Intelligent Design: a Catechism

[Ginkgo]

Personally, I read the book as an extended but reluctant defense of theism.

Yes, that is well-put. I think that's what's angered so many of his Atheist peers...he's provided really important reasons why Naturalism cannot deal with things like reason, values and consciousness in a non-reductive way.

If we assume, as he does, that these are real and important factors in the way the world really is, then naturalism is a dead-end, scientifically speaking.

Yes, but the trick is to explain these things in a scientific way. At the moment there is only fringe science that attempts to provide a scientific explanation for these things. Quite rightly such explanations need to be treated cautiously.

The problem is that these things have been investigated for almost 2000 years without any definitive outcome.

[tmoody]

I would argue that archeology is not teleological in the most important aspect. Yes, science does discern the purpose of human activity,and perhaps acknowledges the goals of human activity when it comes to archeology. For example, the purpose of the pyramids was to provide burial chambers, with a goal set towards the Pharaoh successfully reaching the afterlife.Clearly these activities were carried out by many intelligent agents.

Suppose we found pyramids on Mars, also constructed of systematically arranged blocks, and know nothing at all of their purpose. Suppose we find no other signs of life on Mars. Baffling as that would be, we would still warranted in concluding that those pyramids were the product of intelligent design. The warrant for this conclusion would be grounded in our inductive knowledge that (a) natural forces don't create multiple blocks of the same size and shape and arrange them into pyramids; and (b) all known structures of this sort, i.e., pyramids made of stone blocks, are the result of ID. The point is, that's all we need to know to make a design inference.

I agree that it is clear these 'teleological' explanations are explanations that explain human activity and purpose. But all of these explanations can be empirically verified. In other words, they come with supporting physical evidence. For example, a Pharaoh being buried with servants, food and money for use in the next life.

See above. It's nice that we have other evidence about the purpose of the pyramids, but it's not necessary to make a correct design inference. Even if there were no Pharaoh inside, no servants, no food and money, and no writings anywhere describing these practices, we'd still know the pyramids were designed.

The purpose of the Antikythera mechanism is still debated, but its intelligent design is not.

The question I am asking is where does the supporting physical evidence come from that supports the claim that God like intelligence is somehow found in, is similar to, or is representative of human, or human like intelligence?

That's a philosophical and theological question that ID can't even begin to answer. We can say, inductively, that intelligence is sometimes causally associated with productions that are strikingly different from the productions of unguided natural forces. We can point out that intelligence produces temporary and local, but striking anti-entropic effects. We can also observe that the universe itself, as described by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, appears to be moving from a state of less entropy to a state of greater entropy. It is therefore not outrageous to suppose that IF the universe itself was caused to exist, it was caused to exist in a highly anti-entropic state by an intelligence of cosmic scale.

But I'm choosing my words carefully. In no way does this add up to a "proof" of anything. And the claim is conditional: IF the universe was caused to exist. I'm well aware that this point is open to dispute. Finally, I only claim that's it's not outrageous or wildly implausible to see an analogy between the known anti-entropic properties of terrestrial intelligence and the inferred anti-entropic properties of a possible "celestial" intelligence.

Just about everything in the last two paragraphs, however, is beyond the reach of science. Merely inferring design from certain properties of living things, however, is not beyond the reach of science.

Where in the examination of living organisms is there physical evidence that these creatures are the product of an intelligent agent? Can you put the data in front of me?

I don't think Behe's example of the bacterial flagellum has been successfully refuted, despite the triumphalism of his critics.

I also think that the degree of mechanistic complexity necessary for the simplest conceivable evolvable living thing is far beyond the reach of any theory of abiogenesis currently in play. I find Stephen Meyer's exposition of the problems facing any naturalistic account of digital cellular machinery to be pretty persuasive.

If Behe and Meyer and others are shown to be wrong, their theories will have been falsified like other scientific theories that turned out to be wrong. The theory of luminiferous ether was a scientific theory that turned out to be wrong, too. I don't think Behe, et al. have been shown to be wrong yet, though.

[uwot]

I asked what, if anything, could count as evidence for ID in actual living things, not imaginary objects.

