Christian views on current news, Australian style
Archives
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
February 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
November 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
February 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
November 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
Atom Feed
Blogs I Frequent
- Evangelical Outpost
- Intelligent Design the Future
- Australian Christian Lobby
- Instapundit
- Verum Serum
- Jivin Jehoshaphat
- Mark Steyn
- Hugh Hewitt
- The Corner
- Iraq the Model
- Prosthesis
- Dawn Eden
- Belmont Club
- Imago Dei
- The Pearcey Report
- Tim Blair
- Powerline
- Opinion Journal
- Life Site news
- Cox and Forkum
- Scrapple Face
- Creation Safaris
- Telic Thoughts
- Right Reason
- Parableman
- Intellectuelle
- Stand To Reason Weblog
- Post Darwinist
- The Pandas Thumb
- He Lives
- Creation Safaris
Sitemeter
18.4.05
ID - "Causing" problems
ID the Future has a post on Evidence for Intelligent Design
Paul Nelson describes a question asked to him about the evidence for design and he responds with an analogy to the SETI program. This highlights 2 points
1) There are scientists out there who think they can detect design
2) The real dispute is a philosophical one. If one makes random, or physically deterministic causes the default, then you can never be sure that something had an intelligent cause.
What is more interesting is the trackbacks to the post, which like to think they have refuted this particular point of view simply because, in the words of the first trackback submitter
We do not need to invoke entities very different from ourselves (some type of intelligent life, with a technological civilization) to explain the received signal. We would indeed be at an impasse, if one of us required that ET be unphysical.
A major problem with this line of reasoning is that implies that science cannot hypothesis the existence of an entity (inteligent or not) that is different to what we know exists on the basis of our observations. So, for instance, dark matter and dark energy would be considered invalid. They are, after all, "entities very different" from what we know.
The second problem with this line of reasoning is that is attacking a straw man. The ID movement specifically rejects any conclusions about the nature of the designer. It could for instance, be an alien. The responder is basically adding something to the argument that was not there and then refutes the argument based on that addition.
A second trackback has, probably the funniest comment I have ever seen. Beware, extreme irony can be hazzardous to your health.
Wondering why just-so stories count as evidence in ID, while they don't in biology? Me too. Evidence is a funny thing.
An evolutionist chiding and ID'er 'Just-so stories'. Priceless.
Of course, earlier in that piece, our trackbacker tries to make some sort of point
Wondering how intelligent design solves this problem? Me too.
But let's suppose for a second that Nelson can tell a story about how god (or aliens or whatever the designer is) could have made RNA. I take it this is supposed to give us reason to think that god in fact made RNA.
So once again, a straw man is created by adding in the concept of 'God' to the ID claims. I have to wonder why these people can't just refute the argument as put. Are they incapable of doing so?
What always seems to be ignored is that there is a limited number of types of causes. That is, every event/action is caused by one of 3 possible causitive agents, either deterministic, random or intelligent. If deterministic and random causes are unable to explain a particular event or action, then by process of elimination, and intelligent cause is a better explanation. This concept is used over and over again in science, be it forensic science, SETI, archaeology or many other fields.
- posted by Alan Grey @ Monday, April 18, 2005
Comments:
<< Home
As the "second trackback submitter," allow me to explain what you apparently were incapable of understanding from my post.
Evolutionists, professionals that is, realized the worthlessness of just-so adaptationism decades ago. You will not find it in contemporary evolutionary biology. That is to say that more than merely dreaming up a "a causal sufficiency claim," to use Nelson's words, is required for explanation. But apparently, this is all that the ID people want. Nelson is reasoning as follows: The "designer," whatever it is, by whatever unspecified means, could have done X, and we don't know what else could have done X, so the designer did X. This is exactly the kind of reasoning that was wrong with just-so adaptationism. It's not good science.
Not only is this a just-so story, but it's a comically vague one. What's the "designer" like? How does it accomplish, using Nelson's example, the creation of RNA? I have never heard an answer, presumably because the real answer, that they pretend they're not trying to argue for, is that the designer is god.
This brings us to the second point. I did not presume that god is the designer. (Hence the parenthetical "or aliens or whatever the designer is.") Please try to read more carefully.
Nor did I introduce a straw man. To do so would be to assume that the designer's god, argue that god doesn't exist, and thereby conclude that ID is false. I did not do so.
Finally, we come to this:
"I have to wonder why these people can't just refute the argument as put. Are they incapable of doing so?"
