Reading through the comments on my last post gave me the idea for the following thought experiment:
After being snubbed by the Nobel Prize committee, Dr. Paley, an eccentric British geneticist (note: it’s no longer politically correct to refer to them as “mad scientists”) decides to create a challenge in which to embarrass his colleagues. He invites the leading scientists of various fields relating to the evolutionary sciences to his laboratory whereupon he unveils a pair of exotic looking creatures.
Murmuring amongst themselves, they are surprised to discover that no one has ever seen a species quite like them. Paley beams proudly as he gently picks up one of each beast and points out that their names are Snikwad and Niwrad. One of them, he claims, is a member of a rare species found in a remote region of Antarctica. The other, he says slyly, is an animal that has been designed and created in his own lab. After much snickering the scientists suddenly fall quiet – they realize that Paley is serious.
“If you’re truly smarter than I am,” pouts the Englishman, “then you should have no trouble distinguishing which is a product of evolution and which is my own handiwork.” But as his colleagues roll their eyes and head toward he door he ups the ante, offering the sum of 2 million pounds sterling to the first one to accurately determine, using only commonly accepted scientific methods, which was fabricated in the lab. Naturally, the scientists take up the challenge, assured that they will have no difficulty in determining whether Sinkawd or Niward is the “Frankenpaley.” But is it possible to tell which one has been designed? And if so, how would they do it?
Obviously, since many members of the scientific community scoff at the methods used by those in the ID movement, there must be some commonly accepted means of determining the difference between biological entities that are the product of an intelligent designer and those which are created by blind evolutionary processes. Admittedly, I’m not sure what the method is but I am sure there must be one. After all, if there were no a posteriori method to make such a distinction, then the claim that all organisms are a result of unintelligent forces would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Anyone know how a clever scientist would collect on the challenge?
1
Yes design can be detected if one defines design broadly. What's at issue is can non evolutionary Intelligent Design or biota be detected? The answer so far is; no. Natural Slection saves what works, and discards what does not. Differentials in mortality and fertility are preserved which has the effect of 'racheting up' system functions over time. If one defines design as a process which tests what works and discarding or retaining components based on that criteria, then natural selection can design. If one defines design as 'conciously made by non human designers who did not use common descent or natural selection' than so far we have not been able to distinguish that in biological organisms in any testable way. But we can postulate that natural selection, as a design process, was itself conciously designed and we even have examples of that with in human's use of selective breeding/domstication of animals, plants, and even microbes (Such as beer yeast).
posted on 12.07.2004 7:52 PM2
DS,
What's at issue is can non evolutionary Intelligent Design or biota be detected? The answer so far is; no. Natural Selection saves what works, and discards what does not.
But that begs the question that some or all organisms are created as a result of natural selection. And if there is no way of determining the diffence then why is the presumption against an intelligent designer?
(The reason I brought this up in the first place was in the hopes of sparking some original thought on the subject. The same tired pro-evo/anti-ID argument was getting rather dull. I'm hoping that we'll be able to stretch the boundaries of the debate a bit on this one.)
3
Ah, good post. I'm not convinced there is or isn't one, and, of course, it's not important.
However, let me re-introduce you (hopefully) to Douglas Hofstaeder:
All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions ...
Gödel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiom system is involved ...
How can you figure out if you are sane? ... Once you begin to question your own sanity, you get trapped in an ever-tighter vortex of self-fulfilling prophecies, though the process is by no means inevitable. Everyone knows that the insane interpret the world via their own peculiarly consistent logic; how can you tell if your own logic is "peculiar' or not, given that you have only your own logic to judge itself? I don't see any answer. I am reminded of Gödel's second theorem, which implies that the only versions of formal number theory which assert their own consistency are inconsistent.
The other metaphorical analogue to Gödel's Theorem which I find provocative suggests that ultimately, we cannot understand our own mind/brains ... Just as we cannot see our faces with our own eyes, is it not inconceivable to expect that we cannot mirror our complete mental structures in the symbols which carry them out? All the limitative theorems of mathematics and the theory of computation suggest that once the ability to represent your own structure has reached a certain critical point, that is the kiss of death: it guarantees that you can never represent yourself totally.
4
Joe
I think this is an interesting way to approach the fundamental problems with the claims of ID "theorists".
Given that the good doctor is a human, he must have used recombinant molecular biology or cross-breeding of known species to create his designed animal. Therefore, we could sequence the genomes of the two animals and compare the sequences to the DNA sequences of all known animals. One of the two animals' DNA sequences would likely reveal traces of the good doctor's handiwork. While I'm standing there, I might also look around in Paley's lab to see what methods and tools he possesses. That would help me focus my search.
Of course, I presume that Dr. Paley used standard techniques to design his organism. That is, I assume Dr. Paley doesn't possess the supernatural transmogrifying power to create an "exotic looking creature" from, say, empty beer cans and cigarette butts, in the course of a human lifetime.
Am I wrong about this latter point? Does Dr. Paley possess superhuman abilities? It's kind of an important one. The artefacts of supernatural powers are kind of hard to detect, i.e., the traces of supernatural "design," are kinda hard to detect. For example, if Dr. Paley is really really all-powerful, he could design his organism very particularly, specifying each nucleic acid, so that it's impossible to tell the difference between the organism he designed and one that was naturally selected for over millions and millions of years.
As I said, it's kind of an important point.
posted on 12.07.2004 8:51 PM5
Or to put it another way
Joe wrote
"there must be some commonly accepted means of determining the difference between biological entities that are the product of an intelligent designer and those which are created by blind evolutionary processes.... if there were no a posteriori method to make such a distinction, then the claim that all organisms are a result of unintelligent forces would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam."
Well, here's your method in action.
http://www.entransfood.com/workinggroups/wg4TQA/GMO%20detection%20methods%20using%20PCR%20review.htm
***In this review the current methodological status of detection of GMO (Genetically modified organism-derivatives) in the food chain is presented. In reflection of the current state of the art the major focus will be on DNA-based methods, in particular those involving PCR (polymerase chain reaction). An introduction to the DNA molecule is linked as an annex, to help those readers unfamiliar with molecular biology to understand the technology of detection.***
Wait a minute. Did I just hear the sound of a goal post being lifted out of its foundation?
posted on 12.07.2004 8:58 PM6
There is no pressumption against an Intelligent Designer. Some scientists are atheists, some are not. In America roughly at least half are theists.
There is simply currently no scientific evidence that suggests, much less nails it down, one way or another. It's prefectly reasonable to withold judgement on that until better evidence emerges imo. Those who are inclined to theism take it on faith that there is a such a designer, but among the scientific community that faith is alway integrated with the observable evidence in the same way that Copernican Astronomy or Plate Tectonics is. There is reason, very good reason, to conclude that if there is an Intelligent Designer that he/they used common descent with modification/diversification.
There would be several possibilities when we speak of non human intelligent intervention in the history of life on earth. There sci-fi scenarios. The Gort Mothership purges it's sewage tanks on the Hadeaen Earth and that starts life here. Or more subtletly, the Gort Mothership, full of intelligent Euglena's, visits Archaean Earth, feels bad for the primitive chemosynths and improves their motility by introducing modifctaion that equip them with flagella. Either of these scenarios and variations therein occur very early, they're highly localized and consist of tiny frail organic changes which would be unlikely to preserve and thus be extremely difficult to detect; as even strata from this period is rare and such minuscule events would likely have left no discernable tracet. Outside of finding solid evidence, he ship, a factory, some kind of signature, or meeting the Gorts themselves and interveiewing them about what they did, I don't see much hope of knowing if such a thing ocurred billions of years ago.
Scenarios where the universe is made for whatever reason, and humans are an intended or unintended result of that fabrication event but came about through TE, are indistinguishable currently at least from a universe which just 'is' because of the aforementioed lack of testable criteria.
What draws heavy criticism from the biological community however are the claims of a non evoltutionary conscious, non human, intelligent designer AND the tactics by which the political side of IDC is pursued. The non evolutionary IDC just doesn't square with what we currently observe. And the incessant clamoring of The Discovery Institute and earlier claims of classical non-evolutionary creationism to be taken seriously and inluded in the curricula of K-12 sience standards, an the unconventional non scientific way they go about it, is producing the reaction among biologists and scientist in general you may be referring to.