According to some people absolutely everything is evidence for ID, to others nothing is. Since I don't believe that anything has been shown to be irreducibly complex, anything I suggest as a candidate is necessarily imaginary. To say that anything is irreducibly complex, is to stop doing science and settle for some god of the gaps fudge.

Then you agree with me. My claim in this thread hasn't been that there is overwhelming evidence for IC. It has been, rather, that such evidence falls within the range of scientific methods. Your claim concedes that this is the case, and contradicts those who claim that ID isn't science.

I do agree that gathering empirical evidence is an important part of science. If that were all you are claiming then yes, the search for evidence to support an hypothesis such as ID is scientific. I would say the same to people searching for evidence of ghosts, fairies and flying pigs.

[tmoody]

I asked what, if anything, could count as evidence for ID in actual living things, not imaginary objects.

According to some people absolutely everything is evidence for ID, to others nothing is. Since I don't believe that anything has been shown to be irreducibly complex, anything I suggest as a candidate is necessarily imaginary. To say that anything is irreducibly complex, is to stop doing science and settle for some god of the gaps fudge.

So you've said, so far without much in the way of argument. But you didn't answer my question. I didn't ask you what evidence there is for ID in actual living things. I asked what would count as evidence for ID in actual living things. You can't answer that question by inventing strange steampunk creatures. What kind of discovery about actual living things would, in your view, amount to evidence for ID?

I do agree that gathering empirical evidence is an important part of science. If that were all you are claiming then yes, the search for evidence to support an hypothesis such as ID is scientific. I would say the same to people searching for evidence of ghosts, fairies and flying pigs.

If you'd read the article, you'd know that that's not quite all that I'm claiming. The scientific search for ghosts requires a statement of would count as evidence for them, and why. It's impossible to go out searching for evidence for anything unless you first have an account of what evidence would have to look like, and also what would undermine that evidence. If you have that, then yes, you're in a position to conduct a scientific search for evidence of ghosts.

If nothing, even in principle, could count as empirical evidence for ghosts--or ID--then I'll gladly concede that neither are actual scientific hypotheses. But so far, no one has offered any argument that shows that there couldn't in principle be evidence for ID. In the absence of such an argument, the next step would be to state what would count as evidence.

You can't insist that there's no evidence for ID unless you can say something about what would count as evidence. Without that, the "no evidence" claim is vacuous.

Is SETI a scientific investigation?

[uwot]

What kind of discovery about actual living things would, in your view, amount to evidence for ID?

Nothing. In my view, since that is what you ask, the fact that I can't explain something without reference to natural causes is reason to do some science and see if I can explain it without reference to supernatural causes.

You can't insist that there's no evidence for ID unless you can say something about what would count as evidence. Without that, the "no evidence" claim is vacuous.

This is complete nonsense. You are asking someone who doesn't believe you will find anything to describe what you won't find. It is for the person making the claim to explain what evidence supports it, science isn't the business of refuting every crackpot.

Is SETI a scientific investigation?

The thing with SETI is that if we ever discover a signal that looks like alien intelligence, the WOW! signal for instance, we will spend a great deal of energy debating whether it is or isn't alien intelligence until the aliens actually come and shake our hands. Can the same be said of ID?

[tmoody]

What kind of discovery about actual living things would, in your view, amount to evidence for ID?

Nothing.

So, ID is possible but nothing could count as evidence for it. That means that even if ID were true, science couldn't discover it.

I'll pass on that epistemology.

You can't insist that there's no evidence for ID unless you can say something about what would count as evidence. Without that, the "no evidence" claim is vacuous.

This is complete nonsense. You are asking someone who doesn't believe you will find anything to describe what you won't find. It is for the person making the claim to explain what evidence supports it, science isn't the business of refuting every crackpot.[/quote]

It's not about refuting anything. It's merely a matter of saying, "If you were to find X--although I'm certain you won't--that would be evidence for P."

Is SETI a scientific investigation?

The thing with SETI is that if we ever discover a signal that looks like alien intelligence, the WOW! signal for instance, we will spend a great deal of energy debating whether it is or isn't alien intelligence until the aliens actually come and shake our hands. Can the same be said of ID?