What are you looking for in the way of a refutation of the claims of ID? If it's a refutation of the arguments, there are plenty. See my post, for one modest example. Nelson's argument is invalid!
Or maybe by "refutation," you mean proof that there is not an intelligent designer responsible for life? If so, you must not be familiar with the basic critical-thinking problem involved in proving a negative. The project for anti-ID thinkers like me is not to disprove the claim that there's a designer, but to demonstrate that there is no good reason for thinking that there is a designer. None has to date been produced.
Evolutionists, professionals that is, realized the worthlessness of just-so adaptationism decades ago. You will not find it in contemporary evolutionary biology. That is to say that more than merely dreaming up a "a causal sufficiency claim," to use Nelson's words, is required for explanation. But apparently, this is all that the ID people want. Nelson is reasoning as follows: The "designer," whatever it is, by whatever unspecified means, could have done X, and we don't know what else could have done X, so the designer did X. This is exactly the kind of reasoning that was wrong with just-so adaptationism. It's not good science.
Not only is this a just-so story, but it's a comically vague one. What's the "designer" like? How does it accomplish, using Nelson's example, the creation of RNA? I have never heard an answer, presumably because the real answer, that they pretend they're not trying to argue for, is that the designer is god.
This brings us to the second point. I did not presume that god is the designer. (Hence the parenthetical "or aliens or whatever the designer is.") Please try to read more carefully.
Nor did I introduce a straw man. To do so would be to assume that the designer's god, argue that god doesn't exist, and thereby conclude that ID is false. I did not do so.
Finally, we come to this:
"I have to wonder why these people can't just refute the argument as put. Are they incapable of doing so?"
What are you looking for in the way of a refutation of the claims of ID? If it's a refutation of the arguments, there are plenty. See my post, for one modest example. Nelson's argument is invalid!
Or maybe by "refutation," you mean proof that there is not an intelligent designer responsible for life? If so, you must not be familiar with the basic critical-thinking problem involved in proving a negative. The project for anti-ID thinkers like me is not to disprove the claim that there's a designer, but to demonstrate that there is no good reason for thinking that there is a designer. None has to date been produced.
# posted by 
: 18/4/05 6:34 pm
: 18/4/05 6:34 pm
"Evolutionists, professionals that is, realized the worthlessness of just-so adaptationism decades ago."
If Sprague is trying to show that Nelson's arguement is formally invalid why this appeal to such ill-defined notions as a "realization of worthlessness"? Is this some new logical fallacy? Intelligentia de vilitate, maybe?
Sober and others have tried to deal with design inferences from a philosophical standpoint. But who cares about the fuzzy epistemological intuitions of your average evolutionary biologist or the like, who probably hasn't had a philosophical notion since he snorted at "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" in grad school?
There's two issues here, and Sprague has clearly conflated the two. One is the formal validity of design inferences.
The second is whether Nelson's particular examples satisfy the requirements of the inference. Sprague needs to pick one and be clear.
"Not only is this a just-so story, but it's a comically vague one. What's the "designer" like? How does it accomplish, using Nelson's example, the creation of RNA? "
This is nonsense. Look at what Sprague is doing here. Nelson, using the design inference, claims that reductionist, mechanistic explanations are inadequate for some phenomena. Sprague claims that he can't do this unless he can provide a reductionist, mechanistic explanation for the very same phenomena.
There's some comical reasoning going on here, but it isn't Nelson's.
If Sprague is trying to show that Nelson's arguement is formally invalid why this appeal to such ill-defined notions as a "realization of worthlessness"? Is this some new logical fallacy? Intelligentia de vilitate, maybe?
Sober and others have tried to deal with design inferences from a philosophical standpoint. But who cares about the fuzzy epistemological intuitions of your average evolutionary biologist or the like, who probably hasn't had a philosophical notion since he snorted at "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" in grad school?
There's two issues here, and Sprague has clearly conflated the two. One is the formal validity of design inferences.
The second is whether Nelson's particular examples satisfy the requirements of the inference. Sprague needs to pick one and be clear.
"Not only is this a just-so story, but it's a comically vague one. What's the "designer" like? How does it accomplish, using Nelson's example, the creation of RNA? "
This is nonsense. Look at what Sprague is doing here. Nelson, using the design inference, claims that reductionist, mechanistic explanations are inadequate for some phenomena. Sprague claims that he can't do this unless he can provide a reductionist, mechanistic explanation for the very same phenomena.
