In the How is ID Different thread, we can see a very significant exchange well worth headlining as it lays out what is at stake:
MF, 28: . . . Why is my prior for a Christian God effectively zero? Because I see zero evidence for it. What is the probability of something existing for which there is no evidence? I would say that it is effectively zero given the infinite range of things that might exist but for which there is no evidence. By effectively zero I mean that rationally it should be discounted as a possibility and that it is lower than any number you can give – although it is conceivable so I am reluctant to say categorically it is zero . . . . Let’s put it more simply. If there is to be some reason for hypothesing an explanation for the origin of life then there has to be some reason for supposing that explanation exists other than it was capable creating life.
In context, this is a two-fer. For, in effect the demand is not to allow a material possibility of a designing intelligence (and especially, the God of Judaeo-Christian theism as a candidate) then allow empirical evidence and tested reliable signs of its activity such as Functionally Specific Complex Organisation and/or Information (FSCO/I) to speak as evidence:
Nope, you must have separate, independent evidence and “definitions” acceptable to arbitrarily high barriers set by patent selective hyperskepticism and rhetoric of obfuscation.
This raises obvious, serious questions of motives driving arguments and attitudes.
So, we see immediate responses:
UB, 29: . . . you simply accept zero evidence for design in nature.
It is not that coherent evidence is not there, and it is not that you are unaware of it.
You simply choose to deny it, and have stated so.
And Joe:
Joe, 30: It is very telling that [MF] is too afraid to post the prior probabilities for materialism and evolutionism. I say it is because there isn’t any evidence for any prior probabilities for such a nonsensical position
T2, also weighs in, with HeKS endorsing:
T2, 31: From a strictly agnostic point of view, why would you not consider that the classical empirically based cosmological arguments for causation would not provide an evidential basis for non-zero priors?
But, perhaps the most significant response comes from Paul Giem, giving a telling response in the language of Bayesian subjective probability estimation:
PG, 33: >> Thank you for your honesty. You are unwilling to put the Christian God’s prior at exactly zero, because that sounds (and is) dogmatic. But you need to make it a very tiny number in order to overcome the high improbability of life arising spontaneously. We can now see what drives your position. I won’t argue further.
To the rest,
Note what is happening. Mark called for a Bayesian analysis. That is appropriate. He noted that the priors are very important. He is right. For him, the priors are doing all the work. What he wanted to do is to say that with low enough priors, one can ignore the evidence against life arising spontaneously. He is right. What he didn’t want to come out and say, but has now, is that in order for the final evidence to come out his way (low posterior probability that any intelligence, including the Christian God, some other God or gods, or aliens, produced life), the priors have to be infinitesimal.
One can run the Bayesian analysis in reverse. If
P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/P(E),
(The final probability of the hypothesis given the evidence is equal to the probability of the evidence happening given the hypothesis, multiplied by the probability of the hypothesis happening before the evidence was looked at, divided by the probability of the evidence happening),
that means that
P(H) = P(H|E)*P(E)/P(E|H)
If we put some numbers to that, P(E), the probability that life exists in a given universe, assuming that God is reasonably likely to create life and that life is improbable in a godless universe, is just about equal to H if H >> (1-H), and thus
P(1-H|E) = approximately P(1-H)/PE|H)
That means that if the probability of life existing by spontaneous generation is 10^-300, an extremely liberal (large) number, then for the probability of God or aliens to be reasonably remote (say, 1%), and thus the probability for an atheist position being 99%, or effectively 1 – 10^-2, the prior for no intelligent design has to be 1 – 10^-302, and the prior probability of intelligent design has to be 10^-302. That sounds ridiculous, and certainly not a rational position, but that has the weakness that if we discover that the real probability of life arising by chance is 10^-600 instead, the probability of the chance hypothesis now goes down to 10^-298. That is why he didn’t want to say the prior probability; he didn’t want to explicitly recognize how close-minded one has to be to ignore the evidence surrounding the origin of life.
It’s much easier to go the Lewontin route. We simply “cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” But that sounds too much like science versus anti-religion.
Those of you who point out that there is the small matter of the origin of the universe, make the appropriate point that this assigning an infinitesimal prior probability to the existence of God is not really warranted given the facts. At that point the argument against God goes down in flames. The same is true for those of us who have experienced God’s action in our lives. But even without them the argument from the existence of life alone can only be countered by multiple universes where anything goes, denial of the improbability of life, appeal to unknown laws, or obfuscation. Mark has thankfully removed the fourth option.>>
Now of course, the inference to design of life (by some factor capable of such a design) on evidence of FSCO/I in life on earth is NOT an inference to God as designer. It pivots only on intelligence and design being reasonable possibilities. Where, whatever debates one may have about intelligence and its definition, we know that such is possible in the universe and that it is not confined to human beings, for many obvious and good reasons.
