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.
ID does not claim complexity by itself is an indicator of intelligence.
An instance of complexity by itself while improbable is not an indicator of design. For example, let's say you have a rock in your hand. The probability of that rock looking exactly as it does is highly improbable. The exact surface form, size and weight of that rock is made up of so many possible combinations that it is highly improbable that you will pick up another exactly like it. Yet, the total set of all rock combinations is huge, and when we pick one rock up we know for a fact that it has to take some form. The problem is the rock is unspecified, therefore no one is surprised when we pick up that rock.
The ability to show that the complexity we see is specified increases our suspicion greatly as to how that rock could have come to be. Something is specified if it matches a predetermined pattern. Predetermined in the sense that before we look at the rock we specify the pattern. Suppose we pick up a rock and it kind of looks like a face. Depending on how closely it matches what we know to be a face will depend on how suspicious we are that the rock is an example of specified complexity. No one questions whether the rocks on easter island were created by intelligence or not.
If we find specified complexity that is also functional in some way, that is, it serves a purpose that matches a predetermined pattern, we can increase our belief that this did not arise from necessity or chance. DNA is an example of functional specified complexity. DNA has encoded in it the information needed to produce nano technology.
ID does not claim complexity by itself is an indicator of intelligence.
An instance of complexity by itself while improbable is not an indicator of design. For example, let's say you have a rock in your hand. The probability of that rock looking exactly as it does is highly improbable. The exact surface form, size and weight of that rock is made up of so many possible combinations that it is highly improbable that you will pick up another exactly like it. Yet, the total set of all rock combinations is huge, and when we pick one rock up we know for a fact that it has to take some form. The problem is the rock is unspecified, therefore no one is surprised when we pick up that rock.
The ability to show that the complexity we see is specified increases our suspicion greatly as to how that rock could have come to be. Something is specified if it matches a predetermined pattern. Predetermined in the sense that before we look at the rock we specify the pattern. Suppose we pick up a rock and it kind of looks like a face. Depending on how closely it matches what we know to be a face will depend on how suspicious we are that the rock is an example of specified complexity. No one questions whether the rocks on easter island were created by intelligence or not.
If we find specified complexity that is also functional in some way, that is, it serves a purpose that matches a predetermined pattern, we can increase our belief that this did not arise from necessity or chance. DNA is an example of functional specified complexity. DNA has encoded in it the information needed to produce nano technology.
This is as vague as every other description I've seen of specified complexity. No on in practice makes a list of all the predetermined patterns that we're interested in; consideration of design starts after observing the object, not before. What specification seems to come down to is familiarity: if an object displays a pattern that looks familiar to humans, than it is specified and therefore surprising. But there is no way of measuring that intuition. How familiar does an object have to look? What units is this measured in? In extreme cases this can work well enough as a rough guide, as it does on Easter Island: we know that humans make representations of faces, we know that humans carve stone, we don't know of natural processes that create such exact replicas of faces, and many examples were found together, in an area where humans were known to be, so we can conclude that the faces were made by humans. (I see that, oddly enough, intelligence actually doesn't need to be invoked here at all. One could conclude that a mound was produced by termites by a similar argument.) But when it comes to interesting cases in biology, where ID makes its claims, most of the steps in that logic fall apart. We don't have a known designer that could have produced DNA, we know nothing about the interests or abilities of such a designer if one exists, we have a poor understanding of the chemistry of DNA and (especially) RNA, and we only have one example (life on Earth). So we really can't draw any conclusions about intelligent design here.
The situation with "function" seems even worse. All you did above was redefine "function" as "serving a purpose". How do we tell by looking at it whether something serves a purpose or not? Is a stream bed's purpose to guide a stream? You say that DNA is functional, but given your definition of function, why do you think it is?
This is as vague as every other description I've seen of specified complexity. No on in practice makes a list of all the predetermined patterns that we're interested in; consideration of design starts after observing the object, not before. What specification seems to come down to is familiarity: if an object displays a pattern that looks familiar to humans, than it is specified and therefore surprising.
We recognize design because we are intelligent and produce designs our selves. There will always be gray areas, like the rock that kind of looks like a face, but this in no way obviates the clear cases such as the faces at easter island.
But there is no way of measuring that intuition. How familiar does an object have to look? What units is this measured in?
