The Design Inference Game

03/03/03 | Moi

[general_re]

I thought a new thread was a good idea, and here seems to be a good place to put it, so as not to clutter up "News". The only topic available was "heated discussion", though. ;)

If any clarification about the pictures is needed, just say so, and I will try to at least highlight the part that I am interested in for you. Remember that I'm interested in the objects or structures or artifacts being represented, so don't be thrown off if the illustrations seem abstract.

[Diamond]

You've got me there on that one. What IS that thing%^0?

Cordially,

[atlaw]

Actually, the gruesome object in your post is discussed at some length in Dembski's upcoming book, "The Mistake Inference."

[Nebullis]

With all due respect, Nebullis, detecting the activity of intelligent agency is an indisputably common form of rational activity.

That's a non sequitur and not resolved. I was commenting to cornelis, who in his posts implied that general_re is making invalid generalizations, that it's the IDists who leap to an invalid inference of universal design from the particular of human design. It is not established that what we know about human design in any way applies to something designed by an Intelligent Designer. The tests for such design is simply gap-gaming.

[Diamond]

IDists who leap to an invalid inference of universal design from the particular of human design. It is not established that what we know about human design in any way applies to something designed by an Intelligent Designer

I do apologize for the intrusion into your remarks to cornelius. You are correct that what we know about human design cannot neccesarily be attributed to any other intelligent agency. Yet, if we observe similar phenomena, what are we to make of it? What demarcation criteria can be proposed distinguishing science for what you apparently regard as non-science?

Cordially,

[general_re]

Let me be sure that I understand before moving on to the next one. Are you saying that you don't have enough information to render a definitive answer? That is, given more information about the properties of the object, would you be able to produce an answer? If so, I can try to provide more to you to assist you in so doing. Or are you stating that the information given is adequate, but does not support a determination of the presence of design?

More concisely, is your answer "not enough information to tell" or "it doesn't look designed, but there remains the possibility of a false negative"?

[the_doc]

With regard to the basketball and ice crystal, I would say that it is transcendentally obvious that these things are designed. The fact that others will not agree with me won't deter me from asserting that. The Creator agrees with me.

[general_re]

With regard to the basketball and ice crystal, I would say that it is transcendentally obvious that these things are designed.

Certainly a valid position to stake out. However, the design inference states that there is a logical process we may employ in order to definitively prove design - it is that process that is being put to the test, not so much the notion that things are or are not designed.

[CCWoody]

I agree. I would say that evolution as a theory is already dead. What is funny in a way is that evolutionists attempt to explain what they don't know whereas Design inference deals with what we already know.

[PatrickHenry]

With regard to the basketball and ice crystal, I would say that it is transcendentally obvious that these things are designed. The fact that others will not agree with me won't deter me from asserting that. The Creator agrees with me.

I fear that I lack the sensory apparatus needed to perceive things transcendentally. For those who may be similarly disadvantaged, could you explain in a little more detail how it is that you can determine design? For example, even if a man were blind, I could explain to him how to distinguish between a real and an artificial plant. I could do this by showing him how to use his sense of touch, smell, and taste for this purpose. It's not the same thing as seeing, but he could nevertheless learn to tell the difference, and he could then agree with me in distinguishing real plants from fake ones. Surely, your transdendental perception of design can likewise be detected, however crudely, by the standard senses to which most of us are limited. So could you give us some more information about how it is that you detect design?

[the_doc]

You have the same sensory apparati as I do. But you can't see what I see, because you don't want to see what I see.

[PatrickHenry]

But you can't see what I see, because you don't want to see what I see.

Another way to phrase that:
Others see what exists; you "see" whatever you want to see.

[BMCDA]

Hmmm, interesting. So you see what you see because you want to see it?

[the_doc]

Others see what exists; you "see" whatever you want to see.

You are correct insofar as you are just pointing out that people believe only what they want to believe. This is a patently obvious truth of human nature. (It is one of the undergirding principles of the historic Protestant theology of Calvinism. [Like the vast majority of our nation's founders, the real Patrick Henry was a Calvinist--as I am, of course.])

Having agreed with you that people believe only what they want to believe, let me point out that this comment does not enhance your case at all (despite the fact that you evidently intended your remark as a disparagement of mine).

Let me show you why I say that (below).

***

Notice, first of all, that you used the word see in two different ways. You said "Others see what exists." Next, you put the word see in quotation marks, saying "You 'see' whatever you want to see."

But now, notice that you have implied in your first statement that a Creator does not exist. Ah, but but you are merely presupposing that a Creator who cannot be seen rather directly with the eyes does not exist. (This is intellectually untenable inasmuch as the Creator of the material world was obviously not material. Besides, as you surely realize at some level of your soul, the atheist can't possibly know what he asserts--i.e., that there is no God!--because only God could have that kind of knowledge. So, I will insist that you leave off implying that God does not exist. I want you to be more reasonable.)

Anyway, as I suggested in my earlier post, I see everything which you see in nature. To use your language, I do see "what exists." But if I am correct about the existence of the Creator (and of course, I am [grin]), then you are the one who doesn't fully see what exists.

You will notice that I am using the word see in the same dual way you were using it. As we both realize, there are two kinds of seeing. The first kind of seeing is sensory. The second kind of seeing is an apprehension which may go beyond the purely sensory level; this kind of seeing involves the understanding of things (including the implications of sensory data!).