There's some comical reasoning going on here, but it isn't Nelson's.
# posted by : 21/4/05 3:58 am
: 21/4/05 3:58 am
As the first trackback submitter, let me clarify (sorry, I've misplaced my password, and so am posting anonymous).
Grey Thoughts wrote:
"The ID movement specifically rejects any conclusions about the nature of the designer. It could for instance, be an alien."
Then who created the alien? Did some natural process give rise to the alien, or does the alien, too, have irreducible complexity, which requires it, too, to have been designed?
Possibility 1 is that you have an sequence of natural designers, going back in time - but we know that the universe was extremely hot and dense about 13 billion years ago - did the natural designer exist then? The natural designer thus exist contemporaneously with the Big Bang, and the only model of that we currently have is God.
I'm not adding anything to ID, I'm taking it to its logical conclusion.
If you write 2+2, and I call it 4, I'm not adding anything new to the argument.
Possibility 2 is that the designer of life on earth arose from natural processes - but in that case, we do not need to create a new entity to explain life on earth - the default position must be that it too arose from natural processes.
If you look further on my blog, you will see that my position is that postulating design by itself does not make something unscientific - we do that all the time, e.g., with archaeological remains. However, in all cases when we postulate design, the artifacts created by design are used to study the nature of the designer. It is precisely because of the following that ID fails the science test:
""The ID movement specifically rejects any conclusions about the nature of the designer.""
Grey Thoughts wrote:
"The ID movement specifically rejects any conclusions about the nature of the designer. It could for instance, be an alien."
Then who created the alien? Did some natural process give rise to the alien, or does the alien, too, have irreducible complexity, which requires it, too, to have been designed?
Possibility 1 is that you have an sequence of natural designers, going back in time - but we know that the universe was extremely hot and dense about 13 billion years ago - did the natural designer exist then? The natural designer thus exist contemporaneously with the Big Bang, and the only model of that we currently have is God.
I'm not adding anything to ID, I'm taking it to its logical conclusion.
If you write 2+2, and I call it 4, I'm not adding anything new to the argument.
Possibility 2 is that the designer of life on earth arose from natural processes - but in that case, we do not need to create a new entity to explain life on earth - the default position must be that it too arose from natural processes.
If you look further on my blog, you will see that my position is that postulating design by itself does not make something unscientific - we do that all the time, e.g., with archaeological remains. However, in all cases when we postulate design, the artifacts created by design are used to study the nature of the designer. It is precisely because of the following that ID fails the science test:
""The ID movement specifically rejects any conclusions about the nature of the designer.""
# posted by : 21/4/05 7:05 am
: 21/4/05 7:05 am
"This is nonsense. Look at what Sprague is doing here. Nelson, using the design inference, claims that reductionist, mechanistic explanations are inadequate for some phenomena. Sprague claims that he can't do this unless he can provide a reductionist, mechanistic explanation for the very same phenomena."
The previous comment eloquently expresses what is wrong with this. I don't claim that Nelson "can't" postulate a non-natural designer that makes RNA by some purely non-mechanistic way. It's just that if he does that, it is not science. So if that's what ID does, it's not science.
The previous comment eloquently expresses what is wrong with this. I don't claim that Nelson "can't" postulate a non-natural designer that makes RNA by some purely non-mechanistic way. It's just that if he does that, it is not science. So if that's what ID does, it's not science.
# posted by : 21/4/05 1:51 pm
: 21/4/05 1:51 pm
The first trackback submitter writes
Possibility 2 is that the designer of life on earth arose from natural processes - but in that case, we do not need to create a new entity to explain life on earth - the default position must be that it too arose from natural processes.
I think you have made 2 things clear
1) You think the default position should be 'natural processes'.
2) If the designer of life on earth was not designed itself, it does not imply that life on earth was not designed.
Point 2) is where you argument falls down as you are saying that
I) 'A' arose naturally
II) 'B' was designed by 'A'
III) We have to assume that 'B' was not designed.
The non sequitor is fairly obvious.
However, in all cases when we postulate design, the artifacts created by design are used to study the nature of the designer. It is precisely because of the following that ID fails the science test:
"The ID movement specifically rejects any conclusions about the nature of the designer."
If we conclude something was designed, it may lead us to investigate the nature of the designer, but it may also be used to properly understand the object's construction.
If someone concludes that a car engine was designed, that do not need to worry about the nature of who designed it, if they are investigating the engine to copy it or properly understand it's workings.
