What is "design" and how to detect it

[DogmaHunter]

They come to that conclusion because they see design in everything. If one sees design in everything, why would one then believe there is non-design in anything?

To quote Beavis and B***head: "you know like..uhu...if like...uhu...everything was cool all the time...uhuhuhu...how would you know it was cool?"

You don't seem to be listening.
The proponents and inventors of ID, you know...those guys who maintain that it is a scientific idea and not a religious one, guys like Dembski and whatnot, do NOT see ID the way you are saying here.

They see ID as an actual methodology on how to differentiate design from non-design.
I'm asking what that methodology is.

The methodology would be common sense. IOW, letting the evidence speak the truth, not letting a preconceived notion of what is true speak for the evidence.

Since when is "common sense" a pathway to truth?

Not necessarily

Yes, necessarily. Cdesign proponentsists are very loud about how ID is not a religious idea but a scientific one.

, because if we assume everything is designed for a reason then that would mean we, ourselves, are designed to recognize the designer of everything in the universe. IOW, we are designed to recognize God's handiwork and many of us do, but others do not. The reason others do not recognize God's handiwork is unknown.

Ok, so the "methodology" that you seem to be refering to is "well, I believe it!!".

Great.

Now either address the actual topic or move along.

 

[The Barbarian]

Why would you think so? Defining "specified complexity" on your terms sets up a strawman and then concluding "So your argument proves that shuffled decks of cards are impossible" knocks down said strawman. Under the intelligent design argument one shuffle of a deck of card hardly qualifies as "specified complexity".

So far, no one seems able to identify "specified complexity" unless they've decided in advance that it is.

The Barbarian said: ↑
The primary distinction between Shannon's theory and intelligent design is, Shannon's theory actually works.

No well articulated argument.

It's a devastating argument. Shannon's theory tells us how to send a very reliable low-powered radio signal over billions of kilometers of space, and how to pack a maxium of capacity into internet channels. So far, "intelligent design" has done precisely nothing.

No reasonable logic.

See above. Shannon's way works. Your way doesn't do anything at all. And if it doesn't do anything, what good is it?

Barbarian observes:
Actually the second one has less information.
"Wt hth Gd wrght" would convey the same information to an English-speaking person as your original. It takes less information to specify the second than the first.

They have the same amount of 'information'.

Wrong. It takes fewer bits of information to encode the second.

Remember according to Shannon's theory 'information' is meant in the mathematical sense.

And as you see, less information is necessary to do this for the second string, thanks to the large redundancy of English.

But let's see how that applies in biology.

Suppose for a given population, there's two alleles in a given gene locus, each with a frequency of 0.5. Then a useful mutation arises, and it increases to the point that all three alleles are now about 0.33 in frequency. Compute the information in the population before and after the mutation.

Let me know what you get.

They are both equally long and equally improbable,

No, they are not, because of the redundancy in English.

Highly improbable events happen all the time, but design is not inferred.

Barbarian observes:
Very frequently, it is. Jesus' face on a tortilla, for example.

Sure that looks like a face, but who exactly? Nobody KNOWs exactly how Jesus looked.

Doesn't matter. It's precisely what you denied existing.

From what I've read about intelligent design they mention Mt Rushmore and the "face" on mars. Design would not be inferred with the 'face' on mars since it is not specific enough, however, MT Rushmore they would infer design since it matches an independent pattern, namely Roosevelt, Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson.

More precisely, it bears signs of human working of the rock, not natural processes. You see, this is why Paley had to use a watch. If he had used something natural, no one would have seen his point.

Barbarian observes:
So let's say over time a culture of bacteria have a number of mutations that eventually produces a new enzyme that is useful.

When you say "a number of mutations" how many are you talking about? One or two? or twenty?

How many would it take to make it "specified information?"

If your referring bacteria gaining resistance to anti-bacterial drugs those are usually one or two point mutations.

Nope. This particular series even evolved a regulator for the enzyme system, making it irreducibly complex. The bacteria gradually modified an existing enzyme first to efficiently utilize a formerly unavailable substrate, and then evolved a regulator, so that the enzyme was not present unless the substrate was present.

Is that specified information, and if not, why not?

Barbarian observes:
Is that intelligent design? By definition, it's functional information. It appears that random change, impacting existing nature, would produce what you'd accept as "intelligent design."

