Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How Keith’s “Bomb” Turned Into A Suicide Mission

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Keith brought in an argument he claimed to be a “bomb” for ID. It turned out to be a failed suicide mission where the only person that got blown up was Keith.

(Please note: I am assuming that life patterns exists in an ONH, as Keith claims, for the sake of this argument only.  Also, there are many other, different take-downs of Keith’s “bomb” argument already on the table.  Indulge me while I present another here.)

In my prior OP, I pointed out that Keith had made no case that nature was limited to producing only ONH’s when it comes to biological diversity, while his whole argument depended on it.  He has yet to make that case, and has not responded to me when I have reiterated that question.  We turn our attention now to his treatment of “the designer” in his argument.

First, a point that my have been lost in another thread:

From here, keith claimed:

3. We know that unguided evolution exists.

No, “we” do not. ID proponents concede that unguided natural forces exist that are utilized by a designed system (even if perhaps entirely front-loaded) to accomplish evolutionary goals; they do not concede that unguided process (including being unguided and unregulated by front-loaded designed algorithms and infrastructure) can generate successful evolution, even microevolution, entirely without any guided support/infrastructure.

Keith claims that we have observed “unguided microevolution” producing ONH’s, but that is an assumptive misstatement. Douglas Theobald, his source for “evidence” that unguided evolution has been observed generating ONH’s, makes no such claim or inference.  Theobald only claims that microevolution produces ONH’s.  Observing a process producing an effect doesn’t necessarily reveal if the process is guided or unguided.

Keith agrees Theobald makes no such claim or inference. The “unguided” modifying characteristic, then, is entirely on Keith; he can point to no research or science that rigorously vets microevolutionary processes as “unguided”.

When challenged on this assumption, Keith makes statements such as “even YEC’s agree that microevolution is unguided”, or that some particular ID proponent has made that concession; please note that because others elect not to challenge an assumption doesn’t mean that everyone else is required to concede the point. If challenged, the onus falls upon Keith to support his assertion that unguided microevolutionary forces are up to the task of generating ONH’s, otherwise his entire argument fails because of this unsupported premise.

Keith’s response to the challenge about the “unguided” nature of microevolution:

As you know, we actually observe microevolution producing ONHs, and microevolution does not require designer intervention, as even most YECs acknowledge.

This is simple reiteration of the very assertion that has been challenged. Keith circularly refers back to the very source that provides no support for his “unguided” inference. This has been pointed out to him several times, yet he repeats the same mantra over and over “we know unguided microevolution can produce ONH’s.”  Reiterating an assertion is not providing support for the assertion.  As I’ve asked Keith serveral times, where is the research that makes the case that microevolutionary processes/successes are qualitatively “unguided”?  Keith has yet to point us to such a paper.

That said, here is the suicidal portion of Keith’s argument.

I’ve repeatedly challenged keith to answer this question:

Are you saying that it is impossible for natural forces to generate a mismatched (non-ONH) set of trees [diversity of life pattern]?

This question follows a point I made in the Black Knight thread:

If, as Keith’s argument apparently assumes, natural forces are **restricted** to generating biological systems as evolutionary in nature and conforming to Markovian ONH progressions, why (and perhaps more importantly, how) would a designer work around these apparently inherent natural limitations and tendencies in order to generate **something else**?

It’s like Keith expects a designer to defy gravity, inertia and other natural forces and tendencies in order to get a rocket to the moon and back, just because keith imagines that a designer would have trillions of options available that didn’t need to obey such natural laws and tendencies.

Keith’s argument relies upon his claim that the designer could have generated “the diversity of life” into “trillions” of patterns that were not ONH’s, and that no such options were open to natural forces.  If a designer and natural forces both had the same number of options open to them, there would be no advantage in Keith’s argument to either.  However, Keith’s “trillions of options” argument requires that the designer can instantiate living organisms into the physical world in a manner that natural forces cannot, thus generating “diversity of life” patterns nature is incapable of producing.

Keith’s response was:

You think that the Designer was limited by natural forces? You might want to discuss that assumption with your fellow IDers, who may not be quite so enthusiastic about it as you are. Besides the conflict with your fellow IDers, you have another problem: what is the basis for your assumption about the limitations of the Designer? How do you know what the Designer can and cannot do? Be specific.

