Evidence for God from Science

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:First paragraph reminds me of Miller's strawman (one of many) (first name wasn't Stanely, started with a K...I think). Don't have anything about that, so can't really respond...though I can say that is a problem with arguing through analogies...you'll argue using the points of the item that go for you...but your opponent goes with the other end of the stick...kinda like the saying:

"Men are like a fine wine. They all start out like grapes, and it's our job to stomp on them and keep them in the dark until they mature into something you'd like to have dinner with."

I can see the point being driven home...but then you'd take the other end and say well, no, men aren't grapes or any other main ingredient used to make wine (thus ruining the joke).

Dembski was providing an example, not an analogy.

AttentionKmartShoppers wrote:

ncooty wrote: He is describing a structure (which could be described objectively) with its apparent (to him) function (which is subjective). The problem is that mutation-based evolution isn't goal-directed. Structures are made; that's it. Functions are a matter of interpretation. A rock might make a poor hammer, but a good skipping stone. The rock didn't change based on my interpretation of its function.

aahh, Dembski said at the beginning that evolution isn't goal-directed-that's why it cannot create irreducibly complex systems.

The problem is that Dembski is projecting; he's asserting that his subjective perceptions are, in fact, attributes of the item. They are not.

Moreover, this issue seems quite related to the idea of specified complexity, which would require that we know that the current status quo was the intended goal at the beginning of life.

http://www.antievolution.org/people/dem ... g_csi.html

Dembski argues that the probability of getting here from the starting point is infinitesimal. Of course, the real problem with that is that we could've ended up with an infinite number of other forms of complexity that are all infinitesimally improbable. So, the fact that we ended up with one complex outcome isn't surprising.

Besides, who's to say that at the outset the intention wasn't to create flying dragons, unicorns, and Oompa-Loompas? In which case, we haven't achieved the specified complexity. We're complex, but not in the way specified. You see, the problem is that it seems that ID proponents not only assume intent, but also that THIS was the intended outcome. That seems like an ever-increasing number of unprovable, untestable, unsubstantiated assertions that are absolutely unnecessary to describe natural occurences. Thus, by the principle of parsimony, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to see how this is a useful theory, much less a scientifically testable one.

Again, I don't mean to insult anyone's personal beliefs. The more I learn about this, the more I see fatal flaws in the rationale and the less I think it meets the pre-requisites for consideration as a scientific theory. The upside is that I believe I can explain the viewpoint, which is what I was after. Having said that, I should probably leave the site. I know this forum is not intended for nor amenable to a debate once I've established that I don't think I believe in ID. Thanks to everyone who contributed. I'll keep reading posts, but will try to refrain from writing until I read something that swings me back to "undecided" or "ID advocate". (Of course, I might also respond to posts addressed to me.)

Thanks again. Good luck to you all in finding the path that works for you.

Ncooty,

I have a few issues here. First, I don't see how the existence of an irreducibly complex system shows that the components did not used to be individually functional.

That is actually not what it says, different parts may have been perfectly functional elsewhere.

Second, I don't see how non-functional mutations preclude procreation.

They don't, but then there is also no reason for those non-functional mutations to survive for multiple generations before somehow becoming beneficial.

Third, I would argue that speciation does not require selective advantage, just viability. The mutation survives as long as it does not impede procreation; it doesn't have to improve the probability of procreation.

Hmmm, have to think about this, because your statement seems to be contra natural selection. How would you show viability without being circular? I agree that mutations in the first or second generation can survive as neutral, but does the research not show that the vast majority of mutations are harmful? I think I know what you are getting at, that neutral mutations may some time in future evolve to fill the role of some of the "irreducable" parts, but did not have to hold any function prior to that.

You have taken a definitional sufficiency position on the role of irreducible complexity. What you wrote was that if it is irreducibly complex, then it is designed. This argument is useful for determining inclusivity, but not exclusivity (i.e., for deterimining what is not intelligently designed). A definitional necessity statement would read: If it is designed, then it is irreducibly complex. Would you agree that that is true?

I cvannot find any disagreement with that, but it may just be an issue of what the question is. Designers re-use parts and subsystems all the time, so if we look at any system, we will find things there that have uses other than in that system. Of course, we then get back at the point where it all starts, in the case of biology, what is the origin of life?

