Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
There seems to be a large misunderstanding surrounding how science infers causality in the case of non-reproducible historical events. The argument is made that ID does not provide an explanation because "it is not science". I think this is a demonstration of not understanding historical science.
Premise 1:
There have been significant attempts made to discover a natural mechanism through which the information contained in the DNA in Prokaryote cells could have arisen through natural mechanisms. None have succeeded. Premise 2:
We know through observation that complex collections of specified information always arise from intelligence. Conclusion:
We can through an inference to the best explanation conclude that the DNA in the first Prokaryote cells was a product of intelligent design.
Fails at premise two. Besides being really vague (what is a complex collection? How complex is complex?), The assertion about information always arising from intelligence is completely false.
Astronomical observations are the best candidate for this. Planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc are all "complex" (I think we can agree on that) and exhibit no empirical evidence of being intelligently designed.
I think the vagueness of "complex collections of specified information" would be used by ID proponents to their advantage. I imagine it would be much like what happens with transitional fossils. When presented with a transitional fossil, the classic response is "that's not a transitional fossil." Ok then, what's a transitional fossil? I could easily see responses to any counterarguments to this line of reasoning being something like "that's not complex enough."
So then, what is complex enough? Only things that validate the argument itself are "complex enough," I would hazard a guess.
__________________ Don't worry, I'm from the Church and I'm here to help!
There is no conspiracy. Come along. The helicopter's waiting.
Fails at premise two. Besides being really vague (what is a complex collection? How complex is complex?), The assertion about information always arising from intelligence is completely false.
Astronomical observations are the best candidate for this. Planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc are all "complex" (I think we can agree on that) and exhibit no empirical evidence of being intelligently designed.
I think the vagueness of "complex collections of specified information" would be used by ID proponents to their advantage. I imagine it would be much like what happens with transitional fossils. When presented with a transitional fossil, the classic response is "that's not a transitional fossil." Ok then, what's a transitional fossil? I could easily see responses to any counterarguments to this line of reasoning being something like "that's not complex enough."
So then, what is complex enough? Only things that validate the argument itself are "complex enough," I would hazard a guess.
Right, it fails at Premise 2 because we do not know this.
The conclusion fails as science as well, because an inference that something was a "product" of intelligent design still does not explain how the information came to be in DNA. Moving a design from its intellectual root into a material configuration requires a material process that ought to be discernible to scientists. No matter how clearly an artist's vision of his creation is in his mind, we don't share that vision until it is transferred to paint on canvas or some equivalent.
IDists try to identify "products" of design. But they do not ever explore a means of production. Without a means of production, it is surely meaningless to speak of a "product" of design.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
Fails at premise two. Besides being really vague (what is a complex collection? How complex is complex?), The assertion about information always arising from intelligence is completely false.
Astronomical observations are the best candidate for this. Planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc are all "complex" (I think we can agree on that) and exhibit no empirical evidence of being intelligently designed.
I think the vagueness of "complex collections of specified information" would be used by ID proponents to their advantage. I imagine it would be much like what happens with transitional fossils. When presented with a transitional fossil, the classic response is "that's not a transitional fossil." Ok then, what's a transitional fossil? I could easily see responses to any counterarguments to this line of reasoning being something like "that's not complex enough."
So then, what is complex enough? Only things that validate the argument itself are "complex enough," I would hazard a guess.
The operative phrase is not "complex collection". It is specified complexity or functional complexity. Astronomy is complex because the laws of physics are complex, but is is easy to explore the complexity you see with repeatable experiments. Anything that is definable via chance or necessity is not attributable to intelligence.
Your objection is easily defeated by simply pointing out that the computer you are working on is unequivocally created by intelligent design and only intelligent design. You can not possibly deny that. So the question is not if design is ever detectable. It is. The question is where and how do we detect those cases that we don't have hands on observable evidence for.
Right, it fails at Premise 2 because we do not know this.
We do know that intelligence has the power to produce specified complexity. We also know that there is no example of a natural process that does. If you think here is then please point it out.
The conclusion fails as science as well, because an inference that something was a "product" of intelligent design still does not explain how the information came to be in DNA. Moving a design from its intellectual root into a material configuration requires a material process that ought to be discernible to scientists. No matter how clearly an artist's vision of his creation is in his mind, we don't share that vision until it is transferred to paint on canvas or some equivalent.
Then SETI fails as science. Then archeology fails as science. Then forensics fails as science. It is ridiculous to conclude that detecting patterns alone is not science because you are not explaining exactly how the pattern was produced.
You're grasping at straws.
IDists try to identify "products" of design. But they do not ever explore a means of production. Without a means of production, it is surely meaningless to speak of a "product" of design.
Of course it is not meaningless. A SETI researcher would laugh at you if you told them that. The event of discovering intellience in a signal from outisde earth would be profound and meaningfel with out knowing anything esle about the signal or how it was produced.
We do know that intelligence has the power to produce specified complexity.
That is not what premise 2 states. It states that we know intelligence is always the source of complex collections of specified information. We don't know that.
We also know that there is no example of a natural process that does. If you think here is then please point it out.
What about biological evolution?