Note the attempt to shift the burden, as if I was the one making  a claim about what the designer “can and cannot do”. I made no such claim.  The claim was in Keith’s assertion that the designer could have generated trillions of “diversity of life” patterns that nature could not by instantiating life forms into physical existence in a manner that nature could not.  Later, Keith modified his claim:

There are trillions of logical possibilities, and we have no reason to rule any of them out. After all, we know absolutely nothing about the purported designer.

What an explosive, self-contradictory blunder.  If we cannot rule any of them out because we know nothing about the designer, by the same token we cannot rule them in.  Whether or not unguided natural forces can generate any of the same “trillions of possibilities” of diversity of life pattern (alternatives to ONH) depends on what we know about those natural forces and how they operate.  Obviously, Keith doesn’t assume that unguided natural forces can instantiate life in  “trillions” of ways that would not conform to an ONH.  Not knowing anything about “the designer” doesn’t give Keith license to simply assume the designer has “trillions of possibilities” open to actually instantiating a “diversity of life” into the physical world. If we disregard actual capacity to produce biological diversity, the same number of purely “logical” alternatives are open to both natural forces and any designer.  You have to know something about the causal agencies to know what it is “possible” for them to do or not do. Keith admits he knows nothing about the designer.

Read what Keith said again:

You think that the Designer was limited by natural forces?

Something becomes clear here: Keith’s argument must assume that the designer is supernatural, and can magically instantiate biological life into the world in any way imaginable, without regard for natural laws, forces, or molecular tendencies and behavioral rules, and without regard to what would limit any other causal agency – it’s actual capacity to engineer particular outcomes in the physical world.

Yet, Keith says that we know nothing about the designer:

 After all, we know absolutely nothing about the purported designer.

If we assume that natural forces are capable of creating non-ONH patterns, Keith’s argument fails. If we assume that natural forces can only produce an ONH, then Keith must assume extra characteristics about the designer – that it is capable of instantiating  “diversity of life” patterns that natural forces cannot.  Keith’s assumptions are not equal.  For the assumptions to be equal, we either assume both unguided forces and the designer can only produce ONH patterns in a diversity of life landscape, or we can assume both are capable of non-ONH patterns.  We cannot assume that unguided forces can actually only produce ONH, and assume that the designer can actually produce trillions of other patterns, and keep a straight face while insisting our assumptions are equal and that “we know absolutely nothing about the designer”.