This is a poor analogy so don't push it too far, but if you as a combat professional had to go before the local school board every few months composed of devout Wiccans and explain that "Yes curses and spells were a staple of past wars, but swords, archers, tactics, and numbers, and more recently, firepower, play the decisive measurable role in who wins", and you got accused of lying or cooking the evidence because you're just some kind of rotten SOB who likes to smack down witches, you'd develop a knee jerk reaction after awhile :)
I have a better analogy using holocaust denial if you'd like to see it.
7
I truly appreciate your hypotheticals. But...I'm not sure that it's any different than Paley's, except with the substitution of livng artifacts rather than a watch. In other word hte hypothetical begs the question by postulating something which does not exist at all. It assumes something which has never happened--creation of life in a laboratory. Depending on the actual facts, I suspect it is very easy to determine the non-natural creature. I'm assuming as things like DNA are brought up that the hypothetical would be reframed to remove such easy solutions, but I'm not sure you can make the hypothetical complete unless you finally assume what your're trying to prove.
But let's go with it. If the life was created in the lab from scratch, (no obvious bolts protruding from the neck and no bad stitch jobs showing) then the DNA from the artificial creature would not resemble anything we've ever seen. The DNA from the antarctic creature would be consistent with other creatures found on earth wouldn't it? If the lab creation was simply a chimera involving some form of recombinant DNA then maybe it wouldn't be detectible, but then no different than a perviously unseen breed of dog.
So if that were the case how would Intellgient Design get to a different result? We do know one thing in your hypothetical--just like Paley's watch, a miracle didn't occur. Human agency did the designing--that was a given in the problem. That's the difficulty I see with Paley and this hypothetical. Nobody has produced an object that all can agree was intelligently "designed" but not designed by humans. But let's go with that one, too. Suppose a third creature named "Iksbmed" is produced and it turns out that he has been kept in hiding becasue he was found under a rock in Mars and secretly returned to earth. All three creatures are mixed and given to two teams of darwinian biologists and ID types. How does each team differentiate between the three? Specifically how do the ID types distinguish between the natural alien and the "artificial" Sinkawd (that's the one, for sure!) What methods do they use? If I understand Dembski right, he will quickly conclude that both the alien and the artificial one are "designed" and he would be wrong.
You might recall I posed a similar hypothetical a while back: The monolith in "2001-A space Oddysy" appearing before the "apes." Detecting the design is easy--demonstrating the supernatural nature of the designer doesn't appear possible.
posted on 12.07.2004 9:05 PM8
Larry,
For example, if Dr. Paley is really really all-powerful, he could design his organism very particularly, specifying each nucleic acid,
so that it's impossible to tell the difference between the organism he designed and one that was naturally selected for over millions and millions of years.
As I said, it's kind of an important point.
Obviously, if scientists can tell with a high degree of certainty that a creature was created by natural selection then they should be able to use the same method to determine which of the two is the “natural” one.
Wait a minute. Did I just hear the sound of a goal post being lifted out of its foundation?
No, because it has has nothing to do with the question at hand. Your link refers to an article on detecting whether an organism has had its DNA genetically modified. Fortunately, we don't have to limit out experiment to a simple matter of cloning and genetic manipulation.
(Of course even if Paley did use modified genetic material to create one of them how would we tell which one was the original?)
posted on 12.07.2004 9:07 PM9
"Fortunately, we don't have to limit out experiment to a simple matter of cloning and genetic manipulation."
Huh?
Well if Paley has all powerful supernatural means at his disposal, then there is no way to determine whether the organism, his watch, or even my own person with my implanted memories were also designed by Paley just before I walked into the room.
Is that what ID peddlers want taught in our science classrooms? Cuz that's not science.
"(Of course even if Paley did use modified genetic material to create one of them how would we tell which one was the original?)"
Paley's manipulations would leave detectable marks. I assume, of course, that Paley's manipulations succeeded in generating a new "kind" of organism, right? Otherwise, it's hardly a "design". Fair enough?
Honestly, Joe. The goalpost is now orbiting Saturn. How much more absurd is your hypo going to get?
"Obviously, if scientists can tell with a high degree of certainty that a creature was created by natural selection then they should be able to use the same method to determine which of the two is the “natural” one."
This is a circular argument or its nonsense. Scientists *assume* most creatures are "created" by natural selection because most creatures are born in the wild from their wild parents. Of course, we know now that some creatures are recombinant organisms and some creatures were bred (i.e., "created" by humans). But natural selection acts on those creatures as well, just as slowly and surely as it acts on us.
posted on 12.07.2004 9:24 PM10
DS: The non evolutionary IDC just doesn't square with what we currently observe.
The primary dispute is whether or not evolution could be a blind, undirected process. If most scientists are willing to concede that an undirected process, as you say, doesn’t square with what we currently observe, then I would say that there is no reason for debate. But if they insist on claming that an irrational process created our rational minds, then I would have to say that their idea doesn’t correspond with reality.
This is a poor analogy so don't push it too far, but if you as a combat professional had to go before the local school board every few months composed of devout Wiccans and explain that…
Actually, your analogy isn’t that far off. Scientists such as Richard Dawkins have irrational, mystical beliefs that are similiar to Wiccans. I agree, though, that such claims shouldn’t be confused for “science.”
Joe M But...I'm not sure that it's any different than Paley's, except with the substitution of livng artifacts rather
than a watch. In other word hte hypothetical begs the question by postulating something which does not exist at all.
Ah, but you see the problem with your claim? You can only make such a statement by begging the question that natural selection can create a complete living organism. But we can’t make that claim until we are able to explain how we would tell the difference between the two processes.
I'm assuming as things like DNA are brought up that the hypothetical would be reframed to remove such easy solutions, but I'm not sure you can make the hypothetical complete unless you finally assume what your're trying to prove.
That’s a possibility, though one that cuts both ways. After all, we would be begging the question by assuming that both creatures aren’t the result of intelligent design. One by Paley, the other by some other entity.
But let's go with it. If the life was created in the lab from scratch, (no obvious bolts protruding from the neck and no bad stitch jobs showing) then the DNA from the artificial creature would not resemble anything we've ever seen.
Not necessarily. What if Paley discovered that an intelligent alien race called Dorks had created life on earth and was able to produce a similar “recipe” for his own creature? Unless scientists are able to determine that organisms that have obviously not been designed, then they have no way of knowing which is which.
Nobody has produced an object that all can agree was intelligently "designed" but not designed by humans.
True, but nobody has been able to produce an object that has the same attributes of being intelligently designed (i.e., rationality, conscience) and yet is known to have resulted from blind, random, natural processes.
If I understand Dembski right, he will quickly conclude that both the alien and the artificial one are "designed" and he would be wrong.
By what process was the alien created? Was it random and impersonal?
Detecting the design is easy--demonstrating the supernatural nature of the designer doesn't appear possible.
I think that is because you are getting hung up on the term “supernatural.” ID, for example, doesn’t require a supernatural designer for biological organisms, just an intelligent one.
11
The very first test I would do would be to sequence its DNA and try and fit it into the phylogenic tree. The one that came from millions of years of evolution around Antartica will have common copy errors and other such unique artifacts in its DNA that would comparable to other creatures. Are we testing design at this point or are we testing which has common ancestors to earth creatures and which has been entirely synthesized from scratch by a brilliant scientist. ID'ers are the ones who claim they can tell the difference and have a theory to do so. Again, unfortunately their theory has never successfully be used or validated. Perhaps they are the ones you should be asking the question.
posted on 12.07.2004 10:04 PM12
I think that is because you are getting hung up on the term “supernatural.” ID, for example, doesn’t require a supernatural designer for biological organisms, just an intelligent one.
Unless you are of the mind that species aren't millions of years old, like your YEC friends, then you admit that this design occured over very long periods of time and over multiple generations. If these creatures aren't supernatural, are you suggesting they are physical beings still around us? Did they directly manipulate the DNA and cause the frame shift that allows the "Nylon Bug" to metabolize this man made substance?
posted on 12.07.2004 10:13 PM13
~DS~
I have one small quibble based on my poor understanding of evolutionary science. You said:
Differentials in mortality and fertility are preserved which has the effect of 'racheting up' system functions over time.Which would imply for example that dinosaurs have "inferior" system functions to ours (us being later). My understanding was that dinosaurs were superbly adapted for their ecologial niches. It's just that over time, those niches shifted and for the most part they didn't and thus became extinct. Is that correct? posted on 12.07.2004 10:32 PM
14
"ID, for example, doesn’t require a supernatural designer for biological organisms, just an intelligent one."
REALLY!!!