Possibility 2 is that the designer of life on earth arose from natural processes - but in that case, we do not need to create a new entity to explain life on earth - the default position must be that it too arose from natural processes.
I think you have made 2 things clear
1) You think the default position should be 'natural processes'.
2) If the designer of life on earth was not designed itself, it does not imply that life on earth was not designed.
Point 2) is where you argument falls down as you are saying that
I) 'A' arose naturally
II) 'B' was designed by 'A'
III) We have to assume that 'B' was not designed.
The non sequitor is fairly obvious.
However, in all cases when we postulate design, the artifacts created by design are used to study the nature of the designer. It is precisely because of the following that ID fails the science test:
"The ID movement specifically rejects any conclusions about the nature of the designer."
If we conclude something was designed, it may lead us to investigate the nature of the designer, but it may also be used to properly understand the object's construction.
If someone concludes that a car engine was designed, that do not need to worry about the nature of who designed it, if they are investigating the engine to copy it or properly understand it's workings.
Alan Grey,
Yours and ID's argument is like:
2+2 is a prime number.
When anyone says, 2+2 = 4, and 4 = 2*2 and cannot be prime, you reply, "who said anything about 4?"
You don't even get the argument right.You wrote:
"Point 2) is where you argument falls down as you are saying that
I) 'A' arose naturally
II) 'B' was designed by 'A'
III) We have to assume that 'B' was not designed."
The argument is
I) ID says life (B) could only have come from a designer (A).
II) If the designer (A) arose naturally, there is no need to invoke a designer for (B), whatever theory explains (A) suffices for the origin of (B) as well - which contradicts I.
III) If the designer (A) was in turn designed (by C), go to II, replacing (A) with (C)
IV)If the designer has no origins, it must be God.
You cannot have an infinite series of designers, because of the Big Bang. The terminus of the argument is (IV), just as 2+2 = 4. You and IDers don't want to acknowledge that, it is your problem, not mine.
http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2005/04/intelligent-design-and-limits-of.html
-Arun
Yours and ID's argument is like:
2+2 is a prime number.
When anyone says, 2+2 = 4, and 4 = 2*2 and cannot be prime, you reply, "who said anything about 4?"
You don't even get the argument right.You wrote:
"Point 2) is where you argument falls down as you are saying that
I) 'A' arose naturally
II) 'B' was designed by 'A'
III) We have to assume that 'B' was not designed."
The argument is
I) ID says life (B) could only have come from a designer (A).
II) If the designer (A) arose naturally, there is no need to invoke a designer for (B), whatever theory explains (A) suffices for the origin of (B) as well - which contradicts I.
III) If the designer (A) was in turn designed (by C), go to II, replacing (A) with (C)
IV)If the designer has no origins, it must be God.
You cannot have an infinite series of designers, because of the Big Bang. The terminus of the argument is (IV), just as 2+2 = 4. You and IDers don't want to acknowledge that, it is your problem, not mine.
http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2005/04/intelligent-design-and-limits-of.html
-Arun
# posted by : 22/4/05 6:47 am
: 22/4/05 6:47 am
Anonymous said You don't even get the argument right....
I merely stopped at your non sequitor. Which you rephrased thus
If the designer (A) arose naturally, there is no need to invoke a designer for (B), whatever theory explains (A) suffices for the origin of (B) as well - which contradicts I.
The problem is, the reasons for thinking that 'B' was designed have to do with the specific features found in 'B'. To use an ID term, its specified complexity or its irreducible complexity.
Your point requires the additional proposition to be valid logic.
IIb) Designer 'A' must have the same features as 'B' that caused 'B' to be considered designed.
Without this proposition, your logic breaks down.
You have yet to show why (IIb) is true, this merely seems to be an unsupported assumption on your part.
Post a Comment
I merely stopped at your non sequitor. Which you rephrased thus
If the designer (A) arose naturally, there is no need to invoke a designer for (B), whatever theory explains (A) suffices for the origin of (B) as well - which contradicts I.
The problem is, the reasons for thinking that 'B' was designed have to do with the specific features found in 'B'. To use an ID term, its specified complexity or its irreducible complexity.
Your point requires the additional proposition to be valid logic.
IIb) Designer 'A' must have the same features as 'B' that caused 'B' to be considered designed.
Without this proposition, your logic breaks down.
You have yet to show why (IIb) is true, this merely seems to be an unsupported assumption on your part.
<< Home
