequate and sufficient example of intelligence for us to understand what is meant and then continue the discussion about the artifact in question. Furthermore, as Dembski has pointed out, perhaps the most important aspect of intelligence for purposes of ID can be understood from the very etymology of the word itself: "to choose between." The key is the ability to make a choice when confronted with contingent possibilities. That basic understanding is more than adequate for anyone who isn't determined to misconstrue things to understand what is meant by intelligence and move on. Finally, the following are separate questions: 1. Is x designed? 2. What kind of entity (or, if you prefer, what kind of "intelligence") designed it? We can ask and answer the first question without having a detailed, technical, accepted-by-everyone definition of intelligence. As long as we recognize in broad strokes what we are talking about, we can then focus our attention on the artifact in question to determine whether it was designed. You may personally wish that all ID proponents would commit, as a matter of ID theory, to a particular and specific definition of intelligence and not deviate therefrom. But that is unnecessary for purposes of drawing reasonable design inferences in the real world. The failure is one of your expectations and logic, not of ID. ----- Again, it is remarkable how intransigent ID opponents can be in going round and round on definitional issues: "what is information?" "what is intelligence" etc. ID isn't bringing any fancy new definitions to the table in this regard. Your standard tabletop dictionary is more than sufficient to understand the words in question. Now let's move on from the definitional games and talk about the actual substance of whether design is detectable and, if so, whether we detect it.Eric Anderson
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT
and when you implicitly assume there is something outside of chance and necessity.
Assumption is correct, though some of my colleagues might feel uncomfortable with me saying its merely an assumption, not proven truth... From an operational standpoint, I'd say working hypothesis. Now back to where we part ways:
What do you mean “intelligence”?
Sufficiently (but not necessarily) defined by CSI with the working assumption (not proof) there is something more than law and chance. By definition (not proof) I would say, if I see CSI, my working hypothesis is Intelligence was behind it. It's merely an unprovable claim, and one where all the other issues of what intelligence actually entails set aside... You will then say, "Sal the working hypothesis of intelligence creating CSI is not falsifiable". Agreed! But maybe to clarify where I'm going, say we have an artifact or event. We have two claims: 1. CSI can only be caused by intelligence 2. the object has CSI therefore it was caused by intelligence #1 is NOT falsifiable (it is an unprovable claim, maybe even false, maybe even meaningless), but #2 is falsifiable even though #1 isn't because the claim of CSI can be falsified (like the lightning strike example you gave). That is a subtle distinction. How this relates to the philosophical (not scientific) aspect of ID. If we see moderately simple chemical soup create life, CSI is falsified as is the claim that "intelligence was necessary to make life". Hence, we don't have to define intelligence strictly in order to falsify it as a causal agency. Even supposing the claim "CSI can only be caused by intelligence" is either false or meaningless, from the standpoint of interested parties (IDists), it's moot. And that's what I care about anyway. Will my hypothesis of intelligent causation (however ill-defined or false to begin with) be moot in the end... The lighting strike example you gave is an excellent example. Thank you for that one!scordova
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
Hi Sal,
But I understand what you mean by this: Q: What is the cause of the CSI we obseve in biological systems? A: Intelligence. Q: What is intelligence? A: The ability to create CSI.
Indeed that is what I mean.
Empirically speaking, yes! It is a definition of sufficient but not necessary indication of intelligence.
What do you mean by "intelligence"? Do you mean anything beyond "That which creates CSI"?
It is not strictly speaking a tautology because CSI is not a necessary condition for intelligence, but intelligence is a necessary condition for CSI by definitional fiat (not any sort of proof, it is an assumed axiom).
In fact, in our uniform and repeated experience, CSI is indeed a necessary condition for any sort of behavior that we call "intelligent"!!!
CSI is a sufficient indicator of what would resemble the work of intelligence.
What do you mean "intelligence"?
The point of the essay is resemblance is a defensible claim because I don’t think ID is formally defensible anymore than consciousness or free will is. They are reasonable ideas, but not absolutely provable in the mathematical sense.