Then list here any five biological organisms that exhibit irreducible complexity according to Behe:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
And then after examing each of these we will see if there is a non supernatural design explanation
for each.
The truth is that ID REFUSES to identify any irreducibly complex biological system other than the ones listed in Darwin's Black Box. Why? because each of those has since been pretty much demonstrated to be non irreducibly complex. That was in 1996--8 years ago. Behe essentially admitted that these were not good examples and there may be others. Fair enough. By now he has had plenty of time to develop 5 or 7 hundred irreducibly complex systems, and any one of those would be a perfect example for your hypotheical.
The truth is we can't tell if any biological structure was "intelligently designed" as Behe defines that term. Let's assume for a moment that Behe is right, at some point in the past, some designer superglued a flagella onto a bactertial rectum. Now that designer can only be one of several possibilities: Raelians, time travlers, extra terrestrials, or a being with supernatural powers. We can then clearly eliminate supernatural causes entirely unless we specifically choose not to. Why do, or don't we, make that choice?
Put another way, Paley is showing off his cool animals and a stranger, wearing long hair, a robe and sandals walks in and annoucnes, "I am Jesus." How do we determine he is telling the truth?
15
Joe M: REALLY!!!
Then list here any five biological organisms that exhibit irreducible
complexity according to Behe:
Wow, that non sequiter just popped out of nowhere.
This isn’t about Behe. It’s about how science distinguishes between designed and non-designed organisms. Well come back to IC another day, I promise. But for now let’s try to stick to the subject. I take it from your attempt to change the subject, though, that you don't think the scientific community is capable of making such a distinction. Am I right?
The truth is we can't tell if any biological structure was "intelligently designed" as Behe defines that term. Now that designer can only be one of several possibilities: Raelians, time travlers, extra terrestrials, or a being with supernatural powers. We can then clearly eliminate supernatural causes entirely unless we specifically choose not to. Why do, or don't we, make that choice?
for our purposes we don’t have to make the choice at all. The identity of the designer would fall outside the scope of science and would be rather irrelevant.
Put another way, Paley is showing off his cool animals and a stranger, wearing
long hair, a robe and sandals walks in and annoucnes, "I am Jesus." How do we
determine he is telling the truth?
Is this non sequiter somehow relevant?
16
Joe.
Please. Please address the issues I raised in my posts directly. Don't fisk them. I responded to your hypo directly, taking into account the details you provided.
Now you've changed the terms. Now everything is permitted, including things for which we have no evidence, which exist only in your (or my) imagination and which we have no way of detecting. Do you understand? I can propose that the world and all its living organisms was pooped out of the butt of Ploink Ploink, a giant bat winged creature who is invisible to us now. That's a non-evolutionary theory which explains life on earth. And it wasn't intelligently designed. Shall we teach this third "controversial" theory as well? If not, why not? I don't see that "ID theory" has any advantage over my "Ploink Poop" theory. Do you? If so, what are the advantages?
This issue -- the proposition of some force for which there is zero evidence -- is the fundamental problem with "ID theory". This is why we needn't spend days analyzing Dembski's bad math or wondering what "irreducible complexity" means. It is not a scientific answer to invoke a mysterious "intelligent" or a "digestocreative" force to explain a phenomenon, particularly not when an explanation relying only on forces that are known to exist has proven incredibly powerful and predictive for over 150 years during the most scientifically productive in the world's history.
Think about it.
All of these arguments about "you can't prove evolution wrong that shows it's crap" are so off the mark. Of course you can prove that evolutionary theory is a bunch of crap and all the world's scientists are deluded. You showed us exactly how to do that Joe. All you need to do is show that "an intelligent alien race called Dorks had created life on earth."
Of course, I'd want to know how that intelligent alien race came to be, but if they actually provided a demonstration where they created whales, thousands of species of bacteria, human beings and trilobites by snapping their fingers, and they were able to manipulate the DNA sequences in organisms to create the illusion the organisms were related to each other by descent, why I'd have to reconsider my beliefs in evolutionary theory as it applied to earth's life forms. Right? As a reasonable person, I would have to seriously reconsider my beliefs that life on earth arised through evolution. Am I right about that? This another crucial and important question.
posted on 12.07.2004 11:16 PM17
Larry,
Now you've changed the terms. Now everything is permitted, including things for which we have no evidence, which exist only in your (or my) imagination and which we have no way of detecting.
I’m not saying that everything is permitted. I’m simply asking how modern science makes a distinction between designed and non-designed biological organisms. I’m assuming that it is possible since so many people appear to imply that a designer has been excluded based on a posteriori evidence.
Do you understand? I can propose that the world and all its living organisms was pooped out of the butt of Ploink Ploink, a giant bat winged creature who is invisible to us now. That's a non-evolutionary theory which explains life on earth. And it wasn't intelligently designed. Shall we teach this third "controversial" theory as well? If not, why not? I don't see that "ID theory" has any advantage over my "Ploink Poop" theory. Do you? If so, what are the advantages?
What has that to do with the question at hand?
This issue -- the proposition of some force for which there is zero evidence --
is the fundamental problem with "ID theory".
By claiming that there is “zero evidence” you are implying that it is possible to detect design and biological organisms, that such as test has been done, and that the results show that there is no data to support a designer. What basis do you have for such a claim?
It is not a scientific answer to invoke a mysterious "intelligent" or a "digestocreative" force to explain a phenomenon, particularly not when an explanation relying only on forces that are known to exist has proven incredibly powerful and predictive for over 150 years during the most scientifically productive in the world's history.
Actually, yes it is. Otherwise we would have to discard all of the forensic sciences since any phenomenon that would invoke a mysterious "intelligent" being could possibly be the result of other non-intelligent natural forces.
All you need to do is show that "an intelligent alien race called Dorks had created life on earth."
No, all I have to show is that science has no way a posteriori method for excluding design. So far you haven’t done much to prove me wrong on that point. In fact, you appear to be reinforcing my previous claim that theories that posit design are excluded a priori rather than on an examination of the evidence.
posted on 12.07.2004 11:29 PM18
The hypothetical does not say the creatures cannot talk, so I would just ask each one, where are you from? Sorry, I channelled Jack Handy for a moment there. Seriously, I think Joe's hypothetical has demonstrated the boring points I was trying to make in the last thread: science cannot prove ID. So really, ID comes down to what we believe, and these beliefs (whether anti-ID or pro ID) are supported by the evidence we want to see.
posted on 12.07.2004 11:35 PM19
Joe you can't keep running.
" This isn’t about Behe. It’s about how science distinguishes between designed and non-designed organisms."
Well, Joe, you've already been provided with answers to that question at least for the case where techniques presently known to humans are used to do the "designing". And in that case I'm allowing you a pretty liberal definition of the term "design" to include the mere insertion of, say, an antibiotic resistance gene, which would change the organism from one "kind" into another.
Of course, Joe, you know that we're told all the time by creationism apologists that it's "macro-evolution" that must be explained, not the mere transposition or alteratio of nucleic acids or gene segments.
Your response to those answers was to jettison the goalpost into outer space and suddenly allow your doctor to possess "godlike" powers of creation.
"for our purposes we don’t have to make the choice [about the identity of the designer] at all. The identity of the designer would fall outside the scope of science and would be rather irrelevant."
I'm not sure what you mean by this Joe but again we are sitting on the loose nut that causes your arguments and all the "intelligent design" arguments to fall apart completely, at least from a scientific point of view.
For "our purposes" Joe the "designer" must be identified. How else can traces of the designer's "intelligence" be discerned?
Again, this is critical. Go ahead and rebut this point if you can, but please please please Joe Carter at least show that you can accurately restate my argument or somehow indicate that you acknowledge and understand the essence of my argument before dismissing it or fisking me.
The point is that without identifying the nature of the designer (or multiple designers), you have no way of showing how that designer or designers' "intelligence" is leaving a mark.
We can identify signs of human intervention because we have some idea of what to look for. Pardon my french, but how in the hell would you go about looking for traces of some awesomely powerful beings that you might not even recognize if they were standing in front of you, hovering inside of you, or completely enveloping you?
Put another way, Joe, how could you prove that Mt. Everest isn't a signal beacon that would be instantly recognized by one of these designers as a signal that one of the designers touched her froople doople there, 3 billion years ago?
And if you can't prove that about Mt. Everest, what makes you think you can prove that some other inexplicably and powerfully creative being designed all of the life that ever lived on planet earth?
