Reflectorites
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:10:12 EDT, FMAJ1019@aol.com wrote:
[...]
>>FJ>The problem is that even if design could be reliably detected, and the
>>evidence suggests that it cannot, it cannot exclude natural forces as the
>>designer. What task would ID have accomplished?
SJ>ID would have settled the question of whether design is *real* or only
>apparent as the Darwinists claim. If FJ thinks that is unimportant, that is
>OK by me.
FJ>It's not only important it's also wrong. ID cannot exclude 'apparant' or
>'natural design' since they cannot exclude a natural designer.
It is FJ who is "wrong". The term "apparent design" is used by Darwinists
in their claim that unintelligent natural forces like chance (e.g. random
mutation) and law (e.g. natural selection) built up all the design in nature:
If there really was intelligent causes in nature the Darwinists would call that
*real* design (and would cease to be Darwinists).
As I have already said, ID aims to exclude unintelligent causes like law and
chance, leaving only intelligent causes. The Darwinists oppose that by
trying to show that what appear to be intelligent causes were really just
unintelligent causes like law and chance.
Now if some, like FJ (and maybe Berthajane) want to maintain that there
can be intelligent natural causes they can maintain that. All the ID
movement is claiming that there were intelligent causes in life's history. The
ID movement does not specify who (or what) was these intelligent causes.
Most people who are not die-hard philosophical materialists will probably
conclude that intelligent causes were supernatural (i.e. a Creator). But
those who are die-hard philosophical materialists can always conclude there
were natural intelligent causes.
FJ>Wesley and
>others have carefully exposed this. It's perhaps ironic that what seemed to
>be the strength of the ID argument namely ID does not say anything about the
>designer has become a strong argument against it. SO if it cannot exclude
>natural designers then what's the value of ID?
See above.
ID is probably of no "value" to die-hard philosophical materialists, but
fortunately most people's minds are not bound by that particular metaphysical
strait-jacket.
>SJ>>But then what is he arguing against ID for?
FJ>TO show that it is full of holes.
But if FJ thinks that ID is "unimportant", why does he bother to "show
that it is full of holes"?
>>FJ>If they only
>>>realized that since it does not identify the designer
>>SJ>The ID movement *does* realise it. I have previously mentioned Fred
>>Hoyle's "Intelligent Universe" hypothesis as possibly within the ID
>>paradigm. The common bond of all members of the ID movement is
>>the belief in the existence (or at least the possibility) of empirically
>>detectable *design* in nature. It is *not* agreement on who is the
>>designer.
>FJ>Including nature as the designer? Lacking independent evidence of the
>>designer what does ID have to offer that presently science does not offer?
See above. As Berthajane said, it is the opposition to ID who seem to be
obsessed with "the designer". The ID movement tries to keep focussing on
*design*.
If FJ thinks there could be unintelligent causes other than law and chance,
then what is: a) his constant harping on "the designer" and b) his opposition
to ID?
FJ gives the impression (like the rest of the metaphysical and
methodological atheists on this List), that he is desperately afraid that the
ID movement might actually turn up hard evidence that could reasonably
be interpreted to mean there is a Designer.
But if such hard evidence exists, wouldn't it be better to know about it
rather than try to suppress it? And if it can be so easily reinterpreted as
hitherto unsuspected natural intelligent causes as FJ maintains, what is
there to be afraid of?
SJ>Science at present only offers *apparent* design. ID would show that
>design is *real*.
FJ>No it would not show this IF apparant design refers to design by natural
>designers. Since ID cannot exclude natural designers, they cannot exclude
>apparant design. Simple as that.
So FJ is maintaining that "apparent design" is: 1) unintelligent natural
causes; and 2) intelligent natural causes? But if that is the case what would
*real* design be?
There would be an interesting consequence if the concept of intelligent
natural causes were admitted into science. How would SETI, archaeology,
forensic science and the law handle it?
What if SETI received what appeared to be a message from an alien
civilisation. Opponents of SETI could just say, "Sorry but that message
might have been generated by intelligent natural causes"! Or consider an
accused murderer's defence: "It wasn't me your honour-it was intelligent
natural causes!"
In fact how would *evolutionary biology* handle it? An evolutionary
biologist would propose that existing unintelligent natural processes like
random mutation and natural selection, produced all the design in living
things. But then opponents of Darwinism would claim, "Sorry but those
things might all have been generated by intelligent natural causes"!
>>FJ>natural forces could
>>>be the designer making ID nothing more than "nature did it".
>>SJ>If design is detected and someone wants to claim that "natural forces
>>could be the designer" they are welcome to make their case.
>FJ>Simple, ID does not identify the designer therefor the designer can be
>>natural forces.
>>It's a simple and powerful case that ID has limited offerings.