An example of this latter type of seeing is "Oh, I see what you are saying now." What we mean by such a statement is actually "I understand and accept the truth which you were presenting."

That brings us back to the topic of the thread. Some of us see things which you cannot see about the existence of the Creator, the Designer. Some of us can SEE it QUITE EASILY.

The whole thing is wonderfully strange, IMHO. And if you will pardon a little teasing, those of us who do regard the fact of the Creator's existence as transcendentally obvious are inclined to regard you as mentally defective.

In short, the fact that you and I both understand and accept only what we want to understand and accept is ultimately why I believe in a Creator and you don't. I see everything which you can see, but I can see things which exist beyond your willingness to understand and accept the truths of the Creation..

In short, I say there is no weakness in me. I would have to say that I am just more reasonable than you are. (This is what I actually meant when I suggested that you are mentally defective [grin again].)

***

All of this stuff is covered in Romans 1:18-32.

[CCWoody]

I "see". Thanks for the ping.

Here's another thing I "see"; an irreducibly complex system.

[the_doc]

I probably ought to add that the Calvinistic position explains the whole matter in a much more ominous way than you have recognized.

As a consistent Calvinist, I feel compelled to point out that I regard you as unreasonable, as wickedly biased against truths which I frankly do find to be transcendentally obvious.

I am not scoffing at you. The fact is, I used to be very much like you. I was probably as bright as you are, and I was essentially just as smug as you are. As a result, I couldn't see what I see now.

According to the theology of the Book of Romans, you were born with this blinding bias. The fact is, you obviously hate your own Creator. And as a consistent Calvinist, I would urge you to consider the possibility, at least, that He hates you (Matthew 23:33).

[general_re]

Notice, first of all, that you used the word see in two different ways. You said "Others see what exists." Next, you put the word see in quotation marks, saying "You 'see' whatever you want to see."

But now, notice that you have implied in your first statement that a Creator does not exist.

The conclusion that "a Creator does not exist" logically follows from the statement that "others see what exists"?

I think not.

[the_doc]

I said that FReeper Patrick Henry IMPLIED that no Creator exists. I stand by that.

***

Look again at PH's remark, in context. His reference to "others" was a reference to non-creationists (i.e., to people unlike me). So, he was saying that non-creationists see what exists.

Please hold that thought for a minute--and notice that PH turned around immediately and maintained that creationists "see" what they want to see. (This is an idea of believing, but he called it a seeing.)

I submit that PH intended to use that very statement (about creationists seeing what they want to see) to disparage creationists as less than fully rational. PH's previous remark was a set-up for this disparagement. He was faintly but definitely bragging about the "objectivity," about the perspicacity (?), of the non-creationists so that he could insinuate that we creationists are somehow less noble than "real scientists" (and perhaps even somehow feeble-minded).

Why am I alert for this disparagement? It's because it is the standard stupid "argument" which non-creationists (like Asimov, the poor fool!) have always offered. It's not a valid argument, of course; it is merely snotty junk from people who trust their intellect when they shouldn't.

A lot of "real scientists" are not as good at their discipline of science as they think they are. They need to be more concerned about being correct.

***

In short, PH's remark that non-creationists see what is was intended to insinuate that creationists see what isn't. But this insinuation is actually dishonest. The non-creationists indulge in this sort of dishonesty only because the non-creationists are foolish enough to assume that they are correct in their apprehension of reality. (And they aren't!)

Well, I am turning the tables. I submit that we creationists are more intellectually honest than the non-creationists. We are more rational than the non-creationists. We recognize that reasonableness sometimes demands a faculty for seeing things which are, for various wonderful reasons, invisible.

My bottom-line point is that antichristian scientists are not at all reasonable. (This is why I specifically dared to point out that avowed atheists are complete fools. They don't have an intellectual leg to stand on--but the poor fools manifestly don't care about that.)

Anyway, the God Whom I know, the God of the Bible, flatly declares that He is NOT interested in having everyone in His creation come to know Him. Romans 1:16-23 is crystal clear in this regard.

Think about that. You will see what I mean one of these Days.

[general_re]

Look again at PH's remark, in context. His reference to "others" was a reference to non-creationists (i.e., to people unlike me). So, he was saying that non-creationists see what exists.

In context, "others" is compared to "you". "Others" pretty clearly means "everyone but you".

[PatrickHenry]

I am not scoffing at you. The fact is, I used to be very much like you. I was probably as bright as you are, and I was essentially just as smug as you are. As a result, I couldn't see what I see now.

You peaked too soon.

According to the theology of the Book of Romans, you were born with this blinding bias. The fact is, you obviously hate your own Creator.

Because I don't "see" evidence of design as you do? And because you cannot explain what you "see," except by descent into mumbo-jumbo? This means I hate my Creator? I guess your special gift of "sight" leads you to that conclusion.

And as a consistent Calvinist, I would urge you to consider the possibility, at least, that He hates you (Matthew 23:33).

So I was always told. When I was a boy, I had to memorize and recite to my class one of Jonathan Edwards' sermons, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.

"The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much in the same way as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect, over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; His wrath towards you burns like fire ..."

Thanks for bringing back some old memories.

[cornelis]

I think it was in Maverick that if anybody draws a gun during the game they are thrown overboard.