The question of inclusivity vs exclusivity seems to be addressed by probability. I have not seen any absolute measures for what is designed vs what is not, it is rather determined by what is the probability of a system being the result of naturalistic mechanisms or not.

Moreover, regarding evolutionary pathways to irreducible complexity, I have just suggested two ways in which genetic mutation can lead to irreducible complexity. 1) Procreation by organisms with mutations that do not impede procreation or survival. Thus, apparently non-functional mutations might amass. The organism might use those amassed mutations (be they 2 or 200) in a novel way, to achieve some novel end (such as fulfilling a new niche). 2) Alternatively, singularly functional mutations might integrate with other singularly functional mutations to perform a novel function. Note that the change in function would explain why the functionality would be considered irreducible.

Sure, it is possible, but it has not been empirically shown to be the case, as far as I am aware. Your point 1. was discussed earlier. The majority of mutations are harmful, very few are beneficial, and the question of mutational neutrality is unclear. f you define that purely in terms of ability to procreate, I would argue that it is a very light requirement. After all, gentically imperfect organisms do breed, they just don't survive. It also does not answer another question, how do those mutations accumulate in a complete biocosm so as to have an effect on a population rather than an individual? If those mutations were to accumulate and later on form a beneficial function, it would have to survive and similarly develop over multiple generations in a population, and then somehow have a combined effect in one common ancestor to then spread via the other naturalistic mechanisms to the population.

Of course, this still assumes that you and I will perceive every possible use of a genetic mutation, such that we can deem whether or not it is in any way "functional". You might find either or both of these implausible, but given the amount of time and the number of opportunities for cellular mutation, I think even small probabilities (on the iteration level) are substantial overall. In any case, improbable is a long way from impossible.

Discussed most of this already. I have not seen any evidence for this in the couple of experiments I have read about, fruit flies and e-coli. Over multiple thousands of generations with extraordinary environmental circumstances, there was no changes to the morphology or any increases in complexity. Improbable is a long way from impossible, but then, as you stated, we are discussing probability. At what point does something become so improbable that it is considered impossible? And while there may have been many opportunities for this to happen, it had to happen many millions of times.

What's something that has no evolutionary pathway leading to the system? (Again, this seems to state a dichotomous decision implicitly: either evolution can explain it or ID must be right. I would argue that this is a false dichotomy. Moreover, I don't understand why we keep getting dragged back into a reliance on falsification of evolutionary theory as a way to support ID.)

Well, I'm sure that many would love to hear your theory on how this is a false dichotomy. My opinion is that we have only two choices, either everything came about by natural causes, or there was an intelligent agent. Would you care to add some other options?

ID does not exclusively rely on falsification of the ToE to be proven, but since they are mutually exclusive, it does form a part of proving it by the impossibility of the contrary.

It seems to me that there are two options: either everything is intelligently designed or not everything is intelligently designed. So far, it seems that the shaky concept of irreducible complexity is the basis for determination of design. If I survive a haircut, I would suppose that would mean I was reducibly complex, and thus, not necessarily intelligently designed.

I'm not sure what your surviving a haircut has to do with IC. Care to elaborate?

If people aren't intelligently designed, what is? Thus, I doubt irreducible complexity is the best basis for intelligent design.

There are many examples of ID quoted in literature. Why don't you define IC as you understand it, because somehow I'm not sure we have a common understanding of what it means.

I think that's as far as I can go without a better understanding of the definition. It would help me to know if irreducible complexity is a necessary or sufficient component of intelligent design. If it is sufficient, what other sufficient components are there? (I still don't understand the "lack of an evolutionary pathway" statement, which I still see as presumptuous of a dichotomy.) I really want to flesh this out so we can discuss this in depth in class and really give ID the credit and representation it deserves.

I doubt that we can get into the serious details here (my time constraints), but I can quote some of the more advanced studies if you think it would help. In addition to IC, there is also specified complexity and morphological novelty.

The problem is that Dembski is projecting; he's asserting that his subjective perceptions are, in fact, attributes of the item. They are not.