You can't tell if ID is defensible or not until you say what it is ID is claiming.
You might ask, “then why define CSI at all”. Because it is an empirical quality of physical phenomenon distinct from ...
It is distinct from other patterns, period. CSI is that phenomenon ID (and evolution) seek to explain: The complex form and function of biological systems.
...the chance and law hypothesis that obey recognizable patterns.
As far as anyone knows, chance and law are all that exist.
But the point of this essay, is that if I felt we were bickering too much about ID, I wanted to say, “hey, can we agree there is a resemblance of design in the man-made sense?” Whether it’s an illusion or not, I defer to another discussion, but resemblance seems a defensible assertion. CSI is a meaningful idea in the context of establishing resemblance.
Oh, yes - I totally agree. I'm not interested in bickering about the details regarding CSI; it is obvious that the complex form and function in biology cries out for an explanation... one that we have not yet provided.
We might part ways regarding CSI and ID, but I think CSI can stand on its own because resemblance of design is defensible.
We only part ways when you use the term "intelligence" without defining it, and when you implicitly assume there is something outside of chance and necessity. Cheers, RDFishRDFish
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
Yes, it seems to me that is what you’re saying. This definition is fatal to ID as a scientific hypothesis, because it renders ID a vacuous tautology:
Strictly speaking: Tautology would mean "Intelligence implies CSI, and CSI implies intelligence" But in the philosophical sense, "intelligence need not imply CSI". For example an intelligence may choose not to create CSI. But I understand what you mean by this:
Q: What is the cause of the CSI we obseve in biological systems? A: Intelligence. Q: What is intelligence? A: The ability to create CSI.
Empirically speaking, yes! It is a definition of sufficient but not necessary indication of intelligence. It is not strictly speaking a tautology because CSI is not a necessary condition for intelligence, but intelligence is a necessary condition for CSI by definitional fiat (not any sort of proof, it is an assumed axiom). CSI is a sufficient indicator of what would resemble the work of intelligence. The point of the essay is resemblance is a defensible claim because I don't think ID is formally defensible anymore than consciousness or free will is. They are reasonable ideas, but not absolutely provable in the mathematical sense. You might ask, "then why define CSI at all". Because it is an empirical quality of physical phenomenon distinct from the chance and law hypothesis that obey recognizable patterns. Thus, you may view my definition of intelligence, vacuous, and I totally respect that. The notion of CSI (as in resemablance of a design) I can't concede. The point of the post is resemblance can be empirically defended (aka it looks designed), questions ultimately of Intelligence I don't think can be resolved, hence I think Dembski gave an alternative with the constructivist approach whereby the question of Intelligence being real doesn't have to be dealt with. But the point of this essay, is that if I felt we were bickering too much about ID, I wanted to say, "hey, can we agree there is a resemblance of design in the man-made sense?" Whether it's an illusion or not, I defer to another discussion, but resemblance seems a defensible assertion. CSI is a meaningful idea in the context of establishing resemblance. We might part ways regarding CSI and ID, but I think CSI can stand on its own because resemblance of design is defensible.scordova
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
Hi Joe, Does this fairly represent your method for demonstrating that intelligent agency was responsible for biological complexity?
Q- What produced the complex specified information in the first living cell? A- Intelligence! Q- What do you mean by Intellgence? A- Agency! Q- How can you tell when agencies act? A- We find signs of counterflow and work! Q- What are signs of couterflow and work? A- Complex specified information!
If not, where is it different from your view? Cheers, RDFishRDFish
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT
RD:
My point is that without a technical definition of the term “intelligence”, ID allows the word to carry connotations that are not explicitly specified, nor empirically supported.
We have one
I reject ID because it pretends to be a causal theory but fails to say anything whatsoever about what it is that is supposed to have caused things.
That is incorrect. We know that agencies act within nature and produce things that nature, operating freely, cannot.
My point is that ID says precisely nothing about how biological complexity came to exist.
