DescentBB

Got some numbers here requested by Stryker, feel free to tear them apart, I could care less

approxomate# of people in the world: 6,000,000,000

limit of mathmatical impossibility: 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

chances of a single small protein forming in the ocean: 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Chances of a single section of DNA forming in a pure bath of protein: 1 in
480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

chances of evolution making a single horse, excluding all other elements: 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

chances of life if there's a creator: 1 in 1

Heartless out

Heh, I can't tell if you're being funny on purpose or not! I do like those numbers, though. Particularly good is the "limit of mathematical impossibility." Although I can't make sense of the numbers unless you post 'em in scientific notation and provide some units and conditions on them.

The chances of a single protein forming in a vat containing only the correct amino acids in the correct numbers: 1 in 1x10^152 (if one amino acid is out of place, the protein is wose than useless)

# of people in the world: 6 x 10^9

Mathematical limit of impossibility: 1 in 1 x 10^20 (that's 132 zeros less on the end than the chances of the protein forming. Yowch.) The mathematical limit of impossibility is used to determine at what point mathematically the chances of something occurring are so slim that the action occurring by chance is not truly feasible.

Chances of a single section of DNA forming: basically, you have all necessary components of DNA, forced to join together in a non-destructive manner: the chances are 1 in 4.8 x 10^47. Again, if one piece of the puzzle is out of place, the DNA will be worse than useless.

I ain't even gonna try converting the horse number into scientific notation.

The probability game is fine. Homever nature has billions of years spread over billions of galaxies of which each galaxy has billions of stars...time enough and material enough to eventually produce a horse.

[/full derailment]

Ah, serious it is.

The mathematical limit of impossibility looks like it was pulled out of a hat. Scientists know you can't put a number on such a concept, and instead use the term "vanishinly small" or "near zero."

As for the other numbers, let's assume they have any validity (which I don't admit) and that they refer to chances of such events happening within a few billion years (the chances of an event really need to specify time period).

How do these numbers work out if you multiply them by the probable number of M-class planets in the galaxy? And then by the number of galaxies in the universe? And then multiply by the age of the universe? And then factor in all the other universes in the manifold (that last one is a stretch, I admit)?

Of course, all this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. We aren't discussing the creation of life, we're discussing what has happened since. Stryker is doing exactly what Drakona and Lothar are criticizing: muddying the waters of ID by mixing in creationism.

*EDIT* Woodchip beat me to it.

Genghis wrote:Stryker is doing exactly what Drakona and Lothar are criticizing: muddying the waters of ID by mixing in creationism.

Agreed. And he's using made-up numbers to do it, too.

Well, if someone were to consider the origins argument, then note that the (so-called) impossibility of assembly (of a horse, say) from the ocean is a straw-man. No evolutionist states that horses, or whatever, just assemble themselves from raw materials and jump out onto the beach. Obviously ridiculous. And not supported by the geological record.

Where I take issue with strict material evolutionists is when they start developing philosophies out of their sets of scientific observations. Data about any change in evolution, say the transition between Homo erectus to more modern humans, is just that: data. I got the impression in several locations from Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" that his jump off point for concluding that there is no God is just that he couldn't see how it was possible. This is no more compelling to me than when Bible-literal creationists make the point that there must be a God because they just don't see how it is possible for there not to be one.

Folks need to be a lot more humble into the range they assign to their philosophies constructed from their understanding of nature. The history of both religion and science is replete with examples where subsequent discoveries or observations caused reassessment of people's world views.

Darkside: I'm changing your name to "Dimside" because your wattage is rather low. Look, those numbers mean NOTHING. You're totally inaccurate. You're using the old "Spring fully formed to life" argument which has been discounted for decades (Unless you're a young-earther - in which case you also think the Moon is only 6000 years old because it only has 6 inches of dust, and the measurements to support this "fact" were debunked in 1953).

You don't for a second imagine DNA began life containing several million base pairs do you? For goodness sake, RNA came first, and it was very basic. DNA developed from RNA and the first DNA would have been remarkably basic compared to what we see today.

As to ID, well, it's like God really, you can't ever prove it! The "Anthropic Principle" (Weak or Strong) is all that's required to explain why things are the way they are: If they weren't this way, we wouldn't be here to comment on it.

If ID is true - and who knows - it *could* be then it's meaningless, because whosoever (or whatsoever) is smart enough to push life along in such fashion is just a tad smarter than us, and has made it impossible for us to confirm or deny it. It's the same as the young-earthers trying to prove the existence of god: a pointless and stupid exercise: if they succeed, they'll have killed god be dragging him from the realm of faith into the realm of science, and thereafter all that remains is to discover the limits of God and his physical properties in our universe.

It's kinda like in the Matrix: our world *could* be a simulation, but even if it's true, what difference does it make? Unless you can control it, it's a moot point.

Arguing about something which can neither be proved nor disproved is a classic Internet idiocy.

Far more important to my mind, is to continue to strive towards a better theory of evolution. One which can predict what direction populations will take. Only by accurately modelling behaviours in the real universe can we hope to continue advancing human knowledge. Discussing ID doesn't do this, it simply sets faithists against scientists in a non compos mentis argument.

Mobius wrote:Arguing about something which can neither be proved nor disproved is a classic Internet idiocy.

Yet here you are arguing about it...

Good gravy. "Limit of mathematical impossibility"? "Chance of evolution ever making a single horse"??!!?!!!

