Intelligent Design: a Catechism

[thedoc]

I agree, but ID can only support an inference to a designer, not to God, so this argument isn't relevant. Simply as an inference to a designer, ID is testable.

Take a sample ID inference:

1. Structure X could not be formed by natural means.
2. If something is not formed by natural means, it is formed by the action of an intelligent agent.
3. Therefore structure X was formed by the action of an intelligent agent.

That argument is logically valid, but it is certainly capable of being tested. Premise 1 is open to testing, and premise 2 is subject to falsification, if someone can come up with an alternative way that things can be formed.

This argument has taken the form of 'Irreducible Complexity' and so far the examples that have been proposed have been demonstrated to have evolved from less complex structures. This is the particular case I am familiar with, but I understand that there have been others,

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ ... ticle.html

Usually it is only a matter of time till science disproves this claim.

[thedoc]

'Origins' on Cornerstone TV, offers some good descriptions of various biological structures and other natural events and usually ends the episode with the statement of disbelief that anything like this could have happened or evolved by chance, without any other supporting argument.

http://www.ctvn.org/the-programs/origins/

I used to watch, and found the episodes quite informative and amusing. The science is, I believe, accurate enough, but the conclusions are without foundation.

[marjoramblues]

From the article:

Intelligent Design

It’s the theory that there is empirical evidence for the claim that some things in nature are the result of intelligent agency, rather than unguided natural causes...
ID makes no claim as to the identify of the intelligent designer.
ID makes no claim that the design was implemented supernaturally.
ID gives no priority to revelation or to the reconciling of Scripture and science.

Please correct me, if I haven't understood correctly:

It is saying that there is an intelligent designer.
> old question of:
If there is an ID, then who designed it?
If this designer is outside the laws of nature, then it is supernatural.
No science can tell us anything about this designer.

Seems to be idle speculation and a waste of time...

[Ginkgo]

I agree, but ID can only support an inference to a designer, not to God, so this argument isn't relevant. Simply as an inference to a designer, ID is testable.

Take a sample ID inference:

1. Structure X could not be formed by natural means.
2. If something is not formed by natural means, it is formed by the action of an intelligent agent.
3. Therefore structure X was formed by the action of an intelligent agent.

That argument is logically valid, but it is certainly capable of being tested. Premise 1 is open to testing, and premise 2 is subject to falsification, if someone can come up with an alternative way that things can be formed.

I have a problem with that syllogism, so I might deal with it first if that is Ok.

It is highly likely that structure X was not formed by natural means. This premise can be tested inductively. In other words we can conduct a scientific analysis of the structure in order to confirm extremely high suspicions that this is the case.

The second premise is not inductive. It has not been formulated as a genuine induction because it contains the assumption that we can tell just by looking at X that it is the product of an intelligent agent. Inductive reasoning supports evidence for an observation, not absolute proof or truth as per the conclusion.

We might find plenty of inductive evidence at X to tell us that it was constructed by some type of intelligent agents (humans perhaps). But no amount of inductive reasoning will ever tell us that a butterfly was the product of an intelligent agent.

Asking for alternative explanations as to how things can be formed in particular ways is to question beg. In other words, supplying a God-of-the-gaps explanation.

[tmoody]

This argument has taken the form of 'Irreducible Complexity' and so far the examples that have been proposed have been demonstrated to have evolved from less complex structures. This is the particular case I am familiar with, but I understand that there have been others,

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ ... ticle.html

Usually it is only a matter of time till science disproves this claim.

A few messages back, you were arguing that ID is not falsifiable. Now you appear to be arguing that it has been falsified. It can't be both.

There are two different questions here. One is whether irreducible complexity (IC), if it exists, is scientific evidence for ID. The other is whether IC is actually found in nature. If the answer to the first question is yes, then ID is a scientific theory.

I don't want to turn this into a discussion of whether the bacterial flagellum is IC, since I'm not qualified to have any very strong opinion on that. I'll say this much, however. Because this is a hotly contested issue, with a strong ideological component, I don't take the opinions of scientists as beyond question. I'm familiar with Ken Miller's work. I've read his book and seen him in debate with Michael Behe. If you only listen to Miller, and not to Behe's responses, you might well get the impression that Behe's argument is demolished. If you listen to both, with an open mind, it's not so clear.

