What is "design" and how to detect it

[GrowingSmaller]

Sorryy about the thread, but theres no serious takers for the OP I suppose.

 

[bhsmte]

Sorryy about the thread, but theres no serious takers for the OP I suppose.

There never is on this topic.

 

[Vaccine]

Hi,

As it came up, once again, in another thread, I'ld like to invite the ID crowd here once more to define what they exactly mean by the term "design", how it can be objectively detected and what the null hypothesis is.

It is my understanding that they use the loaded version of the word "design". As in, "being done by an actual designer". Some conscious entity. Not some process.

For example, I could speak about the "design" of this snowflake:

View attachment 163066

But I wouldn't be talking about the type of "design" that the ID crowd talks about when they use the word "design".


How to objectively detect this "design" (being the type of "design" that ID'ers refer to)?

How to define it, in such a way that it can be differentiated from "non-design" or "natural design"?

So, let's settle this once and for all. (although i'm not getting my hopes up - but you never know, right? I'm an optimist I guess).

Regards

Specified complexity has to be identified in order to infer "design".

"Complexity means that an object is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance. Short sequences can be explained by chance, long sequences cannot. A string with a probability of 10-150 or 500 bits of information is certainly complex and cannot be explained by chance.

Specification 'ensures that the object exhibits a pattern characteristic of intelligence'. Such a pattern cannot be explained by necessity or chance."
http://wasdarwinwrong.com/kortho44.htm


Forming crystals in repeating patterns doesn't qualify. Snowflakes are readily explained by necessity.

 

[crjmurray]

Specified complexity has to be identified in order to infer "design".

"Complexity means that an object is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance. Short sequences can be explained by chance, long sequences cannot. A string with a probability of 10-150 or 500 bits of information is certainly complex and cannot be explained by chance.

Specification 'ensures that the object exhibits a pattern characteristic of intelligence'. Such a pattern cannot be explained by necessity or chance."
http://wasdarwinwrong.com/kortho44.htm


Forming crystals in repeating patterns doesn't qualify. Snowflakes are readily explained by necessity.

So, special pleading?

 

[The Barbarian]

It's the Paley dilemma. To establish design, he had to use a man-made object as an example, because if he had used an actual object from nature, no one would have gotten his point.

His very choice of objects makes it clear that "design" cannot be attributed to anything in nature.

 

[The Barbarian]

"Complexity means that an object is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance. Short sequences can be explained by chance, long sequences cannot. A string with a probability of 10-150 or 500 bits of information is certainly complex and cannot be explained by chance.

Specification 'ensures that the object exhibits a pattern characteristic of intelligence'. Such a pattern cannot be explained by necessity or chance."

Well, let's take a look at that. Suppose we shuffle a deck of cards, and lay out the cards, noting the order. The probability of that order is 1/52! or about:
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002

So your argument proves that shuffled decks of cards are impossible.

Some would extend the argument and say that highly improbable, but functional things are impossible without design. Would you like to see how that argument fares?

 

[Kylie]

Hi,

As it came up, once again, in another thread, I'ld like to invite the ID crowd here once more to define what they exactly mean by the term "design", how it can be objectively detected and what the null hypothesis is.

It is my understanding that they use the loaded version of the word "design". As in, "being done by an actual designer". Some conscious entity. Not some process.

For example, I could speak about the "design" of this snowflake:

View attachment 163066

But I wouldn't be talking about the type of "design" that the ID crowd talks about when they use the word "design".


How to objectively detect this "design" (being the type of "design" that ID'ers refer to)?

How to define it, in such a way that it can be differentiated from "non-design" or "natural design"?

So, let's settle this once and for all. (although i'm not getting my hopes up - but you never know, right? I'm an optimist I guess).

Regards

I'd say something is designed if there is some purpose to it being the way that it is, and every part of it goes towards fulfilling that purpose.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'd say something is designed if there is some purpose to it being the way that it is, and every part of it goes towards fulfilling that purpose.

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."

 

[Vaccine]

So, special pleading?

Just a plain application of the theory.

 

[Vaccine]

It's the Paley dilemma. To establish design, he had to use a man-made object as an example, because if he had used an actual object from nature, no one would have gotten his point.

His very choice of objects makes it clear that "design" cannot be attributed to anything in nature.

He could have used this:

 

[The Barbarian]

That would probably not be very convincing. Mechanical 'catches' exist in numerous forms in arthropods, in all degrees of complexity. Therefore, your example would be evidence for natural selection, not design.