When inferring in cases like the Cambrian Explosion it is impossible to conclude with 100% certainty what is the true explanation. So you infer. You don't do this mathematically. You take multiple factors into account ...
1) How much work has been done to unsuccessfully warrant competing explanations. The more there has been the stronger the case that they are not valid. This is actually a case where the lack of evidence does support the evidence of falsity. It is a form of lose Bayesian inference.
2) We do know that clearly designed objects are always produced by human intelligence. We know unequivocally that there is a strong and undeniable distinction between what humans produce and what necessity and chance produces. This is evidence that supports the conclusion that intelligence produces distinct inimitable designs.
3) We know humans did not exist at the time DNA was first produced.
We have lack of evidence given natural causes for producing the clearly distinct and inimitable specified, functional complexity of DNA. We have proven evidence that intelligence produces distinct inimitable designs. Therefore we have evidence that intelligence produced DNA. It does not prove it, but it is the best explanation because it is the only one left standing.
(I see that, oddly enough, intelligence actually doesn't need to be invoked here at all. One could conclude that a mound was produced by termites by a similar argument.)
Notice the mound was produced by DNA.
But when it comes to interesting cases in biology, where ID makes its claims, most of the steps in that logic fall apart. We don't have a known designer that could have produced DNA, we know nothing about the interests or abilities of such a designer if one exists, we have a poor understanding of the chemistry of DNA and (especially) RNA, and we only have one example (life on Earth). So we really can't draw any conclusions about intelligent design here.
My argument was not about who or what did the design. My argument was about the nature of the occurrence and that it was a design. What is important is the characteristic of intelligence that it indicates.
Although, I as a Cristian do believe God can design.
The situation with "function" seems even worse. All you did above was redefine "function" as "serving a purpose".
No. A specified purpose.
How do we tell by looking at it whether something serves a purpose or not? Is a stream bed's purpose to guide a stream?
The explanatory filter.
You say that DNA is functional, but given your definition of function, why do you think it is?
In extreme cases this can work well enough as a rough guide, as it does on Easter Island: we know that humans make representations of faces, we know that humans carve stone, we don't know of natural processes that create such exact replicas of faces, and many examples were found together, in an area where humans were known to be, so we can conclude that the faces were made by humans.
If complexity is an indicator of intelligent design, then the truth of the theory of evolution would no doubt point to an intelligent designer.
Just to be clear ... it is specified complexity that is indicative of design. Then any explanation must pass the test of an explanatory filter. If it is demonstrably explainable by necessity or chance then it is not justified in inferring design.
My argument was not about who or what did the design. My argument was about the nature of the occurrence and that it was a design. What is important is the characteristic of intelligence that it indicates.
So ID doesn't offer an explanation? We see that something has a specified design and then...what? When we see pyramids we recognize that humans made them, and then science can begin determining how it was done, when it was done, and by what people. If ancient pottery is found we can try linking it to known tribes of that era. In other words, with ID in archeology, we have somewhere to go with the design inference. With ID in biology, there is no new knowledge to gain from saying "it has specified complexity". Where does ID get us? What predictions does it make? How can it be falsified? Can you name any piece of scientific knowledge that ID has led us to other than "it has specified complexity"? (because we could already see the complexity of the cell before ID ever made the declaration.)
The indication of intelligence in biological systems is only important if it leads us somewhere. I have yet to see how ID is useful in biology.
__________________ For free printable drum lessons with audio check out my website. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
ID does not claim complexity by itself is an indicator of intelligence.
Oh. Well thank you, but your the FIRST intelligent design advocate I've EVER heard say that.
Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay
If we find specified complexity that is also functional in some way, that is, it serves a purpose that matches a predetermined pattern, we can increase our belief that this did not arise from necessity or chance. DNA is an example of functional specified complexity. DNA has encoded in it the information needed to produce nano technology.
We recognize design because we are intelligent and produce designs our selves. There will always be gray areas, like the rock that kind of looks like a face, but this in no way obviates the clear cases such as the faces at easter island.
We recognize human design, because we know from experience what kinds of things human design produces. I have no idea whether we have a general ability to detect design in the abstract (and this discussion certainly hasn't convinced me that we have).