Where we may freely state on a base of trillions of cases in point, that every known instance of the origin of FSCO/I has come about by design, and that such design is a matter of easily observed fact.
Objectors to the inferred design of life on FSCO/I therefore
a: need to have convincing observed, empirical evidence to back up their implied claim that
b: blind chance (comparable to random molecular behaviour, Johnson thermal “noise” and tossing of dice etc) and/or
c: mechanical necessity (comparable to Newton’s famous F = m*a) are able
d: to account for NC machines such as the Ribosome in action . . .
e: i.e. molecular nanomachines using algorithmic, coded mRNA tapes and
f: tRNA position-arm with end effectors [with universal tool tips in the CCA coupler that is loaded by loading enzymes based on configuration of the tRNA, not by mechanical necessity of Chemistry], on
g: observed capability of blind chance and mechanical necessity to create FSCO/I.
That’s a tall order, and it simply has not been met nor on trends is it likely ever to be met.
Going beyond, PG is right to raise the challenge of cosmological fine tuning pointing to design of the observed cosmos by at root a skilled, powerful and highly intelligent designer; with a level of plausibility that easily must far exceed the sort of dismissively infinitesimal prior probabilities MF obviously has in mind.
Just to cite Sir Fred Hoyle, a lifelong agnostic (or even atheist) and Nobel equivalent prize holder, in a key talk at CalTech c. 1981:
The big problem in biology, as I see it, is to understand the origin of the information carried by the explicit structures of biomolecules. The issue isn’t so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties, which other orderings wouldn’t give. The case of the enzymes is well known . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrange-ments that would be useless in serving the pur-poses of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link,it’s easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be? This is, as I see it, the biological problem – the information problem . . . .
I was constantly plagued by the thought that the number of ways in which even a single enzyme could be wrongly constructed was greater than the number of all the atoms in the universe. So try as I would, I couldn’t convince myself that even the whole universe would be sufficient to find life by random processes – by what are called the blind forces of nature . . . . By far the simplest way to arrive at the correct sequences of amino acids in the enzymes would be by thought, not by random processes . . . .
Now imagine yourself as a superintellect working through possibilities in polymer chemistry. Would you not be astonished that polymers based on the carbon atom turned out in your calculations to have the remarkable properties of the enzymes and other biomolecules? Would you not be bowled over in surprise to find that a living cell was a feasible construct? Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use: Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix.
Where, he also noted:
From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? . . . I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has “monkeyed” with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. [F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16.]
Such a cosmos-building designer is of course uncomfortably close to the God of theism for many materialists.
Almost worse, it is an inherent part of the theistic concept of God that he is a very serious candidate necessary being. Such a being, will either be impossible [similar to how a square circle is impossible] or will be “there” in any possible world.
So, unsurprisingly, what we seem to be seeing is an attempt to get the advantages of God being impossible (expressed in terms of Bayesian priors) without having to actually show impossibility; by way of declaring “no evidence” and deeming the relevant priors infinitesimal.
The focus of that dismissal on claimed “no evidence” is the God of Judaeo-Christian theism, so it is appropriate for me to point out a 101 video summary of the “no evidence” evidence:
[vimeo 17960119]
. . . and to link a podcast on the current rhetorical gambit here, a wider summary of that evidence by way of a short video course, here; noting in passing that there is a live discussion here at UD on how Jerry Coyne has tried to join the chorus of New Atheists currently sophomorically announcing to the world that there is “no evidence” that Jesus is anything more than a myth. (Yes, this is attempted denial that there was a famous Carpenter and preacher from Nazareth in C1, bare existence, not debates on the further points made by Christians arguing that he is risen Lord and Saviour. [BTW, in former days, IIRC, there was a similar dismissal of the reality of Pontius Pilate, blown out of water by archaeological discoveries at the turn of the 1960’s. In short, this line of dismissive argument is a badly-worn retread.])
It seems that the sophomoric announcement that there is “no evidence” in order to dismiss inconvenient evidence, is now a stock in trade of selectively hyperskeptical New Atheists and their fellow travellers.
That, patently, goes to attitudes and motives, not just issues of warrant on facts and logic.
Let us set aside such obvious fallacies, and seriously engage the actual matters on their real merits. END