I do know what you're talking about...shows how much use an intro to psychology was...

a chair can be used as a seat, but also as a weapon, a weight, a door jam, a paper clip (for extraordinarily large sheets of paper, etc, etc...

But I don't see how it detracts from the argument. And I don't see why you're allowed to get away with it, but nobody else (to resurrect the gall bladder and pinky (toe?) statements of yours.

In case you are interested, Cooties, here is a secular organization dedicated to the ID movement: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

Thanks for the response. Just a couple of really quick comments, since you've addressed something to me.

August wrote:

You have taken a definitional sufficiency position on the role of irreducible complexity. What you wrote was that if it is irreducibly complex, then it is designed. This argument is useful for determining inclusivity, but not exclusivity (i.e., for deterimining what is not intelligently designed). A definitional necessity statement would read: If it is designed, then it is irreducibly complex. Would you agree that that is true?

I cvannot find any disagreement with that, but it may just be an issue of what the question is. Designers re-use parts and subsystems all the time, so if we look at any system, we will find things there that have uses other than in that system. Of course, we then get back at the point where it all starts, in the case of biology, what is the origin of life?

Neither ID nor the theory of evolution attempt to explain the origin of life. That question is off-topic.

The current status of our Universe is highly improbable if one were to have specified at the outset this exact set-up. In other words, the probability of getting any complex system is nearly infinitely higher than getting a particular complex system. This is one of nearly infinitely many complex systems that could have been produced. I don't see a reason to assume that anyone specified that this and only this set of infinite parameters would count as a successful complexity.

August wrote:The question of inclusivity vs exclusivity seems to be addressed by probability.

It is not. Probability is expressed on an infinitely graduated continuum from 0 to 1. (Of course, you can also express it as a ratio between any two real numbers, so long as you don't divide by zero.) It is still wholly unclear where a researcher should draw the line between complex and too complex.

August wrote:I have not seen any absolute measures for what is designed vs what is not, it is rather determined by what is the probability of a system being the result of naturalistic mechanisms or not.

The lack of objective (or absolute) measures bespeaks the untestability of the claims. It can't be tested until the terms are objectively defined. Heck, it's a theory of intelligent design and the major proponents still don't have a way to determine what counts as "designed" and what doesn't? I'm a statistician. You can take my word for it (or contact me offline for an explanation) that the probabilities you mention here are wholly incalculable. You would have to know the nature, location, and velocity of every particle in the Universe. You would also have to know that this specific permutation of matter and energy was the intended permutation and that other permutations would not have been complex. You would have to be able to determine how many other complex permutations were possible that might also have appeared to be intelligently designed. Of course, that's all moot if we lack an objective rule to distinguish between designed and not designed. I hope someone will let me know when they finish calculating all the possible permutations of mass and energy as well as the number of permutations that would be complex, but would differ from this complex permutation.

When the Wright brothers set out to create a flying machine, there were any number of complex designs that would have been successful. They could have built an F-18. They could have built a Piper Cub. They could have built a Boeing 777. They could have built any number of other complex designs we have yet to create. Had they created an AV8 Harrier, it is doubtful that someone would have said, "Sorry fellas; that's not the type of complexity I specified." Thus, a nearly infinite number of complex designs would have been successful. Likewise, there is a nearly infinite number of complex ways of arranging the contents of the Universe. There is no reason to assume that someone specified at the beginning of the Universe (or maybe just the beginning of life on Earth) that only this specific Universal permutation would count as the right complex design.

Just because something works really well for a purpose doesn't mean it was intended for that purpose. Ever hammer in a tent stake with a rock? It works pretty well. Is that the primary function of a rock? I guess it depends on whether or not you need a hammer. This concept of functional intent is worthless, untestable, and unnecessary. Function is a perception, not a percept.

August wrote:After all, gentically imperfect organisms do breed, they just don't survive.

This presupposes some idea of genetic perfection. Most organisms are genetically unique. Mutations that do not impede reproductive success are, by definition, at least as likely as other genes to be passed along to offspring.

August wrote:It also does not answer another question, how do those mutations accumulate in a complete biocosm so as to have an effect on a population rather than an individual? If those mutations were to accumulate and later on form a beneficial function, it would have to survive and similarly develop over multiple generations in a population, and then somehow have a combined effect in one common ancestor to then spread via the other naturalistic mechanisms to the population.