So you're left with looking for incontrovertible proof that human beings -- the most intelligent and creative organism we know -- designed all the life on planet earth. While that might cause soem problems for the Biblical literalists which I'd enjoy watching them "solve", unfortunately human beings aren't quite smart and powerful enough to have created all of the life that ever lived on earth. I mean, I wish!
Note again: this is straightforward high school level stuff here. YOu don't need an advanced math degree to understand why Dembski and Behe are screwed. But it helps to have one if you want to pull the wool over the eyes of people who really want to believe, for whatever reason, that evolutionary biology is crap.
C'mon Joe. Take off the blindfold. Please don't tell me that your faith depends on Bill Dembski's math skills.
posted on 12.07.2004 11:52 PM20
Joe
"By claiming that there is “zero evidence” you are implying that it is possible to detect design and biological organisms, that such as test has been done, and that the results show that there is no data to support a designer."
Absolutely false.
I am not implying nothing of the sort. I am stating as incontovertible fact that there is no evidence to support the existence of a being or group of beings capable of creating all of the life that has ever existed on earth. Period.
The fact that I cannot prove that an all powerful being does not exist does not prove that there is, Joe.
In reality, as scientists, we start with observations that are reproducible.
Humans are the most intelligent and creative beings that humans can observe.
This is not controversial stuff UNLESS UNLESS UNLESS we are not talking about the scientific merits of ID theory. If we are talking about supernatural beings, well, that opens the door to all kinds of other cool stuff (like the digestocreative forces of giant bat beings I mentioned above which flew over your head somehow).
posted on 12.08.2004 12:02 AM21
"In reality, as scientists, we start with observations that are reproducible."
How can you "re-produce" a historical event, like creation from ID? We could ask Him, but I do not think He'll oblige, probably will reply, "been there, done that." If you cannot start with this observation, where do you jump in? Again, seems like ID is a good theological debate, but science? Seems you have admitted defeat.
posted on 12.08.2004 12:09 AM22
Well, Joe, you've already been provided with answers to that question at least for the case where techniques presently known to humans are used to do the "designing". And in that case I'm allowing you a pretty liberal definition of
the term "design" to include the mere insertion of, say, an antibiotic resistance gene, which would change the organism from one "kind" into another.
Again, you make the same mistake that everyone else is making. You are begging the question by assuming that natural selection created a biological organism rather than it having been the product of design.
Your response to those answers was to jettison the goalpost into outer space and suddenly allow your doctor to possess "godlike" powers of creation.
There’s not goalposts moving. In fact, I haven’t seen anyone attempt to kick at the ball much less hit the goal.
For "our purposes" Joe the "designer" must be identified. How else can traces of the designer's "intelligence" be discerned?
The same way it would be discerned in the SETI project. We could detect signals produced by an intelligent being without knowing anything about the being itself.
The point is that without identifying the nature of the designer (or multiple designers), you have no way of showing how that designer or designers' "intelligence" is leaving a mark.
Sure we do. High information content. That is one of the primary ways that “design” is detected in the forensic sciences.
We can identify signs of human intervention because we have some idea of what to look for. Pardon my french, but how in the hell would you go about looking for traces of some awesomely powerful beings that you might not even recognize if they were standing in front of you, hovering inside of you, or completely enveloping you?
First, let me clarify that I’m not saying you can. But claiming that organisms do not exhibit signs of design because we do not know how to detect them would be an argument from ignorance.
Put another way, Joe, how could you prove that Mt. Everest isn't a signal beacon that would be instantly recognized by one of these designers as a signal that one of the designers touched her froople doople there, 3 billion years ago?
I’m not saying it couldn’t. Just because something is a product of an intelligent designer does not mean that it is detectable.
And if you can't prove that about Mt. Everest, what makes you think you can prove that some other inexplicably and powerfully creative being designed all of the life that ever lived on planet earth?
I’m not trying to prove that. I’m only pointing out that the current explanation is based on an argument from ignorance.
So you're left with looking for incontrovertible proof that human beings -- the
most intelligent and creative organism we know -- designed all the life on planet earth.
Here is the primary reason that we should expect to detect a designer. How could intelligent creatures have developed from unintelligent processes?
C'mon Joe. Take off the blindfold. Please don't tell me that your faith depends on Bill Dembski's math skills.
Again, let me point out. This has nothing to do with Dembski or Behe or anyone else. It is about testing the claims of modern science. If it can’t distinguish design from non-design then there is no reason that we should take the default position that living organisms are the product of impersonal, blind processes.
I am not implying nothing of the sort. I am stating as incontovertible fact that there is no evidence to support the existence of a being or group of beings capable of creating all of the life that has ever existed on earth. Period.
How do you know there is no evidence if you don’t know what such evidence would look like?
In reality, as scientists, we start with observations that are reproducible.
The development of species by natural selection is neither observable nor reproducible.
Humans are the most intelligent and creative beings that humans can observe.
And this is based on...?
posted on 12.08.2004 12:18 AM23
"You are begging the question by assuming that natural selection created a biological organism rather than it having been the product of design"
Nope. There is evidence for natural selection and mutation and animals giving birth to animals and life forms changing over vast amounts of time. You may not be persuaded by it, but it's there.
On the other hand, there is no evidence for a being or beings that could have designed all of those organisms.
So it's not "begging the question." I am starting with my feet on the ground. Is it "begging the question" to assume that the sky will be blue tomorrow when I get up? After all, I can't prove that it won't be plaid if we all in supernatural possibilities far beyond the realm of what we've observed and experiences.
posted on 12.08.2004 12:32 AM24
Joe writes
"The same way it would be discerned in the SETI project. We could detect signals produced by an intelligent being without knowing anything about the being itself."
I don't know much about the details of SETI. The inherent assumption of SETI is that whatever signals are received from whatever "intelligent" life forms are out there would be recognizable to a human as containing information of a kind that could only be transmitted by an intelligent being. Guess what? No such information has been received and it'll be an interesting day when they claim such information has been received, won't it? Do you suppose we'll be having a conversation similar to this one?
Of course, it's just a tad specious, isn't it, to compare the ability to transmit an electromagnetic signal containing "intelligent" information to the creation from scratch of every living life form that ever lived on earth. Don't you think so, Joe? Will you please cease to make this silly argument? Thanks.
Btw, you've trucked out a bunch of classic creationist canards now in an attempt to refute my simple point about the fundamental flaw so called "ID theory". I find that interesting.
posted on 12.08.2004 12:46 AM25
MarkO: Which would imply for example that dinosaurs have "inferior" system functions to ours (us being later). My understanding was that dinosaurs were superbly adapted for their ecologial niches. It's just that over time, those niches shifted and for the most part they didn't and thus became extinct. Is that correct?
Non avian dino extinction might be a case of what could be called 'bad luck' if one accepts the impact theory (Good luck for mammals, emunaraptorians, and many other critters, bad luck for them). If one doesn't believe in luck, that is one were to believe that all events are planned regardless if they occurred naturally. then the Planner selected them out and did so rather dramatically ;)
It's often difficult to say in isolated cases precisely why some species go extinct and others do not. But yes, I would say that a change in the environment as you suggest is the most obvious reasonable initial assumption. Mass extinction is perhaps a little easier to figure out because the triggering event[s] is likely to have been massive enough to leave traces all over the planet. The largest mass extinction known occurred at the end of the Permian . The best candidate culprit seems to be widespread volcanism in the region now located in Siberia.
Another possible large extinction event occurred very early and seems to be associated with the arrival of a new kind of chemosyntheic bacteria. In that case what may have happened is that a new radically reactive and damaging toxin was produced in great quantities into the environment as a by product of the new bacteria which tore down delicate living structures that could not adapt to it. It's called "Oxygen Holocaust " and the bacteria were photosynthetic. It also worth noting that extinctions can be triggered by a confluence of events rather than a single one.
Joe C: The primary dispute is whether or not evolution could be a blind, undirected process. If most scientists are willing to concede that an undirected process, as you say, doesn’t square with what we currently observe, then I would say that there is no reason for debate. But if they insist on claming that an irrational process created our rational minds, then I would have to say that their idea doesn’t correspond with reality.
Whether random events can happen in a universe created by God is a matter of theology and perspective. I'd guess that any event in such a universe created by God as I've seen him described in cassical theology is planned. But even in such a universe, if you were on the receiving end of a planned lightning strike, it would probably feel an awful lot like bad luck to the unfortunate recipient!