Comments
Box: Now the problem arises that in order to get from one high-fitness island to another there seems to be only one possibility: one has to take a dive in the low-fitness sea. The granularity is not that great. Box: E.g. to get from land animal to whale one has to swim an enormous distance through a low-fitness sea of graduality. Good example. Fossils show a slow shrinking of hind limbs, along with movement of the nares. While there may be some granularity involved, none of these changes indicate any crossing of a "low-fitness sea". Rather, each change increases fitness for the aquatic environment. Box: So, the long bridge didn’t produce any fixed species. That is not correct. Darwin understood that the rate of evolution wasn't constant, but experienced long periods of stasis. Box: However what does this story, that spells utter failure and low-fitness, tell us about the likelihood that such a high-fitness bridge existed in the first place? The example you provided, of cetacean evolution, contradicts your point.Zachriel
November 14, 2014
November
11
Nov
14
14
2014
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
Species and gradualism – a few notes.
Darwin: First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
[ Islands in the sea ] In the Darwinian story we can envision a sea of graduality – a sea of innumerable transitional forms separated only by fine gradations. However this is not what we see in reality. What we actually see is a distinct grouping of species. A Darwinian explanation for the existence of species may go like this: in this sea of graduality there are formed islands of high-fitness, which are surrounded by a low-fitness sea of graduality. Now the problem arises that in order to get from one high-fitness island to another there seems to be only one possibility: one has to take a dive in the low-fitness sea. E.g. to get from land animal to whale one has to swim an enormous distance through a low-fitness sea of graduality. [ Bridges ] Surely, the Darwinist will object that my representation of the Darwinian story did not include changes in the environment. The measure of fitness depends on the ever changing environment of the species. The Darwinist would argue that the right sequence of environmental changes can be such that a high-fitness bridge through a low-fitness sea is available for a land-animal to a whale. These high-fitness bridges (through time) are the lines that connect species in ONH diagrams. However, if there are indeed such high-fitness bridges connecting all islands, the Darwinian theory is again confronted by tsunamis of gradualism. Which raises the problem posited by Darwin: how do we explain the existence of a distinct grouping of species? IOW Darwin needs the bridges to explain species by other species, but also needs to get rid of bridges in order to explain the isolation of species. Obviously there is some friction there. [ Extinction to the rescue? ]
Zachriel: Species go extinct, so the extant leaves form a nested hierarchy.
Darwin: As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent-form and other less-favored forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of the formation and perfection of the new form.
The Darwinian narrative would be that all organisms that traversed the high-fitness bridge between e.g. land-animal and whale are extinct and that their numbers were too low to become fossilized. So, the long bridge didn’t produce any fixed species. However what does this story, that spells utter failure and low-fitness, tell us about the likelihood that such a high-fitness bridge existed in the first place? From a general perspective: the Darwinian story attempts to explain species and gradualism but the two concepts seem to be at odds with each other.Box
November 14, 2014
November
11
Nov
14
14
2014
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
keiths: You are starting to remind me of a terrier chasing its tail. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
What “no prior information” means is that we have no information that would justify skewing the probabilities to favor some possibilities over others.
And your trillions of alternatives doesn't skew the probabilities? If the designer only had one possibility instead of trillions, that wouldn't change the outcome of your argument at all? OK. So why say trillions instead of one?
In the context of the ONH argument, IDers would like to be able to favor the ONH possibility over the others, in order to lessen the trillions-to-one advantage of unguided evolution. The problem is that no one can justify such an assumption, since we know nothing about the designer. In the absence of such knowledge, the principle of indifference applies.
Wait. So now we are back to knowing nothing about the designer? What the heck happened to:
We always know something.
It's in the same post. Just a few sentences up. Italicized and everything. Did you think no one would notice the equivocation? It is exceedingly obvious to anyone paying attention that your entire argument is based on this constant switching back and forth between knowing absolutely nothing about the designer and knowing that the designer had trillions of alternatives available. Thank you for demonstrating the equivocation so succinctly. It is very handy to have it all here together in one post.Phinehas
November 14, 2014
November
11
Nov
14
14
2014
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
Zachriel continues to miss the point. Evolutionism does not predict there will be set defining extinctions. Also nested hierarchies require distinct boundaries.Joe
November 14, 2014
November
11
Nov
14
14
2014
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
Box: I take it that the extinction of species is necessary for ONH. Asked and answered. A nested hierarchy is a relationship of sets, but sets would have indistinct boundaries; however, there would still be discernible relationships between species, a hierarchy of correlations. Box: So, the sea of graduality is visited by a machine-gun wielding Grim Reaper, which resulted in the patterns of a well-ordered objective nested hierarchy? Sigh. If only we had evidence of extinction.Zachriel
November 14, 2014
November
11
Nov
14
14
2014
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT
keith s:
There is a simple and obvious problem that you face when you argue against the trillions of possibilities open to ID.
There is a simple and obvious problem that you face when you argue that there are trillions of possibilities open to ID. :razz:Joe
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
There’s gradual change. There’s also branching. Both are required to entail a nested hierarchy of traits.