That is a separate question. First we need to determine design is present before trying to figure out the how. As I have been saying you lack investigative experience and it shows. Please tell us how we are to determine how soemthing was designed BEFORE determining it was designed and BEFORE studying the thing in question. Or shut up because I am sick of your ignorance. Q- What designed and built Stonehenge? A- Intelligence! Q- What do you mean by Intellgence? A- Agency Q- How can you tell when agencies act? A- We find signs of counterflow and work And AGAIN for the willfully ignorant: In the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY POSSIBLE way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. THAT is how archaelogy does it. That is how forensic science does it. And SETI will do the same thing. Only ignorant people say ID has to do it differently.Joe
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
Hi Sal,
As far as the definition of intelligence, it is easier to define sufficient but not necessary conditions for an intelligence (be it conscious or otherwise) to exist somewhere in the causal pipeline. That sufficient condition is the creation of CSI.
I think you are trying to define "an intelligent cause" as "something that can produce CSI". Is that right?
That means when a mindless printer prints a document, CSI is indicated, but we can’t really say where intelligence play a role in the pipeline. In the case of a printed document there are multiple designers involved from the creation of the printer, to the operating system of the computer, as well the author of the document. It suffices to say CSI was created.
Yes, it seems to me that is what you're saying. This definition is fatal to ID as a scientific hypothesis, because it renders ID a vacuous tautology: Q: What is the cause of the CSI we obseve in biological systems? A: Intelligence. Q: What is intelligence? A: The ability to create CSI.
Whether the intelligence was conscious or not may not matter except in theological and philosophical discussions.
My point is that it is vitally important for ID to make clear that it does not in any way provide evidence to suggest that the cause of biological CSI was conscious.
Nothing in principle precludes a selection process from creating CSI any more than a mindless printer creating CSI, but we can assert via definition that an intelligence was in the pipeline, since we could merely by convention say: “we define intelligence existing by the existence of CSI”.
I don't really understand that statement.
But this is merely definition, it’s not saying the cause is conscious or whatever. In principle it could be naturalistic (whatever that means). This definition of intelligence by sufficient indications (CSI) accords with Artificially Intelligent agents as well.
Again, I haven't found you providing a specific definition of the word, but it seems like you are saying that "intelligence is the ability to create CSI". And again, this renders ID a vacuous tautology.
There are in classical physics “fictitious forces” such as the corioliss “force”. In electrical engineering we have imaginary currents and voltages in order to solve alternating circuit problems. Are they “real” or just an artifacts of our representation. It doesn’t matter from an operational standpoint, but it may matter to theologians and philosophers, but in that case, the answer can only be supposed, not proven, anyway.
Interesting point, and I agree entirely. Still, the corioliss force is well-defined, so we can identify "it at work" when we see it (even though it is not something with physical reality). The word "intelligence" is not well-defined, so two people looking at the exact same thing can (and often do) disagree about whether we should call it "intelligent" or not. Cheers, RDFishRDFish
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
Hi Eric,
Utilizing a concept, and doing so openly, certainly does not constitute “sleight-of-hand” or “smuggling” it in. The concept of intelligence existed long before ID. ID simply acknowledges the reality of intelligence in the world and then, armed with at acknowledgement, asks a couple of very simple follow up questions.
You misunderstand my point entirely. My point is that without a technical definition of the term "intelligence", ID allows the word to carry connotations that are not explicitly specified, nor empirically supported.
Philosophers have struggled for thousands of years to pin down exactly what is meant by intelligence, mind, consciousness, free will, agency, and so on (just like RDFish has been demanding in his definitional quest above).
In my view, everybody knows what conscious awareness is, and a simple definition such as "That which we lose when we fall into a dreamless sleep and regaing when we awaken" is perfectly clear. In any event, it isn't that philosophers have a hard time coming up with defintions; the problem is that ID proponents don't commit to one or another of these definitions explicitly.
However, ID has never claimed to be able to solve these deep and long-standing philosophical questions. ID need not solve them.