Again, you didn't answer the question. Is SETI a scientific investigation or isn't it?

As for your counter-question about ID, the answer is yes. In fact, it's already occurring. Since Behe published Darwin's Black Box there has been a surge of interest in the bacterial flagellum, which is exactly what happens when any controversial scientific theory is put forward. Obviously there are working scientists out there who think ID is capable of being challenged in scientific terms.

[uwot]

What kind of discovery about actual living things would, in your view, amount to evidence for ID?

Nothing.

So, ID is possible but nothing could count as evidence for it. That means that even if ID were true, science couldn't discover it.

I'll pass on that epistemology.

If you accept a conclusion such as 'It was god what done it.' you have ruled out any further meaningful investigation; there is no more science to be done on the subject. Unless there is the potential, at least theoretically, to investigate the agency itself, in other words, to 'see' the designer, there remains the possibility that something else is responsible and that something else is worth investigating. If god comes out and says, 'Aw shucks, ya got me.' we no longer need to do science.

You can't insist that there's no evidence for ID unless you can say something
about what would count as evidence. Without that, the "no evidence" claim is vacuous.

This is complete nonsense. You are asking someone who doesn't believe you will find anything to describe what you won't find. It is for the person making the claim to explain what evidence supports it, science isn't the business of refuting every crackpot.

It's not about refuting anything. It's merely a matter of saying, "If you were to find X--although I'm certain you won't--that would be evidence for P."

It's a bit more than that; you ask what X is. You ruled out things that don't exist, Gold Watch Crabs for example, and insist I tell you something in nature that I believe supports the ID hypothesis. The point is, I don't believe anything actual thing does or even could do. As I say, it is not possible to exhaust alternatives to ID, failing to investigate those alternatives is unscientific, ergo; ID is unscientific.

Is SETI a scientific investigation?

The thing with SETI is that if we ever discover a signal that looks like alien intelligence, the WOW! signal for instance, we will spend a great deal of energy debating whether it is or isn't alien intelligence until the aliens actually come and shake our hands. Can the same be said of ID?

Again, you didn't answer the question. Is SETI a scientific investigation or isn't it?

Sorry; should have spelled it out: yes, SETI is a scientific investigation, because it includes the potential for shaking hands with actual aliens. As I said, is the same true of ID?

As for your counter-question about ID, the answer is yes. In fact, it's already occurring. Since Behe published Darwin's Black Box there has been a surge of interest in the bacterial flagellum, which is exactly what happens when any controversial scientific theory is put forward. Obviously there are working scientists out there who think ID is capable of being challenged in scientific terms.

You have interpreted my question in a way that suits your purpose and you have interpreted the interest in bacterial flagellum in the same way. That is confirmation bias, something that scientists are at pains to avoid.
What you describe as obvious is only so if that is how you choose to interpret it. What I think possible, and more likely, is that the 'controversy' has brought the existence of a fascinating creature to the attention of scientists who were previously unaware of it. It is definitely worthy of study, partly to work out how such a thing could come to be in the absence of a designer. As I said, inferring ID in this or any instance is a god of the gaps fudge, hence not science.

[Ginkgo]

Suppose we found pyramids on Mars, also constructed of systematically arranged blocks, and know nothing at all of their purpose. Suppose we find no other signs of life on Mars. Baffling as that would be, we would still warranted in concluding that those pyramids were the product of intelligent design. The warrant for this conclusion would be grounded in our inductive knowledge that (a) natural forces don't create multiple blocks of the same size and shape and arrange them into pyramids; and (b) all known structures of this sort, i.e., pyramids made of stone blocks, are the result of ID. The point is, that's all we need to know to make a design inference.

I couldn't agree more with this statement and I am glad you underlined, "that's all we need to know to make a design inference"

I also think that we are starting to move closer in on the crux of the matter. I agree that the inference here is that natural forces don't lead to the formation of pyramids, and as you say, this must naturally lead us to the design inference.

We are in agreement that we need to be speaking about this in scientific terms so I can say safely say that as scientists we would want to formulate our inference into a scientific hypothesis. After all, this is what scientists tend to do with inferences. Would you agree with this? Would you also agree that a scientific hypothesis must also be testable? By testable I mean in terms such as experiment, measurement, collection of data and the like.