That is a blatant lie. Gradual change would make a nested hierarchy of traits impossible due to the numerous transitional forms. So we have two people, keith s and zachriel, who are totally ignorant of a concept they are trying to use in their argument. Unfortunately I am out of popcorn.Joe
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
Zachriel: As sets don’t have distinct edges, you wouldn’t be able to construct a strict nested hierarchy from all members. You could either randomly sample the elements, or you could just look for a hierarchy of correlations, which amount to the same thing.
I take it that the extinction of species is necessary for ONH. So, the sea of graduality is visited by a machine-gun wielding Grim Reaper, which resulted in the patterns of a well-ordered objective nested hierarchy?Box
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
Box and William, There is a simple and obvious problem that you face when you argue against the trillions of possibilities open to ID. If ID cannot be rejected on the basis of the trillions of possibilities open to it, then neither can the Rain Fairy. (Or the angels pushing the planets around, or the Streambed Designer, or Shamu the Invisible Toilet Whale.) I assume that neither of you is willing to defend the Rain Fairy hypothesis. If so, you need to come up with a defense of ID that does not also work as a defense of the Rain Fairy. Let's hear it.keith s
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
Phinehas #375, You're misunderstanding the concept of prior information. If "no prior information" literally meant "no information whatsoever", then the principle of indifference could never apply. We always know something. What "no prior information" means is that we have no information that would justify skewing the probabilities to favor some possibilities over others. In the context of the ONH argument, IDers would like to be able to favor the ONH possibility over the others, in order to lessen the trillions-to-one advantage of unguided evolution. The problem is that no one can justify such an assumption, since we know nothing about the designer. In the absence of such knowledge, the principle of indifference applies.keith s
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
Box: If there was no extinction of species, what would be the effect on objective nested hierarchy? Nested hierarchies are sets of sets. As sets don't have distinct edges, you wouldn't be able to construct a strict nested hierarchy from all members. You could either randomly sample the elements, or you could just look for a hierarchy of correlations, which amount to the same thing. It would still be a highly non-random pattern, what Darwin called a "natural arrangement". In any case, we have strong evidence of the extinction of species.Zachriel
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT
Phinehas, Your objection is silly, because this...
Given a choice between two hypotheses, we should prefer the one that is more plausible.
...is a criterion, not a hypothesis. There has to be a criterion for judging competing hypotheses. Otherwise science would be impossible. Perhaps, as an IDer, you would prefer a world without science. The rest of us recognize that some hypotheses are better than others. As I said, if you have a better criterion to offer, let's hear it.keith s
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
Zachriel: If there was no extinction of species, what would be the effect on objective nested hierarchy?Box
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
Box: Without the extinction of species. What would it look like? A more densely populated nested hierarchy? It would be a very crowded world. In any case, classifications wouldn't have distinct edges. Box: Or utter chaos? No, because the correlation of traits would still be there. Of course, that's not the situation we have. Most species only last a few million years. What we have are the leaves on the tree.Zachriel
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
Zachriel,
There’s gradual change. There’s also branching. Both are required to entail a nested hierarchy of traits. We don’t see all the gradations because the vast majority of species have gone extinct.
Without the extinction of species. What would it look like? A more densely populated nested hierarchy? Or utter chaos?Box
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
Box: First we have gradual descent – not yet “branching descent” It's hard to know what you are getting at. There's gradual change. There's also branching. Both are required to entail a nested hierarchy of traits. We don't see all the gradations because the vast majority of species have gone extinct.Zachriel
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
Zachriel,
Box: If species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? So, the process we are discussing, it seems to me, should not be called “branching descent”, but “gradual descent” instead.
Zachriel: Species go extinct, so the extant leaves form a nested hierarchy.
I'm trying to follow your reasoning ... First we have gradual descent - not yet “branching descent” - , next somehow species are formed and finally a nested hierarchy caused by extinction of species?Box
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
Species go extinct, so the extant leaves form a nested hierarchy.
Just about anything can form a nested hierarchy, even a branching tree or any other organism. If Zachriel's extant leaves are all the same, characteristically, the nested hierarchy is going to be very subjective.Joe
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
Box: If species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Species go extinct, so the extant leaves form a nested hierarchy. Box: You assume that a designer doesn’t entail a nested hierarchy. No. However, if you want to show why the nested hierarchy is entailed, that is, a necessary consequence of, a designer, then please show us the deduction from one to the other.Zachriel
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
Zachriel: In any case, the hypothesis of a designer doesn’t entail the nested hierarchy.
Except when it does. You assume that a designer doesn't entail a nested hierarchy. However if the designer does entail nested hierarchy - for whatever reason - your assumption is wrong. The problem with totally unsupported assumptions is that they can be 100% wrong. That's why it is proper to abstain from them.Box
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
keiths: I note you skipped over #375 as well. As for #382, it's your 'fair' criterion, not mine. Come up with your own fix. I merely pointed out how your 'fair' criterion starts to get nonsensical when one of the hypotheses specifically states that if the other hypotheses is at all plausible, then it wins by default as the best explanation. You don't appear to be denying this.Phinehas