I would say "at least one common ancestor". It really only takes one to pass along a given allele frequency and the trait has taken root.

August wrote:I have not seen any evidence for this in the couple of experiments I have read about, fruit flies and e-coli. Over multiple thousands of generations with extraordinary environmental circumstances, there was no changes to the morphology or any increases in complexity.

Nevermind technical speciation of a mule, one example is the undirected emergence of two new species in the last 50 years: Tragopogon mirus and Tragopogon miscellus.

Roose and Gottlieb, 1976, Genetic and Biochemical Consequences of Polyploidy in Tragopogon, Evolution 30: 818 - 830

August wrote:Improbable is a long way from impossible, but then, as you stated, we are discussing probability.

You are asserting the role of probability in determining what is or is not "too complex" to be explained by natural causes. I do not pretend to know the extent of the "abilities" of nature as you seem to.

August wrote:At what point does something become so improbable that it is considered impossible?

By definition, when the probability reaches 0. In any case, I've already reviewed the fact that these are incalculable probabilities.

August wrote:And while there may have been many opportunities for this to happen, it had to happen many millions of times.

And about how many times would you say cells have reproduced in the last 15 billion years?

August wrote:

ncooty wrote:What's something that has no evolutionary pathway leading to the system? (Again, this seems to state a dichotomous decision implicitly: either evolution can explain it or ID must be right. I would argue that this is a false dichotomy. Moreover, I don't understand why we keep getting dragged back into a reliance on falsification of evolutionary theory as a way to support ID.)

Well, I'm sure that many would love to hear your theory on how this is a false dichotomy. My opinion is that we have only two choices, either everything came about by natural causes, or there was an intelligent agent. Would you care to add some other options?

There are a number of logical problems here. First, you have implicitly equated my statement of evolutionary theory with "natural causes". There are many other theories of natural causation besides a Darwinian (or even neo-Darwinian perspective). You just don't hear much about them, because there is so much evidence for evolution. One alternative is Lamarck.

Second, if you are attempting to present a dual lemma tautology (which you must if you intend to present a non-false dichotomy), you would have to say that everything came about by natural or non-natural causes. I don't see a logical basis for assuming the non-natural cause is intelligent. It could be an omnipotent idiot.

August wrote:ID does not exclusively rely on falsification of the ToE to be proven, but since they are mutually exclusive, it does form a part of proving it by the impossibility of the contrary.

I would argue that if ID is a scientific theory, ID advocates should adopt a more scientific vocabulary and stop making statements about proving theories. Any trained scientist knows that theories can either be supported or disproved, but not proved. I've read a few archival posts from people who don't believe ID and the ToE are mutaully exclusive. Personally, I don't yet see that the theory is viable on its own, much less better than some other theory.

August wrote:

ncooty wrote:It seems to me that there are two options: either everything is intelligently designed or not everything is intelligently designed. So far, it seems that the shaky concept of irreducible complexity is the basis for determination of design. If I survive a haircut, I would suppose that would mean I was reducibly complex, and thus, not necessarily intelligently designed.

I'm not sure what your surviving a haircut has to do with IC. Care to elaborate?

Sure. Sorry about that. My hair is a part of my body. If I cut off some of my hair, I doubt an ID advocate would say that I no longer fulfilled my primary function (which, I would argue, is solely a perception). Thus, anyone who gets a haircut, sheds an eyelash, clips a fingernail, etc. and doesn't die (or lose the ability to procreate) must be reducibly complex, and thus, not intelligently designed. The same would hold for geckos (because they can lose their tails and survive), monkeys (because you can shave them or they can lose a tooth and they survive), flies, trees that lose their leaves... oh heck, anything.

Earlier you agreed that if a thing is intelligently designed, it is irreducibly complex. You also earlier wrote that if a thing is irreducibly complex, it is intelligently designed. If that's the case, then not only are all plants and animals not intelligently designed, cities aren't intelligently designed. Remember the Dembski example that cities are not irreducibly complex?