 

[Vaccine]

Well, let's take a look at that. Suppose we shuffle a deck of cards, and lay out the cards, noting the order. The probability of that order is 1/52! or about:
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002

So your argument proves that shuffled decks of cards are impossible.

Some would extend the argument and say that highly improbable, but functional things are impossible without design. Would you like to see how that argument fares?

That's a strawman argument. It makes no distinction between Shannon's information theory and intelligent design.

"The word 'information' in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage" - Warren Weaver

According to Shannon's theory these strings of text contain the same amount of information:
"vaiodsvhoidhvoiuhdvobfi"
"What hath God wrought"

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.

 

[crjmurray]

That's a strawman argument. It makes no distinction between Shannon's information theory and intelligent design.

"The word 'information' in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage" - Warren Weaver

According to Shannon's theory these strings of text contain the same amount of information:
"vaiodsvhoidhvoiuhdvobfi"
"What hath God wrought"

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.

We're all waiting for you to actually explain how to detect design. Saying "its totes improbable" is not a method of detecting design.

 

[Vaccine]

We're all waiting for you to actually explain how to detect design. Saying "its totes improbable" is not a method of detecting design.

In post #43 I Stated it and defined the terms.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's a strawman argument.

It addressed your argument.

It makes no distinction between Shannon's information theory and intelligent design.

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

According to Shannon's theory these strings of text contain the same amount of information:
"vaiodsvhoidhvoiuhdvobfi"
"What hath God wrought"

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 both are equally long and equally improbable, therefore contain the same amount of 'information' according to Shannon's theory.

Perhaps you don't know what his theory is about.

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

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

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.

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

 

[Vaccine]

It addressed your argument.

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". There would have to be 20 or more deals to have enough data to work with. One shuffle and deal wouldn't be enough to warrant a design inference regardless what was dealt.

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

No well articulated argument. No reasonable logic. Just mock it and hope that will show any falseness in it?

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'. Remember according to Shannon's theory 'information' is meant in the mathematical sense. They are both equally long and equally improbable, therefore contain the same amount of 'information'. But only one can be considered functional. The one that conforms to the independent pattern of the syntax and grammar of the English language.

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.
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.

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

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."

One or two mutations is not intelligent design because it could easily be explained by chance. Also, this is not de novo information in the genome, it's working from existing information.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Isn't it nonsensical to ask an ID'er to determine what is non-design in a universe that they believe wouldn't exist if it hadn't been designed?

No. If an ID'er can't tell me how they differentiate design from non-design - then how could this ID'er possible come to the conclusion that the universe is designed?

Remember, we are talking about "intelligent design". The inventors and proponents of which, claim to have a scientific idea, not just a religious one. They claim to start from the data and be able to conclude it was designed.

I'm asking about the methodology they employ to draw such a conclusion.

In other words, based on what ID'ers believe, they would not be able to determine anything non-designed because everything is designed for a specific reason. From an ID'ers perspective, non-design does not exist.

That flies in the face of what ID is claimed to be: a 'scientific' methodology to determine wheter or not something was designed or not.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sorryy about the thread, but theres no serious takers for the OP I suppose.

Indeed, there aren't it seems.

Which was exactly the point of the thread......
To point out that there are no takers on this.

But just wait... next time some evolution debate comes along, there they will be - claiming "design" and claiming to be able to detect it.

And we'll ask them how they can detect it and we'll get the same answers as in this thread.

 

[DogmaHunter]

"Complexity means that an object is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance.

In other words: "we don't know, therefor design"?

That's called an argument from ignorance.

Short sequences can be explained by chance, long sequences cannot. A string with a probability of 10-150 or 500 bits of information is certainly complex and cannot be explained by chance.

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

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

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.

Forming crystals in repeating patterns doesn't qualify.

Why not?​

 

[Chriliman]

No. If an ID'er can't tell me how they differentiate design from non-design - then how could this ID'er possible come to the conclusion that the universe is designed?

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?

Remember, we are talking about "intelligent design". The inventors and proponents of which, claim to have a scientific idea, not just a religious one. They claim to start from the data and be able to conclude it was designed.

I'm asking about the methodology they employ to draw such a conclusion.

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.

That flies in the face of what ID is claimed to be: a 'scientific' methodology to determine wheter or not something was designed or not.

Not necessarily, 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.