Among scientists who are theists it is routinely assumed that what we call natural process were indeed created with intent. Among atheist scientists the reverse is likely held. But no one knows for sure because there is no clear scientific evidence either way. I personally think my position makes the most sense, and my position is that I don't know. Atheism and theism are informed by science, and not the other way around. Don't worry about Dawkins. When he babbles on about there being no God, he hasn't a clue anymore than you or I or a guy who delivers pizza.
On the Paley Challenge; I can think of all kinds of types of critters and ways one could make them which would exhibit strong indications it was made by someone, especially if the maker wanted to tip an observer off. Some of them being incredibly obvious and others more subtle. I can also think of types of organisms and ways it could be made which could not be detected, at least not easily, looking only at the organism.
posted on 12.08.2004 3:38 AM26
Joe Carter :
You can show the converse of what you want to show, and I believe it's possible to prove you cannot prove what you'd like to.
If I construct a random process (in a mathematical sense) can be contructed to yield DNA, protocells, flatworms, etc. to humans, the end product, a human, cannot know - by the very definition of a random process- that I contructed it, because, by definition, the "causailty" of random processes is itself not knowable.
This is analogous to the human consructed the robot that has "awareness;" we cannot show that such awareness is really like our own awareness.
Sorry, Joe, them's the facts.
Can I collect?
posted on 12.08.2004 5:56 AM27
Larry Lord :& Joe:
SETI?
Look, we detect specific signals from SETI that we have previously assigned as intelligent.
We have from all the signals that SETI might collect, excluded all sets of signals (and there's an infinity of them) which might be produced by an intelligence but with which we have not assigned "intelligence".
Got it?
We've labelled it as "intelligent" before we detect it. Therefore we are making the assumption that indeed we know something about the beings a priori.
We don't know if that's a labelling that aliens might use, and cannot know if what their labelling might be, if indeed, they're in the relatively brief period of their evolutionary history when they might be transmitting something over the air.
This is why Dembski's a phony- because he repeats as "the Isaac Newton of Information Theory" what is essentially false. He gives people the impression you can detect "intelligence" without a priori "knowledge" or assumptions, and you just can't.
posted on 12.08.2004 6:10 AM28
(Tossing up hands.)
If it can’t distinguish design from non-design then there is no reason that we should take the default position that living organisms are the product of impersonal, blind processes.
Joe, I have great respect for you, but this comment (and several others on this board) displays a frankly stunning ignorance as to what science is and what it can (and cannot) do. Evolution does not take "the default position that living organisms are the product of impersonal, blind processes." Rather (and I'm simplifying this a bit), science says, based upon what we can observe, what is the best explanation for the present diversity of life in the world? The answer to this question is, at present, evolution.
(Incidentally, whether or not God is hiding behind the real or apparent randomness of evolutionary theory is a red herring. Science only seeks to explain the observable.)
The level of misunderstanding concering scientific theory is extraordinarily depressing (and I'm not limiting the foregoing to Joe's comments, incidentally). Unfortunately, however, I cannot re-create your freshman and sophomore years of high school -- when good teachers should have taught you all this crap -- in a series of blog posts.
With respect, and knowing that there are subject on which I myself lack a high-school level understanding,
von
posted on 12.08.2004 7:26 AM29
Let's approach this from a different angle. Assuming no prior knowledge, how would science go about proving that a car is the product of design and not of random natural forces?
Also, say we can travel to another planet and find vastly different creatures on it. How does on prove or disprove design and/or nature?
posted on 12.08.2004 7:36 AM30
Chris Lutz:
We would rely on:
1. the fact that we already know what a car is, we already know what things like cars are, and we know the subsystems which exist in a car. From that we can compose a test to determine
2. whether or not a particular item is "like" a car.
3. We would then infer that given that an item is like a car, it must have been designed as cars are designed.
Note that such a car might still be the product of "random" forces (I can design a car using genetic algorithms driven by white noise), but you'd never know the difference.
31
Von,
You are incorrect. Science can only observe what happens today. To extrapolate what happens today into the past is something that science cannot and should not do.
Take a simple analogy of a classroom with neatly lined up desks. The next morning you come in and the desks are all jumbled. You arrange them back into place. This goes on for a week. Finally, you install a camera in the room and catch someone sneaking into the room at night and rearranging the desks. Now, you could say that person is responsible for messing up the desks on the pervious occassions, but you truly don't know. Why? Because you have no proof. It may be likely, but there is no conclusive proof. Maybe someone else did it the other nights or maybe an animal one night.
Science can only go by what it observes and what has been documented.
posted on 12.08.2004 7:49 AM32
mumon,
Note that such a car might still be the product of "random" forces (I can design a car using genetic algorithms driven by white noise), but you'd never know the difference.
So, we only know it was designed because we saw the designed and constructed. Therefore, if you had a car which could reproduce itself and the designs and non-natural construction forces where lost to antiquity, you would not be able to tell whether it was something that came about originally from natural forces or a designed entity.
33
Chris Lutz :
To extrapolate what happens today into the past is something that science cannot and should not do.
So then you thought OJ Simpson was innocent?
If you say we can't extrapolate into the past, then you must doubt forensic science.
posted on 12.08.2004 7:55 AM34
Science can only observe what happens today. To extrapolate what happens today into the past is something that science cannot and should not do.
I'll have to give Chris Luntz the benefit of the doubt and assume that's a misprint.
posted on 12.08.2004 8:01 AM35
Chris Lutz :
So, we only know it was designed because we saw the designed and constructed. Therefore, if you had a car which could reproduce itself and the designs and non-natural construction forces where lost to antiquity, you would not be able to tell whether it was something that came about originally from natural forces or a designed entity.
We only "know" it was designed because it fits, more or less, into a template into which we classify as "designed," because we have a priori knowledge of design of objects like cars.
And if we had no other a priori knowldege, then you'd be right: if that knowledge was lost, we could not tell whether it was designed or came from natural forces.
That's how hypothesis testing works: without a priori information prior to the test, there is no ability to separate hypotheses.
posted on 12.08.2004 8:13 AM36
von,
I would concur with Chris Lutz, and add that not one poster has responded to my question above:
Larry Lord wrote:
"In reality, as scientists, we start with observations that are reproducible."
Lex asked:
"How can you "re-produce" a historical event, like creation from ID? We could ask Him, but I do not think He'll oblige, probably will reply, "been there, done that." If you cannot start with this observation, where do you jump in? Again, seems like ID is a good theological debate, but science? Seems you have admitted defeat."
I would also pose a question to von, with all sincerity seek an answer:
"With the discovery of the DNA Double Helix, how can an intricate message system arise from an independent material base?.... As a simple illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the same, independent of the medium."
Is it not an illogical conclusion that the material used to transmit the information also produced the information itself?
37
Assuming no prior knowledge, how would science go about proving that a car is the product of design and not of random natural forces?
We can't. No prior knowledge would mean zero knowledge whatsover. We wouldn't even be able to talk, much less make a case for anything. I assume you mean no prior knowledge of 'some things'. Not good enough. Our ability to determine if a car is designed and what it's for is utterly dependant on what those 'some things' are. Do we have prior knowledge of being human or speech? Tool making? Metal fabrication? Wheels? Simple steeam engines?
38
No, not at all and I don't want to give that impression. My example has the assumption that there the culprit(s) left no CSI like evidence behind. The only data we have is the result.
You make a good point there mumon so let me restate. Science should be extremely careful in extrapolating into the past because, especially as time increases, unknown variables are likely to affect the result. For example, an ancient skeleton is found with marks on the ribcage from a cutting instrument. Well Torq (the guy deserves a name) obviously died from stab wounds, right? Nope, he was going to survive the wounds, but Torq's wife stangled him to run off with Braq. If someone does the investigation and says there is a possibility Torq died of stabs wounds, that's fine. If instead they say, he died of stab wounds in the midst of hunting for found and ran into someone else's territory. Then, there is a problem.
posted on 12.08.2004 8:17 AM39
Our ability to determine if a car is designed and what it's for is utterly dependant on what those 'some things' are. Do we have prior knowledge of being human or speech? Tool making? Metal fabrication? Wheels? Simple steeam engines?
And if we had no other a priori knowldege, then you'd be right: if that knowledge was lost, we could not tell whether it was designed or came from natural forces.
So, what prior knowledge do we require to determine if a biological organism is designed or a result of natural forces? No one was here when life was first formed, so how do you know?
posted on 12.08.2004 8:27 AM40
Just to clarify, the first quote in the above post is from ~DS~ and the second from mumon.
posted on 12.08.2004 8:28 AM41
More boring stuff:
Previously posited:
"In reality, as scientists, we start with observations that are reproducible."