Look... Speaking as a mathematician, here, there is no such thing as a "limit of mathematical impossibility." There is only a "limit on how many tries you get." Given roughly 6 x 10^18 tries, there are even odds a pre-determined event of probability 10^-20 will occur. Nothing is improbable enough to be impossible, if you get enough (namely ln(.5)/ln(1-p)) tries.

In fact, a quick google search tells me there are about 10^22 stars in the universe. The universe is a big place. If you only got one try at ever star system in the history of the universe, that's still a few orders of magnitude bigger than we need. So certain events with probabilities of 10^-20 are not only possible in this universe, they're actually expected.

And I don't know where you got the "chance of evolution making a horse," but I know it can't be a meaningful calculation. For starters, evolution never set out to make horses. If I flip a penny 20 times and get "THTHHHTTHTHHHTHTTTHT," that's a very unlikely outcome. I'll probably never get it again. But the low probability is nothing to be surprised at because the sequence doesn't mean anything. So, too, horses may just be what happened--unlikely after the fact, but still just one of many individually unlikely things, one of which had to happen. In fact, the hard part of any such ID calculation is not taking the probability, but constructing a reasonable pattern to take the probability of. For example, if I flip a penny and get "T H TT H TTT H TTTT H TTTTT H TTTTTT H ..." that's a cool pattern, and if the probability gets low enough, I can infer something fishy about the penny. But how "cool" is that pattern, really? Is it only one of an infinite number of patterns I might observe? It's definitely "cooler" than the random-looking sequence above, but how much cooler? How do you account for it, exactly? Such things are hard to say, even on such toy problems as penny-tosses. You'd need such an evaluation here: what's "special" about the horse, exactly, that makes a probability calculation meaningful? That is where the difficult work in such a calculation is done.

Even beyond that, making an actual calculation of how likely a particular animal is to arise by evolution is simply impossible, in all but the most constrained and generous models. An actual calculation would require a lot of information about the environment and the starting animal and the possible functional paths between the genes of one and the genes of the other. And there simply is nobody with that much information about such ancient history.

In short, without the calculations and models they come from, those numbers are meaningless as saying the radius of the earth is 250.

Lothar wrote:

Mobius wrote:Arguing about something which can neither be proved nor disproved is a classic Internet idiocy.

Yet here you are arguing about it...

Mobius isn't arguing either way. He is discussing both sides.

The chances of proteins spontaneously forming in the ocean today may be low, I don't know. But in the past it may not have been that way:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/en ... o53am.html

In the above experiment, running electrical discharges (similar to lightning) through a mix of chemicals similar to the early earth's ocean and atmosphere spontaneously forms amino acids, which are the building blocks of life as we know it.

So it looks like some of the building blocks were available in the ancient ocean, how likely is it that they might be combined in a form that is self replicating? Perhaps not very likely, in a single vat in a laboratory. But we're talking about an ocean here, thats like billions of lab vats. Suppose the chances are 1 in 1000 billion that in a weeks time you might get a self replicating chemical structure from a vat of early ocean material. Something very simple and unsophisticated, a machine that organizes the free amino acids and compounds into a structure that makes more of itself. Since you have a million (very conservatively) lab vats, then the probability over a weeks time is more like 1 in a million maybe. Now conduct your trials over a million years. Thats 52 million weeks. Your self replicating structure is now a 1.0 probability. Need more time? Take another million years. Or 100 million. No rush!

What happens when a self replicating structure is finally created? Even if it multiplies excruciatingly slowly by the standards of today's bacteria, it is still an exponential process. In geologic time, the oceans are full of the structure in an instant. At this point, things start to really move; evolution takes place. A different self replicating structure is produced by chance from among the mind boggling numbers of structures that fill the oceans, and soon a variety of new structures exist. Eventually these structures are integrated together into more complex structures that are composites; a cell wall surrounding some replicating proteins, for instance, that keeps foreign replicators out.

So anyway, the point is that massive numbers and inconceivable lengths of time can not only make the improbable probable, but inevitable. And once you have self replicating chemicals, you instantly have zillions of them, and those tremendous numbers form a basis for the formation of new structures and combinations.

From observations from Saturns moon Titan:

"With a thick, nitrogen-rich atmosphere,
possible oceans and a tar-like soil,
Titan is thought to harbor organic
compounds that may be important in
the chain of chemistry that led to life
on Earth."

"Spectroscopic observations by Voyagerâ??s
infrared spectrometer revealed
traces of ethane, propane, acetylene
and other organic molecules in addition
to methane. These organic compounds,
known as hydrocarbons, are
produced by the interaction of solar
ultraviolet light and electrons from Saturnâ??s
fast-rotating magnetosphere striking
Titanâ??s atmosphere."

Since organic compounds can form on Titans surface, even though the environment is guite cold, how long under the addition of proper temperature would it take for some form of simple life to form there. Maybe not horses, but surely single cell life.

Foil wrote:I just wanted to say how much I appreciate a truly reasonable discussion of the topic. When I saw the first post, I thought, "Oh, no... this is gonna dissolve into a classic creation/evolution fracas (with all the usual irrational attacks and arguments from both sides)." I have been very pleasantly surprised, thank you all!

I just came back from over the weekend... I may have to take the above statement back.

Geez, everybody... I know it's an in-depth topic, and there's a lot to read in this thread. But before you post, take the time to read it. I have.

I think you'll find that Lothar and Drakona have given an excellent summary of what "I.D." is and what it isn't; they've given numerous examples, and even pointed out some of its relative strengths and weaknesses.