I was not commenting on whether ID was solving these questions; I am saying that ID needs to say which sense of the word it is using when it offers "intelligence" as an explanation for the universal constants, biological complexity, and so forth.
Despite any challenges of coming up with a precise definition, if we acknowledge that intelligence, mind, consciousness and so on are real then we can start asking some additional questions.
This is very confused. Let's say Alice thinks that libertarian free will is entailed by the term "intelligence" (this is actually a fairly common situation), but Bob thinks that "intelligence" makes no particular claim about volition at all. When Bob says that ID supports the conclusion that life was designed by something intelligent, Alice concludes that ID has somehow shown the Designer had libertarian free will. This is how the unqualified use of words such as "intelligence" leads to equivocation and confusion.
Everyone knows they are real, even those who claim publicly that it is all an illusion, that pure materialism rules the day — even they never live their lives in concert with such materialist doctrine. So the interesting philosophical challenges of defining something like “intelligence” should not be, and is not, a valid reason for rejecting ID.
This is even more confused, I'm afraid. Nobody said anything about materialism - it is entirely irrelevant to this topic. I reject ID because it pretends to be a causal theory but fails to say anything whatsoever about what it is that is supposed to have caused things.
Finally, yes, it is true that ID may not be able to answer exactly how something came about physically (see the parallel thread right now about the “mechanism” of fabricating designed things).
That was not my point either. My point is that ID says precisely nothing about how biological complexity came to exist. In other words, ID is a 100% vacuous hypothesis. In order to rectify this, ID actually has to say what is supposed to meant by the term "intelligent cause". Once that is done, we can look at the specific claims being made to see if they are supported by the evidence. Cheers, RDFishRDFish
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
Neil:
Let me first clarify the distinction I was making between “designed” and “crafted”. If you purchase a sweater at a clothing store, that looks designed. But if somebody hand-knits a sweater for you, that will look crafted.
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHA You have got to be kidding me. So the sweater at the store wasn't hand-knitted even though the label says it was? If a tailor makes you a suit it will look crafted whereas if you go to the Men's Wearhouse you will have a suit that looks designed! Even though the tailored suit looks much better than the Men's Wearhouse suit.Joe
June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
uoflcard asks:
Could you give an example of something that does look designed to you?
Let me first clarify the distinction I was making between "designed" and "crafted". If you purchase a sweater at a clothing store, that looks designed. But if somebody hand-knits a sweater for you, that will look crafted. Recalling the time when I first saw some artificial flowers, I remember looking closely at them. And I could see where the artificial flowers appeared designed in ways that natural flowers don't appear that way.Neil Rickert
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
Well, Sal, you come out with what is a pretty accommodating
It may seem I'm trying to accommodate (as in allow errors just to make peace). The reason for this and my other essay on good and bad reasons to reject ID is there is in my mind a subtle distinction between 1. formally correct argument (such as we find in math) 2. reasonably correct argument To me ID qualifies as a reasonably correct argument, not formally correct. I will say however, Design is a formally favorable wager over Darwinism.scordova
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
As far as the definition of intelligence, it is easier to define sufficient but not necessary conditions for an intelligence (be it conscious or otherwise) to exist somewhere in the causal pipeline. That sufficient condition is the creation of CSI. That means when a mindless printer prints a document, CSI is indicated, but we can't really say where intelligence play a role in the pipeline. In the case of a printed document there are multiple designers involved from the creation of the printer, to the operating system of the computer, as well the author of the document. It suffices to say CSI was created. Whether the intelligence was conscious or not may not matter except in theological and philosophical discussions. Nothing in principle precludes a selection process from creating CSI any more than a mindless printer creating CSI, but we can assert via definition that an intelligence was in the pipeline, since we could merely by convention say: "we define intelligence existing by the existence of CSI". But this is merely definition, it's not saying the cause is conscious or whatever. In principle it could be naturalistic (whatever that means). This definition of intelligence by sufficient indications (CSI) accords with Artificially Intelligent agents as well. It doesn't answer the interesting question of whether the intelligence is conscious or in fact ultimately real as Dembksi himself suggests:
not attaching any significance to questions such as whether a theory of design is in some ultimate sense true or whether the designer actually exists.