When inferring in cases like the Cambrian Explosion it is impossible to conclude with 100% certainty what is the true explanation. So you infer. You don't do this mathematically. You take multiple factors into account ...
1) How much work has been done to unsuccessfully warrant competing explanations. The more there has been the stronger the case that they are not valid. This is actually a case where the lack of evidence does support the evidence of falsity. It is a form of lose Bayesian inference.
It's not the amount of work that's been done, but the confidence we have that we have explored the range of viable physical possibilities. For the origin of genetic material, we have only a very limited understanding of the possibilities. Note that the correct scientific reaction under these circumstances is "I don't know". This is why, for example, there is no single preferred explanation for the Cambrian explosion.
2) We do know that clearly designed objects are always produced by human intelligence. We know unequivocally that there is a strong and undeniable distinction between what humans produce and what necessity and chance produces. This is evidence that supports the conclusion that intelligence produces distinct inimitable designs.
As I've explained elsewhere, we don't know this (that there is a distinction between human products and the products of necessity and chance) because it's not true. It's not even false -- it's just incoherent.
3) We know humans did not exist at the time DNA was first produced.
I will agree that that is highly probable.
Notice the mound was produced by DNA.
Now I'm confused. Are termite mounds clearly designed or not?
My argument was not about who or what did the design. My argument was about the nature of the occurrence and that it was a design. What is important is the characteristic of intelligence that it indicates.
Your argument was that is was produced by an intelligent designer, with no further specification of the designer. That is that only argument I addressed.
No. A specified purpose.
What is a specified purpose, and how do we recognize one? "Staying alive" doesn't strike me as any more specified than "guiding a stream". Also, you said that design was indicated by specified complexity that was also functional. So now you're saying that both the complexity and the function have to be specified? Does that mean we can never recognize function if we don't already have the purpose involved in our fuzzy mental list of specified purposes?
More to the point, you still haven't told me how to recognize function, or why DNA is more functional than a stream bed.
The explanatory filter.
The explanatory filter is supposed to indicate design, not function. It's also incoherent, as I've said elsewhere.
It encodes nano technology.
How is that an answer to the question, and what does it have to do with your other answers? Calling it technology begs the question of whether it is functional or not, and being small (= "nano") seems to have nothing to do with the question at all.
We recognize design because we are intelligent and produce designs our selves. There will always be gray areas, like the rock that kind of looks like a face, but this in no way obviates the clear cases such as the faces at easter island.
Or the clear cases of no-design like smooth river pebbles, right?
Originally Posted by shernren
Suppose a race of aliens from a distant rocky planet came to Earth. The planet where they come from has extremely hard minerals which are naturally formed with jagged edges and which are very hard to work. Only the best and the brightest artisans can create a perfectly smooth, round stone, and so smooth round stones are greatly prized by aliens.
For some reason they land next to a riverbed. Now, here on Earth water erosion tends to work stones into smooth round shapes, but the aliens don't know that (they don't have rivers either, I suppose). They are jubilant. "This planet must be bustling with greatly skilled sculptors!" they rejoice. "Look at how smooth, how round, how perfectly symmetrical these stones are, rivaling the work of our best and brightest! Of course these stones have been sculpted by master artisans for the express purpose of being round and smooth and beautiful!"
This short story expresses some of the flaws associated with the ID philosophy:
1. What we recognize as design depends greatly on what we design ourselves. Over the past century we have become a very mechanistic race, depending on technology and machinery to fulfil our every whim and fancy. No wonder the intricate bits and pieces of the cell seem designed to us! But I wonder if an Amish would be as impressed.
2. What we recognize as design depends greatly on what we understand of the capability of non-design processes. The aliens had never seen smooth stones produced naturally before, so it was only understandable that they would think smooth stones must have been designed to be smooth. So if ID advocates do not understand evolution (and there is some evidence suggesting that this is the case ) then surely they will think that biological mechanisms have been designed.
3. What we recognize as design, to a large extent, has nothing to do with whether or not something is actually designed. Most people wouldn't understand modern art pieces as "designed" - especially the ones which look like just random splatters of paint. (What about aleatory music? Is that designed or random, or both, or neither?) On the other hand, ancient people thought the skies were "designed", and named recognizable constellations after their mythological heroes. Nobody believes that now.
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
) then surely they will think that biological mechanisms have been designed.
Linear Mode