If you're going to post something along the lines of "ID proves my beliefs about [origin of life/existence of God/etc.]!" or "IDers are just out to bash my beliefs about [origin of life/existence of God/etc.]", you need to go back and read (not skim) the thread from the beginning.

(BTW, Drakona, I'd be interested in seeing that counter-example you mentioned)

Thanks for the response to my previous post, Drakona. Another question (I am more concerned with ID as science than as a philosophy). In Theory of Science (or how it is called in English) i learned that the value of a scientific theory depends on
(1) if it is falsifiable (bad theories are not)
(2) if the theory inspires new experiments, insights and technological advancements

From my laymans perspective, ID does not fare well on both counts. Regarding (1) you can never disprove that any object/organism/whatever was NOT created by a creator (altough you *could* show that there are other explanations next to an intelligent designer).
(2) the only insights (other than 'it was created by a designer') are those that arise from experiments conducted to argue against notions of a creator as the only possible explanation.

Pandora wrote:(1) if it is falsifiable (bad theories are not)
(2) if the theory inspires new experiments, insights and technological advancements

From my laymans perspective, ID does not fare well on both counts. Regarding (1) you can never disprove that any object/organism/whatever was NOT created by a creator (altough you *could* show that there are other explanations next to an intelligent designer).
(2) the only insights (other than 'it was created by a designer') are those that arise from experiments conducted to argue against notions of a creator as the only possible explanation.

(1) Recall that a design inference is a claim of the form "this did not come about through natural law or random activity, and therefore, has to have been designed." Such claims are easily falsifiable -- just demonstrate the relevant natural law or random activity. For example, if someone claimed snowflakes had to be designed because their symmetries wouldn't come about through natural law, you could refute that claim if you could show a natural process that would lead to snowflakes being shaped the way they are.

You couldn't show that it definitely wasn't designed, but you could show that it could've not been designed, which would falsify the claim that it *had to be* designed.

(2) It seems to me "this was designed" would count as an insight. Also, in some realms (such as forensics) that insight would lead to new experiments -- if you determined someone was killed intentionally, for example, the police investigation will be much different than if you determined it was an accident.

If you guys don't already know, our dear Darkside Heartless is none other then our infamous "meathead". You know, the same guy that brought us the great "I can disprove Evolution" thread. Posts are to be taken with a grain of salt.

Foil wrote:BTW, Drakona, I'd be interested in seeing that counter-example you mentioned.

Well, it'd only be meaningful to you if you're familiar with the technical specifics of Dembski's method. It's an intuitively stupid example demonstrating that one of the conditions--CINDE or TRACT--isn't doing its job, and needs to be made a tighter restriction. Attempts to repair the method to account for the example nicely reveal a deep problem with the difficulty of specification.

Essentially, the act of specification is saying that a pattern is meaningful or "cool". For Dembski, technically speaking, this means that a mind could formulate it easily from probabilistically independant information. But if you think for a moment, you'll realize that that isn't enough: you can easily formulate arbitrarily complicated (yet meaningless) pattens from information that's probabilitically independant of the event in question; you just need to be clever enough with the information. Dembski himself realizes this, and supposes that nonetheless we don't have enough information to do this. At least in this one example, though, we do. And anyway, relying on the stupidity of the observer is not a good route to secure knowledge. From an intuitive perspective (and from a technical one, trying to repair the method to account for the example), what's needed is some sort of accounting for the complexity of the information/pattern. And that's a very tricky thing. In the end, saying a pattern is "complicated" isn't any easier than saying it's "meaningful."

If you're familiar with Dembski's method, I can show you the example in full rigorous detail, saying what's E and what's H and what's I and verifying CINDE and TRACT and all that good stuff. I've got it written up and all worked out, somewhere on my computer. But I haven't published it with the relevant academic community or had it verified or any of that good stuff... I've got some ideas I want to develop a little more fully, first.


Pandora:

Any inference to an explanation--be it design, chance or law--will both constrict and direct further research.

Suppose, for example, that an alien probe crash-lands on earth, and when we look at it we see all sorts of machinery and gadgetry. If we make a design inference--that is, assume it was built by intelligent aliens--we'll look for purposes and fuctions of the thing. We'll try to figure out what the machines are for, why the probe is shaped the way it is, etc., in terms of things intelligent beings do (communicate, navigate, etc.) We'll pursue answers to the questions "Who built this?" and "Why did they build it?"

On the other hand, if we make a natural law inference--i.e., we assume the machinery is the result of predictable natural processes, like we do with a lot of biological machinery--we'll look for naturalistic theories to explain the origin of the probe (self-organizational theories to explain the shape of the probe, advantages the machines might serve in self-replication or securing resources.)

On the third hand, if we make a chance inference--i.e., we assume the machine is simply a result of chance, a random conglmeration of materials--we won't investigate functions at all. We'll assume it has none. We'll instead speculate about its origins based on the relative abundance of materials in it, and look for natural processes that would combine those materials in those ways.

Either way, our assumptions both constrict and direct research: they cause us to ask certain questions and pursue certain theories, while ignoring others as meaningless and probably unfruitful. If we assume the probe is designed, it makes no sense to ask "What random or natural process could form metal into a tube like this?" We assume an alien did it--that's a pointless thing to pursue. On the other hand, if we assume the probe is natural, it makes no sense to ask, "What purpose does the probe serve, overall?" It doesn't. Nobody made it for a purpose, it just is.