Cities are things.
If a thing is intelligently designed, it is irreducibly complex.
Cities are not irreducibly complex.
Therefore, cities are not intelligently designed. (modus tolens)

You can substitute apparently anything for "cities" and that seems to work. It works for plants and animals (including people).

August wrote:

ncooty wrote: If people aren't intelligently designed, what is? Thus, I doubt irreducible complexity is the best basis for intelligent design.

There are many examples of ID quoted in literature. Why don't you define IC as you understand it, because somehow I'm not sure we have a common understanding of what it means.

The early part of this thread dealt in part with my logical/epistemological problems with the concept of irreducible complexity. You can add to that the concept of specified complexity. In a nutshell, irreducible complexity is a condition in which removal of any element from an object renders that object incapable of performing its primary function. Hair is an element of my body (as were my wisdom teeth, numerous fingernail clippings, etc.), yet I have maintained the ability to live and procreate despite having had many haircuts.

Specified complexity is similar in its unsubstantiated necessitation of specification of only one permutation as successful. There is no reason I've read to assume that this Universal permutation was specified at the beginning of time as the goal of the Universe. That's untestable and unsubstantiated (not to mention incredulously narcissistic).

August wrote:I doubt that we can get into the serious details here (my time constraints), but I can quote some of the more advanced studies if you think it would help. In addition to IC, there is also specified complexity and morphological novelty.

I thank you for all your help and comments. I found them to be insightful and helpful in thinking through the issue. I sincerely appreciate it. Whatever differences might remain between our opinions, I respect your opinions.

If you'd like to post other resources, my students and I might appreciate it. Thanks again for taking the time to respond.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

The problem is that Dembski is projecting; he's asserting that his subjective perceptions are, in fact, attributes of the item. They are not.

I do know what you're talking about...shows how much use an intro to psychology was...

a chair can be used as a seat, but also as a weapon, a weight, a door jam, a paper clip (for extraordinarily large sheets of paper, etc, etc...

But I don't see how it detracts from the argument. And I don't see why you're allowed to get away with it, but nobody else (to resurrect the gall bladder and pinky (toe?) statements of yours.

I think you and I agree.

If we are too determine whether or not something is irreducibly complex, we have to determine if we can remove elements from the thing to see if it can still perform its primary function. Thus, we have to know the primary function of a thing to determine whether or not it is irreducibly complex.

As we've both now pointed out, different items can have many different uses. A rock and a wrench can both be used as a hammer. A stool can be a fire escape tool. Sheets tied together can make a rope. In other words, things don't have functions that are inherent in them. We use things according to our needs. Thus, the purpose or function of any thing is just whatever I deem it to be.

On PBS, there's a show called "Ask This Old House". The contractors who work on the show always present a unique tool at the end of the show. They take turns making up uses for the tool and the last guy says what the tool was designed to do. Unless we assume there is a God and can look into His or Her mind, we're like the other contractors without the last guy to tell us what something was really intended to do.

The function or purpose of any thing is in the eye of the beholder. Thus, we can't base an assessment of an object (i.e., its irreducible complexity or not) on our perception of its purpose. Our perceptions are not necessarily consistent or correct. Moreover, they are not a property of the object.

We can say how well the object does this or that, but there's nothing to say that we know what the object was intended to do, or that it was ever intended to do anything in particular. Maybe it just is.

Ark~Magic wrote:In case you are interested, Cooties, here is a secular organization dedicated to the ID movement: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

Thanks for the link.

It is a little strange that the touted publication of the managing editors was published in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly. It doesn't sound like a top-tier journal. (Peer reviewed? It doesn't really matter that much, the paper wasn't empirical anyway.) I'm also going to guess that publication wouldn't consider itself secular, per se.

Also, the first line of that paper is a quote from Sir Francis Bacon about how science brings you closer to God. (Try getting that past reviewers in Science, Cell, or any other well respected journal. It won't happen.)

Most of their external links go to very religiously based sites.

Maybe you and I have different definitions of "secular".

In any case, I'll let the students know. Thanks again and take care.