Also, this is not de novo information in the genome, it's working from existing information.

If so, "specified information" is unnecessary for evolution which only modifies existing things. Rock and a hard place for IDers, it seems.

 

[Chriliman]

To quote Beavis and B***head: "you know like..uhu...if like...uhu...everything was cool all the time...uhuhuhu...how would you know it was cool?"

You don't seem to be listening.
The proponents and inventors of ID, you know...those guys who maintain that it is a scientific idea and not a religious one, guys like Dembski and whatnot, do NOT see ID the way you are saying here.

They see ID as an actual methodology on how to differentiate design from non-design.
I'm asking what that methodology is.

I never claimed to have a religious view either, I only claim to want to know the truth. Right now the truth seems to be that ID'ers don't realize that if everything is designed for a reason then logically non-design would not exist. You don't seem to be grasping that concept either. Could it be that both you and ID'ers are not grasping the truth here?

Since when is "common sense" a pathway to truth?

Since when should we throw out common sense in favor of preconceived notions?

Yes, necessarily. Cdesign proponentsists are very loud about how ID is not a religious idea but a scientific one.

Good for them, doesn't mean what they're saying is completely based in the desire for what is true.

Ok, so the "methodology" that you seem to be refering to is "well, I believe it!!".

Great.

Now either address the actual topic or move along.

We all must believe something, I prefer to believe what is true and I try not to let my beliefs define what is true.

 

[Jimmy D]

We all must believe something, I prefer to believe what is true and I try not to let my beliefs define what is true.

That's the opposite of what you're doing though, you're claiming 'God's handiwork' because it's consistent with you religious beliefs .

 

[ChetSinger]

Right now the truth seems to be that ID'ers don't realize that if everything is designed for a reason then logically non-design would not exist.

Yes, I agree. Although, I think many ID'ers restrict themselves to living systems. So they may not believe that, for instance, the universe was designed.

I lean toward creation ex nihilo, so I lean toward matter itself being designed.

Regarding this thread, I'll restrict myself to living things and say that I think the many interdependencies within living cells points to their design.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, I agree. Although, I think many ID'ers restrict themselves to living systems. So they may not believe that, for instance, the universe was designed.

I lean toward creation ex nihilo, so I lean toward matter itself being designed.

I agree matter is designed, but I don't lean towards creation ex nihilo because if that were true then the universe was created from nothing, but if God eternally existed before(and after) the universe then the universe was created from/by God, not nothing.

Regarding this thread, I'll restrict myself to living things and say that I think the many interdependencies within living cells points to their design.

I agree.

 

[Chriliman]

That's the opposite of what you're doing though, you're claiming 'God's handiwork' because it's consistent with you religious beliefs .

That is your opinion. I'm claiming to believe what is true based on what the evidence points to.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yet, there is clearly a difference between them. This is why Intelligent design builds on Shannon's theory and makes the distinction of functional information. Suppose someone shuffles a deck 100 times and deals out the same order every time. Now what? Assume it just a chance event? Happening once or even a few times can be chalked up to 'highly improbable' and not by design. I don't think anyone would believe there wasn't some 'design' involved with it happening 100 times.
That is what ID is about, not 1 shuffle and deal of a deck of card but detecting design.

If we took a photocopy of the card hand, it wouldn't be a surprise to see it many times in a row. That's what you have with life, a photocopier. It isn't chance that your DNA matches your parents. It isn't chance that DNA with function beneficial to the carrier is passed on at a much higher rate. Evolution isn't chance.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is your opinion. I'm claiming to believe what is true based on what the evidence points to.

What you claim is true is a preconceived religious belief, one that is based on faith, not evidence.

 

[ChetSinger]

I agree matter is designed, but I don't lean towards creation ex nihilo because if that were true then the universe was created from nothing, but if God eternally existed before(and after) the universe then the universe was created from/by God, not nothing.

I'm not quite following you here. Creation ex nihilo, in Christian theology at least (including Augustine, Wesley, Calvin, etc.), usually means that this universe was created out of nothing by an eternally-existing God.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm not quite following you here. Creation ex nihilo, in Christian theology at least (including Augustine, Wesley, Calvin, etc.), usually means that this universe was created out of nothing by an eternally-existing God.