This is the case with biological science in general: if we make a design inference, we will ask, "Who made this and why?" and assume every part has a purpose; if we make a natural-law inference, we will ask questions like, "how did this come about?" and "What made this function the way it does?" In general, a correct initial assessment of the cause of something will cause us to ask better questions and lead to more fruitful theories.

In general, you start with provisional assumptions about the natural/supernatural origin of something, and proceed to investigate how it functions. As time goes on, your initial assumption is either strengthened with a fruitful theory or rendered unlikely by a stagnant theory. That's how falsification of such historical origins claims really takes place--not on the "lab test" level, but on the explanative level. If you find something clearly designed--say, a hatchet--and you proceed under naturalistic assumptions, you'll have a stagnant theory: How *did* rock get chipped into such a perfect circle? What on the earth could cause a strip of rawhide to wrap itself around a handle like that, and tie off in a perfect square knot? Eventually you'll be won over by an appealing alternative theory: the thing clearly serves a purpose, and assuming design answers a lot of construction questions. Alternatively, if you find something clearly not designed -- say, a funny shaped rock -- and you make the wrong inference, you'll again wind up with a stagnant theory. So, what exactly is this thing for--is it a paperweight? Are there any features or marks on it that would be good for anything? Any indication as to who made it? Any methods of human production that could make such a thing? Eventually you'll be won over by the more appealing naturalistic alternative: the thing clearly is the result of fracture and erosion, and that alleviates the difficult "purpose" questions that are coming up empty.

You make a provisional assumption, do some research... and if you say, "Uh, buh, hum... I dunno" enough times, you might be won over to an alternative.

I don't really understand where these probabilities are coming from, but I wouldn't expect to because I don't have any experience in that field. But nonetheless, I'm curious.

Take for instance this post. Given the ASCII character set, there are 8 bits per character, ergo 2^8=256 possible characters, and thus, as I keep rambling on, the chances of me posting this post would appear to be 256^n, where n is the number of characters used. The odds of this post coming to realization is slim to nil, possibly fitting the criteria of the "mathematically impossible" posted earlier. Regardless, I'm posting it.

I'd think that, instead, a more general look would be more appropriate. The possibly of the chances of me posting a post at all would seem to be more useful knowledge. Likewise, I think that narrowly looking at the way that life did theoretically naturally evolve as the only way life could have naturally evolved is an incorrect approach. I would think that there are an infinite number of unimaginable kinds and types of life that we could not even begin to understand, simply because we are the type of life that we are.

In other words, I think that a more useful question is, what are the chances of life evolving, not the chances of our life evolving. Although the former question is impossible to answer, I don't think that it is approprate to substitute it with the latter.

Lothar wrote:Recall that a design inference is a claim of the form "this did not come about through natural law or random activity, and therefore, has to have been designed." Such claims are easily falsifiable -- just demonstrate the relevant natural law or random activity. For example, if someone claimed snowflakes had to be designed because their symmetries wouldn't come about through natural law, you could refute that claim if you could show a natural process that would lead to snowflakes being shaped the way they are..

ahh... but I was more concerned with ID (as applied to nature) as a whole paradigm. My worry is that the whole idea was impossible to be falsified. If, for instance, the Flagellum can be shown to be 'not designed', IDers can always retreat to the next phenomenon. This does not work with most theories. (but I am quite aware evolutionary theory seems to be an exception).

But if your above idea is taken seriously, then it makes much sense for IDers to decouple the theory from the idea of Christianity. Assume that more and more phenomena will sooner or later be explaned in evolutionary terms or in terms of natural laws, and the idea of ID as a whole get's falsified (just because ID cannot provide lasting a lasting list of 'miracles'). Such an outcome would be really bad marketing for Christianity.

Drakona wrote:Either way, our assumptions both constrict and direct research: they cause us to ask certain questions and pursue certain theories, while ignoring others as meaningless and probably unfruitful.

(...)

This is the case with biological science in general: if we make a design inference, we will ask, "Who made this and why?" and assume every part has a purpose; if we make a natural-law inference, we will ask questions like, "how did this come about?" and "What made this function the way it does?" In general, a correct initial assessment of the cause of something will cause us to ask better questions and lead to more fruitful theories..

If I understood you right (2 am here, so I'm not taking it for granted), there are two types of insights you can draw: (1) about the function of the phenomenon, and (2) about the 'intentions' or the nature of the designer. I can see how this helps shaping one's view of the world (although (2) seems to be problematic from what I know about Christianity --- isn't it the case that you should make yourself an image of the creator, or something similar?).

Still, it seems to me that the conclusion 'it was created' is somewhat of a dead end. Just imagine, we wouldn't have had the science that we did have the last centuries. Every miracle accepted as it is, without further inquiries whether there are further natural causes that mankind could learn about. Or would IDers then ask *how* it was created, which natural forces the designer utilized to bring about the phenomenon?

If they would not:
For instance, if we wouldn't have had biology, then we wouldn't probably know about DNA, among others, and many cures would be missing. That was a quite concrete technological advancement that sprang from biology. I cannot see how ID could have provided something similar.

If they would:
then i cannot see, how ID differs from biology other than that it has a teleological perspective. ID would say, there are mice, because the creator saw that cats need something to eat. Evolutionary theorists would say, cats were there and mice were there, togehter with other organisms they formed a stable system, that keeped each of the alive over the generations.
Functionally, both theories seem to be identical. So I do not see how ID would be an improvement.