There are in classical physics "fictitious forces" such as the corioliss "force". In electrical engineering we have imaginary currents and voltages in order to solve alternating circuit problems. Are they "real" or just an artifacts of our representation. It doesn't matter from an operational standpoint, but it may matter to theologians and philosophers, but in that case, the answer can only be supposed, not proven, anyway. It can be viewed as fruitful perspective. Of course, neither side, views it that way, not even Bill personally, but it's a formality that some (myself included) feel important to put on the table.scordova
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
I read it good for you. My game is hold em. Never play blackjack I am not a good card counter. BTW Thorpe was the pioneer in modern times anyway.
Ha! I'd never make a good poker player. Most skilled blackjack players shouldn't even try to play poker. I've never played a hand of poker in my life. Don't plan to. As Clint Eastwood said, "a man's got to know his limits."scordova
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
Regarding a couple of RDFish's comments:
The concept of “intelligence” is little more than semantic sleight-of-hand in the context of ID, smuggling in a host of anthropocentric connotations without acknowledgement or empirical support, and implicitly assuming all sorts of speculative metaphysics regarding the nature of mind.
Utilizing a concept, and doing so openly, certainly does not constitute "sleight-of-hand" or "smuggling" it in. The concept of intelligence existed long before ID. ID simply acknowledges the reality of intelligence in the world and then, armed with at acknowledgement, asks a couple of very simple follow up questions. Philosophers have struggled for thousands of years to pin down exactly what is meant by intelligence, mind, consciousness, free will, agency, and so on (just like RDFish has been demanding in his definitional quest above). These are interesting questions, to be sure. However, ID has never claimed to be able to solve these deep and long-standing philosophical questions. ID need not solve them. Despite any challenges of coming up with a precise definition, if we acknowledge that intelligence, mind, consciousness and so on are real then we can start asking some additional questions. Everyone knows they are real, even those who claim publicly that it is all an illusion, that pure materialism rules the day -- even they never live their lives in concert with such materialist doctrine. So the interesting philosophical challenges of defining something like "intelligence" should not be, and is not, a valid reason for rejecting ID.
Changing the main claim from “X is designed” to “X appears to be designed” is not relevant to my issues with ID. In my view, the term “designed” doesn’t actually say anything specific about how X came to exist.
Agreed. I sure wish most ID critics, would understand this simple point.
Nothing follows from saying that “X is designed” – you don’t learn one specific thing about X, nor about what caused it.
The question of whether something was designed is interesting in its own right. Particularly when the reigning paradigm asserts, vocally and and at every turn, that x was not designed. Particularly when the opposition makes further claims about origins, worldview truth, etc., based on the idea that, to channel folks like Dawkins for a moment, there is no purpose, no plan, nothing but "blind pitiless indifference" in the universe. The question of how life came to be, how life exists, whether particular organisms and systems were designed, is extremely valuable and interesting in its own right. Further, the question of whether x was designed allows us to ask follow-up questions about purpose and function and interaction with other systems -- questions that have too often been ignored. Evolutionary biology has an abysmal track record -- particularly when it comes to the digital content of the cell -- of blowing off things as junk or evolutionary leftovers just because they don't see a current function or purpose. An acknowledgement of design, while not absolutely requiring function everywhere and while acknowledging the possibility of junk, shifts one's paradigm significantly in asking follow up questions. It moves science forward and requires one to look deeply into the strange things in the cell, rather than saying, as too often has happened in the past, "Well, y probably doesn't do anything, it is probably just junk." Finally, yes, it is true that ID may not be able to answer exactly how something came about physically (see the parallel thread right now about the "mechanism" of fabricating designed things). That is OK. ID has never claimed to be a theory of everything. It is a very limited enterprise. That frustrates a lot of people who demand to know how x was designed, when it was designed, by whom it was designed. But that is a failure of their expectations, not a failure of ID.Eric Anderson
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Hi Sal Good to hear from you as we'll. I can't help but notice that you have attracted a bevy of stalkers. Keiths, what a whiner!! When I read what you wrote I immediately assumed you were making another point which you were. Not to difficult to figure out with a fair coin flipping 500 heads that something else is being manipulated. I guess since materialists believe in impossible things all the time they are prone to miss the subtle things.
