>Hello again,
>I've been unavailable for some time (way too much work to do right
>now), but I'd like to continue the discussion started several weeks
>ago.
Mike:
>>> I think all of this misses the point. The point is that CSI *is*
>>> positive evidence of mind's intervention.
Tim replied:
>>Dembski is pretty specific where we wants to go with CSI. He is
>>trying to develop a means of demonstrating that CSI cannot arise
>>via natural mechanisms.
Mike:
>This is not how I would use it, thus I'll skip ahead.
Tim:
>OK, we'll call it "MSCI" for "Mike's CSI".
I don't think so, as this makes it sound like CSI is
my possession. Call it "MVOCSI" if you want
(for "Mike's views of CSI")
Mike:
>>> It is a very common way that mind leaves it traces behind (as shown,
>>> for example, by the archives of this listing). That some other dynamic
>>> "might" generate CSI does not remove CSI from the category of evidence
>>> of mind's intervention. After all, below you cite similarities as
>>> positive evidence of evolution, yet a common designer "might" likewise
>>> have generated these similarities.
Tim:
>>Explain to me exactly what pattern a common (or uncommon) designer
>>couldn't produce. Then compare that to the pattern that an IPU
>>(Invisible Pink Unicorn) might generate. I'd like to see how to
>>differentiate models. Divine design explanations have the potential
>>advantage in that they are not limited by need to explain mechanisms,
>>but they are also hindered by their incredible flexibility, which
>>makes differentiation difficult. Hence the need for auxilliary or
>>amending hypotheses to make a nebulous idea more concrete and
>>applicable (more below...)
Mike:
>This is getting away from my point. I was simply noting that the
>similarities you attribute to evolution "might" be due to design. But
>this doesn't keep you from attributing such similarities to evolution.
>Well, in the same way, that CSI "might" be due to non-intelligent
>causation doesn't keep me from attributing CSI to design.
Tim:
>Nothing can stop you -- or anyone -- from attributing CSI to design.
Oh, but something can stop me. If you convince me that
attributing CSI to design is irrational and unreasonable, I'd stop.
I'm not a yahoo with a need to attribute CSI to design.
To me, it's clearly positive evidence of an intelligent
mind's intervention.
>But it does take the wind out of the sails of those (Dembski
>& Johnson for example), who claim that CSI can only be due to
>intelligence.
This would be all-or-none thinking. If CSI could only
be due to intelligence, it would not merely be wind,
it would be a hurricane-force blast that would establish
the existence of design (skeptics of design would then
turn to the question of whether CSI really exists). But from
my perspective, a wind is still there. It is simply more
gentle and depends on putting up the right sails and
the right steering to catch it. The result would then
be a gradual, but significant, progression.
>So I'm trying to distinguish your understanding of CSI
>(MCSI) from they way its original formulators understand it. I'd say
>that you understand CSI better...
I certainly don't claim to understand CSI better. My understanding
is shaped by the fact that I have no quest for certainty and thus
find the existence of uncertainty is meaningless. Thus, the
critics of CSI=design are content with showing that this
equation *need* not be true, but that is irrelevant to me.
My views move within uncertainty and would employ
CSI as positive evidence (not proof) of design (for the
reasons I mentioned previously).
Me:
>Now, as for your point. I agree that invoking divine design entails
>all sorts of methodological headaches as far as flexibility is
>concerned. But I suspect that the problems only seem larger than
>they are and if one were to analyze a particular aspect of biological
>reality, he who invokes design and he who denies it would find
>specific interpretations to differ about. It's kind of like emptying
>that box full of pieces and parts to put together an entertainment
>center. It looks intimidating, but you just take it one step at a time
>and proceed gradually. The rest takes care of itself.
Tim:
>I agree that much of biology starts with classification and
>collection, followed by synthesis of hypotheses.
Indeed. And in arguing endlessly about whether CSI
proves design, one short-circuits this fruitful approach.
Mike:
>Furthermore, don't forget I am a relativist on these matters.
Tim:
>I don't know what you mean by this. Does that mean you are agnostic
>as to the proximate origin of life on earth and its subsequent
>evolution?
In the deepest sense, yes (because ultimately, I don't know how
God brought Creation into existence nor do I think it is
important in the larger scheme of things). Unlike almost everyone else who
argues this issue, I will gladly claim that my final answer is
"I don't know." However, I do immensely enjoy speculating
about this topic. What differentiates me (I suppose) from the ID
crowd is that I don't have the sense that ID is proven or obviously
the answer. What differentiates me from the anti-ID crowd is
that I don't share the same sense that explanations in support
of abiogenesis and evolution via natural selection are that
strong. For me, it's still a very open question and I thus have
a truly open mind about these issues.
My theism is very helpful here. I have absolutely no desire
to find areas in which I give God a job. In fact, I find the
theological views of Glenn and Howard to be quite
attractive. But unlike Glenn and Howard, I simply am
not comfortable in concluding that God (or some secondary
intelligent agent) was not directly involved in origins (if
you believe a being exists who is quite capable of design,
I simply can't be so sure that He was never involved) . It
seems to me that for most people, their views of God (or
lack of such views) strongly dictate their take on this
issue. Some people need a job for God. Others need
God's majesty to be illustrated. Others reject the whole
issue because anything that might indicate God's
existence must be beaten back. My views simply allow
me to be open about this whole issue. And this is where
relativism comes in.
I am a relativist because I don't hold the notion of
intelligent design up against an absolute epistemological
standard. It's not a question of intelligent design, prove it
or lose it. It's a question of whether intelligent design
makes better sense of some phenomena that explanations
that exclude intelligent design. And thus I can't help but
wonder if one could identify phenomena in which a case
could be made that ID makes more sense such that the set of
phenomena collapse into a whole in which it then becomes
apparent that ID makes even more sense. All I do know
is that the "prove it or lose it" views are not the way
to go in trying to satisfy my curiosity.
I'll try to respond to the rest later (when I get some time).
If some people on this list want me to, let me know via e-mail,
otherwise I'll simply e-mail Tim directly (I don't feel
comfortable filling up e-mail boxes with discussions
that are essentially between two people).
Mike