So the main question I am asking is what scientific hypothesis and scientific experiments would you propose to test the ID of the butterfly, or even the Andromeda galaxy for that matter?

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, but the trick is to explain these things in a scientific way. At the moment there is only fringe science that attempts to provide a scientific explanation for these things. Quite rightly such explanations need to be treated cautiously.

The problem is that these things have been investigated for almost 2000 years without any definitive outcome.

Yes, indeed, Ginko:

Caution is always warranted, of course; but it's easy for us to forget that the scientific method itself is a relative newcomer to human epistemology, since it was invented by Francis Bacon in the 17th Century. Prior to that, we could speak of "techniques" "traditions of knowledge" and "methods," perhaps, but not of what we now consider "science."

What the invention of the method did was to permit observations that had been around for thousands of years to be seen in a new and more disciplined way. Outcomes that had never been "definitive" (as you put it) before suddenly became "definitive," and the result was the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions, along with all the technological sophistication we see around us today.

The point is that new ways of seeing sometimes can permit totally unforeseen things to become clear. That's what Nagel is hoping for: he's arguing that we need a new kind of paradigm that does things that the old-school Naturalistic type of science has proved incapable of doing. He still hopes it will be a non-Theistic revolution when it comes, but that's what he's aiming for.

Step on to realizing we need a new epistemic paradigm is realizing the old one is breaking down and failing to work in important ways. That's what Nagel has provided. Now we've got to find the new paradigm.

The only certain thing so far is that Naturalism isn't it. So we can't keep trying to explain things in a "scientific" way if our "science" itself is the thing that's keeping us from the new paradigm -- call this new paradigm "superscience" if you will. It will have to operate on the basis of some extra rules for observation and data processing, something that will make it possible for us to "see" things in the metaphysical realm with some sort of clarity comparable to that with which old-school "science" makes it possible for us to observe the physical world.

[uwot]

I think it is an exaggeration to say that Bacon invented the scientific method. Yes he wrote the influential Novum Organon in 16 hundred and something, but unlike religion, science does not take any single book as authoritative. I think the observations Galileo made with his telescope, and the impact they had on people's understanding, are probably the single most important event in the development of modern science; they reminded people that if you want to know about the world, the thing to do is to look. It's what people have always done. It is when you reach the limit of what you can see that you are bound to speculate about what might be beyond. If you satisfy yourself with your deductive reasoning, you end up with a belief system founded on faith; a scientist is someone who wishes to build the means to see further.

So just what do ID theorists want, anyway?

They want to be allowed to compete. They believe that there is a good case for ID right now, but are frustrated because their theories are rejected a priori. They think that ID ought to be allowed to stand or fall as the evidence comes in rather than being rejected in advance as somehow out of bounds.

They are allowed to compete and as soon as they show us the designer, we will pay attention.

[Ginkgo]

So just what do ID theorists want, anyway?

They want to be allowed to compete. They believe that there is a good case for ID right now, but are frustrated because their theories are rejected a priori. They think that ID ought to be allowed to stand or fall as the evidence comes in rather than being rejected in advance as somehow out of bounds.

I venture to say that another way of saying the above is that ID theorists want a partial science. In other words, they have the hypothesis based on induction and inference, but unfortunately they have no way of testing the hypothesis according to the scientific method. An intelligent designer in relation to living organisms is a a reasonable hypothesis, but again, it is not provable in any scientific way. There is no experiment we can conduct on living organisms to prove the hypothesis.

Certainly intelligent designers for human like structures (pyramids and the like) can be inferred from the evidence. We can certainly set up a scientific experiment in an attempt to discover the intelligent designers of the pyramids.I am not disagreeing with the argument that we may never know who the intelligent designers of pyramids or other structures.Yes, it is a valid argument. However, this is definitely not a licence to say that the same type of logic applies when it comes to not knowing who the intelligent agent was when it comes to living things.

It is for very good reasons that it doesn't work and I have out lined most of them in previous posts. It is for exactly these reasons that it isn't science. Partial science is not science. A hypothesis is fine but in order to be science you need to test it. If we never find out the intelligent designers of some structure,then that is just the way it is for the time being. We at least tried to put it to the scientific test.