[I realize, however, that i am arguing from quite a biased perspective. I assume that ID is 'not true', and that there would never be instances where the 'came about by chance'-explanations would not work.]

Pandora wrote:

Lothar wrote:Recall that a design inference is a claim [that is] falsifiable...

ahh... but I was more concerned with ID (as applied to nature) as a whole paradigm. My worry is that the whole idea was impossible to be falsified.

I refer you to my quotes in the other thread, about falsifying "science" or "religion"...

Essentially: you can't falsify paradigms, you can only falsify claims those paradigms make. You can't falsify ID as a whole, in the same way as you can't falsify science as a whole, or some branch of science like physics. You can't just say "physics is false"; you have to say "these results in physics are false".

If, for instance, the Flagellum can be shown to be 'not designed', IDers can always retreat to the next phenomenon.

Of course -- just like, if a particular individual result in physics is shown to be false, there are still thousands of other individual results. You can't falsify the whole paradigm, only the individual results.

Now, if you falsify enough results, eventually it becomes clear the methodology is inadequate or the paradigm is missing something. This is the same for any whole science -- if chemistry continually gave bad results, eventually we'd stop trusting chemists until they were able to repair their methodology.

it makes much sense for IDers to decouple the theory from the idea of Christianity.

Not all ID people are Christians -- Frank Tipler, for example, is a big name in ID who doesn't believe in the supernatural. James Barham is something akin to a humanist. There are also plenty of Jews, Deists, etc. in the movement.

I think they should make a stronger effort to decouple ID from both Christianity and evolution, in the minds of the public (which is something I've been trying to do all thread.) Because they're most often mentioned by uneducated creationists, that's who they get associated with, but that's not who they are.

Assume ... the idea of ID as a whole get's falsified... really bad marketing for Christianity.

No worse than the average Creationist posting their list of 101 reasons why evolution is false ;) Though, again, I refer you to my comments on falsifying whole paradigms vs. falsifying results.

Pandora wrote:

Drakona wrote:our assumptions both constrict and direct research...
we will ask, "Who made this and why?" and assume every part has a purpose [or] we will ask questions like, "how did this come about?" and "What made this function the way it does?"

there are two types of insights you can draw: (1) about the function of the phenomenon, and (2) about the 'intentions' or the nature of the designer.

Also (3) about the natural causes of the phenomenon.

although (2) seems to be problematic from what I know about Christianity --- isn't it the case that you should make yourself an image of the creator

There's a prohibition against making material things to worship. There's no prohibition against trying to understand and/or study the creator, though.

it seems to me that the conclusion 'it was created' is somewhat of a dead end.

In some cases, perhaps. In many cases, though, insight about the creator / designer is what you really want (like, if you're studying crime, or studying an intercepted communication.)

Every miracle accepted as it is, without further inquiries...

Uh... no. That's not the point of ID (though the uneducated creationists who latch on to it might treat it this way.)

i cannot see, how ID differs from biology other than that it has a teleological perspective.

ID is a broader paradigm. It's not restricted to biology. I'm repeating myself here. I shouldn't have to say this as many times as I have.

ID would say, there are mice, because the creator saw that cats need something to eat.

You're mistaking ID for "uneducated creationists"... that's not at all what ID is. Did you read the first page of this thread? I still feel like I'm having to repeat things I said in my first couple of posts... please take the time to read (not skim) what's already been said.

Functionally, both theories seem to be identical.

Not really...

I assume that ID is 'not true', and that there would never be instances where the 'came about by chance'-explanations would not work.

What about if you saw scrabble tiles that spelled out "Descent bulletin board"? That's a pretty clear instance where "came about by chance" doesn't work; obviously the arrangement of tiles came about because some intelligence intended for it to come about.

Now, if you're saying "ID would never be true when applied to biology", well, again, you're repeating a discussion we've already had half a dozen times in this thread. As I've said before, ID is far too underdeveloped to even be applied to the biological sciences -- but I do hope, if it gets that strong and starts producing results, that you'll evaluate them on their own merits. And remember, the idea of ID is not confined to biology -- it might try to make biological claims, but it's bigger than that. In some cases (like with the scrabble tiles above) it's clearly the right paradigm.

First of all, let me mention that you really do a great job of explaining what ID is about. My simplistic picture has been changed a lot.

Lothar wrote:Essentially: you can't falsify paradigms, you can only falsify claims those paradigms make. You can't falsify ID as a whole, in the same way as you can't falsify science as a whole, or some branch of science like physics. You can't just say "physics is false"; you have to say "these results in physics are false".

agreed. My use of the word paradigm was not correct. But, again, not only results but theories can be falsified --- or am i totally mistaken here?

Of course -- just like, if a particular individual result in physics is shown to be false, there are still thousands of other individual results. You can't falsify the whole paradigm, only the individual results.

Do you really think that ID is on the same conceptual level as physics or biology? Up till now I have seen it as one theory in BIology. Drakona said above that it was "bigger" than that, but I am not convinced that ID is a paradigm in its own right. You could argue that it can also be applied to other fields of research (forensics, alien life were mentioned). But is it not just the methodology that is applied thtere?

Not all ID people are Christians -- Frank Tipler, for example, is a big name in ID who doesn't believe in the supernatural. James Barham is something akin to a humanist. There are also plenty of Jews, Deists, etc. in the movement.

Yeah, I know (from the posts above)...