If this is true, can there be a truly "scientific" examination of the Kennedy assassination under this principle? No, we would have to bring Kennedy back to life along with the shooter, reproduce the motorcade...etc...Essentially, go back in time and then observe. Science is better reserved for what we can observe, hypothisize from those observations. A scientific hypothesis should be capable of being tested in some way, to determine whether or not it is true, but evolution cannot be tested. No laboratory experiment can either confirm or falsify a process which, by its very nature, requires millions of years to accomplish significant results.
Neither evolution nor creation is accessible to the scientific method, since they deal with origins and history, not with presently observable and repeatable events. They can, however, be formulated as scientific models, or frameworks, within which to predict and correlate observed facts. Neither can be proved; neither can be tested. They can only be compared in terms of the relative ease with which they can explain data which exist in the real world.
A historical event like creation should be examined using primary sources then, I believe.
posted on 12.08.2004 8:35 AM42
Rather (and I'm simplifying this a bit), science says, based upon what we can observe, what is the best explanation for the present diversity of life in the world? The answer to this question is, at present, evolution.
First of all, we don’t “observe” most of what we believe about evolution. Once the theory is in place we shoehorn the data in to fit with the hypothesis. And whether evolution is the best answer is not really the question. The question is how do we know that the process was unguided?
(Incidentally, whether or not God is hiding behind the real or apparent randomness of evolutionary theory is a red herring. Science only seeks to explain the observable.)
Science attempts to explain a great deal that is not “observable.”
The level of misunderstanding concering scientific theory is extraordinarily depressing (and I'm not limiting the foregoing to Joe's comments, incidentally). Unfortunately, however, I cannot re-create your freshman and sophomore years of high school -- when good teachers should have taught you all this crap -- in a series of blog posts.
No offense, but I think it is your understanding of scientific theory that is lacking. You clearly are failing to distinguish between empirical science, which can be observable, and historical science, which relies on interpretation of past data to make speculations about what we believe occurred in the past. If evolution is, as you claim, “observable” at the macro level then we should be able to point to evidence that we have observed significant changes (i.e, in body forms) from one species to another. Are you claiming that we have done so?
Mumon: 1. the fact that we already know what a car is, we already know what
things like cars are, and we know the subsystems which exist in a car. From that we can compose a test to determine.
So by your standard we should be able to take something we already know (i.e., that highly specified information requires an intelligent being) and by analogy apply that to nature. Is that what you are claiming?
Note that such a car might still be the product of "random" forces (I can design a car using genetic algorithms driven by white noise), but you'd never know the difference.
You would first have to program the algorithms to produce the car. In essence, while you might be able to design a car by a random process (a point that I’m not willing to concede), it would still be a product of an “intelligent designer.”
43
Chris: So, what prior knowledge do we require to determine if a biological organism is designed or a result of natural forces? No one was here when life was first formed, so how do you know?
Exactly! That is the core of what this post is about. Everyone claims that "design" isn't excluded because of an a priori bias. Yet no one seems to be able to explain how we determine whether something shows evidence of having been "designed." So far I've seen a lot of question-begging and claims of "this is how science is defined" but no one has made much progress in explaining how we would know if organisms had been the product of an intelligent designer.
posted on 12.08.2004 8:49 AM44
Joe wrote:
"So far I've seen a lot of question-begging and claims of "this is how science is defined" but no one has made much progress in explaining how we would know if organisms had been the product of an intelligent designer."
Is not there some evidence, in the form of a primary "written" source by the way, in the DNA double helix? It appears as though God left his instructions for DNA imprinted here, an no one has been able to answer my question. We now know that an intricate message was written in DNA, but how can an intricate message system arise from an independent material base? The answer appears that it cannot, so the only logical conclusion, as supported by God's primary resource that He left us to examine the historicity of creation, is that there is ID.
45
No Chris I don't know. I never claimed to know. My eprsonal guess is that life was not designed, but that's just my guess.
I was responding to your query about cars. I can think of ways we could tell if some wanted to tips us off. for exnaple there could be a encoding algorythm for some of the dermal hox genes which would spell out in english "I made this, signed The Gortians".
On the 'we cannot exrapolate into the past' ... Chris maybe I'm misunderstanding what it is you mean. Because as I'm reading your statement, it doesn't just defy science, it defies common sense. If I see snow on the gound in the morning, it's reasonable to extrapolate that it snowed in the past. If I see an extinct volcano with solidified lava flows running down the side, or even an eroded lava plug, it's reasonable to extrapolate an active volcano once existed there.
If we observe an SNR, it's reasonable to extrapolate a supernove occured.
We do in fact assume that physical process operated in the past in the same manner, unless we have a very good reason to make an exception. That is a conerstone of thought not unique to science, but also indispensibale to everyday life.
46
Joe:
So by your standard we should be able to take something we already know (i.e., that highly specified information requires an intelligent being) and by analogy apply that to nature. Is that what you are claiming?
Again, when we speak of information, we can only be speaking of random processes. Once we, a posteriori, call that information "specified" and "atrributed to a designer," absent of knowledge of what happened a priori, we are making a hypothesis, but one that cannot be tested, because, again you still need a priori knowledge.
You are assuming, a posteriori, that, "highly specified information requires an intelligent being," but you cannot assume that a priori.
Sorry, but we are limited in what we can do.
posted on 12.08.2004 8:56 AM47
Joe Carter:
Science attempts to explain a great deal that is not “observable.”
There is some of that in string theory, particle physics and what not, but that is because mainly of engineering considerations (you can't practically build a particle accelerator the size of a galaxy), not because tests can't be made.
Science though, at its core is phenomenological: we have repeated observations that back up a given hypothesis, but if other observations refute said hypothesis, scientists revise the hypothesis.
Evolution, though, has been a pretty solid theory in its basic forms; we have for example observed speciation, which should give heartburn to YECs and others.
48
"We do in fact assume that physical process operated in the past in the same manner, unless we have a very good reason to make an exception. That is a conerstone of thought not unique to science, but also indispensibale to everyday life."
But as to the dead volcano, you cannot scientifically examine the eruption that occurred, nor can you examine scientifcally, thay it snowed the night before, unless you can reproduce the event and then observe it. I am only using the definition of science. The solid lava and the snow on the ground demonstrate historically the event took place. Just because you observe something, does not automatically make it a science. I appreciate art for example by observing it, and conclude that some one or something sculpted or painted, but it does not mean I have based this on science, just logic and the examination of a primary source. That's how we examine history.
49
Reminder: Specified Information is not an informatrion measuring system, i.e., a metric. It is a probabilty/complexity threshold. There is no value associated with CSI itself. You're either in or out. The stations requirre value to test, the end result, CSI, carries no numerical value. It simply means 'passed'.
posted on 12.08.2004 9:15 AM50
In essence, while you might be able to design a car by a random process (a point that I’m not willing to concede), it would still be a product of an “intelligent designer.”
Actually it's already been done. See the "Applications" entry at the bottom of the link.
51
>~DS~
I think my later post cleared up my statement on extrapolating into the past. Some scientist go beyond what they can reasonably explain from the data. Yes you can look at the lava flows and say a volcano erupted here. And after mumon made his point I corrected my statement.
So, since we can't say whether life here is designed or the result of natural forces, the possiblity of design exists and the statement that life evolved from non-life is an unproven statement.
>mumon
Information by its definition cannot be random. The question is, is can a random, non-directed process create the type and complexity of information required by biological organisms.
52
DS: If we observe an SNR, it's reasonable to extrapolate a supernove occured. We do in fact assume that physical process operated in the past in the same manner, unless we have a very good reason to make an exception. That is a conerstone of thought not unique to science, but also indispensibale to everyday life.
So if we observe the existence of intelligent beings would it not be reasonable to extrapolate that in the past they were created by another form of intelligence? This is where I have a difficult time understanding the opposing point of view. I just can’t comprehend why we would assume that irrational forces could produce intelligence when we have no basis for even assuming such a thing is possible much less evidence that it occurred.
I ask in all seriousness because I can’t tell if the blind spot is my own or with people who hold that view. Naturally, I could be wrong. It could be a legitimate point of disagreement where the assumption is equally split in favor of either option. But I’m just not able to see why that would be the case.
