1. Diamond's answer in post 7
2. Diamond's answer in post 33 and 62
3. Answer at post 111 and 124
4. Answer at 166 and 173-175
5. Answer at 181
6. Answer at 257 and 310
7. Answer at324
8. Answer at 365
9. Answer at 391
10. Answer at 440
Posted on 03/03/2003 8:27:25 AM PST by 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.
Well, to be fair, there's this whole involved process to it, you see. I think it still boils down to looking at things, but there you are...
First I again want to thank you and PatrickHenry and the others for you kind words for my mother. She is actually recovering! On Sunday we were contemplating a funeral. But now all her stats are withing normal ranges (and probably better than mine!:^) Just for informational purposes, and not just to tweak anyone, I have discovered that about a dozen different churches and people in many different states have been praying for her. Even though she does not attend the church I do, in my church alone, four of my pastors have come to visit her and read her a verse of Scripture and pray with and for her. We of course assume that she can hear although she cannot presently respond. We do know though, that the One to Whom we pray does hear and respond. I have a sense of peace whatever the outcome that I have to tell you is unusual to me. You may think it just a chemical reaction in my brain, but I want to thank you for your well wishes anyway:^).
I haven't been able to give your responses after my answer to #10 the attention that they deserve. I do apologize. You all are making great, informative commentary.
Let me say this;
We know and all agree that there is design in the universe. The question is, is there a way to detect it? Is there a criterion that can be rigorously applied that can detect design, and can be verified by those instances where we know design exists?
The medical tests my mother has had during her hospitalization are an example of the use of such criterion
I personally believe everything is designed. But this thread is my first attempt to try to apply Dembski's criterion of specified complexity to actual examples, so ably (and fiendishly:^) supplied by the general. It's a filter. It cannot detect everything, just like one of my mother's medical tests. But if design actually exists, and we know that it does, is there some way to reliably detect it's presence?
General, when I have opportunity I will try to elucidate some of the reasons for my response in #10. I'm glad you chose that example, however. With your permission I would like to request air support because this thread deserves more attention than I am able to give at the moment. This is a battle of truth, and I want to be open and receptive to wherever truth leads.
betty, could you please do me a favor and ping one of your selected lists here. I have done the best I can so far in taking up the general's challenge and I need some reinforcements:^)
Cordially,
1. Diamond's answer in post 7 2. Diamond's answer in post 33 and 62 3. Answer at post 111 and 124 4. Answer at 166 and 173-175 5. Answer at 181 6. Answer at 257 and 310 7. Answer at324 8. Answer at 365 9. Answer at 391 10. Answer at 440
... I find everything about the Prime Mover mystifying.
We know the Universe exists, but where did the Universe come from?
I think that you are recognizing and acknowledging here that the universe is contingent.
If God created the Universe, who created God? And the argument that God always was, and always will be isn't very satisfying.
Maybe not, but speaking of logical fallacies, the question, "who created God?" is a category fallacy. God is not an event.
Multiple universe theories are an attempt to get around the problem but then you've got to ask what is the "universe generator" required by such theories? THEN, and only then, it's turtles all the way down.
I will say that Intelligent Design strikes me as sort of a logical fallacy. The people who argue it already believe in God. So naturally they see God's hand at work in the natural world....
The same in reverse could be said for a purely materialistic view, except that then there is no rational, consistent basis for belief itself:^)
Cordially,
In any case, please feel free to elaborate on any or all of the answers you have provided thus far, and call in anyone you like - I was hoping to facilitate as much freewheeling debate as possible, and sniping at the design inference is no fun unless someone takes up the challenge of defending it ;)
The design of the thermostat in your home is evident at least in part because its designer (or some corporation that owns the design) wanted to make it evident. There is probably a name of some type imprinted on your thermostat. Your thermostat is teleological in nature, whether you think it defective or not. (A word to the wise; if it were not teleological in nature there would be no way of telling if it were defective or not. The word would have no meaning.)
Cordially,
Now, I suspect the fallback position is to say that the bees and the thermostat are themselves designed, but I'm not asking about the bees and the thermostat - I want to know about emergent structures and processes like beehives and heating cycles....
That's a very perceptive question, but in order to answer properly I think it is necessary to clarify the meaning of "nature" as used in your distinction between "nature" and "intelligence".
ARRRRGGGHHH! Boggled down in definitions. I'm pinging general_re because such definitions may affect his test. Without debating for a semester, and without trying to supersede the whole purpose of the thread, can we agree, provisionally, on the following:
Nature: By this, I mean something that happens, or that is formed, "naturally," in accordance with the laws of physics, chemistry, etc., and without intelligent intervention (ignoring the issue of whether Providence is deliberately causing everything to happen) -- for example, the Mississippi River, as it existed before humans lived in North America, is natural.Intelligence (or Design): By this, I mean things or events that are the result of intelligent intervention in the otherwise natural processes of the universe -- for example, the Hoover Dam, the Panama Canal, etc., are not natural.
One could say that what the bees do is "designed" in the same sense that what the thermostat does is "designed". When I build a thermostat, I build it to perform a specific sort of function, so that function is performed by design - my design, not the thermostat's. Similarly, one could claim that what the bees do is "designed" because their designer built them to do what they do - make hives. So it's a design on the part of the designer of the bees, not the bees themselves.
But for the thermostat, we know that because we know there are designers of thermostats who make them on purpose to do what they do. On the other hand, for beehives, the existence of their designer is the thing we're supposed to be proving. We can't simply take it to be true that the designer exists and therefore the beehive is designed in some sense, like we can with thermostats - that's the thing we're supposed to be showing to be true, and assuming it's true is begging the question. And even if you do continue along these lines, what you eventually run into is the problem of having no way to say that something isn't designed.
