An argument for ID

[OrdinaryClay]

... In the first case, DNA was produced by chemistry, not by biology, and I always hated chemistry so I can't answer how DNA came to be. ...

So even though you don't understand how it happened you are going to believe it based on faith. You are free to do so. I do not accept science based on faith. I have decided to let the evidence take me where ever it goes. I only accept materialistic naturalism when it has evidence.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Is it as complex as DNA? Can you scientifically demonstrate that it follows from physics? The answers are no and yes.

Ah yes, the vagueness of "complexity." What is complex enough for this argument? It would appear to be whatever doesn't invalidate it. What is your criteria for determining that DNA is more "complex" (whatever that means) than planets, stars, solar systems, and galaxies? Actually, preceding that, how do you quantify "complexity?"

 

[gluadys]

So even though you don't understand how it happened you are going to believe it based on faith. You are free to do so. I do not accept science based on faith. I have decided to let the evidence take me where ever it goes. I only accept materialistic naturalism when it has evidence.

What do you think I am taking on faith? DNA is an acid. It's a chemical. Just like salt or hydrogen sulphide or carbohydrates. It's structure is lot more complicated because it is a macromolecule (a polymer?) -- I really don't remember much high school chemistry and I never touched biochemistry. But it doesn't make sense to me to say that because a molecule has a more complicated structure one needs any more faith to accept what chemists tell us about it than to accept what they say about the chemistry of water.

Do I think chemists know chemistry? Well, yes.

And as long as what they say is based on their work with chemicals such as DNA and not on faith, then I don't think my accepting what they say requires faith either. I accept what they say on the basis of their knowledge, just as I accept what my mechanic says on the basis of his knowledge.

 

[philadiddle]

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.

Here is a paraphrase of an argument Myers makes in Signature in the Cell Chp 17.

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.

Since premise 2 only relates to the intelligent acts of humans, should we therefore conclude that we built time machines and created the first complex biological organisms? It makes more sense than you probably think it does.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Ah yes, the vagueness of "complexity." What is complex enough for this argument?

DNA

Actually, preceding that, how do you quantify "complexity?"

Here is one way. Kolmogorov complexity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


BTW - What is your avatar? What does Dark_Lite mean anyway?

 

[OrdinaryClay]

What do you think I am taking on faith?...I really don't remember much high school chemistry and I never touched biochemistry.

That DNA arose from necessity and chance.

And as long as what they say is based on their work with chemicals such as DNA and not on faith, then I don't think my accepting what they say requires faith either. I accept what they say on the basis of their knowledge, just as I accept what my mechanic says on the basis of his knowledge.

This is faith. You are unqualified to judge there work. You trust them because ... well you do. Here is an example of why you don't blindly just trust scientists.
How to Publish a Scientific Comment in 1 2 3 Easy Steps

Interesting position. You don't know anything about the subject. You trust "experts" and refer to them to prove your point. Hard to argue with that. Personally it makes me uncomfortable.

 

[philadiddle]

That DNA arose from necessity and chance.

It's ironic that you push so hard for us to try to understand ID. And while I admire that you stick around when it's six against one, I am quite disappointed in this statement. When I push a rock down a hill, the place that it ends up is quite random. Or is it? It actually comes to rest where it does because of natural forces and the laws that determine where it ends up. It's final resting place seems random to us only because in this case "random" and "chance" only refer to our ability to predict it's final destination. "Chance" is not a cause.

In the same way, "chance" didn't cause DNA to form, biochemical interactions that follow specific laws caused it to form. The "randomness" of the process and the "chance" of a specific outcome only refer to our ability to predict that outcome.

 

[gluadys]

That DNA arose from necessity and chance.

God does work through necessity and chance, right? What reason is there to assume that at this particular point God intervened with a miracle?

This is faith. You are unqualified to judge there work. You trust them because ... well you do.

I will consider this an acceptable criticism when you decide not to accept the judgment of your dentist that you need a root canal. After all, unless you are a dentist, you are not qualified to judge their work.

 

[sfs]

When I push a rock down a hill, the place that it ends up is quite random. Or is it? It actually comes to rest where it does because of natural forces and the laws that determine where it ends up. It's final resting place seems random to us only because in this case "random" and "chance" only refer to our ability to predict it's final destination. "Chance" is not a cause.

