In a message dated 9/17/2000 3:51:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
<< 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).
>>
There is a problem with semantics here. First of all Darwinists do accept
design. Is there however evidence that design exists in biology? They point
out that natural mechanisms are quite able to produce what appears to be
design. The question is: Can ID exclude natural design/apparant design?
Since ID does not identify the designer, they cannot exclude beforehand
natural forces. Therefor they cannot exclude a natural designer. If it can be
argued that intelligent design can include apparant design or that
natural designers are intelligent then ID loses much of its relevance.
Wesley Elsberry:
"The apparent, but unstated, logic behind the move from design to
agency can be given as follows:
1. There exists an attribute in common of some subset of objects
known to be designed by an intelligent agent.
2. This attribute is never found in objects known not to be designed
by an intelligent agent.
3. The attribute encapsulates the property of directed contingency
or choice.
4.For all objects, if this attribute is found in an object, then we
may conclude that the object was designed by an intelligent agent.
"This is an inductive argument. Notice that by the second step, one
must eliminate from consideration precisely those biological
phenomena which Dembski wishes to categorize. In order to conclude
intelligent agency for biological examples, the possibility that
intelligent agency is not operative is excluded a priori. One large
problem is that directed contingency or choice is not solely an
attribute of events due to the intervention of an intelligent agent.
The "actualization-exclusion-specification" triad mentioned above also
fits natural selection rather precisely. One might thus conclude that
Dembski's argument establishes that natural selection can be recognized
as an intelligent agent. "
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/zgists/wre/papers/dembski7.html
<< 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.
>>
There is a bit of equivocation going on here since intelligence is merely
infered
from the absence of chance and regularity. That this leaves only "intelligent
causes" is something that needs to be shown, not argued. Indeed, as Wesley
showed, it does not include 'we don't know' or necessarily apparant design.
CSI
Wesley Elsberry wrote on talk.origins:
"I 've read it. Dembski merely claims that one can *detect* "design".
Detection is not explanation. Dembski's "design" is just the residue
left when known regularity and chance are eliminated. Dembski's
arguments that natural selection cannot produce "specified complexity"
are, to say the least, highly unconvincing. If "specified complexity"
exists at all, Dembski has not yet excluded natural selection as a
cause of events with that property."
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/evobio/evc/argresp/design/rev_tdi.html
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/zgists/wre/papers/dembski7.html
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/ae/dembski_wa.html
<< 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. >>
Indeed. So natural forces can be what ID'ers refer to as "intelligent
design".
Of course that is a pure choice of semantics and only through equivocation
could one try to reject natural causes by claiming that they are not
intelligent.
The question is "Are they not intelligent according to what logically follows
from
the desing inference"? My argument is that the design inference merely labels
that which falls through the filter of chance and regularity as intelligent.
As
Wesley has shown though this merely admits that natural forces can be
intelligent
designers.
<<
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.
>>
Indeed and thus we are left were we started. ID cannot identify and therefore
exclude natural designers.
<< 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.
>>
Nice rethoric but it merely shows support for my argument. If people want to
claim that "when chance and regularity are eliminated that which remains
is intelligent design" then they merely have defined a term, not shown that
what we consider intelligence is a requirement. Wesley has also shown
that one cannot distinguish CSI generated by algorithms from 'real' CSI
and therefor CSI is again no reliable indicator of intelligent design or
alternatively intelligent design includes that which is generated by
algorithms. But if algorithms are admitted then the step to mutation and
natural selection is a small step.
<< >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"?
>>
Because some still hold to the idea that ID can be made scientific.
<< >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*.
>>
Cool and I am pointing out that design cannot exclude a natural designer and
therefor design has nothing new to offer. We are still facing the lack of a
reliable detector of design that excludes natural designers.
<< 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?
>>
Where did I say that this were the case? My argument is that eliminating law
and chance need not lead to a reliable detector of design and that one cannot
still eliminate a natural designer. How could this happen? For instance
because
we do not understand the full capabilities of natural pathways? That's why
Wesley's filter which admits the possibility "we don't know" is so important.
<< 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.
>>
Now you are guilty of second guessing me. Nice ad hominem.
<< 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?
>>
Who is afraid? You build a strawman and then attack it? Is that a logical
argument that I should be impressed with?
<< 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?
>>
Simple "real design"
<< 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?
>>
They deal with it by working from concepts we know have generated design
Wesley
"This is also my viewpoint on the significance of the SETI
project: SETI identifies certain attributes of radio signals
that are known from human use of radio signals, and SETI does
not show us any detection of a novel design/designer
relationship."
ID of that form has already been admitted into science. But does this mean
that there is therefore a reliable detector of a novel design? Not really.
<< 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!"
>>
Ridicule is not warranted here. I am merely showing that so far the ID
movement
has failed to provide us with a reliable mechanism to detect novel design.
<< 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"!
>>
Which include for all practical purposes random mutation and natural
selection.
Why are you presuming that an intelligent natural designer could not use
these
natural forces?
But it's not merely presumed but it is also shown that there is a method
through
which a certain system was designed, a method that can be observed, tested
and falsified. Independent evidence is provided to support its claims.
That's far more than can be said for ID.
<< 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
>>
Or "intelligent processes" according to ID (See Wesley's argument)
<< 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.
>>
Nope, nothing about unknown processes is required. It could be because
the evidence to support such a pathway is lacking or it could indeed be an
unknown new natural process. After all "we don't know" still makes for a
good explanation of ignorance.
<< 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!
>>
Indeed, they could merely show that ID does not preclude nature as the
designer.
But then we are back at the beginning since ID is not a reliable detector of
true Intelligent Design (as hoped for by ID'ers) and we have to find
independent
evidence to support either position. Independent evidence of how nature can
design structures exist, but so far there is no evidence of a designer that
could be considered truely intelligent.
If ID wants to argue that ID is not a reliable detector of design or that
design
can still include natural forces as the designer then there is not really much
that we have learned.
<< 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".
>>
Indeed but that's merely a confusion of what ID can really do.
<< 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.
>>
And natural forces. So ID really is a place holder for ignorance.
<< 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.
>>
Nope. That does not follow logically. Darwinism and forensic science has
independent evidence to deal with. Darwinism is not infered from the absence
of evidence.
<< 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!
>>
False premise, false conclusion
<< 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.
>>
I have already shown this. It's the equivocation of intelligence that would
lead
someone to conclude that intelligent design cannot include natural forces
because
these are not what we consider "intelligent". But intelligence is merely that
which
dropped through the filter and my argument is that unknown natural processes
or
even known processes for which in that instance no evidence exists that it
was used
could have been the designer.
<< 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).
>>
Intelligent agency is merely infered from the elimination of chance and
regularity but
it cannot preclude natural forces as the designer. Intelligent agency is
claimed to be
not 1. but that is an erroneous argument as Wesley has shown.
<< >>>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.
>>
Coyne and other are critiquing the arguments that claim that there is a
reliable detector
of design. But as I pointed out before, the evidence of ID is the absence of
an identified
natural mechanism. Nothing more. If the argument is that design includes
natural
designers then indeed there is evidence of "design" in nature and the designer
is nature. But that would make ID meaningless. And that is what I argue is
what has happened.
<< 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.
>>
Did he provide us with independent evidence of design? No, he asserted that Ic
systems are reliable detectors of design and that Darwinian pathways do not
exist.
Ignoring for the moment the false dichotomy, Behe has not only not shown that
pathways
do not exist, in fact it has been shown that natural pathways do exist. So IC
is
not a reliable detector of design and Behe has to address independent
evidence of design
on a case by case basis.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 17 2000 - 20:54:58 EDT