Miller repeatedly (13 times, in fact) refers to ID as "anti-evolution", but what does this mean? If it means that ID proponents reject the common ancestry thesis, then he's engaging in demagoguery. Behe, for example, doesn't reject it. The referenced web article, "The Flagellum Unspun", is a bit of a shotgun critique of various points, some more directly related to ID than others. But what is the specific refutation of the claim that the bacterial flagellum is IC? It comes down to a point about the Type Three Secretory System (TTSS) and the following claim:

The existence of the TTSS in a wide variety of bacteria demonstrates that a small portion of the "irreducibly complex" flagellum can indeed carry out an important biological function. Since such a function is clearly favored by natural selection, the contention that the flagellum must be fully-assembled before any of its component parts can be useful is obviously incorrect. What this means is that the argument for intelligent design of the flagellum has failed.

What's the argument, then? Since a small portion of the flagellum can be shown to serve a different function, and therefore to be subject to selection pressure, the flagellum isn't IC. On the face of it, that argument is invalid and doesn't even address the point about IC. To show that a structure isn't IC, you have to do more than show that a piece of it has another function. Behe has made this point, as have others writing in support of his position, such as...

http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html#TTSS

As I say, this subject gets very technical, so I'm not going to claim that Behe and his supporters have decisively refuted Miller, any more than I can claim that Miller and company have decisively refuted Behe. I am, however, convinced that this is a genuine scientific dispute, like many other scientific disputes. If there turn out to be no plausible examples of IC, it won't follow that ID isn't a scientific theory.

[tmoody]

Please correct me, if I haven't understood correctly:

It is saying that there is an intelligent designer.
> old question of:
If there is an ID, then who designed it?
If this designer is outside the laws of nature, then it is supernatural.
No science can tell us anything about this designer.

Seems to be idle speculation and a waste of time...

ID cannot answer, or even address, the question of the ultimate origin of intelligence in the universe. For that, you need to go beyond what any empirical evidence can show. That, however, doesn't invalidate design inferences within nature. If you think metaphysical reasoning is a waste of time, you're not the first, but ID as we're discussing it in this thread, and as I explained it in the article referenced by the OP, is not a metaphysical thesis. It's an empirical thesis. It may have metaphysical implications, just as the Big Bang theory may, but if you don't believe there's any point to pursuing them, just don't. It may be a waste of your time, but you're in no position to say it's a waste of anybody's time.

[tmoody]

I agree, but ID can only support an inference to a designer, not to God, so this argument isn't relevant. Simply as an inference to a designer, ID is testable.

Take a sample ID inference:

1. Structure X could not be formed by natural means.
2. If something is not formed by natural means, it is formed by the action of an intelligent agent.
3. Therefore structure X was formed by the action of an intelligent agent.

That argument is logically valid, but it is certainly capable of being tested. Premise 1 is open to testing, and premise 2 is subject to falsification, if someone can come up with an alternative way that things can be formed.

I have a problem with that syllogism, so I might deal with it first if that is Ok.

It is highly likely that structure X was not formed by natural means. This premise can be tested inductively. In other words we can conduct a scientific analysis of the structure in order to confirm extremely high suspicions that this is the case.

That sounds right.

The second premise is not inductive. It has not been formulated as a genuine induction because it contains the assumption that we can tell just by looking at X that it is the product of an intelligent agent. Inductive reasoning supports evidence for an observation, not absolute proof or truth as per the conclusion.

The second premise merely states that natural causes and design are the only two options.

We might find plenty of inductive evidence at X to tell us that it was constructed by some type of intelligent agents (humans perhaps). But no amount of inductive reasoning will ever tell us that a butterfly was the product of an intelligent agent.

If you prefer, we can restate the argument in probabilistic terms.

1. The probability that structure X was formed by natural causes is very low.
2. If something is not formed by natural means, it is formed by the action of an intelligent agent.
3. The probability that something was formed by an intelligent agent equals 1 minus the probability that it was formed by natural causes. (Mathematical consequence of premise 2)
3. Therefore the probability that structure X was formed by the action of an intelligent agent is very high.

Asking for alternative explanations as to how things can be formed in particular ways is to question beg. In other words, supplying a God-of-the-gaps explanation.

The argument is deductively valid. Assume for the sake of the argument that we find some structure Xof which premise 1 is true. What exactly is wrong with premise 2?