I think they should make a stronger effort to decouple ID from both Christianity and evolution, in the minds of the public (which is something I've been trying to do all thread.) Because they're most often mentioned by uneducated creationists, that's who they get associated with, but that's not who they are.

Agreed. Be assured that I do not throw in ID with 'uneducated creatonists'. I find the research question 'can you say that something is designed' quite daunting and interesting.

Also (3) about the natural causes of the phenomenon.

Why that? From the methodology outlined above (Drakona's post), I cannot see how you can draw inferences about the natural causes... You could say that not finding a "cool" pattern suggests natural causes, but this is arguing with a "null-effect", as we say, and not really strong evidence. Please elaborate.

There's a prohibition against making material things to worship. There's no prohibition against trying to understand and/or study the creator, though.

ouch, really? hmm... not even in the Old Testament? I am sure I heard it somewhere.

it seems to me that the conclusion 'it was created' is somewhat of a dead end.

In some cases, perhaps. In many cases, though, insight about the creator / designer is what you really want (like, if you're studying crime, or studying an intercepted communication.)

agreed.
And, funnily, i also thought that ID might have many things in common with Cryptoanalysis (or how it is called).

i cannot see, how ID differs from biology other than that it has a teleological perspective.

ID is a broader paradigm. It's not restricted to biology. I'm repeating myself here. I shouldn't have to say this as many times as I have.

I know, i know. We have a slight misunderstanding here. I haven't claimed that it *was* restricted to Biology. I am just particularly interested about ID's possible contributions to Biology.

ID would say, there are mice, because the creator saw that cats need something to eat.

You're mistaking ID for "uneducated creationists"... that's not at all what ID is. Did you read the first page of this thread? I still feel like I'm having to repeat things I said in my first couple of posts... please take the time to read (not skim) what's already been said.

heh, cut me some slack. I am quite aware that the above example was overly simplified. But you said that, for instance, chance/mutation might have been at work in evolution, but that the selection was done by the designer. I thought this was quite in line with the simplified example of cats and mice.
You also said above (on the first page) that the designer might have utilized natural forces --- I don't know if you refer to this, but if you do, this doesn't undermine my claim. Even if IDers would investigate such potential natural forces, i have the feeling that they have a lower threshold for saying 'that's enough' than, say, physicists whose fame rests on discovering new natural forces.
The point also is that humans are really bad at disproving something (there were some quite convincing paper on this). They are much better at verificational testing. Therefore, the mindset of an IDer would not really contribute to finding explanations in terms of natural laws.

Not really...

Could you elaborate on this a bit? Why are the two theories of cats and mice are not functionally equivalent? (please with regard to evolution)

Now, if you're saying "ID would never be true when applied to biology", well, again, you're repeating a discussion we've already had half a dozen times in this thread. As I've said before, ID is far too underdeveloped to even be applied to the biological sciences -- but I do hope, if it gets that strong and starts producing results, that you'll evaluate them on their own merits. And remember, the idea of ID is not confined to biology -- it might try to make biological claims, but it's bigger than that. In some cases (like with the scrabble tiles above) it's clearly the right paradigm.

Again, I think you misunderstood me here. I just wanted to *admit* that I am biased, at least with regard to evolution. So my previous quote was no attack on ID at all, but rather that I can envisage some fruitful insights provided by ID if my preconceptions were false...

ID as a general framework

Pandora wrote:not only results but theories can be falsified --- or am i totally mistaken here?

Theories can be falsified. Entire paradigms can't (though, as I said before, they can be shown to be inadequate or have inadequate methodology.) ID is a whole paradigm, not a specific theory.

Pandora wrote:Up till now I have seen it as one theory in BIology.

Of course -- because the only people who regularly reference it (that you'd hear of) are trying to do so in a biological context. Even though it's a much bigger idea that really *should* be studied for its own sake, people have a tendency to try to restrict it to biology.

Pandora wrote:is it not just the methodology that is applied [to other fields]?

This is the key question of the thread -- the key misunderstanding we keep coming back to.

ID *is* methodology and concepts. It's not a biology theory; it's a set of ideas about how to detect design, and a set of methods based on those ideas. If you apply "just the methodology" (and, by implication, the underlying ideas) you're applying the entire paradigm of ID.

ID interacting with other sciences

Pandora wrote:

Also (3) about the natural causes of the phenomenon.

Why that? From the methodology outlined above (Drakona's post), I cannot see how you can draw inferences about the natural causes...

Apologies.

What I meant was that all 3 of those conclusions could be drawn from general experimentation, not necessarily using ID methodology. Depending on which questions you ask, you'll focus more on some of the questions than others...

Pandora wrote:i also thought that ID might have many things in common with Cryptoanalysis

Cryptography? Yes, that's one place where the general ideas of ID are useful.

Pandora wrote:I am just particularly interested about ID's possible contributions to Biology.

Ahh... well, then, you'll be pretty disappointed. As much as people try to apply ID to biology, it's just not well-enough developed to be really useful there. I don't take its biology conclusions seriously yet (though I do take its questions seriously, since many of them are quite good.)

Pandora wrote:Even if IDers would investigate such potential natural forces, i have the feeling that they have a lower threshold for saying 'that's enough' than, say, physicists whose fame rests on discovering new natural forces.

I don't think you can draw such a distinction between ID'ers and people in the physical sciences... one could, for example, be a physicist who also uses ID methods.