This is one of the things that never made any sense to me in ID (or at least this version of ID). Chance and necessity are not mutually exclusive categories in science, and they are not descriptions of causal processes. Apart from quantum mechanics (which has little to do with ID or evolution), describing something as being due to chance is a statement about either our knowledge of the system or the level of description we find to convenient to use; it says nothing about the process itself. In physics, every event is the result of a causal process; "chance" is just a way of grouping large sets of similar causal processes together because we can't or won't separate them.

Making intelligence the third choice in this set of causal possibilities makes even less sense to me. Intelligently directed actions are just as much the result of a causal chain of necessary physical interactions (starting with electrochemical interactions in the brain, proceeding through biomechanical interactions, and so on) as any other events, and intelligently directed actions can be described by probability distributions just like any other complex process whose details we don't understand.

The entire approach is literally nonsensical to me. It simply has no connection to how science actually dissects the natural world.

 

[laconicstudent]

That DNA arose from necessity and chance.


This is faith. You are unqualified to judge there work. You trust them because ... well you do. Here is an example of why you don't blindly just trust scientists.

Interesting position. You don't know anything about the subject. You trust "experts" and refer to them to prove your point. Hard to argue with that. Personally it makes me uncomfortable.

You know, I hate to tell you this, but some of us actually DO understand science. Just because you don't doesn't mean the rest of us just have to trust them.

 

[sfs]

There is nothing murky about human designed computers. They are designed by intelligence and not even remotely possible through necessity or chance.

Quite correct, but not a response to what I said. It's not the complex objects that are murky -- it's the definition of complexity that is. (The division of causes into necessity and chance is part of the murkiness, by the way, something I addressed in another post.)

If that was your point then you should have said humans.

No, because that would not have been as effective a parallel to your statement. You selected one unique trait of humans, high intelligence, and concluded that it was necessary for the production of complexity. I selected a different unique trait, featherless bipedality, and drew the same conclusion, based on the same form of argument. Nothing in your argument depended on intelligence, and therefore there is no reason to conclude that intelligence is any more necessary for the production of complexity than featherless bipedality is.

You have resorted to hiding behind the same strawman others here do. No where did I say complexity was sufficient to indicate design.

I didn't mean to suggest that you had. You say that a certain kind of complexity is sufficient to indicate design. Regardless, you still smuggled intelligence into your argument.

You throw out buzz words like "murky", but don't have the ability to show anything in nature that has the specific and functional complexity of DNA. If you really wanted to take on ID you would produce something that nature produces with the complexity of DNA. Hint: Anything derived from DNA does not count.

"Murky" is not a buzzword. It's an attack on your argument. I can't show that anything in nature has a certain level of specific and functional complexity until you tell me how to measure specificity, functionality and complexity. What units is functionality measured in? Or is it a binary characteristic?

I smuggled nothing in. I pointed out that a perfectly valid form of abductive reasoning can be used in the case of ID. I gave you the reference. Did you look at it? Do you understand what inference to the best explanation is? It is used all the time in science. No doubt you believe the favored Cambrian Explosion hypothesis because of it.

Thanks, but I'm quite familiar with scientific reasoning. (And as far as I know, there is no single favored 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.

You may know that, but I certainly don't. Nor do I know how humans could produce something that is not also produced by chance and necessity.

Your question is meaningless. Do you understand what truth conditions are? Yes, syllogisms are true. So you can dump your sarcasm. Reasoning is not done in a vacuum. You can craft all kinds of logical arguments that are meaningless if they have no foundational truth conditions. We know for a fact that humans were not available when DNA was created therefore your syllogism is an empty word game and nothing more. It makes no point because it has no substance.

Yes, I know there were no humans around. You may recall, however, that I didn't introduce humans into my syllogism. Humans were not there (unless we're confused about some other facts, which could always be the case, of course), but perhaps other bipeds were present. To be sure, we have no evidence that other bipeds were around at the time, but we exactly as much evidence for the existence of other intelligent beings too.

I'm not being sarcastic, by the way. I'm trying to get you to make a sound argument by pointing out that logic identical to yours leads to conclusions you think absurd. You may have some other reason for thinking that functional, specified complexity can only be produced by intelligence, but the mere fact that it in known cases it is only produced by humans is not sufficient grounds for that conclusions. (Again, this is assuming that functional, specified complexity can even be identified.)