If you want to claim that no candidate for X has yet been found, that's okay. That's an empirical question, and has to be settled in the usual way, by generating various hypotheses and testing them. If you claim that no candidate for X could ever be found, I'd like to know why not.

[marjoramblues]

Please correct me, if I haven't understood correctly:

It is saying that there is an intelligent designer.
> old question of:
If there is an ID, then who designed it?
If this designer is outside the laws of nature, then it is supernatural.
No science can tell us anything about this designer.

Seems to be idle speculation and a waste of time...

ID cannot answer, or even address, the question of the ultimate origin of intelligence in the universe. For that, you need to go beyond what any empirical evidence can show.

M: Yes, that much I understood.

That, however, doesn't invalidate design inferences within nature.

M: What is gained by this?

If you think metaphysical reasoning is a waste of time, you're not the first, but ID as we're discussing it in this thread, and as I explained it in the article referenced by the OP, is not a metaphysical thesis. It's an empirical thesis.

M: This form of ID as an empirical thesis, what does it add to our understanding?

It may have metaphysical implications,

M: Is this where it is leading? Then we are back at the beginning, aren't we? The question of origin...

just as the Big Bang theory may, but if you don't believe there's any point to pursuing them, just don't. It may be a waste of your time, but you're in no position to say it's a waste of anybody's time.

M: I won't be pursuing ID in any shape or form; but as always, each to his or her own...
I am inclined to follow Gingko's argument, which began with::
The article seems to me to be the theory you have when you don't really have a theory.

[Ginkgo]

If you prefer, we can restate the argument in probabilistic terms.

1. The probability that structure X was formed by natural causes is very low.
2. If something is not formed by natural means, it is formed by the action of an intelligent agent.
3. The probability that something was formed by an intelligent agent equals 1 minus the probability that it was formed by natural causes. (Mathematical consequence of premise 2)
3. Therefore the probability that structure X was formed by the action of an intelligent agent is very high.

The argument is deductively valid. Assume for the sake of the argument that we find some structure Xof which premise 1 is true. What exactly is wrong with premise 2?

If you want to claim that no candidate for X has yet been found, that's okay. That's an empirical question, and has to be settled in the usual way, by generating various hypotheses and testing them. If you claim that no candidate for X could ever be found, I'd like to know why not.

I am not calling into question the viability of deductive qualities derived from the proposition. As I outlined in my previous statement, premise 2 does a fair bit more than just provide us with two options. Consider the following argument:

In the case of structure X. it is possible to demonstrate by way of empirical procedures that it was made by an intelligent agent. Probably some type of humans, but the reality in terms of who actually designed and built it will probably remain a mystery. Suffice to say that it was an intelligent agent. This much I think we agree upon.

The analogy breaks down when we assume that we can apply the say type of inductive reasoning to the intelligent designer who gave us the butterfly and the amoeba. No amount of empirical investigation will ever tell us that an intelligent designer was involved. I am aware that you are not interested in who the intelligent designer is because it to may well remain a mystery. I also see the parallel here in terms of the mystery agent who designed and built Structure X.

I don't think it works because we can't avoid the theistic implications. Quite rightly we can start out talking in terms of scientific naturalism, but there is a 'slide to theism' evident here. And I don't think we can avoid such a slide by simply saying we are actually talking about arguments "to" design, rather than arguments "from" design.

Todd, in relation to you probabilistic formulation I would be happier of you changed all of the "Somethings" to "structure X"

The term "something" can be know in some cases (Structure X) whereby empirical evidence will at the very least give us the high probability that an intelligent agent was responsible. If this "something' is a living organism then there is no scientific investigation that will ever point in the direction of an intelligent agent that could be responsible. This is why I think no intelligent agent will ever be induced in relation to living organism. Non-living built environments,yes.

[marjoramblues]

Ginkgo:

I don't think it works because we can't avoid the theistic implications. Quite rightly we can start out talking in terms of scientific naturalism, but there is a 'slide to theism' evident here. And I don't think we can avoid such a slide by simply saying we are actually talking about arguments "to" design, rather than arguments "from" design.

You say it better than I could, thanks.
The theistic implications/interests are there right from the start.
No doubt, this argument can be stated and restated till kingdom come...
First, second, third and more editions...lucrative for some.