If someone's focus is specifically on ID, then you're right, they wouldn't investigate the physical phenomena very far. It would be outside their area of expertise -- once you've determined that something was caused naturally, it's pretty reasonable to turn over the remaining analysis to someone whose expertise is in that natural area. This is not too different from what already happens with theoretical scientists vs. lab scientists.

Pandora wrote:the mindset of an IDer would not really contribute to finding explanations in terms of natural laws.

Right. That's not what their focus is.

Pandora wrote:

ID would say, there are mice, because the creator saw that cats need something to eat.

You're mistaking ID for "uneducated creationists"...

you said that, for instance, chance/mutation might have been at work in evolution, but that the selection was done by the designer. I thought this was quite in line with the simplified example of cats and mice.

Well, the example could be a case wherein the designer does selection... but ID wouldn't make that type of conclusion about cats and mice because there isn't any evidence that mice were designed specifically to be catfood. ID might, perhaps, make general conclusions about the whole system of predation being designed, but it's doubtful anyone intelligent would ever try to say something as specific as "mice were designed as catfood."

Pandora wrote:Why are the two theories of cats and mice are not functionally equivalent?

The theories are (mostly) independant. It's not that they're equivalent; it's that they're compatible (though someone might hold one and not the other.) They have two entirely different focuses.

Miscellaneous / off topic

Pandora wrote:

There's no prohibition against trying to understand and/or study the creator, though.

ouch, really? hmm... not even in the Old Testament? I am sure I heard it somewhere.

You might have heard Job 38, where God basically asks Job "how dare you speak about my motives when you don't know them?" There are also many places that say we are uncapable of fully understanding God... but nothing that says we shouldn't try.

Darkside Heartless wrote:Got some numbers here requested by Stryker, feel free to tear them apart, I could care less

approxomate# of people in the world: 6,000,000,000

limit of mathmatical impossibility: 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

chances of a single small protein forming in the ocean: 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Chances of a single section of DNA forming in a pure bath of protein: 1 in
480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

chances of evolution making a single horse, excluding all other elements: 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000,000,000,000,000,(edit: cut 2 save space)

Given an infinite amount of time. All those things will happen.

Consider Mount Rushmore.

There are many mountains in the world, and their shapes are easy to explain by natural forces--erosion, plate tectonics, whatever. But Mount Rushmore is different in that it can't be explained as the result of solely those forces.

Suppose somebody came along and tried to explain it in terms of natural forces, describing how a waterfall could shape one part, and a fracture in the rock could cause the shape of another. It would be very hard to come up with a theory that explained everything, but then that's the case for most mountains, isn't it? What would we say to such a theory? Has it explained Mount Rushmore?

Absolutely not. Even if the shape could have come about by entirely natural processes, it still remains to be explained why it looks like four faces--and indeed, not just any four faces, but the faces of four famous presidents. In fact, in light of that, any naturalistic theory explaining Mount Rushmore is necessarily insufficient: it's not only that this particular theory has failed, but that all theories made under naturalistic terms--be they theories about meteorite impacts or theories about glacier trails--must fail. There is something about the mountain that can only be explained by invoking an intelligent agent.

That is a design inference informing a theory. Far from being useless, it's highly useful: it tells you where to look for answers. It tells you to look, not to natural forces alone, but also to the construction processes of people--and again hypothesize and test to see which caused the mountain. To have eliminated an entire class of theories is an enormous contribution, and certainly makes ID a worthwhile consideration.

Consider again the bacterial flagellum, analogous to an outboard motor with its rotor, stator, bushings, drive shaft and propeller. ID advocates argue that such a device is unexplained by naturalistic theories--and furthermore that, like Mount Rushmore, it is inexplicable by naturalistic theories.

There have been attempts to explain the flagellum through evolution, but from the perspective of ID as an origins position, they are woefully incomplete (though I do not have the technical expertise to vouch for this, that is what they say)--and necessarily must be. Whether or not it is possible for such a machine to evolve from machines that did other things, that doesn't explain its sheer mechanicity and evident purpose.

Are they right? Does the flagellum match the right sort of pattern that any naturalistic theory necessarily can't account for it? Or are they wrong--is it only superficially like a watch, or like Mount Rushmore--similar in appearance, but not in substance? Do naturalistic theories account for all of its properties?

And above all, what sort of questions should we ask to distinguish between a "good" pattern and a bad one, for the purposes of ID?

Those are the questions of the debate.

Pandora wrote:it seems to me that the conclusion 'it was created' is somewhat of a dead end. Just imagine, we wouldn't have had the science that we did have the last centuries. Every miracle accepted as it is, without further inquiries whether there are further natural causes that mankind could learn about. Or would IDers then ask *how* it was created, which natural forces the designer utilized to bring about the phenomenon?

By no means is ID a dead end! Consider--if we make a design inference about, for example, an automobile. We look at the machine for a while and decide someone made it. Does our research just come to a stop there? Heck no. It just changes the questions we ask. Instead of scratching our heads trying to figure out how rubber tires could be made by rockslides and lightning and whatnot, we'd begin examining them for indications of their assembly. How were these parts manufactured? And now that we know the thing serves a purpose, what does it do? And who made it? And this rusted-out spot on the hood--is that designed, too, or is that nature corrupting the original design?

