What does "best explained" by design mean?

[In situ]

Hi everyone and merry Christmas.

I just found a you Youtube video with Stephen Meyer titled "Intelligent Design 3.0" and curious about what Mayer and the Discovery Institute now is up to I had a brief look at it. However already at the start of the talk a question mark came up.

It seems the Intelligent Design community's argument about the bacterial flagella has evolved from "can only be explained" by design to "is best explained" by design. However it is unclear to me what Meyer mean with "best". What makes it the best explanation in his mind, i.e. in what sense is it better than the natural explanation Ken Miller proposed at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court trial in 2005 where he showed the claim of "irreducible complexity" to be incorrect, i.e. debunked the claim it can "only be explained" by design?

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi everyone and merry Christmas.

I just found a you Youtube video with Stephen Meyer titled "Intelligent Design 3.0" and curious about what Mayer and the Discovery Institute now is up to I had a brief look at it. However already at the start of the talk a question mark came up.

It seems the Intelligent Design community's argument about the bacterial flagella has evolved from "can only be explained" by design to "is best explained" by design. However it is unclear to me what Meyer mean with "best". What makes it the best explanation in his mind, i.e. in what sense is it better than the natural explanation Ken Miller proposed at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court trial in 2005 where he showed the claim of "irreducible complexity" to be incorrect, i.e. debunked the claim it can "only be explained" by design?

The only thing the Dover case proved was that Intelligent Design was religious. That's all the court was looking at and irreducible complexity while a topic of interest was with regards to the arguments of Intelligent Design, the court offered no opinion with regards to whether or not it was true.

 

[pitabread]

Intelligent Design unfortunately doesn't actually explain anything. In order to have a real explanation for a design, it would need to explain how something was designed/created. This is completely absent in the ID model.

All the ID arguments really boil down to are negative arguments against biological evolution with design assumed as a default. Unfortunately for those invested in ID, that's not how hull hypotheses work.

 

[In situ]

The only thing the Dover case proved was

I am not interested in discussing the Dover case. My question was: what makes ID the "best" explanation for the bacterial flagella? Do you have anything to say to help clarify to me what Meyer might mean with that?

 

[pitabread]

My question was: what makes ID the "best" explanation for the bacterial flagella?

Nothing because it isn't an explanation in the first place.

 

[In situ]

Intelligent Design unfortunately doesn't actually explain anything.

I fail to see an answer to my question. I would like to understand how Mayer reason, and your answer to help clarify this to e is nonsensical to me.

 

[pitabread]

I fail to see an answer to my question. I would like to understand how Mayer reason, and your answer to help clarify this to e is nonsensical to me.

Just ask yourself: what *is* the ID explanation for the flagellum?

 

[In situ]

Nothing because it isn't an explanation in the first place.

I can easily conjure up a number of reason why it would be the best exlanation in Meyers point of view, but I am not interested in listing to myself, but to hear other peoples opinion on this and how they might understand Meyers lines of reasoning.

You haven't made such an attempt to answer my question and simply assume the reason Meyer has is "nothing". I take such answer as you either does not understand what it is I am asking, or you have no answer to give but just felt the need to express your own opinion about ID. If the latter is the case, then I would like to ask you in a friendly manner to refrain from posting in this thread.

 

[In situ]

Just ask yourself: what *is* the ID explanation for the flagellum?

I already know what I think, so there is no need to ask myself what I think.

 

[pitabread]

You haven't made such an attempt to answer my question and simply assume the reason Meyer has is "nothing".

Again, just ask yourself what *is* the ID explanation for the flagellum.

 

[pitabread]

I already know what I think, so there is no need to ask myself what I think.

This isn't about what you think though; it's about how ID explains the existence of flagellum.

How does ID explain it?

You haven't made such an attempt to answer my question and simply assume the reason Meyer has is "nothing".

I'm well familiar with the ID literature. I know exactly where Meyer is coming from and why you're going to come up empty looking for an answer to your question in the OP.

There is no ID model or theory which actually explains the existence of anything. If there is, I'd love to see it, but so far everything I've seen from the ID camp tends to be negative argumentation against biological evolution and little else.

A negative argument against biological evolution for something isn't an explanation as how that thing actually came to be. For that, you'd need a model or theory of ID that utilizes positive explanations for things. Again, to the best of my knowledge no such model or theory currently exists.

 

[In situ]

Nothing because it isn't an explanation in the first place.