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
Zachriel will never support his claims with respect to nested hierarchies. And all of his claims about nested hierarchies prove that he doesn't understand them.Joe
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
Zachriel,
Box: In order to explain an effect ‘branching descent’ must have causal power.
Zachriel: It causes the nested hierarchy.
I don't see how. If species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? So, the process we are discussing, it seems to me, should not be called "branching descent", but "gradual descent" instead.Box
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
Relax, Box. I'll get to those. In the meantime, do you agree with me about William's embarrassing mistake?keith s
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
Box: In order to explain an effect ‘branching descent’ must have causal power. It causes the nested hierarchy. Box: The simple truth is that WE DO NOT KNOW how many options are available to the designer. In any case, the hypothesis of a designer doesn't entail the nested hierarchy; however, branching descent does.Zachriel
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
Keith, you have failed to address most of WJM's posts and my post #367. I will ignore your taunts until you do so.Box
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
Box had the sense to steer clear of William's latest mistake, but Phinehas plunges in. Okay, Phinehas, if you don't like this...
Given a choice between two hypotheses, we should prefer the one that is more plausible.
...then what do you suggest we replace it with? Should we prefer the less plausible one? Should we refrain from ever preferring one hypothesis over another? I love UD. :-)keith s
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
Zachriel, [ skipping all the small talk ]
Box: Well maybe it’s time for you to present a definition of this mechanism – this alleged causal force called “branching descent”.
Zachriel: It’s the hypothesis that a single species can split into more than one species. The entailment of that hypothesis is the nested hierarchy.
In order to explain an effect 'branching descent' must have causal power. How does it operate?Box
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
Box: For you “one option” equals “no choice”. That's the very definition of not having a choice. Box: At a minimum there is the choice to produce the design option or not. Then that's two options, yea or nay. Box: And even if the designer has no other choice than designing X I fail to see why that does make her any less a designer of X. Not merely X, but exactly X and only exactly X. Box: Well? Again, what is your point? That when we have a simple and testable principle to explain a phenomenon, it isn't necessary to know everything about that phenomenon. Box: Rather ID suggests that certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause – such as an arrangement of finely tuned laws. What's under discussion is that branching descent entails the nested hierarchy. Box: Well maybe it’s time for you to present a definition of this mechanism – this alleged causal force called “branching descent”. It's the hypothesis that a single species can split into more than one species. The entailment of that hypothesis is the nested hierarchy. Box: The branching is a consequence of new proteins, new body plans and so forth. So before it explains anything it needs explanation itself. No more so than we have to explain the process of how an egg develops to show that sex leads to reproduction. All we have to do is show the one leads to the other.Zachriel
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
Zachriel,
Box: Maybe the capability of the designer restricts her to one option.
Zachriel: If the designer has no choice, then it’s not a designer.
Box: Incorrect. For you “one option” equals “no choice”.
Zachriel: Of course it’s correct. Design entails choices.
Box: For you “one option” equals “no choice”. However, one (design) option is not equal to “no choice”. At a minimum there is the choice to produce the design option or not. And even if the designer has no other choice than designing X I fail to see why that does make her any less a designer of X.
Zachriel: That’s a better argument. So we agree it entails some choice.
Well … your reasoning let you to the belief that one design option meant “no choice”. I corrected you. But why are we having this fruitless conversation? What is the point you are trying to get across?
Box: How do you explain the existence of this “simple inverse square law”?
Zachriel: Excellent question! Newton avoided speculating on the underlying cause of gravity. It wasn’t necessary to his theory.
So?
Zachriel: The inverse square relationship was a sufficient explanation for a wide variety of phenomena, from elliptical orbits to the fall of the apple.
Well? Again, what is your point? Are you suggesting that facts - like the existence of laws - don’t need an explanation?
Zachriel: (…) Being a planetary angel used to be a prestigious position. Trying to get the retrogrades right, (…)
Box: Childish strawman a la Keith.
Zachriel: Not at all. It’s an analogy. We have the choice of positing that the designer moves each planet making choices along the way, or that there is a simple relationship that explains the orbits, with various ways of testing the latter.
Repeating a strawman doesn’t make it true. ID doesn’t posit such infantile scenarios. Rather ID suggests that certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause – such as an arrangement of finely tuned laws.
Box: So, branching descent entails ONH but does not explain it?
Zachriel: Branching descent is the scientific explanation of the objective nested hierarchy.
Well maybe it’s time for you to present a definition of this mechanism - this alleged causal force called “branching descent”.
Box: Well since ONH implies new proteins, new body plans and so forth, we must assume that branching descent also explains those things.
Zachriel: No. Branching descent does not explains new proteins. However, the branching occurred regardless of whether we understand the process in detail or not.
The branching is a consequence of new proteins, new body plans and so forth. So before it explains anything it needs explanation itself.
Zachriel: We can determine the relationship of sex to reproduction without knowing exactly how the process works.
The comparison still does not ring a bell. Overall I fail to see the point you are making. Let’s call it a day.Box
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
1 2 3 14

Leave a Reply