[QMan]

They are allowed to compete and as soon as they show us the designer, we will pay attention.

Must you really need to meet the designer in person? I don't know how old you are but I would not necessarily recommend it at this time . Or could you accept evidence from other qualified individuals?

The notion of a designer is accepted by a large segment of humanity because it has been assigned a fairly high probability (not 100%) of truthfulness for a number of reasons. Conversely, the notion that a designer "does not" exist is not considered probable because it is speculative entirely since it is unproven or unprovable and it therefore cannot compete even with a partial probability (less than 100%).

Below are some reasons why for many people a designer is probable:

1. The accepted historical accuracy of the miracles and teaching of Jesus Christ. To avoid this You must argue that Christ did not exist and/or that he was simply a charlatan. Of course, the historical accuracy of Christ's life is well established.

2. The continual occurrence of solidly verified miracles throughout history. When you hear the word miracle, that means a supernatural event has occurred (dictionary definition). In modern times we mostly hear about miracles that are medical in nature and are occurrences that transcend our current or any human capability for healing. By definition, a miracle is also instantaneous, something we cannot ever hope to achieve.

3. Experiences and testimonials like the video taped testimonial of orthopedic spinal surgeon Dr. Mary Neal who died and went to heaven, met the designer, and came back.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wW2TLZLYgm ... W2TLZLYgm4

Please note that the experience of Dr. Mary Neal described in the video link about having died, been in heaven and back is usually conveniently ignored by non-theists. This is unjustified since her testimonial demonstrates exactly how we all acquire knowledge. Namely, through knowledge and experience passed on by a highly reliable witness. A professional MD eminently qualified to discriminate between hallucination or dream state and knowledgeable about medicines and their side effects. By training able to do critical thinking and performing in depth practical and theoretical analysis. You can't have a better witness than that. Any detraction from her testimonial would simply be unproven speculation and would not be able to compete with the probable truthfulness of the manner and the content of her experience.

4. Billions of people (of the biblical "simple", non-intellectual type, who according to the bible have the edge over the complicating intellectual class have long ago figured out that the designer has no intention of being a subject of investigation for the physical scientist. In other words, the designer has decided not to play ball along those lines. However, he has clearly stated in his lab or designer manual (the bible ) which type of experiment he would participate in and what the test conditions, the lab environment, setup, and the tools are that are required for the experiment to produce results. But, of course, that means the experimenter has to read the manual and follow instructions (now, how hard could that be?). Clue (there are other clues), in the manual you find (paraphrased) "seek me with all your heart in all sincerity and you shall find me." Now, obviously this is a test protocol that physical scientist are allergic to. That's why I think that social, psychological, and humanities sciences would have better success. I bet it would be fairly easy to set up some solid statistical factorial matrix experiments producing results based on questionnaires that yield confidences that a designer exists with 80 to 90% confidence level. It would make an interesting Masters thesis for many students to run this type of experiment. Now, apparently, billions of people have already figured out on their own how to run this type of experiment on a daily or weekly basis with great success. People would be clever enough to figure things out and walk away if their experiment would be non-productive. Clearly, the experiment will not succeed 100% of the time since the experimental procedure must be faithfully followed to produce results (as for any experiment).

Therefore, a designer probably exists as Dr. Neal, and many others with similar experiences, have described and concluded. Personally, I place my bets with those probabilities and not with idle speculation advanced by some allergy prone scientists

[uwot]

They are allowed to compete and as soon as they show us the designer, we will pay attention.

Must you really need to meet the designer in person? I don't know how old you are but I would not necessarily recommend it at this time .

I am touched by your solicitude; it is a little early for me to meet my maker.

Or could you accept evidence from other qualified individuals?

Depends what you mean. I can accept evidence from anyone, but I am not bound to accept their conclusions.

Below are some reasons why for many people a designer is probable:

1. The accepted historical accuracy of the miracles and teaching of Jesus Christ. To avoid this You must argue that Christ did not exist and/or that he was simply a charlatan. Of course, the historical accuracy of Christ's life is well established.

