FJ>But even if there is evidence of 'design' in nature, this does not
>prove anything.
SE: 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.
Where "intelligent agency" is a placeholder for that which was designed by a
designer
that could be natural. Only through equivocation can one exclude a natural
designer.
But intelligence in the term intelligent agency merely is a placeholder of
that which
fell through the filter. This means that natural forces could not be excluded
as
intelligent designers. Of course this shows that the meaning of intelligence
was
not the common usage. Wesley Elsberry has shown this quite clearly:
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
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
SJ: 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.
SJ: If FJ thinks that would not be "anything" much, that is fine by me, and I
am
sure the ID movement!
We now have a situation similar to where ID started: We have a system that
could have been intelligently designed by a Judeo-Christian God, any other
designer or natural designers. But if natural forces cannot be excluded then
ID
has done nothing to the status quo. It merely shows that we can detect
design and some identify it on faith to be a Judeo-Christian God, others try
to show that natural pathways exist. The latter one has been far more
succesful
in showing natural pathways to systems that the former to show evidence of
their
designer. For good reasons of course.
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.
SJ: Behe's "assertion" was supported by "evidence". Does FJ really think that
reputable scientists like Coyne would bother with mere unsupported
assertions?
Sure.
More Crank Science: http://www-polisci.mit.edu/bostonreview/BR22.1/coyne.html
FJ>Other than by elimination of a single
>mechanism or by pointing out our ignorance so far.
SJ : Behe's "assertion" was supported by "evidence". Does FJ really think
that
reputable scientists like Coyne would bother with mere unsupported
assertions?
Sure.
More Crank Science: http://www-polisci.mit.edu/bostonreview/BR22.1/coyne.html
>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.
SJ: 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)
Interesting, since natural pathways to IC systems have been shown to exist,
what's the problem?
A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution. Richard H.
Thornhill1 and David W. Ussery. Published in The Journal
of Theoretical Biology, 203: 111-116, 2000.
FJ>Even Behe admits that natural (indirect) pathways to IC systems may
>exist.
SJ : 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:
So we now have a situation that IC systems per se are not reliable indicators
of design. Now it is up to us to show independent support that Darwinian or
other natural pathways lead to IC or that it was a non-natural "Designer".
But that is what Behe was hoping to avoid because now it's back to what's
the better explanation? That explanation follows from the evidence. IC was
used as evidence of this "Designer" but was unable to deliver. What next?
SJ: "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)
Totally unsupported and indeed it shows that for every system we need to look
at the details. IC is not a reliable indicator of design.
"At no step --not even one-- does Doolittle give a model that includes
numbers or quantities; without numbers there is not science."
Behe pp. 95 Darwin's Black Box
SJ: 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.
Unlike ID that does not propose any pathway? Not really convincing. The number
of IC cases is no necessary problem, if one can be explained naturally then in
principle all could. Certainly IC as a reliable detector of ID has lost its
appeal.
FJ>ID is also not really falsifiable, only Behe's IC claim.
SJ: FJ has just been giving examples of how ID could be falsified, namely "a
natural designer" and "natural (indirect) pathways".
Indeed. Actually it would merely falsify Behe's assertion about IC but let's
equivocate IC with ID then.
SJL As Behe points out, this is a typical but confused respose by ID's
critcics,
to claim that ID is both falsified and unfalsifiable:
That indeed is merely equivocation of ID. Behe's ID merely is that which
cannot design an IC system
when natural forces can do so. That's hardly what I would consider the
mainstream ID argument. Behe
could equally well return to the assertion that ID did not design all IC
systems but certainly a few.
FJ>That Behe
>links ICness to ID does not follow logically from his claims and premises.
SJ: See above.
Behe merely asserts that IC is evidence of ID. What is Behe's definition of
ID?
FJ>Darwinism however is falsifiable,
SJ: BTW maybe FJ could say: 1) what "Darwinism" is; and how "Darwinism ...
is falsifiable"?
FJ>but not through claims of ICness.
SJ: Darwin claimed it was - see above.
Nope. Darwin never made that claim. Since natural and stepwise pathways
to IC systems have been shown your assertion remains unsupported. It's
exactly this kind of argument that made IC such a poor argument
"By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of
several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and
where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to
effectively cease functioning.
An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight,
successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to
an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional." [Behe]
Behe merely asserts the latter claim. It has now shown to be false.
FJ>Unless of >course Behe could truely show that no such pathways exist.
SJ: 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?
ICness itself is at this moment no falsifier of a Darwinian pathway. Now it
has to be shown
that no such pathway exists. It's not falsifiable through the claim of ICness
but can still be
falsified. Simple.
FJ>But Behe already admits that they may exist.
SJ: Of course he does. That's why IC is falsifiable!
Behe's claims about IC are falsifiable but not ID.
FJ>The ball is in his court and is likely going to stay there for a while.
SJ:No. Behe has proposed his IC theory with examples. "The ball is" now in
the Darwinists' "court" awaiting their falsification of his theory.
ROTFL, IF ICness is not a reliable detector of ID then we need examples to
show
that in this instance of ICness Darwinian mechanisms are lacking and true
non-natural
design is not. Of course this does not mean that science can rest reassured
that ICness
has failed to disprove evolution. They still need to do the hard work to
provide reasonable
pathways that can be supported by evidence (if any). It just does not mean
that science can
infer design just because we have not done this work yet. In the mean time
IDers can try to
show pathways to treu intelligent design.
Behe's thesis that IC is a reliable detector of design has been disproven.
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".
SJ: 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.
Thus when Behe claimed that ID could be falsified he was talking about Behe's
form of ID,
inferred from the claim of absence of evolutionary pathways?
So the claim that ID is falsifiable depends on what ID really means.
FJ>It makes things hard to discuss when equivocation is used.
SJ: 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*:
Behe is also concerned with design in biology. Both claim evidence of ID. But
it's really not the same ID. There have been attempts to link them but so far
unsuccesful imho.
[...]
FJ>But my arguments remain as they are:
SJ: 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"!
Indeed. Other than my response to that comment which I misunderstood to
be design when it was Design.
FJ>"Design is a placeholder for "we don't know yet".
SJ: No. See above.
I disagree as shown above
Wesley
"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
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."
SJ: So FJ hopes!
So perhaps SJ could share with us this independent evidence of design or
designers?
SJ: BTW what *would* FJ accept as "independent evidence of design" in "the
case of biological design"?
A pathway that shows that an intelligent designer constructed the system.
>>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
SJ: 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"?
Nope. Young earth creationism comes to mind.
FJ>and scientists have shown it to be full of holes.
SJ: 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"?
For instance
A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution. Richard H.
Thornhill1 and David W. Ussery. Published in The Journal
of Theoretical Biology, 203: 111-116, 2000.
Could you give an example in the scientific literature that shows that Behe's
thesis is valid and is scientific?
FJ>Perhaps you mean to say that a scientific
>attempt was made to show that ID/IC could be scientific.
SJ: See above.
See above
FJ>But similarly a
>scientific attempt could be made to show that the world is 6000 years old,
SJ: 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:
I disagree.
FJ>that does not make the claim itself scientifically interesting.
SJ: Now FJ is changing his tack from not even "scientific" at all to not
"scientifically interesting". Which is it?
Both
SJ: And if ID and its IC subset are not "scientifically interesting" why are
modern scientists like Coyne bothering with it?
To show that indeed they fall into that category. You cannot use such argument
to support your claims that IC is scientific especially if Coyne refers to it
as
crank science I believe.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 17 2000 - 20:55:03 EDT