SJ>Even if that was true (which it isn't), so what? Most of science involves
>"limited offerings".
FJ>Indeed but in this case it shows that ID cannot fulful the promise it seemed
>to have, identify true design.
That does no follow. Darwinist at the moment draw a distinction between:
1) "apparent" design (i.e. what looks like real design by a real intelligent
designer) but which is produced by unintelligent natural processes; and
2) real design (i.e. what looks like and really *is* real design) produced by
a real intelligent designer. Thus Dawkins writes:
Biology is the study of the complex things in the Universe. Physics
is the study of the simple ones. It is the complexity of life, coupled
with the precision of its adaptation, that cries out for a special kind
of explanation, and the hunger for such explanation has frequently
driven people to believe in a supernatural Creator. Complexity
means statistical improbability. The more statistically improbable a
thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind
chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an
intelligent Designer. But Charles Darwin showed how it is possible
for blind physical forces to mimic the effects of conscious design,
and, by operating as a cumulative filter of chance variations, to lead
eventually to organised and adaptive complexity, to mosquitoes and
mammoths, to humans and therefore, indirectly, to books and
computers." (Dawkins R., "The Necessity of Darwinism," New
Scientist, 15 April 1982, p.130)
Now FJ wants to invent a new category of:
3) "apparent" design (i.e. what looks like real design by a real intelligent
designer) but which is not produced by unintelligent natural processes but
which were in fact produced by a new, hitherto unknown and unsuspected
category of intelligent natural processes.
Now FJ can indeed propose that with the ID movement's blessing. Mike
Behe might even include it in the next edition of Darwin's Black Box, along
with extraterrestrials and time-travellers as an example of how if ID is
established scientific materialists would not be forced to conclude a
Designer like the Christian God!
FJ>Unless of course ID'ers are satisfied to
>identify design that could have been caused by natural forces. But I thought
>that the hope was that it was a reliable detector of the design of the kind
>that would require a real designer.
Most people who don't have a anti-design philosophical axe to grind
would, I am sure, infer from the detection of real design the existence of "a
real designer".
But as Mike Behe had already pointed out, this "real designer" does not
"require" a supernatural Designer like the Christian God, but could be
natural "real designers" like aliens and time-travellers.
Now FJ wants to propose a category of non-"real designers" that are
intelligent natural processes. Such intelligent natural processes are
unknown to science, and if they existed would render historical sciences
like archaeology, SETI, forensic science and Darwinism (!) unworkable.
But if FJ and others want to save philosophical materialism-naturalism by
that desperate expedient, suicidally taking evolutionary biology down with
it, would, I am sure, be fine by the ID movement!
FJ>If I am wrong about this then fine, ID
>merely tells us that nature could have done it or perhaps not. But then we
>need independent evidence.
It is *FJ* who needs the "independent evidence" that there is such a
category of natural causes beyond law and chance that can mimic
intelligence.
The ID movement is happy to work with the categories already accepted
within science, namely:
1. unintelligent natural causes (law and chance); and 2. intelligent agency -
what is not 1. (e.g. humans, aliens).
>>>SJ>There are *two* separate questions: 1) is there empirically
>>>detectable evidence for design in nature? and if so; 2) who (or
>>>what) is the designer or designers?
>>FJ>There can be evidence of design, is there evidence of design in nature.
>>So far no evidence has been given that shows this.
SJ>Evidence *has* been given. That is what scientists like Jerry Coyne and
>others are critiquing.
FJ>Not really. They are critiquing the claim by Behe. That's not evidence
>though.
Behe supported his "claim" with "evidence". Reputable scientists like
Coyne wouldn't have wasted their time with a mere *claim* without
evidence.
FJ>But even if there is evidence of 'design' in nature, this does not
>prove anything.
If law and chance can be reliably eliminated as causal explanations then it
would "prove" (as much as anything can be proved in science) that the only
cause known to science, namely intelligent agency was the cause.
That would not "prove" that the intelligent agency was the Judeo-Christian
God, but most people who are not irrevocably committed to a materialistic
philosophy would probably infer that it was.
If FJ thinks that would not be "anything" much, that is fine by me, and I am
sure the ID movement!
>SJ>There *has* been "evidence" given for empirically detectable design in
>>nature-Mike Behe's irreducible complexity proposal for example.
FJ>FJ>And since natural pathways leading to IC systems have been shown, IC seems
>>to be dead in the water.
SJ>FJ contradicts himself. He just claimed that "no evidence has been given"
>for design and now he says that Behe's "IC systems" had been critiqued and
>"natural pathways leading to IC systems have been shown" (they haven't
>BTW). Which is it?
FJ>Behe's assertion has been shown erroneous and no evidence has been given that
>these structures were designed.