53
mumon,
Speciation does not give hearburn to YECers. YECers believe the animals are divided into kinds that are distinct. Species are subsets of the kinds and rapid speciation is necessary to explain the vast number of species. For example, there is a species of mosquito that only lives in the London subway system. This had to of occurred in since the system was built in the 1800's.
I'll stop there and not lead the topic off course.
posted on 12.08.2004 9:22 AM54
Mumon,
Actually it's already been done. See the "Applications" entry at the bottom of the link.
I think I must have misunderstood what you meant. When you said “design a car by a random process” I thought you meant that by plugging in an algorithm it would spit out a design for an entire car. I’ll concede that such a method (applied by an intelligent being) can be used to solve specific problems.
55
mumon wrote:
"Evolution, though, has been a pretty solid theory in its basic forms; we have for example observed speciation, which should give heartburn to YECs and others."
Actually, the only heartburn I have is from the amount of coffee I consume to keep up with you braniacs!
Most of the so-called observed forms of speciation are simply due to a single genetic event known as polyploidy. No new information is created in this process, and in fact these "new" species cannot produce viable offspring with the original species because of the difference in the number of chromosomes.
posted on 12.08.2004 9:25 AM56
Chris Lutz:
Information by its definition cannot be random.
Not in any sense that an information theorist talks about information. Please read this link.
Typically, information is related to the entropy of something observed: the more entropy the more information.
posted on 12.08.2004 9:26 AM57
So if we observe the existence of intelligent beings would it not be reasonable to extrapolate that in the past they were created by another form of intelligence?
It's a perferctly valid question to ask imo Joe. And speaking for not only theists, but sci-fi nerds (and scientists who are just grown up nerds-heh) the world over, it would be very exciting to know the answer. There would be some logical questions to follow such as how did they do it, or why. Looking at the fisrt question, I feel resonably confident at least part of the answer would involve common descent and natural selection, perhaps other ideas we haven't thought of as well.
posted on 12.08.2004 9:27 AM58
Let me see if I can state what I think we can agree on at this point:
There is no scietific way to-date to determine if the biological organisms on this planet were designed or the result of natural forces.
Is that correct?
>mumon
Can you post the URL? The link didn't work.
59
A follow-up to Mum's point. Entropy in Information Theory is not the same thing as Thermal entropy(Except in very rare and usually contrived cases).
The two most commonly used types of Infor Theory are Shannon Theory and Kolmogorov-Chaitin Theory. Shannon was the guy who coined the term 'entropy' for his metric. His was measured as the difference between two states in the amount of statistical uncertainty. State one, before the signal is sent, State 2, after it is receied. One might think that the latter state would be 100% but it's not because of noise in the channal or other problems.
K-C Theory is defined as the minimal desciptive length of a of a data store. IOW, how compressible the data is.
60
Yes Chris there is. Take yellow corn number two. It cannot reproduce on it's own. If one found huge fields of yellow corn number two growing in an area, and had never encountered it before, but studied it, noticied it was yummy to eat with huge kernals compared to the only other corn one knew-which was let's say teosinte-and that it couldn't reproduce, one might reasonably infer it was 'designed' by humans who liked to eat it.
posted on 12.08.2004 9:37 AM61
But, I'm asking about how life began here. Obviously we weren't created without the ability to reproduce. That would end this discussion real quick.
Plus, what if the corn encountered was the result of some mutation and you happened to come upon it in its last generation?
posted on 12.08.2004 9:42 AM62
Here's the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
posted on 12.08.2004 9:42 AM63
DS,
How can we reasonably infer this? Is it not possible that yellow corn number two, like Angus Beef just happens to be yummy? Some forms of poisen are tasty too, but clearly not made for consumption. Why would we only conclude that something that cannot reproduce is created? Could not the process of natural selection reach its fruition in yellow corn number two and then be extinct until the process repeats itself?
posted on 12.08.2004 9:50 AM64
Thanks for the link.
However, it appears that entropy has more to do with the transmission of the information than the actual information itself. It does not explain how you go from no information to information. So, the question remains, how does a natural process create the information necessary for a biological organism when the information does not exist?
posted on 12.08.2004 10:11 AM65
Ditto to Chris, and again, will anyone attempt to ask our question, phrased another way?
"Is not there some evidence, in the form of a primary "written" source by the way, in the DNA double helix? It appears as though God left his instructions for DNA imprinted here... We now know that an intricate message was written in DNA, but how can an intricate message system arise from an independent material base? The answer appears that it cannot, so the only logical conclusion, as supported by God's primary resource that He left us to examine the historicity of creation, is that there is ID.
67
I'll be brief, because I view this as an impossible debate to have over a blog under present circumstances.
First, to Lutz et al., science is a process that relies on observable evidence. The evidence may be direct, circumstantial, experimental, or buried in the ground.
Passing for a moment the above, I'll address Carter:
If evolution is, as you claim, “observable” at the macro level then we should be able to point to evidence that we have observed significant changes (i.e, in body forms) from one species to another. Are you claiming that we have done so?
Yes -- and not merely in the fossile record or in nature. Pick up last month's National Geographic (or perhaps the month before), the one with the cover that say "Was Darwin Wrong?" Read the article. You will see that scientists have observed actual speciation, in the lab no less.
posted on 12.08.2004 10:32 AM68
Von,
Yes -- and not merely in the fossile record or in nature.
The fossil record is rather ambiguous on the subject. That is one of the reasons Gould used as evidence for the Punctuated Equilibrium hypothesis.
Pick up last month's National Geographic (or perhaps the month before), the one with the cover that say "Was Darwin Wrong?" Read the article. You will see that scientists have observed actual speciation, in the lab no less.
I think you have a misunderstanding about this debate. This is not some "anti-evolutionary" post that is claiming that such things as speciation don't occur. Speciation -- especially that which has been observable -- is hardly controversial. What I referred to was the change in body types, an event that has never been observed.
posted on 12.08.2004 10:49 AM69
Since I'm not a scientist (and I don't play one on TV), I approach Joe's thought experiment from a less literal point of view than some who have commented. There is no way to know whether the First Cause of life and all that we see today was the blind chance combination of molecules that created the first single-celled organisms, or the Designer-God who engineered the whole system and jump-started creation with his touch. ID ultimately goes back to first causes, and does not suggest that the end result would be (necessarily) any different from what we see around us today.
Inexplicable anthropic coincidences abound, they seem necessary for life to have existed at all, and they suggest the intervention of a Designer. But even these may ultimately turn out to have plausible, competing "natural" explanations.
The primary difficulty that I see is that science is by nature a material discipline, prejudiced against any non-material explanations. By prejudice, I mean both in terms of the mindset of scientists themselves, and also the limitations inherent in the methods available. A material discipline with material methods and bound by a material world is necessarily going to return material answers to all questions, even metaphysical questions.
So to answer your thought experiment, I cannot conceive of any scientific test that could deduce the hand of a Designer in the world we now have. (Dr. Paley's case is perhaps different because he did not (presumably) create his animal ex nihilo, thus leaving tracks that might give away the identity of the Frankencreature.) Nor is there any scientific explanation (imprisoned as science is in time and space and the material realm) that can say anything rational about the non-material world, nor about a God who may have his hand on all that we see.
posted on 12.08.2004 10:53 AM70
Von,
For the other side of the debate concerning the NG article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp
No one is debating that speciation occurs.
Still, Lex and I are waiting for an answer of a natural mechansim that creates information. Information Entropy destroys it or garbles it.
posted on 12.08.2004 11:08 AM71
Chris Lutz:
However, it appears that entropy has more to do with the transmission of the information than the actual information itself.
No, it's a property of a source of information as well as transmission.
Check out "source coding" or "rate distortion theory" on the 'net.
posted on 12.08.2004 11:15 AM72
What I referred to was the change in body types, an event that has never been observed.
Joe, with respect, you asked about macroevolution. Speciation is part of macroevolution, i.e., the divergence of populations to such an extent that they can no longer interbreed. Now, you'd like experimental evidence of (what?) a divergence in Phyllia?
As for the analysis of the fossile record, I'm not qualified to comment. I can report on the work of experts in the relevant fields of knowledge that -- virtually without exception -- contradict your assertions. But, if the experts in the relevant fields don't convince you, it is unlikely that I, with my layperson's understanding of the subject, will.
Lex and I are waiting for an answer of a natural mechansim that creates information. Information Entropy destroys it or garbles it.