Then SETI fails as science. Then archeology fails as science. Then forensics fails as science. It is ridiculous to conclude that detecting patterns alone is not science because you are not explaining exactly how the pattern was produced.
SETI does not fail as science because any signal it detects is a physical phenomenon whose physical origin we can study. Forensics and archeology do not fail because they infer human activity from physical evidence of human activity e.g. the markings made as a tool is used to shape a stone or bone in a way not found in nature outside of human activity. Forensics, for example, is often used to determine whether a person died of natural causes or whether a fire started accidentally or not. Determining the mechanism of how something was produced lies behind determining whether or not there was foul play i.e. intelligence in the design.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
That is not what premise 2 states. It states that we know intelligence is always the source of complex collections of specified information.
I did not stop with the first sentence. The three sentences go together that is why they are in a paragraph.
What about biological evolution?
Then provide the evidence that evolution produced the DNA in a prokaryote cell. Notice Premise 1.
SETI does not fail as science because any signal it detects is a physical phenomenon whose physical origin we can study.
This is immaterial. Science does not in any way require the source of the information to be understood or studied. In SETI the methods and procedures for detecting intelligence in the signal are distinct from studying the physical origin. Two entirely and independent sciences. You have in essence just made up your own definition of science which is arbitrary and meaningless.
Forensics and archeology do not fail because they infer human activity from physical evidence of human activity
Again immaterial. There is nothing magic about the fact that the sources were human. If there existed another biological entity with intelligence that we were studying you would then suddenly call these unscientific. This is silly.
Determining the mechanism of how something was produced lies behind determining whether or not there was foul play i.e. intelligence in the design.
Thank goodness in our justice system determining if the evidence supported foul play is after the step in determining if there was an intelligence behind it. Again the act of detecting intelligence is separate and distinct from the studying of who and how.
Last edited by OrdinaryClay; 27th September 2009 at 11:47 PM.
We do know that intelligence has the power to produce specified complexity. We also know that there is no example of a natural process that does. If you think here is then please point it out.
Solar systems. Stars. Galaxies. The universe. But of course, I'm sure that will conveniently not be complex enough for the standards of the argument. If you make the definition vague enough, you can make it work any way you want.
__________________ Don't worry, I'm from the Church and I'm here to help!
There is no conspiracy. Come along. The helicopter's waiting.
I did not stop with the first sentence. The three sentences go together that is why they are in a paragraph.
The three sentences go together because they are presented as a syllogism with two premises that entail a conclusion. In such a case, showing that one of the premises is untrue invalidates the conclusion.
Then provide the evidence that evolution produced the DNA in a prokaryote cell. Notice Premise 1.
It is not necessary to invalidate both premises. However, evolution did produce the DNA in the prokaryote cells we study today----by modifying the DNA in the earliest cells. Premise 1 only holds true so long as we do not know the means by which certain DNA sequences became code for certain amino acids----and only for as long as we don't understand that process.
This is immaterial. Science does not in any way require the source of the information to be understood or studied. In SETI the methods and procedures for detecting intelligence in the signal are distinct from studying the physical origin. Two entirely and independent sciences. You have in essence just made up your own definition of science which is arbitrary and meaningless.
Science cannot detect intelligence apart from its material form. It is only after detecting a material form that the question of whether the material was manipulated by an intelligent agent arises. And to know that, one must know what the material looks like when it is not manipulated by intelligence i.e. one must know the typical natural appearance of the material. And one must presume that no intelligence produced the natural appearance.
But Christians surely believe that the natural appearance was produced by the creative Word of God--an intelligent agent. When it comes to nature Christian theology stands against divvying it up into what was and was not produced by intelligence, because it all was.
Again immaterial. There is nothing magic about the fact that the sources were human. If there existed another biological entity with intelligence that we were studying you would then suddenly call these unscientific. This is silly.
No, if a non-human entity produced the material using similar techniques, the evidence that the material had been reworked by an intelligent agent would still be there. For example, paleontologists also take note of the teeth-marks of predators on the bones of prey animals.
Thank goodness in our justice system determining if the evidence supported foul play is after the step in determining if there was an intelligence behind it. Again the act of detecting intelligence is separate and distinct from the studying of who and how.
No, by examining how the damage was done, forensics determines whether there was foul play and by that means determines whether there was intelligence behind it. What the justice system determines is whether the intelligence behind it is that of the accused.
Detecting intelligence really cannot be done separately from determining how intelligence manipulated the material evidence. That is why ID specifically excludes necessity and chance as means of producing design, even though much of what we call biological design is a product of evolution.
But one of the basic problems with ID is that it does not present an alternate way for intelligence to manipulate material other than those means used by human agents. So how does design appear in nature apart from human activity?
One known means by which design appears in biological form is via evolution. Why exclude that from the design arsenal of the Creator?
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
As a further hint about what's wrong with the syllogism, note that the following has the identical validity to the original:
Premise 1:
There have been significant attempts made to discover a natural mechanism through which the information contained in the DNA in Prokaryote cells could have arisen through natural mechanisms. None have succeeded. Premise 2:
We know through observation that complex collections of specified information always arise from featherless bipeds. Conclusion:
We can through an inference to the best explanation conclude that the DNA in the first Prokaryote cells was a product of featherless bipeds.
Linear Mode