Anyway, along the lines of EV, for you, Deuce, Barry and others interested in beating gambling games, I just posted:
I read it good for you. My game is hold em. Never play blackjack I am not a good card counter. BTW Thorpe was the pioneer in modern times anyway.vividbleau
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT
RDFish, Yeah, you're right. After I posted it I thought to myself that "hammered" was way too strong. Shouldn't have lumped you in the group. Thanks for being willing to laugh it off.Eric Anderson
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT
Hi Sal Doesn’t appear that Keth is able to process the difference between expectational value (EV) and probability . As a poker player we have names s for those types of players ie donkey or fish. The fishes who have big bankrolls are whales . The theory of poker revolves around EV. Vivid
So nice to hear from one of my friends from the ARN days! Anyway, along the lines of EV, for you, Deuce, Barry and others interested in beating gambling games, I just posted: https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/holy-rollers-pascals-wager-if-id-is-wrong-it-was-an-honest-mistake/scordova
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT
Hi Eric, Yeah, your response was pretty funny actually. You think I "immediately hammered" Sal here? Really? Did you read what I wrote? Did you read what Sal said back? Hahahaha Cheers, RDFishRDFish
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT
Eric,
Well, Sal, you come out with what is a pretty accommodating approach...
That made me laugh. Eric, your bias is showing. Sal's "accommodating approach" was to quotemine eigenstate, write an OP that (incorrectly) ridiculed his position, and to lodge multiple false accusations against eigenstate and me. If that's an "accommodating approach", I'd hate to see what antagonism looks like.keiths
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
Neil Rickert:
I disagree with Dawkins. Biological organisms do not look designed. Perhaps they could be said to look as if crafted, but not designed.
Could you give an example of something that does look designed to you?uoflcard
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
Well, Sal, you come out with what is a pretty accommodating approach, and you immediately get hammered by keiths, RDFish, and Neil Rickert. Unfortunately, at least for the current group, the softened approach didn't seem to help much. Probably because we're dealing with people in your Type 2 category. There is, however, another type of person, call them Type 3. Those who are reasonable and willing to look at the evidence, without a philosophical bias. (In contrast, your Type 2 folks simply are incapable of looking at the issues objectively.) Type 3 individuals may not think the design inference has met its burden, but they are willing to listen. Those are the people who are actually worth trying to approach. Denton and Berlinski are probably in this Type 3 category. -- All that said, you've put forth some interesting thoughts, and we could all probably do a better to engage people.Eric Anderson
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
Thanks! Done. I'm away for the weekend, but will be back on Monday.Elizabeth B Liddle
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
Hi Lizzie, I'm registered at TSZ as "aiguy" - thanks! RDFish/aiguyRDFish
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
RDFish If you are already registered at TSZ, or want a different username, let me know your username, and I'll make sure you have author rights (default is "subscriber"). Otherwise I'll look out for RDFish and do the permissions. Thanks!Elizabeth B Liddle
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
Here ya go Lizzie:
Thanks, Joe.Elizabeth B Liddle
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
Q- What's responsible for Stonehenge? A. Intelligence Q: What is intelligence? A: Agency (not nature operating freely)! Q: How can we identify agency (when nature is not operating freely)? A: When we observe counterflow/ workJoe
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
And also AGAIN: Every time we have observed CSI and knew the cause it has always been via some agency-> always, 100% of the time. And we have never observed nature, operating freely, producing CSI-> never, 0% of the time. Therefor when we observe CSI and don't know the cause it is safe to infer some agency was responsible. Mother nature is good at making stones but not so good at making Stonehenges.Joe
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply