ID/Evolution and Michael Behe

[MarcusOfLycia]

My reason for posting this was as a rebuttal to the oft-used “Who Designed the Designer” argument, not what criteria are required for a design inference.

Sorry. What I am interested in here is how the design inference works. Given some system/object, how does one determine if it has been designed?

Anyone who works criminal investigations knows how to infer design. I don't, but I have read from people who do. A good reading of Sherlock Holmes is always good to help one learn a bit about the process, too.

Can we attribute intelligence to 2 plum trees planted in a row; how about 5 in a row; what 2 rows of 3?)

The number doesn't matter; I think attributing intelligence to a row of trees is just plum crazy.

I live in Michigan in the US and up north, there used to be a lot of logging- this whole state is pretty well known for furniture and wood production. When you log, you have to replace the trees in order to have harvests later in time. One of my favorite places to visit is called Manistee, and it has a lot of natural forests and a lot of these replanted forests.

Now, without any knowledge whatsoever that some of the forests were replanted or what they would look like, I found it very easy to identify which forests were 'designed' and which weren't. Rows upon rows of perfectly aligned pine trees screams the fact that they were planted due to logging. It would be 'plum crazy' to think anything else.

[Ivellious]

I think that's the ultimate scientific error in ID. How does the design take place? What is the method? Who is the designer and how do we know? What process is used to determine what is designed? What are the specific criteria (not just "it's complex")? How would this affect/change/nullify certain biological hypotheses based on the Theory of Evolution? ID is very vague on these points and in some cases openly admits that it cannot possibly answer them...in which case it lacks the ability to progress.

Another question: ID proponents often cite that a problem with macroevolution is that we cannot see it taking place. Presuming the "Intelligent Designer" still exists, can we see design occurring in the world around us right now? Are there any recent examples of life spontaneously springing into existence? Just a though on a potential double standard.

[sandy_mcd]

Now, without any knowledge whatsoever that some of the forests were replanted or what they would look like, I found it very easy to identify which forests were 'designed' and which weren't. Rows upon rows of perfectly aligned pine trees screams the fact that they were planted due to logging. It would be 'plum crazy' to think anything else.

I was just punning on "plumb crazy" since Stu used plum trees.

But can you see my problem with your statement? How do you know the replanted trees aren't natural? How are you inferring design?
I suggest that you are not - that you can distinguish because you already know that natural forests do not have same-age, regularly spaced, single-species trees. So you are utilizing previous knowledge to eliminate a natural forest.
Is there an alternate derivation which depends only on inherent design?

On the other hand, which typewritten page was done by an intelligent person and which by a monkey - a page of Shakespeare or a page of rows upon rows of perfectly aligned "E"s? Here you would come to the exact opposite conclusion when compared to tree looking.

[sandy_mcd]

As Dawkins said:

“The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer”
Richard Dawkins 1982, 94:130)

Bet he regrets making that comment

I doubt that. You can read the entire article at the link below.

superficial: apparent rather than actual or substantial: a superficial resemblance.

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.

[edited for typo]

[sandy_mcd]

What process is used to determine what is designed?

I've never been able to pin anyone down on this. Consider Paley's example from wikipedia

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there.

I've never been on a heath in my life, much less pitched my foot on a stone or watch; but I would come to the same conclusion - I know that stones are natural and watches are manmade. So how does this show anything about detecting design? The very words themselves hold the answers; no examination of any sort is required.

[MarcusOfLycia]

Now, without any knowledge whatsoever that some of the forests were replanted or what they would look like, I found it very easy to identify which forests were 'designed' and which weren't. Rows upon rows of perfectly aligned pine trees screams the fact that they were planted due to logging. It would be 'plum crazy' to think anything else.

I was just punning on "plumb crazy" since Stu used plum trees.

But can you see my problem with your statement? How do you know the replanted trees aren't natural? How are you inferring design?
I suggest that you are not - that you can distinguish because you already know that natural forests do not have same-age, regularly spaced, single-species trees. So you are utilizing previous knowledge to eliminate a natural forest.
Is there an alternate derivation which depends only on inherent design?

On the other hand, which typewritten page was done by an intelligent person and which by a monkey - a page of Shakespeare or a page of rows upon rows of perfectly aligned "E"s? Here you would come to the exact opposite conclusion when compared to tree looking.

The question isn't "could this have happened naturally". The question is "which is more reasonable".

[jlay]

I think that's the ultimate scientific error in ID. How does the design take place? What is the method? Who is the designer and how do we know? What process is used to determine what is designed? What are the specific criteria (not just "it's complex")?

That is a good point. Not for the reasons you would hope. I too think this is an error of ID, as it bows its knee to the mechanistic presuppositions that are ingrained in modern thought. Actually, this issue was being dealt with by Aristotle, and later Aquinas. It is a question of causality and function. Complexity has become the focus, but I think it is more of a distraction. The complexity of the human eye is really less important than the question, "what is its function?"

The question isn't "could this have happened naturally". The question is "which is more reasonable".

The problem with this is that it is a matter of probability. The skeptic will always default to the improbable even if that is a fraction of a percentage.

Presuming the "Intelligent Designer" still exists, can we see design occurring in the world around us right now? Are there any recent examples of life spontaneously springing into existence? Just a though on a potential double standard.

Not sure the objectiion here. Are you saying that postulating an intelligent designer means we should be seeing spontaneous creation now? You see, I've always felt this was a problem for the Darwinists. In the Judeo/Christian sense why would we expect to, since the scriptures state, God finished His creative work?

[Stu]

But can you see my problem with your statement? How do you know the replanted trees aren't natural? How are you inferring design?
I suggest that you are not - that you can distinguish because you already know that natural forests do not have same-age, regularly spaced, single-species trees. So you are utilizing previous knowledge to eliminate a natural forest.
Is there an alternate derivation which depends only on inherent design?

I honestly feel you are talking in circles and applying hypersensitive reasoning here just to avoid the obvious.
Think about it, of course ones prior knowledge of the growth patterns of forests / trees play a role, it goes without saying, but it's merely a component thereof. We use abductive reasoning to draw inferences about design.

You layout why we ascribe design to a particular arrangement of trees and then summarily dismiss the inference you just descibed. You're drawing conclusions and then ignoring the logical consequence thereof.

On the other hand, which typewritten page was done by an intelligent person and which by a monkey - a page of Shakespeare or a page of rows upon rows of perfectly aligned "E"s? Here you would come to the exact opposite conclusion when compared to tree looking.

Well it's an entirely seperate scenario.
One does not draw conclusions or apply abductive reasoning by transferring the conditions of one setting to another. To do so would make no sense.

[jlay]

Sorry to dig back in the thread but I was waiting on a reply from a ID scientist dealing with some of the Flagellum issues brought up in this thread.

Marcus, I appreciate the idea that there are smart people who believe in ID. But, every major university in the world with a biology program does, in fact, work with evolution on a daily basis.

I, Again, you are equivocating a word to suit not the facts, but your ideology. You are taking evolution in once since that everyone holds to. Natural Selection, mutation, and then jumping to another meaning of the word entirely. This is the oldest and most common logical fallacy, and quite frankly you should stop making it.

Because science uses evidence and experimentation and observation to draw its conclusions. We can't use God in science because we can't observe him.

We can't observe the past, but forensic science is alive (no pun) and well last I checked. This is about presuppositions. Science is a search for causes. And what you state about God is simply predjudicial. It refuses teleology, but at the same time smuggles it in when it suits itself.

[jlay]

The universe is filled with electromagnetic radiation, are you suggesting that a simple message like that could not occur by chance, given the fact that a few monkeys and typewriters could supposedly create something as marvelous as Shakespeare?

Supposedly?

Monkeys with typewriters can not create Shakespeare. this is a common mistake. Let's say just by chance that Monkey on a typewriter pushes thousands of buttons. And let's say in that sequence the letters are arranged, "iamhungry". Did the Monkey just inform us of something? No. You are making a fundemental error of what entails design, code, and information. Information has a FUNCTION. Monkey's typing accidental things has NO function. Shakespeare does. So, even if a monkey was able to type out a chapter of Shakespeare (which would never happen by the way) guess what? It isn't Shakespeare. It would be no different than the million lines of gibberish that proceeds and follows.
Unguided, non-intelligent, purposeless processes CAN NOT and WILL NOT forsee function. Could primoridal goo forsee the purpose of the cardio pulmonary system of a human being? When a person designs a machine, the function proceeds the product. Your body is full of organs that serve specific functions. Remove your kidneys if you need an example. We KNOW that DNA contains instructions on how to assemble a kidney along with thousands of other functions. We see this exact thing when humans design machines. Blueprints, data, programming, instructions, software. At the end of the day the Darwinist will either smuggle in the teleogical concepts, or have to rely on blind faith that unguided, unintelligent, meaningless events resulted in function and purpose.

Anytime, anyone ask, "what is the function of this organ, they are stepping into teleological language. One can not convey what DNA does without envoking these concepts. That being that DNA is DIRECTED toward some end goal or purpose.

The Darwinist is reduced to thinking that thinking is....well....

[wrain62]

The Darwinist is reduced to thinking that thinking is....well....

Unneccesary.

[jlay]

Wrain,

This board is not without humor, and smilies are generally a way to instill some humor. Athough a zinger, I am making a serious point as well. It is not as if my last three post were only this one statement. Thinking, which is abstract, has a function. Trying to argue otherwise only proves the point. I'd love to hear how Darwinist account for the function of thinking.
If you want to dismiss the content of my past three post, based on this, then you are straining a gnat my friend.

[wrain62]

It is hard to tell humor ifrom insult. That is all.

[Stu]

Supposedly?

Monkeys with typewriters can not create Shakespeare. this is a common mistake. Let's say just by chance that Monkey on a typewriter pushes thousands of buttons. And let's say in that sequence the letters are arranged, "iamhungry". Did the Monkey just inform us of something? No. You are making a fundemental error of what entails design, code, and information. Information has a FUNCTION. Monkey's typing accidental things has NO function. Shakespeare does. So, even if a monkey was able to type out a chapter of Shakespeare (which would never happen by the way) guess what? It isn't Shakespeare. It would be no different than the million lines of gibberish that proceeds and follows.
Unguided, non-intelligent, purposeless processes CAN NOT and WILL NOT forsee function. Could primoridal goo forsee the purpose of the cardio pulmonary system of a human being? When a person designs a machine, the function proceeds the product. Your body is full of organs that serve specific functions. Remove your kidneys if you need an example. We KNOW that DNA contains instructions on how to assemble a kidney along with thousands of other functions. We see this exact thing when humans design machines. Blueprints, data, programming, instructions, software. At the end of the day the Darwinist will either smuggle in the teleogical concepts, or have to rely on blind faith that unguided, unintelligent, meaningless events resulted in function and purpose.

Anytime, anyone ask, "what is the function of this organ, they are stepping into teleological language. One can not convey what DNA does without envoking these concepts. That being that DNA is DIRECTED toward some end goal or purpose.

The Darwinist is reduced to thinking that thinking is....well....

I agree 100%

Not sure if your post was directed at me or the forum as a whole, but I raised the monkey /typewriter scenario solely with the intention of posing the question from a Darwinian perspective. So in this case the word 'supposedly' was used to show my disagreement with the premise despite posing the question.

In fact this very experiment was put to the test a couple years back.
A computer and keyboard were placed in a cage containing 6 macaques and left for 4 weeks. The result was 5 pages of text primarily consisting of the letter "S". Towards the end they also added the letters A, J, L and M; nothing anywhere close to a single word of human language.

Now apply that to the Origin of Life question or the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation / selection and it inevitably leads to chaos and disorder; not order, or the tightly integrated systems working in harmony we in fact witness.

[zoegirl]

I'd love to hear how Darwinist account for the function of thinking.

Selection/Evolution has no goal, it's not goal oriented (unless you are coming from a theistic evolution standpoint, in which point you argue that God conducted evolution). So any "thought" process merely would have added to the fitness of an animal, nothing more, nothing less. Those that had certain neural firings that provided behavioral responses that added to an organisms fitness or had neurons that made connections faster, learned more, etc, might have had a selective advantage. If so, and if the response was genetic, then that response/behavior/process would have been seen in future generations.

It's one of the reasons I think the evolution of morality is so distasteful a concept. The idea that we are moral simply as a selective advantage is just as equally valid as an evolutionary solution as being immoral (stealing, raping, murder) is something that people don't realize when the accept evolution.