I understand, but I would argue that there was never truly nothing, there was always something and that something was and is and forever will be God.

 

[ChetSinger]

I understand, but I would argue that there was never truly nothing, there was always something and that something was and is and forever will be God.

Yeah, I agree with that.

 

[Kylie]

If so, "design" is therefore consistent with evolution, even if there was no God at all. This comes pretty close to what biologists refer to as "design", when they talk about evolutionary processes producing increased fitness, or what Adrian Bejan means by "design in nature."

Not really. Can we show that there is some part of an evolved creature that does not contribute to it passing on it's genes? I would say that the appendix counts. I know someone who had their appendix out at a very young age and still went on to produce a few kids without one.

And what about my husband's nipples? He'd still be able to produce children without them.

 

[The Barbarian]

Not really. Can we show that there is some part of an evolved creature that does not contribute to it passing on it's genes?

Most people do fine without an appendix. But it does help out in certain things, like severe intestinal infections, when useful flora tend to survive in the appendix when they die out in the rest of the digestive tract. So not the original function, but a useful function nonetheless.

Since it's a relatively new function, it still doesn't work that well. But this goes to Darwin's comment that evolution is most noticeable when it hasn't yet reached incipient perfection.

And what about my husband's nipples? He'd still be able to produce children without them.

And women could reproduce without much of their equivalent to the male genitalia.

But it wouldn't be as much fun, I suppose.

I see your point, though. If there was an omnipotent "designer", we wouldn't see suboptimal structures. On the other hand, if there was an omnipotent Creator, who used nature to do His purposes, then we'd see such things.

 

[Vaccine]

Shannon's theory tells us how to send a very reliable low-powered radio signal over billions of kilometers of space, and how to pack a maxium of capacity into internet channels. So far, "intelligent design" has done precisely nothing.

People employ it's principles every day. Forensic science uses it to find criminals, they rule out accidents in search of intelligent agent at work. SETI uses it in the search for life, they're looking for specified complex information coming from outer space. They found the Titanic because they knew the debris field wasn't the product of chance forces.

"Wt hth Gd wrght" would convey the same information to an English-speaking person as your original. It takes less information to specify the second than the first.

"Wt hth Gd wrght" does not comply with the rules of syntax or grammar. I'm sure people can interpret it, similar to interpreting the image on tortilla, but we're talking about specified complexity, not indistinct complexity.

Wrong. It takes fewer bits of information to encode the second.

Shannon's theory tells us about the information carrying capacity of a sequence, not whether the sequence is meaningful or functional. As Steven Meyer puts it-
"To avoid confusion and equivocation, I realized that it was necessary to distinguish:
"information content" from mere "information-carrying capacity"
"specified information" from mere "Shannon information", and
"specifie information" from mere "complexity"

You're confusing "information content" (which, you're right, can be encoded in fewer bits) with "information-carrying capacity", which both sequences were equal.

Is that intelligent design? By definition, it's functional information. It appears that random change, impacting existing nature, would produce what you'd accept as "intelligent design."

Nobody denies a few bits of functional information can happen by chance mutations, that is decidedly micro-evolution. It's the extrapolation enough new functional information to build entirely new species can happen that way which requires a leap of faith.

 

[Vaccine]

That's called an argument from ignorance.

It's an inference to the best explanation based on what we know, not ignorance. Incidentally, this is the same method Darwin used to infer natural selection, he called it versa causa. Applying a KNOWN cause observed in the present to explain events in the past. We know intelligence produces complex specified information. Based on that, intelligence is the inferred cause of the origin of the complex specified information in the genome.

Why do you employ the false dichotomy of "it's either by chance or it is by some cosmic designer"?

Necessity was also listed as a cause.

Also, are you aware that ONLY a probability of ZERO means that something is impossible?

I didn't say otherwise, but there is a difference between something that is logically possible and what is actually feasible. Some things are beyond the reach of chance.

In any case.... can you mention any positive datapoints that point to "design"?

Because last time I've checked, saying "Y and X can't explain A.... therefor Z explains A" is not a valid argument.

Sure:

X is known to cause Y. We observe Y. After eliminating A, B and C, X is inferred as the best possible explanation for Y.
Intelligence is known to generate complex specified information. Chance and necessity have been tested and failed.