 

[OrdinaryClay]

It's ironic that you push so hard for us to try to understand ID. And while I admire that you stick around when it's six against one, ...

I don't post for the benefit of those who disagree.

...I am quite disappointed in this statement. When I push a rock down a hill, the place that it ends up is quite random. Or is it? It actually comes to rest where it does because of natural forces and the laws that determine where it ends up. It's final resting place seems random to us only because in this case "random" and "chance" only refer to our ability to predict it's final destination. "Chance" is not a cause.

This is described by chaotic dynamics. The final position it ends up at is for all intents and purposes random.

In the same way, "chance" didn't cause DNA to form, biochemical interactions that follow specific laws caused it to form. The "randomness" of the process and the "chance" of a specific outcome only refer to our ability to predict that outcome.

OOL researchers use two approaches to try and explain the origination of the biochemistry of life - deterministic and stochastic. You should study some of the work in OOL. These are their ideas. Not mine.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

God does work through necessity and chance, right?

Yes.

What reason is there to assume that at this particular point God intervened with a miracle?

I don't know how God created DNA. My only claim is that the evidence so far indicates the mark of intelligence in its design.

I will consider this an acceptable criticism when you decide not to accept the judgment of your dentist that you need a root canal. After all, unless you are a dentist, you are not qualified to judge their work.

I'm not making any claims based on my ignorance of dentistry.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

...Chance and necessity are not mutually exclusive categories in science, and they are not descriptions of causal processes.

Necessity is, by definition, causal. It is the laws of physics. Chance is not causal in the same sense that the laws of physics are, but it is governing. Chance governs outcomes because it has influence on the set of outcomes and the final outcome. Design is governing. It influences the set of possible outcomes.

If I role a set of dice the laws of nature determine the forces acting on the dice. Chance governs the possible outcomes. Cheating would bias the set of outcomes.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

You selected one unique trait of humans, high intelligence, and concluded that it was necessary for the production of complexity.

No I didn't. I stated specified complexity was an indicator of intelligence.

Nothing in your argument depended on intelligence, ...

specified complexity

Regardless, you still smuggled intelligence into your argument.

No I did not.

Thanks, but I'm quite familiar with scientific reasoning. (And as far as I know, there is no single favored explanation for the Cambrian Explosion.)

The purpose was to demonstrate the parallelisms between the two

Yes, I know there were no humans around. You may recall, however, that I didn't introduce humans into my syllogism. Humans were not there (unless we're confused about some other facts, which could always be the case, of course), but perhaps other bipeds were present. To be sure, we have no evidence that other bipeds were around at the time, but we exactly as much evidence for the existence of other intelligent beings too.

We know for a fact there were no other biological beings around because we are talking about 3.7 bya.

I'm trying to get you to make a sound argument by pointing out that logic identical to yours leads to conclusions you think absurd. You may have some other reason for thinking that functional, specified complexity can only be produced by intelligence, but the mere fact that it in known cases it is only produced by humans is not sufficient grounds for that conclusions. (Again, this is assuming that functional, specified complexity can even be identified.)

Your argument did not have valid truth conditions so it had no value as an argument.

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.

 

[sfs]

Necessity is, by definition, causal. It is the laws of physics. Chance is not causal in the same sense that the laws of physics are, but it is governing. Chance governs outcomes because it has influence on the set of outcomes and the final outcome. Design is governing. It influences the set of possible outcomes.

If I role a set of dice the laws of nature determine the forces acting on the dice. Chance governs the possible outcomes. Cheating would bias the set of outcomes.

I recognize the words here, but they don't seem to make any sense. If you throw dice, the laws of nature and the precise initial conditions -- the shape of the dice, the shape of the table you throw them on, the exact force you impart to the dice -- determine exactly the outcome. There is no chance involved in the physics of dice-throwing.

Chance is nothing but a summary of our human lack of knowledge about the initial conditions and inability to calculate the outcome. Chance does not influence the outcome and is not part of the physical description of the process; all that we mean by saying that the outcome is random is that we don't know what the outcome is going to be. As I said before, chance is not a description of the physical system, but of our knowledge of the system. Thus contrasting chance and necessity is not meaningful, and trying to do science by starting with that distinction is hopeless.