I have noticed this for a long time, but when someone claims they have degrees, or is a professor/teacher, or really anything, how do we know for a fact they are really telling the truth of what they profess in? I would assume that individual to be listed on a website from a university with credentials. In this case for ncooty, he has clearly came here to "learn" about ID and be "open" to it, however posts show a different side to that story. I would reckon he came here to see what WE think about it even if he has known about it before, which I would suspect he would since he is so quick to jump on ID and attack it and say it isn't a scientifically plausible theory. You know, a lot of people can tell us what they have experience in, and not really have much at all but people to help that individual send rebuttals to the opponents. Also cut and pasting plus some modifications here and there with assistance from other people would help as well.

Well guys and gals, my fellow believers, I guess we are all wrong and ncooty is right, I guess the universe was designed for a purpose but not for that purpose, I guess evolution pretty much disproves God.

Ncooty, no matter what other people have done and thanked them for it, you are quick to jump on them and tell them they are wrong, that the links provided are bad, face it, the world is biased. How long have we been debating this stupid evolution vs. creation vs. ID now? Is it getting us anywhere? I don't think so, does it change someones mind about something over the internet, maybe, but it might be more effective in person, but even that could backfire.

From what I have seen, you love to debate, who doesn't, but yet, as a claimed professor, why wouldn't you know about ID if it has been all over the media? I get the feeling that again, you came here to se what we had to say, kind of like getting a second opinion on something - Going to a different source, starting out saying I need help with something (which you have already been provided the answers prior), an seeing what we say, therefore, in my opinion, it will further drive you to more disbelief (I would assume atheist anyways).

Look, if you don't believe in God whichever way "He'" created, so be it. You cannot disprove God, our only proof of God is 1.) Through the Bible from God directly and 2.) Through the Bible in which Jesus even said there was a God, that that God was the same as Him in nature. Double verification . But of course, you could disbelieve the Bible anyways, but before you do, http://www.tektonics.org is a great website to start on the historical evidence/proof of the Bible. And through the exhaustive research from this website claiming the Jesus did indeed exist as well as Him telling the truth, confirms that God exists. If it wasn't so, why does so much spectacular things happen to billions of people? What convinced a bitter atheist to turn to God without the help of someone who wanted him to read the Bible, and have a great fulfilling life, more so over an atheist (if an atheists life actually is very fulfilling, which in my brothers case, not so)?

The function or purpose of any thing is in the eye of the beholder. Thus, we can't base an assessment of an object (i.e., its irreducible complexity or not) on our perception of its purpose. Our perceptions are not necessarily consistent or correct. Moreover, they are not a property of the object.

My thing is, can this be applied to the structures of a cell? Can you say that cellular structures have a million and one subjective uses, like a two legged stool? And just because you can find a few subjective uses for a structure, does it mean the thing in question could have been built gradually anyway? Also, would any of the other subjective uses, taken alone, have ever been selected? Because not only does a structure need function to be selected, it needs to be beneficial, as well as cross a minimum function threshold so that it affords some benefit to the lucky few that possess it-so what if the flagellum had magically evolved by blind chance, if it turns at 1 RPM, it won't exactly help the bacterium, as it is not powerful enough to offset the fource of Brownian motion.

I already mentioned http://www.reasons.org and http://www.doesgodexist.org were excllent sites, even if they ARE religious. Reasons.org also carries alot of general ID content.

Thinker wrote:Well guys and gals, my fellow believers, I guess we are all wrong and ncooty is right, I guess the universe was designed for a purpose but not for that purpose, I guess evolution pretty much disproves God.

Ncooty was not here to tear down ID and prove it wrong.
He was here to see if the idea had any scientific merit. He didn't even bring up evolution as a counter argument.

There is a difference. An idea can be true yet there may be no empirical methods to determine its plausibility. Thus the idea has no scientific merit.

It's strange that this thread is 7 pages long yet practically every post is defensive and fails to answer the original question. August, of course I am excluding you.

What was this original question?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:What was this original question?

ncooty wrote:What kind of evidence would it take to change the mind of someone who believes in intelligent design?

If advocates of intelligent design cannot state the exact manner of empirical evidence that would disprove such a theory, the theory does not meet the minimum requirements of science.

I did answer that I believe. Oh well, beady eyes.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I did answer that I believe. Oh well, beady eyes.

=P

So it appears you did.