Don't see how B follows from A. The existence of virtually everything is predicated on the existence of some other thing - is everything therefore designed?
No, no, no - we are told that the design inference can produce reliable results, so we set off to explore that hypothesis. If it's testable, it quite nicely falls within the range of the scientific method. And if it proves to be untestable for one reason for another, then Dembski and ID theorists must withdraw it from the realm of science. But in either case, it was not I who proposed the design inference as science - it was ID theory. So let's find out if they're right.
In effect, what the General seems to be saying is that, if something cannot be demonstrated by means of the scientific method, then that something cannot be real.
Nope. I am testing the claims of ID theory - that design is real, and can be discovered via the design inference. Now, if you want to say that design is undetectable, that's fine, but you're parting company with Dembski and ID theorists...
Lots of luminaries chime in: Paul Gross, Jason Rosenhouse, Matt Young, George C. Williams and others pace Berlinski; Behe, Dembski, Wells, Oakes and others in conditional support.
Berlinski is my hero. This guy is the most urbane, unflappable, erudite, witty and good-natured son of a gun writing in science today, and boy can he write. Check out his skewering of Gross --- it is priceless!
The questions surrounding evolution are serious ones, and the jig is not up. Berlinski grasps the complexity of the problem in ways that many evolutionary biologists don't. He is not a cheerleader for Dembski, and in fact has concluded that Dembski's approach will not be very fruitful because it depends on probabilities, and, as he says, high improbability is not that interesting after something has already happened. In other words, a highly improbably event will occur just as often as one would expect it to occur, not more and not less. But after it's happened, one cannot argue that it could never have happened. Berlinski believes Dembski has painted himself into just such a corner.
Anyway, read these letters. Really good stuff.
Over several months of research I arrived at what I believe is an objective hypothesis: algorithm at inception is proof of intelligent design.
I anticipate that current research in information theory and molecular biology (Rocha, etc.) will determine that algorithm, expressed perhaps as a finite state mechanism, must lie at any abiogenesis theory – thus showing that biological life is the result of intelligent design. Likewise, I anticipate the research concerning m-theory and dark energy, especially as it concerns the toggling of balance to explain the age of the universe (rate of expansion), will eventually show that algorithm must logically precede this (or any/all) universes.
That is my attempt to answer the most hardened metaphysical naturalists. However, there are other evidences which many of the less prejudiced may consider adequate proof of intelligent design, or more specially, an intelligent Designer! These include:
a. Sound waves in the cosmic background microwave radiation.
b. The size and stability of galaxies derive from Planck’s constant
c. Instructions (operating, repair, reproduction) encoded in DNA
d. Also, the Shroud of Turin may be redated due to errors found in the previous methodology
Wave Phenomenon:
a. Geometry of all that there is (space and time do not pre-exist but are qualities of the extension of field)
b. Membrane theory and the search for the Higgs boson/field to explain mass
c. Bell’s inequalities (spooky interaction at distance, non-locality)
Consciousness, the existence of a realm beyond the physical:
a. Persistent inability to synthesize such things as pain, love, honor, integrity
b. Out of body and near death experiences
c. Testimonies of changed lives
d. Precognition and other such phenomenon
Realized prophecy:
a. Biblical prophecies concerning Jesus
b. Biblical prophesy v. Current Events
c. Hidden texts – pseudapigrapha and Bible Code
d. Archeological evidence
Right. I had been under the impression that ID theory claims we can detect the work of the Designer by a careful examination of the designed work to see the unmistakable indicia of design -- whatever those indicia may be. And it was Diamond's task to apply such indicia as he could devise to systematically detect which of your test objects were the product of Design. Which implies that we can, by careful examination, determine what has not been designed, because such "natural" objects can be seen to lack the indicia of Design.
But if we get ourselves into a position where it is simply assumed that everything is designed, then it is pointless to examine objects as Diamond has been doing, because -- by arbitrary proclaimation -- everything is designed. Such would not be a scientific theory.
I'd be curious to know how "useful" such definitions are and if anyone is aware of clarifications posing as conditions. As for conditions, they have been previously agreed to. (cf. post 1253 and post 14 and following). We are liable to render this game obsolete with amendations by way of clarification. It may be that the conditions for a game wherein the stakes are slightly higher than "Scrabble" may require more fine print from the start.
In addition, general_re has made it clear that the conditions should be limited in a way that prevents us from exceeding the parameters: Now, I suspect the fallback position is to say that the bees and the thermostat are themselves designed, but I'm not asking about the bees and the thermostat - I want to know about emergent structures and processes like beehives and heating cycles....
He has also made it clear that the conditions must impinge on the very theory of ID. This means that parameters of the game --and I ask, do they or do they not?-- include the conditions that are admitted by those theorists--especially in the hope of making conclusions such as: I am testing the claims of ID theory - that design is real
In that case, and if general_re's object shares our general consent, your definition of Nature will have to be set aside unless it squares with those of the theorists to be debunked. Otherwise we have a game within a game usurping the conclusion.
A way out help us through this conundrum is to admit with Aristotle that reason is a structure inside the universe and is conditional. But the argument of the ID theorists (I suspect) is using some form of captatio benevolantia, agreeing to the initial condition granted by their opponents, namely, that reason is more than that.
One thing always buried in the competition is an important logical distinction about conclusions. They may be true or valid or both. Evidently a design inference (as any inference) can be valid. It is true insofar as the conditions are real.
Those with enough political deviancy will have taken a cue that they must hop skip and jump between validity and truthfulness whenever useful.
It is possible that the ID folks are pragmatists after all (from my experience, political interests will easily make pragmatists out of most) and they are hoping like anyone else that their house will stand in the end. In short, they are hoping their conditions are true. It is easy enough to get validity in proof. The rest, as Aristotle already knew, is divination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.