Here's a list of peer-reviewed articles supporting ID:
http://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/

Why not?

They have to be considered complex AND specified in order to qualify. If we use the 26 letters in the alphabet and the rules of grammar and syntax as our independently specified pattern, consider these examples of randomly generated text:

"asdfdg"
"school"
"adpoivnrwpsdkjfoiavjivrkfjoijvtskfmadicqwpgopovsdpoadiovfjioscdkovdivfiouhibacdbihazdihbadwenofvongbgbgdpiohvcn"
"xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo"
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."


The first two would not pass the complexity test since there isn't enough information to work with. Yes, the second would seem to be specified but not complex, we could not rule out it just happening by chance. The third passes the complexity test but is not specified, again we could not rule out it happening by chance. The fourth would seem to be complex, but according to Shannon's information theory the opposite of complex is a highly ordered sequence. Repetitive sequences are compressible whereas complex sequences are not. It is best explained by necessity, or some lawlike process like how crystals form. This is why snowflakes fail to pass, they are a repeating pattern of hexigonal prisms. Even though they are beautiful and no two are alike, a repeating pattern disquaifies it. The last one was just some randomly generated text which happened by chance.....Who would believe that? The last one is indeed specified complexity and warrants a design inference.

 

[Vaccine]

If we took a photocopy of the card hand, it wouldn't be a surprise to see it many times in a row. That's what you have with life, a photocopier. It isn't chance that your DNA matches your parents. It isn't chance that DNA with function beneficial to the carrier is passed on at a much higher rate. Evolution isn't chance.

I agree, life didn't just happen by 'chance'. Also, isn't a photocopier designed? I've seen some high speed copiers in action and they haven't got anything on DNA replication:

http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/...il#video-7b9676a4-5f24-4837-9aaf-9352eed43c1e

 

[Kylie]

Most people do fine without an appendix. But it does help out in certain things, like severe intestinal infections, when useful flora tend to survive in the appendix when they die out in the rest of the digestive tract. So not the original function, but a useful function nonetheless.

Since it's a relatively new function, it still doesn't work that well. But this goes to Darwin's comment that evolution is most noticeable when it hasn't yet reached incipient perfection.



And women could reproduce without much of their equivalent to the male genitalia.

But it wouldn't be as much fun, I suppose.

I see your point, though. If there was an omnipotent "designer", we wouldn't see suboptimal structures. On the other hand, if there was an omnipotent Creator, who used nature to do His purposes, then we'd see such things.

And we'd see what we see if ther was no Creator at all, and still a nature that accomplishes things.

So it would seem that a creator is not required.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's an inference to the best explanation based on what we know, not ignorance.

No, no... you are appealing that what you do NOT know. In this case, that ignorance being how a certain complicated thing came about.
Not being able to explain it is not an argument for design.
If "design" is the conclusion, you actually need to be able to explain why that is the case... and your explanation can't be "well, this alternative here can't explain it..."

Like you are doing here.... that's called arguing from ignorance.

Incidentally, this is the same method Darwin used to infer natural selection, he called it versa causa.

No, he did not. Darwin appealed to actual positive evidence in support of his hypothesis. He didn't conclude "natural selection" by saying "well, X doesn't explain it, therefor NS..."

Applying a KNOWN cause observed in the present to explain events in the past. We know intelligence produces complex specified information.

We also know that intelligence requires a physical brain.
We also know that natural processes are more then capable of producing such complexity.

We do NOT know that there is "brainless intelligence" out there. In fact, there is no reason at all to assume that there is.

Don't you see that you are just asserting all this? Where is your positive evidence in favor of it? How can it be falsified?

Based on that, intelligence is the inferred cause of the origin of the complex specified information in the genome.

Bare assertion with zero positive evidence.

I didn't say otherwise, but there is a difference between something that is logically possible and what is actually feasible.

That would depend entirely on the amount of available trials, now wouldn't it?
1 chance in a trillion is so ridiculously low that I'ld take pretty much any wager if we get only a single trial.

But if we have a thousand trillion of trials, then I would wager the opposite... With enough trials, every improbable event becomes inevitable.

Some things are beyond the reach of chance.

The only thing that is beyond the reach of chance is a probability of zero.