Design is yet a third, unrelated concept. It ascribes an intent to some causal part of the system, but that ascription is independent of the role of either chance or necessity. I throw dice with the design of generating a number I cannot predict, in order to play a game; that action is designed and incorporates chance -- and is also fully governed by the necessity of physical laws. I throw a ball to my dog, knowing that it must follow a predictable path because of Newton's laws and gravity, for the amusement of my dog; that action is designed and exploits necessity.

I really do find this whole approach incoherent, and not at all scientific.

 

[sfs]

No I didn't. I stated specified complexity was an indicator of intelligence.

Sigh. You were attempting to conclude that specified complexity was a indicator of intelligence. You have not given any reason to single out intelligence as being the necessary condition for specified complexity.

We know for a fact there were no other biological beings around because we are talking about 3.7 bya.

Really? How do you know that? Sure, no known biological beings were around 3.7 bya, but is that adequate to conclude that none could have been? If so, we can also conclude that no intelligent beings were around, since all known intelligent beings are also biological beings. If the absence of known beings of the relevant type rules them out of consideration, then your argument fails.

You have yet to point to a reason that my argument is invalid that does not also apply to your own.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

I recognize the words here, but they don't seem to make any sense. If you throw dice, the laws of nature and the precise initial conditions -- the shape of the dice, the shape of the table you throw them on, the exact force you impart to the dice -- determine exactly the outcome. There is no chance involved in the physics of dice-throwing.

Chance is nothing but a summary of our human lack of knowledge about the initial conditions and inability to calculate the outcome. Chance does not influence the outcome and is not part of the physical description of the process; all that we mean by saying that the outcome is random is that we don't know what the outcome is going to be. As I said before, chance is not a description of the physical system, but of our knowledge of the system. Thus contrasting chance and necessity is not meaningful, and trying to do science by starting with that distinction is hopeless.

Modern science has not conclusively determined whether randomness is a result of our lack of understanding or is fundamental to the laws of nature. This is a red herring in any event. Science does with out a doubt take notice, and account for, the concept of chance as a governor of outcomes. It also recognizes chance as distinct from an event that occurs deterministically. In fact, science even goes so far as to distinguish between the two when both are at play. Statistical thermodynamics is a good example.

Design is yet a third, unrelated concept. It ascribes an intent to some causal part of the system, but that ascription is independent of the role of either chance or necessity. I throw dice with the design of generating a number I cannot predict, in order to play a game; that action is designed and incorporates chance -- and is also fully governed by the necessity of physical laws. I throw a ball to my dog, knowing that it must follow a predictable path because of Newton's laws and gravity, for the amusement of my dog; that action is designed and exploits necessity.

In the case of games of chance design can be applied to bias the outcomes. Design, as in the case of pure chance, governs outcomes. I can influence and determine outcomes by applying design. It is very simple.

I really do find this whole approach incoherent, and not at all scientific.

Science disagrees with you. It is prefectly corehent. Evolution depends on it being coherent.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Sigh. You were attempting to conclude that specified complexity was a indicator of intelligence. You have not given any reason to single out intelligence as being the necessary condition for specified complexity.

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.

Really? How do you know that? Sure, no known biological beings were around 3.7 bya, but is that adequate to conclude that none could have been? If so, we can also conclude that no intelligent beings were around, since all known intelligent beings are also biological beings. If the absence of known beings of the relevant type rules them out of consideration, then your argument fails.

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 importance is the characteristic of intelligence that it indicates.

You have yet to point to a reason that my argument is invalid that does not also apply to your own.

Your argument is empty because it lacks a grounding in truth coniditions.

 

[sfs]

W
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 importance is the characteristic of intelligence that it indicates.

Right. And my argument was about the nature of the occurrence and that it was a design. What is importance is the characteristic of featherless bipedality that it indicates. Could you please tell me why my argument is invalid when yours is valid? Just repeating that mine "lacks a grounding in truth conditions" is not an answer, by the way; postulating an unevidenced intelligent designer lacks a grounding in truth conditions to exactly the same extent as postulating an unevidenced featherless biped.