[uwot]

ID cannot answer, or even address, the question of the ultimate origin of intelligence in the universe. For that, you need to go beyond what any empirical evidence can show. That, however, doesn't invalidate design inferences within nature. If you think metaphysical reasoning is a waste of time, you're not the first, but ID as we're discussing it in this thread, and as I explained it in the article referenced by the OP, is not a metaphysical thesis. It's an empirical thesis.

It is actually the claim that there exists empirical evidence that supports a metaphysical belief. There is always empirical evidence that supports metaphysical beliefs; earthquakes are empirical evidence for the wrath of god, things that go bump in the night are empirical evidence for the existence of ghosts, the window cleaner's bucket falling on your head is empirical evidence that it is unlucky to walk under ladders. The thing there isn't any empirical evidence for is the agency, which is why ID is not science.
Irreducible complexity is a red herring, the only scientific test that can prove it true is to wait around forever and see candidates not appearing spontaneously.

[marjoramblues]

ID cannot answer, or even address, the question of the ultimate origin of intelligence in the universe. For that, you need to go beyond what any empirical evidence can show. That, however, doesn't invalidate design inferences within nature. If you think metaphysical reasoning is a waste of time, you're not the first, but ID as we're discussing it in this thread, and as I explained it in the article referenced by the OP, is not a metaphysical thesis. It's an empirical thesis.

It is actually the claim that there exists empirical evidence that supports a metaphysical belief. There is always empirical evidence that supports metaphysical beliefs; earthquakes are empirical evidence for the wrath of god, things that go bump in the night are empirical evidence for the existence of ghosts, the window cleaner's bucket falling on your head is empirical evidence that it is unlucky to walk under ladders. The thing there isn't any empirical evidence for is the agency, which is why ID is not science.
Irreducible complexity is a red herring, the only scientific test that can prove it true is to wait around forever and see candidates not appearing spontaneously.

That's what I meant to say
Fishy palaver.

[thedoc]

Usually it is only a matter of time till science disproves this claim.

A few messages back, you were arguing that ID is not falsifiable. Now you appear to be arguing that it has been falsified. It can't be both.

There are two different questions here. One is whether irreducible complexity (IC), if it exists, is scientific evidence for ID. The other is whether IC is actually found in nature. If the answer to the first question is yes, then ID is a scientific theory.

Agreed, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I agree that ID is not falsifiable, but I was arguing that the evidence presented to support it is. And this is the case with the bacterial flagellum that as an example of IC, in my opinion, it does not hold up.

[Ginkgo]

ID cannot answer, or even address, the question of the ultimate origin of intelligence in the universe. For that, you need to go beyond what any empirical evidence can show. That, however, doesn't invalidate design inferences within nature. If you think metaphysical reasoning is a waste of time, you're not the first, but ID as we're discussing it in this thread, and as I explained it in the article referenced by the OP, is not a metaphysical thesis. It's an empirical thesis.

It is actually the claim that there exists empirical evidence that supports a metaphysical belief. There is always empirical evidence that supports metaphysical beliefs; earthquakes are empirical evidence for the wrath of god, things that go bump in the night are empirical evidence for the existence of ghosts, the window cleaner's bucket falling on your head is empirical evidence that it is unlucky to walk under ladders. The thing there isn't any empirical evidence for is the agency, which is why ID is not science.
Irreducible complexity is a red herring, the only scientific test that can prove it true is to wait around forever and see candidates not appearing spontaneously.

Actually, this reminds me of the story of a guy who every night went around the boundary of his property spreading salt. Asked by a neighbour why he does this he said he does it to keep the polar bears away. The guy further added that it definitely works because he has never seen a polar bear in his yard, so he didn't want to stop doing it. Yes, said the the neighbour, "but we live in Australia".

[uwot]

Actually, this reminds me of the story of a guy who every night went around the boundary of his property spreading salt. Asked by a neighbour why he does this he said he does it to keep the polar bears away. The guy further added that it definitely works because he has never seen a polar bear in his yard, so he didn't want to stop doing it. Yes, said the the neighbour, "but we live in Australia".

There is a story about an investigation into the origin of superstition involving pigeons. An automated feeder randomly threw food into a cage. When the experimenters returned they described the unusual behaviour of the pigeons; one was walking in circles holding it's wing at an unlikely angle, according to a version I heard. The conclusion was that the pigeons were doing what they had been doing when they had randomly been fed, in the believe that it was their behaviour that caused the shower of food. Regardless of whether the story relates to actual events, people believe it.