Behe's "assertion" was supported by "evidence". Does FJ really think that
reputable scientists like Coyne would bother with mere unsupported
assertions?
FJ>Other than by elimination of a single
>mechanism or by pointing out our ignorance so far.
Behe's "assertion" was supported by "evidence". Does FJ really think that
reputable scientists like Coyne would bother with mere unsupported
assertions?
>FJ>Even worse, IC is infered from the absence of
>>evolutionary evidence, not from independent data. Why not admit when
>>evolutionary mechanisms are unsupported by the data that we don't know yet?
SJ>Darwin claimed IC as a test of his theory. IF Darwinists want to avoid
>falsification by claiming unknown, future "evolutionary mechanisms" that's
>fine. It just shows that ID is falsifiable and Darwinism is not.
FJ>Darwin never claimed IC as a test of his theory. Feel free to show me wrong
>here.
While Darwin did not use the term "Irreducible Complexity" it is clear this
is what he meant:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive,
slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
(Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species," 6th Edition, 1928, reprint,
p.170)
FJ>Even Behe admits that natural (indirect) pathways to IC systems may
>exist.
The possibility of "natural (indirect) pathways to IC systems" are a
different matter to what I take FJ to have been arguing up till now. Indeed,
one can always invent a "just-so" story of some hypothetical "natural
(indirect) pathways to" a claimed "IC system" but that has its own
problems:
"Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been
produced directly), however, one can not definitively rule out the
possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an
interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an
indirect route drops precipitously. And as the number of
unexplained irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our
confidence that Darwin's criterion of failure has been met
skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows." (Behe M.J.,
"Darwin's Black Box," 1996, p40)
And again, if ID turns up more and more of these IC cases and materialistic
science proposes more and more hypothetical "natural (indirect) pathways"
then again materialistic science will look more and more like the X-files.
FJ>ID is also not really falsifiable, only Behe's IC claim.
FJ has just been giving examples of how ID could be falsified, namely "a
natural designer" and "natural (indirect) pathways".
As Behe points out, this is a typical but confused respose by ID's critcics,
to claim that ID is both falsified and unfalsifiable:
"Now, one can't have it both ways. One can't say both that ID is
unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it.
Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental
reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and
is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance
scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows
that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable. (Behe M.J.,
"Philosophical Objections to Intelligent Design: Response to
Critics," Discovery Institute July 31, 2000.
http://www.discovery.org/embeddedRecentArticles.php3?id=445)
FJ>That Behe
>links ICness to ID does not follow logically from his claims and premises.
See above.
FJ>Darwinism however is falsifiable,
BTW maybe FJ could say: 1) what "Darwinism" is; and how "Darwinism ...
is falsifiable"?
FJ>but not through claims of ICness.
Darwin claimed it was - see above.
FJ>Unless of >course Behe could truely show that no such pathways exist.
FJ contradicts himself. He has just said: "Darwinism however is falsifiable,
but not through claims of ICness." Now he is saying it is "falsifiable...if
Behe could truely show that no such pathways exist.". Which is it?
FJ>But Behe already admits that they may exist.
Of course he does. That's why IC is falsifiable!
FJ>The ball is in his court and is likely going to stay there for a while.
No. Behe has proposed his IC theory with examples. "The ball is" now in
the Darwinists' "court" awaiting their falsification of his theory.
>>SJ>I assume FJ is getting mixed up with "evidence" and proof? If FJ is
>>actually claiming that this is not even "evidence" then maybe he could state
>>what he would accept as evidence that the ID movement could present.
>FJ>Then anything could be considered evidence of design. Why just irreducible
>>complexity? Why not include regular complexity? Design is a placeholder for
>>"we don't know yet". At least in the case of biological design where no
>>independent evidence of design or designers exist to allow us to make a case.
SJ>Now FJ is getting mixed up between ID and design in general. ID is a
>*special case* of design, namely those things which cannot be anything
>other than designed (i.e. which have no plausible naturalistic explanation).
FJ>Ah, but then Behe's and Dembski's ID are not really the same as "design".
No. Who ever said it was? The argument from design in general includes
philosophical arguments and arguments about the fine-tuning of the
universe, etc, and Behe and Dembski don't deal with those.
FJ>It makes things hard to discuss when equivocation is used.
Who is using "equivocation". Behe's argument is obviously only about IC,
and Dembski states up front in his book "Intelligent Design" that he is only
concerned with design in *biology*:
"In its treatment of design, this book focuses not so much on
whether the universe as a whole is designed but on whether we are
able to detect design within an already given universe. The universe
provides a well-defined causal backdrop (physicists these days think
of it as a field characterized by field equations). Although one can
ask whether that causal backdrop is itself designed, one can as well
ask whether events and objects occurring within that backdrop are
designed. At issue here are two types of design: (1) the design of
the universe as a whole and (2) instances of design within the
universe. An analogy illustrates the difference. Consider an oil
painting. An oil painting is typically painted on a canvas. One can
therefore ask whether the canvas is designed. Alternatively one can
ask whether some configuration of paint on the canvas is designed.