Sure:

X is known to cause Y. We observe Y. After eliminating A, B and C, X is inferred as the best possible explanation for Y.

That's a false argument again. Because the only X that is known, is the product of Y.

By "x" you, off course mean "intelligence", as you made clear earlier in the post.
EVERY "intelligence" that we have ever observed was the product of a physical brain. A physical brain that is itself the product of biological processes based on genetics - the very thing we are trying to explain.

So unless you can actually show that "intelligence" can exists WITHOUT biology, you have a serious chicken and egg problem.

Intelligence can't be the cause of biology if intelligence itself is the product of biology.

Intelligence is known to generate complex specified information. Chance and necessity have been tested and failed.

And intelligence is known to depend on physical biological brains.

Here's a list of peer-reviewed articles supporting ID:
http://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/

The discovery institute is not a scientific organisation.
Try a real journal.

They have to be considered complex AND specified in order to qualify. If we use the 26 letters in the alphabet and the rules of grammar and syntax as our independently specified pattern, consider these examples of randomly generated text:

"asdfdg"
"school"
"adpoivnrwpsdkjfoiavjivrkfjoijvtskfmadicqwpgopovsdpoadiovfjioscdkovdivfiouhibacdbihazdihbadwenofvongbgbgdpiohvcn"
"xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo"
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."


The first two would not pass the complexity test since there isn't enough information to work with. Yes, the second would seem to be specified but not complex, we could not rule out it just happening by chance. The third passes the complexity test but is not specified, again we could not rule out it happening by chance. The fourth would seem to be complex, but according to Shannon's information theory the opposite of complex is a highly ordered sequence. Repetitive sequences are compressible whereas complex sequences are not. It is best explained by necessity, or some lawlike process like how crystals form. This is why snowflakes fail to pass, they are a repeating pattern of hexigonal prisms. Even though they are beautiful and no two are alike, a repeating pattern disquaifies it. The last one was just some randomly generated text which happened by chance.....Who would believe that? The last one is indeed specified complexity and warrants a design inference.

A language is not an appropriate analogy.
Because DNA is a molecule, not a language.

The "information" in english words is not the same kind of "information" as you find in genes.

There is no "communication" in DNA. There is no "message" going from one party to another.

Rather, it's a molecule involved in a massive chain reaction. The composition/pattern of the molecule determines the direction and effect of that reaction. This composition is what we call the "genetic information". But it's not a message... it's not a letter.... it's not a book....

It's a molecule. A molecule that is subject to change through variation / mutation.
To compare that molecule to an actual language like english, is invalid.

It's like comparing organic apples to plastic oranges.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They both are equally long and equally improbable, therefore contain the same amount of 'information' according to Shannon's theory. Highly improbable events happen all the time, but design is not inferred. Yet, there is clearly a difference between them. This is why Intelligent design builds on Shannon's theory and makes the distinction of functional information. Suppose someone shuffles a deck 100 times and deals out the same order every time. Now what? Assume it just a chance event? Happening once or even a few times can be chalked up to 'highly improbable' and not by design. I don't think anyone would believe there wasn't some 'design' involved with it happening 100 times.
That is what ID is about, not 1 shuffle and deal of a deck of card but detecting design.

Your example fails by its own description....

If someone shuffles a deck 100 times and deals it out in the same order everytime, how could you conclude "design" from that? Considering the given that the deck was shuffled.

I say such a thing doesn't happen in the real world. It theoretically could off course, but chances are so improbable that it likely wouldn't.

Now, your argument here relies completely on "but....what if it WOULD?????"

Well.... what if gravity suddenly stopped working?
I advice you to keep your examples and illustrations restricted to things that actually happen instead of "what if's".

 

[DogmaHunter]

If your referring bacteria gaining resistance to anti-bacterial drugs those are usually one or two point mutations.

1 is actually already enough to refute the point that "chance can't produce functional things".

One or two mutations is not intelligent design because it could easily be explained by chance.

You're changing your argument imo.
As I recall, it wasn't about chance. It was about chance resulting in functional things.

Also, this is not de novo information in the genome, it's working from existing information.

Well yeah, evolution takes the previous generation and alters it.
Thereby functions can change. What previously was responsible for X, becomes responsible for Y.