If they would [pursue the question of *how* something was created]:
then i cannot see, how ID differs from biology other than that it has a teleological perspective. ID would say, there are mice, because the creator saw that cats need something to eat. Evolutionary theorists would say, cats were there and mice were there, togehter with other organisms they formed a stable system, that keeped each of the alive over the generations.
Functionally, both theories seem to be identical. So I do not see how ID would be an improvement.

LOL. It's a couple centuries too late for anybody to seriously say "mice exist to feed cats." But both perspectives--and ID perspective and a naturalistic perspective--want to study things as they are, that's true. But a correct guess as to the nature of something--designed or not--will yield a more fruitful theory. Like with the car above: we'll be more successful studying it, more able to ask the right questions about how it works and what it's for, if we (correctly) assume it's designed than if we assume it isn't.

For a concrete example, consider junk DNA. Naturalism supposes that this DNA consists of the failed experiments in evolutionary history, and is meaningless: just the accumulation of chance mutations that didn't result in anything. So after a cursory search for a function, the naturalist will move on--assuming it doesn't have a function. The design theorist, on the other hand, has good reason to suppose such DNA would have latent functions: it wouldn't make sense for a designer to be so wasteful. So a design theorist is likely to persist in looking for another function non-coding DNA might serve. Of course, it is not as though one finding or another will topple either theory--if junk DNA has a purpose, than evolution could easily have selected for it; if it doesn't have one, it could be a corruption of the designer's original intent. But this is an example of how teleological assumptions direct research: the ID biologist is going to look for function where the naturalist isn't. And that could lead to advances--if junk DNA is useful for something, there's no telling what use that knowledge could be.

I want to repeat that point, because it counters something very frequently said in the ID debate. People say that the naturalist is going to persist in looking for natural explanations of something where the design theorist is going to give up and say it's designed. That is true. But it is also true that the design theorist is going to persist in looking for functions of things where the naturalist is going to give up and say it's meaningless, the result of chance. It is not as though one teleological conclusion leads to expansive exploration while the other leads to dead ends and lack of questioning. Rather, they simply lead you down different paths of exploration. Any teleological (or for that matter, underlying theoretical) conclusion both constricts and directs research.

[I realize, however, that i am arguing from quite a biased perspective. I assume that ID is 'not true', and that there would never be instances where the 'came about by chance'-explanations would not work.]

Exactly. If you're right, naturalistic theories will flourish and design-friendly ones will stagnate. If the ID people are right, design-friendly theories will flourish and naturalistic ones will stagnate. So we would both be inclined to follow our intellectual biases into research--and if you ask me, that's healthy.

But if you choose to disallow design right out of the gate--don't even entertain any ID theories--then consider what a heavy confidence you're placing in your original conclusion of "this is natural." If you were wrong, how would you know, without entertaining competing frameworks? It would forever remain for you a difficult problem--you'd have no way to know if the supernaturalists had solved it. Likewise, if I (as a Christian), assume that life is designed and discard all naturalistic theories about its origins out of hand, I'm placing an awfully heavy confidence in that initial assessment. If I was wrong, how would I know? For me, it would remain forever a difficult problem--I'd have no way to know if the naturalists had solved it. I could study something natural for years and learn nothing meaningful about it, if all the while I assume it was operated by angels. And you could study something supernatural for years and learn nothing meaningful about it, if all the while you assume it's operated by some natural process.

In graduate school, I took a geometry class from the renouned mathematician Branko Grunbaum. Grunbaum is behind several major contributions to geometry, a grand mathematician and a great scholar whose mathematical abilities are far, far beyond mine. He was studying continuous deformations of polyhedra, and stated a conjecture about continuous deformations of polygons. (A conjecture is a mathematical statement that you think might be true, but you don't know if it is or not--and you want someone to find out for you.) He wanted that conjecture to be true--it fit in beautifully as part of what he was doing with continuous deformations of polyhedra. I, on the other hand, wanted it to be false: I like perverse oddities in mathematics. He stated the conjecture in class on Friday, and invited us to try to prove or disprove it.

I went away from class, and idly doodled in my next class while half-listening, trying to prove the conjecture false, and I succeeded before the end of class. I wrote up the proof, put it in Grunbaum's mailbox, and went home for the weekend. In class on Monday, he reported that he had tried all weekend to prove the conjecture, and had been unable to do it--a good thing, since when he arrived Monday morning, he found a counterexample in his mailbox.

What had happened? How had I succeeded in under an hour in solving a mathematical problem that a great mathematician with infinitely more experience in the field had failed to solve over the weekend?

Simple: my intellectual bias happened to be correct.

That's an example of why we need people of different biases to be working on the same problem. Had the conjecture been true, it would have taken me weeks to find out--in fact, I might never have found out. I might have given up and moved on to other problems. Had I not found the answer for him, would Grunbaum have eventually found it false? Probably--he's a good enough scholar to try both possibilities. But it obviously took him longer than it took me!

Proceeding in intellectual bias kills the ability to dispassionately reason, and stunts research in any arena where our naive bias doesn't happen to be correct. If you're willing to discard design out of hand because you're an atheist, you better hope like heck that you're right--because if you're wrong, you'll be badly hampering scientific progress.

Drakona, here's a little fuel to this whole topic. Lets suppose that everything was intelligently designed. What if man starts reverse engineering all this stuff to learn how it was "made"...kinda like we find (or take) another countries secret piece of military gear and tear it down. In the process we learn all the things that went into the gears manufacturing so we can make it ourselves.
What the ID'ers have to be careful about is the idea of God may become subhumed into a manufacturing process the more Intelligent Design is promoted.