Lutz -- If I understand you correctly (and, in particular, your unusual use of the term "information"), you're asking a question that evolutionary theory does not generally address. Evolution decribes the transmission and modification of (what I'll call) Lutzian "information." Or, to put it another way, evolution does not specifically address how the first microbe was created. (Not that theories do not exist; only that evolutionary theory is not contingent on those theories being true.)
von
posted on 12.08.2004 11:24 AM73
Erm, I mean "phyla." Sorry for the typo; its been a long time since I've needed to write that particular word.
posted on 12.08.2004 11:26 AM74
Chris Lutz : Sorry the only kinds we have that we can actually meaningfully discuss are random.
And, to reiterate, that's why real information theorists think of Dembski as a fraud.
posted on 12.08.2004 11:26 AM75
(Incidentally, Lutz, my response above is not intended to contradict Mumon. I'm simply trying to respond to you on your terms.)
posted on 12.08.2004 11:30 AM76
von: You're right, it doesn't contradict me.
In fact you can look at the process as both a transmission of information and "added" information (also random) as the DNA is transferred from source to source, and is recombined and mutated.
Oh, and the end process is not "completely" random, because basically favorable characteristics are used favorably in the environment.
Thanks.
77
It seems to me that the main question being asked doesn't currently have an answer in general. It also seems to me that in specific, it does have an answer.
Answering it depends on a past observation that there are commonalities in the appearance of design we observe in nature that do not appear in designs made by humans, and the difference is explained by a simple hypothesis with excellent correlation.
Humans (such as Dr Paley) are characterised by a lack of time to perform extensive experiments, as well as a lack of omniscience. Whoever or whatever caused the appearance of design in nature lacks at least one of those limitations.
I would look for one specific fingerprint based on the above hypothesis: specifically, I would look for the tightness of the "fit" of the creature to its alleged environment. Such evidence would be be proof, of course, especially since Paley has given only rudimentary information about the creature's natural environment. But I would expect and anticipate that the natural creature would fit its environment much more exactly than the human designed one.
It's clear that I'm looking for fingerprints here, traces left by the process of "design"; so in general, I can't answer your question in general, and my answer probably doesn't satisfy those who reject design theory.
-Billy
78
Von:
I don't think I'm using information in any unusual way. DNA is the information used to build your body. How did that information come to exist? Mumon's random information concepts may be giving me some trouble, but I don't think my use of the term information is incorrect.
So, if evolution has nothing to say about how life originated, then it is entirely possible that we were created. Therefore, science classes should teach that:
1. Here is the process of evolution: speciation, mutation, natural selection
2. Science can not speak to how we came to be here. But the two possiblities are that it came about due to natural forces or that some independent intelligence create us.
This has been the entire point of the thread, that science cannot show what has or has not been created without prior knowledge of the event.
>mumon: Thanks for the information info, but I'll admit I'm out of my depth there with the mathematics. But, it still appears that you are always dealing with existing information.
posted on 12.08.2004 11:44 AM79
Von: Joe, with respect, you asked about macroevolution. Speciation is part of macroevolution, i.e., the divergence of populations to such an extent that they can no longer interbreed.
Um, I guess in a semantic sense it is. But since it occurs as by the process of microevolutionary changes I don’t think that is what most people mean when they are talking about “macroevolution.”
Now, you'd like experimental evidence of (what?) a divergence in Phyllia?
Yeah, that would be a good one to see.
As for the analysis of the fossile record, I'm not qualified to comment. I can report on the work of experts in the relevant fields of knowledge that -- virtually without exception -- contradict your assertions. But, if the experts in the relevant fields don't convince you, it is unlikely that I, with my
layperson's understanding of the subject, will.
Just to remind people of what we are talking about, my claim was that the fossil record is rather ambiguous on the existence of changes from one body form into another. To “observe” such changes would require an abundance of transitional fossils, something that is missing from the geologic record. I point this out not as a hit against evolutionary theory but only against the claim that such change is “observable.” Also, I should add that I would be quite surprised to find “experts in the relevant fields” who dispute this point.
Or, to put it another way, evolution does not specifically address how the first microbe was created. (Not that theories do not exist; only that evolutionary theory is not contingent on those theories being true.)
Here is another example of what I meant by mistaking the point of this post. It isn’t about evolution but about the detection of design. Evolutionary theory could be perfectly true but if it is based on a foundation that cannot be created without intelligent intervention, then the point is rather moot.
Mumon: And, to reiterate, that's why real information theorists think of Dembski as a fraud.
Who are these "information theorists" who think that Dembski is a "fraud?" Are they the same scholars from the Univ. of Illinois who presented him with the "Outstanding Dissertation Award" for his "The Design Inference?" Or could it be the three anonymous referees who reviewed his book for publication? Perhaps you meant the members of the editorial committe at Cambridge University that published the work as part of in the "Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory" monograph series?
Seriously, you have my curiosity piqued? What are the names of these distinguished scholars who call his work on information theory fradulent?
80
Chris Lutz:
Thanks. I wish you did know more about this stuff- it has a beauty and elegance all its own.
In fact there is a "duality" (similar mathematical characterization) between information in sources and information from channels that corrupts sources.
It's because of this that we can design communication systems in which are as reliable as desired, provided that time and computation are expended.
And it's because of this as well that we can take "cd quality audio" and squeeze bits out of it to an MP-3, and it sounds almost as good.
posted on 12.08.2004 11:56 AM81
After reading the comments, I have a better idea of the point of Joe's hypothetical. Also I don't think Joe has grasped the significance of some of the comments being made. Since I made some of the more crytic ones, I'll try again.
Let me summarize the *essential* portions of the thought problem--a good one. Scientist produces two animals. One, for purposes of the problem, is a previously unknown natual species of animal. Another is a lab created animal designed by a human being. The challenge is to tell them apart.
I hope that's a fair summary of the problem, becasue the answer is not easy and it's not an answer that Joe C seems to handle well. the answer is that scientists will conduct a series of tests to tell the animals apart. That is the answer. Let's reflect on that for a moment.
Joe C object that that's not the answer--Can the scietists tell them apart? The answer to that question as DS has attempted to say, is "We don't know yet." Scientist will continue tests, especially if a two million dollar prize is made available. How long will it take to solve the problem? We don't know. We don't know for two reasons, and one is the limits of the propblem. We dont' know allof the facts and resources abbout the two animals. At least the antarctic one would have left a fossil record or we woudl discover closely related species that woudl give a clue--but that might take awhile.
Joe's problem is faulty becasue it drops a completely unheard of technology into the laps of scietists and asks them to solve the problem. The problem may be unsolveable for quite awhile, but can we say that the problem will NEVER be solved because it is fundametally unsolvable? No we can't. Joe certainly did not creat that kind of problem at all.
That's why there's some examples given which have similar shortcomings to Joe's probblem. "Jesus" walks into the room. How do we verify he's the real thing? Think of all the tests that could be done from a scietific basis. I'll wryly observe that we didn't get it right the first time this happened--because it's a difficult problem viewed solely from a scientific basis. Whether Mount Everest is an ET lighthouse...same issue.
Joe's hypothetical goes to the heart to the question: can we detect design reliably? Here's the answer Joe doesn't seem to accept: Not all the time. Now ID, Dembski and Behe answer the opposite--"yes we can." They say that with no equivcation--with no false negatives or false positives. But they have been demonstrated to be incorect-was that a calculation probelm or a theroestical problem. They have been offered the chance to refine their programs and can't seem to do it. Joe's hypothetical fairly read rebuts Dembski not Darwin.
Darwin's theory does not answer the question, "Was it designed?" It demostrates a very plausible connection between the first appearance of life on this planet and life as we se it today, though the mecahnism of natural selction acting on common descent. It's clear that no active intervention is required in this process. That mechanism has been demostrated so thoroughly that no creature on earth has yet been discovered to be exempt--there are fossil antecedents, close relatives, DNA connections to others, etc.
Joe's hypo employs "magic." There are no known means today to accomplish what his Paley did. But take an example that could be accomplished today. Compare an ordinalry river rock with a square chunck of the same material. Somebody could carefully shop work the chunck so it is identical to the river rock. Which one was lab designed? It may not be possible to tell right away.
Was the Shroud of Turin genuine? I would contend that the scietific answer for 500 hundred years was "we don't know yet." As scietific advances occurred, carbon 14 dating allowed a provisional answer of "probably manufactured in the 1300's" maybe in the future the answer will be different becasue of advances in carbon 14 dating.
The palin fact is the scietific answers are all aproximations to the truth. The fact that it would take time and be difficult to idetify a hyothetical lab desgned animal whcih must complete