The majority of people who believe in a designer, people of faiths other than christianity, don't believe this any more than people of no faith. There is some debate about whether Jesus Christ was an historical figure, I'm not that bothered. Whether he was a charlatan or not, people exaggerate the achievements of their cult figures, be they religious, royal, political, sporting, artistic, scientific, whatever.

2. The continual occurrence of solidly verified miracles throughout history.

I think what you mean by 'solidly verified' is very different to my understanding.

3. Experiences and testimonials like the video taped testimonial of orthopedic spinal surgeon Dr. Mary Neal who died and went to heaven, met the designer, and came back.

Please note that the experience of Dr. Mary Neal described in the video link about having died, been in heaven and back is usually conveniently ignored by non-theists. This is unjustified since her testimonial demonstrates exactly how we all acquire knowledge. Namely, through knowledge and experience passed on by a highly reliable witness.

As I said above, I can accept the evidence, the story of Dr Neal's experience of going to heaven, I am not compelled to accept the conclusion that she actually went to heaven.

A professional MD eminently qualified to discriminate between hallucination or dream state and knowledgeable about medicines and their side effects. By training able to do critical thinking and performing in depth practical and theoretical analysis. You can't have a better witness than that. Any detraction from her testimonial would simply be unproven speculation and would not be able to compete with the probable truthfulness of the manner and the content of her experience.

I would not detract from Dr Neal's testimony. Again, I have no reason to doubt her experience, but the point I have made to Todd Moody is that if you simply accept the testimony at face value, in this instance, Mary went to heaven and back, while it may be true, you are ignoring the opportunity to potentially discover something interesting about what else could cause such an experience; you are not doing science.

4. Billions of people (of the biblical "simple", non-intellectual type, who according to the bible have the edge over the complicating intellectual class have long ago figured out that the designer has no intention of being a subject of investigation for the physical scientist.

And that is what makes relying on the testimony of individuals or a book so dangerous. It is not just religious books, the same can be said of Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, Mao's Little Red Book. The fact that some people are prepared to "accept evidence from other qualified individuals", makes them easy to manipulate. The first people despots get rid of are people who challenge them; "the complicating intellectual class "

In other words, the designer has decided not to play ball along those lines. However, he has clearly stated in his lab or designer manual (the bible ) which type of experiment he would participate in and what the test conditions, the lab environment, setup, and the tools are that are required for the experiment to produce results. But, of course, that means the experimenter has to read the manual and follow instructions (now, how hard could that be?). Clue (there are other clues), in the manual you find (paraphrased) "seek me with all your heart in all sincerity and you shall find me."

I think that is essentially what Todd Moody is trying to do, he is trying to reach a point where you do not question, you do not challenge. This may seem harmless enough in science, but it is an attitude that has been exploited by people who have made life a misery, or short, to countless people. I don't know whether god exists, but one who insists we make ourselves vulnerable to despots big and small, hasn't thought it through.

Now, obviously this is a test protocol that physical scientist are allergic to.

This is just silly; physical scientists look for physical evidence. If "the designer has decided not to play ball along those lines" then even you admit there isn't any.

[marjoramblues]

uwot:

I think that is essentially what Todd Moody is trying to do, he is trying to reach a point where you do not question, you do not challenge

u know wot, Todd will deny this

[marjoramblues]

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

M: What is gained by this?

What is gained by the design inference? Understanding.

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?

If it's a sound inference it adds knowledge that certain aspects of life did not arise by the spontaneous interplay of natural causes. To anyone who seeks understanding of such things, that's worth knowing.

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...

Is there a problem with that? The point here is that the scientific trail of evidence can only take you as far as design, but no further. If you want to continue to the question of ultimate origins, you'll need other modes of reasoning that are indeed not scientific. Not everybody is interested in this sort of thing, but that doesn't invalidate the design inference itself.

You are going around the houses to get back to where you started; why don't you just come clean.

You are looking for evidence to prove there is a God.
First, by some kind of scientific trail; then by some other mode of reasoning.
How ridiculous.
And how far have you come from this 2001 article to the present, and your recenty published second edition...

You are correct, this line of investigation is not for everyone; it takes a certain kind of obsession.