To clarify my question:

I am not asking whether ID can (scientifically) best explain the bacterial flagella, because imo ID cannot per definition provide with such answer. I am asking what reasons Meyer might have for his assertion ID being the best explanation, which is not to be confused with their being, or even possible can exist, an explanation from the point of view of ID.

 

[In situ]

This isn't about what you think though; it's about how ID explains the existence of flagellum.

How does ID explain it?

That is not my question, the question is why ID provides with the "best" answer. Do you understand what it is I am asking for?

 

[mark kennedy]

I am not interested in discussing the Dover case. My question was: what makes ID the "best" explanation for the bacterial flagella? Do you have anything to say to help clarify to me what Meyer might mean with that?

That is, believe it or not, a very old argument. William Paley wrote a book on Natural Theology (what ID really is) following the same basic premise, he called them contrivances. The analogy went, a man walking along a beach finds a stone and a watch. Any number of explanations could explain the stone but the watch was obviously designed and crafted. Issac Newton even had an intelligent design argument in Principia. It's one of those things that people have thought down through the centuries, but it's more philosophical and intellectual then theological or scientific.

 

[pitabread]

To clarify my question:

I am not asking whether ID can (scientifically) best explain the bacterial flagella, because imo ID cannot per definition provide with such answer. I am asking what reasons Meyer might have for his assertion ID being the best explanation, which is not to be confused with their being, or even possible can exist, an explanation from the point of view of ID.

Fair enough, I misinterpreted what you were asking for.

In this instance, I think Meyer is lying. Meyer is an ID-salesman who makes money from writing books about it. No doubt he's trying to convince some audience members of the validity of ID which is no doubt good for business.

So if I really had to guess as to his reasons, I'd say it's in his best financial interest.

 

[SkyWriting]

Intelligent Design unfortunately doesn't actually explain anything. In order to have a real explanation for a design, it would need to explain how something was designed/created. This is completely absent in the ID model.

All the ID arguments really boil down to are negative arguments against biological evolution with design assumed as a default. Unfortunately for those invested in ID, that's not how hull hypotheses work.

Fail. At my work I design solutions to problems all day long. I can't fathom how I'd explain my creative process or how somebody could explain what I do. I create solutions by thinking of solutions and systems. Many times trial and error, but many times I get the solution right in my mind, by seeing the aspects of the problem.

If you tried to explain how I engineered solutions, your words would be less informed than mine, and I don't have words for it. The person in my position failed at it so I get zero training and figure much on the fly.

One time, Micheal Jackson was asked by a judge to create a new song in the courtroom. I don't think any of the 100's of people could explain the process after seeing it happen in front of them. But they knew MJ was intelligent, based on the results.

 

[pitabread]

Fail. At my work I design solutions to problems all day long. I can't fathom how I'd explain my creative process or how somebody could explain what I do. I create solutions by thinking of solutions and systems. Many times trial and error, but many times I get the solution right in my mind, by seeing the aspects of the problem.

If you tried to explain how I engineered solutions, your words would be less informed than mine, and I don't have words for it. The person in my position failed at it so I get zero training and figure much on the fly.

What does any of this have to do with Intelligent Design (as per Meyer, et al.) as it applies to biology?

 

[Jimmy D]

It may not explain anything but it’s still better than evolution, which goes without saying, and it’s better than merely saying “God did it” because it sounds credible to the scientifically illiterate.

It’s the best!

 

[In situ]

Fair enough, I misinterpreted what you were asking for.

All good. We are all biased in some way or the other and when someone comes around and says something in which the intention does not fit into preexisting biases our brains will make them fit into them someway or the other. It is normal, and my duty is then to try break the bias. And just to check, what do you now believe my question might be about?

In this instance, I think Meyer is lying.

I can give a lot of case examples in where Meyer says something which could be explain by him lying, for instance he loves to say that evolution is "unguided and undirected". Unguided yes, undirected no, and with his level of education he ought to know this. However, to claim he is laying would be a very naive way to explain it. Considering how the human mind and brain works, and giving Meyer the benefit of doubt, I believe this is a way to simplistic explanation for his reasons saying this.

At any rate, I think I understand why Meyer says such things, but I am not fully clear on why he uses the word "best", it kind of bewilders my mind when I think about it. Following his reasoning on why it is the "best" explanation it makes we wonder why he not simply says it is the "only" explanation. I have a gut feeling for why he might use the word "best" but also want to see what others might think about it.

 

[In situ]

It may not explain anything but it’s still better than evolution

Yes I get that part, but why is it better? It is certainly not better in explaining why a mere tooth happens to tells something about an organisms reproductive organs.