The design of the canvas corresponds to the design of the universe
as a whole. The design of some configuration of paint corresponds
to an instance of design within the universe. Though not perfect,
this analogy is useful. The universe is a canvas on which is depicted
natural history. One can ask whether that canvas itself is designed.
On the other hand, one can ask whether features of natural history
depicted on that canvas are designed. In biology, for instance, one
can ask whether Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical
machines are designed. Although design remains an important issue
in cosmology, the focus of the intelligent design movement is on
biology That's where the action is. It was Darwin's expulsion of
design from biology that made possible the triumph of naturalism in
Western culture. So, too, it will be intelligent design's reinstatement
of design within biology that will be the undoing of naturalism in
Western culture." (Dembski W.A., "Intelligent Design," 1999,
pp.13-14)
I clarified this in a recent post, maybe just before FJ re-commenced on the
Reflector. When I say ID I mean the special case of design which is
empirically detectable. When I say Design, I mean design in general. When
I say design I mean either depending on the context.
FJ>But my arguments remain as they are:
Which itself is interesting. FJ by his own admission has misunderstood
what ID is (i.e. thinking it is Design in general), yet it doesn't make any
difference to his "arguments"!
FJ>"Design is a placeholder for "we don't know yet".
No. See above.
FJ>At least in the case of biological design where no
>independent evidence of design or designers exist to allow us to make a case."
So FJ hopes!
BTW what *would* FJ accept as "independent evidence of design" in "the
case of biological design"?
>>>SJ>The first question: "is there empirically detectable evidence for
>>>design in nature?", is the primary focus of the ID movement. If it turns
>>>out to be true, it will be the public property of all mankind and equally
>>>supportive of all religions and philosophies which maintain there is
>>design in nature.
>>FJ>Right... In the mean time it is used before even a scientific case has
>>>been made to pretend that ID is scientific.
>>SJ>A "scientific case has been made" and other scientists have critiqued it.
FJ>You mean an attempt for a scientific case has been made
What is the difference between a "scientific case" and "an attempt for a
scientific case"? If "other scientists have critiqued it" does that not
make it by definition "scientific"?
FJ>and scientists have shown it to be full of holes.
Maybe FJ can give the examples in the scientific literature where
"scientists have shown" for example, Behe's cases of IC "it to be full of
holes"?
FJ>Perhaps you mean to say that a scientific
>attempt was made to show that ID/IC could be scientific.
See above.
FJ>But similarly a
>scientific attempt could be made to show that the world is 6000 years old,
A "scientific attempt" *was* made several centuries ago "that the world is
6000 years old" and it was eventually shown to be *wrong*, not
unscientific:
"Of course Ussher could hardly have been more wrong about 4004
B.C., but his work was both honorable and interesting- therefore
instructive for us today ... The excoriating textbook tradition
depicts Ussher as a single misguided dose of darkness and dogma
thrown into an otherwise more enlightened pot of knowledge-as if
he alone, representing the church in an explicit rearguard action
against science and scholarship, raised the issue of the earth's age to
recapture lost ground. No idea about the state of chronological
thinking in the seventeenth century could be more false. Ussher
represented a major style of scholarship in his time ... Ussher
worked within a substantial tradition of research, a large community
of intellectuals striving toward a common goal under an accepted
methodology-Ussher's shared "house" if you will pardon my
irresistible title pun. Today we rightly reject a cardinal premise of
that methodology-belief in biblical inerrancy-and we recognize that
this false assumption allowed such a great error in estimating the
age of the earth. But what intellectual phenomenon can be older, or
more oft repeated, than the story of a large research program that
impaled itself upon a false central assumption accepted by all
practitioners? Do we regard all people who worked within such
traditions as dishonorable fools? What of the scientists who
assumed that continents were stable, that the hereditary material
was protein, or that all other galaxies lay within the Milky Way?
These false and abandoned efforts were pursued with passion by
brilliant and honorable scientists. How many current efforts, now
commanding millions of research dollars and the full attention of
many of our best scientists, will later be exposed as full failures
based on false premises? (Gould S.J., "Eight Little Piggies," 1993,
pp.186-187).
FJ>that does not make the claim itself scientifically interesting.
Now FJ is changing his tack from not even "scientific" at all to not
"scientifically interesting". Which is it?
And if ID and its IC subset are not "scientifically interesting" why are
modern scientists like Coyne bothering with it?
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 17 2000 - 18:51:04 EDT