Tourbillon
| June 15, 2009 | Posted by Clive Hayden under Biology, Evolution, Intelligent Design |
William Paley published Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature in 1802. In 1801, Abraham Louis Breguet, called the “watchmaker of kings and the king of watchmakers,” patented a watch mechanism called the Tourbillon, which is French for “whirlwind,” revolutionizing watchmaking. The tourbillon has approximately 100 parts, and weighs only 0.296 grams.
Among the many Breguet clients have been folks such as Marie Antoinette, Napoleon Bonaparte, Sir Winston Churchill, and George Washington.
William Paley considered the conclusion of Design appropriate if one had stumbled upon a watch in the woods and wondered of its origin:
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there…Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.
And of course he was right. Microbiology has confirmed that the cell is much, much more complicated than even the tourbillon, and on a much smaller, nano-technological scale. A modern formulation of the argument, given what we know of microbiology and the complexity of the cell, could be:
But suppose I had found a cell upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the cell happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the cell might have always been there.
Paley also claimed that something might come to be known about the intentionality of the Watchmaker by his design:
. .when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive. . . that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, or placed after any other manner or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it. . . . the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker — that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its use.
The watchmaker theme is also put forward by Richard Dawkins with his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker. The concept of a “blind watchmaker” is intended to illustrate how complexity is brought about from a step-wise evolutionary process that didn’t have the complexity as a goal. Those familiar with the complexity of watches will not believe that they can be brought about blindly, as, hopefully, this video illustrates. This watch has a tourbillon escapement. Who would like to venture the inference that this watch was constructed blindly?
148 Responses to Tourbillon
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
vjtorley @ 123 “If, as you claim, nature can duplicate everything that intelligent beings can accomplish, then why not call it intelligent too?”
For the same reason I don’t call the computer programs that can beat the world’s best chess players intelligent.
Jerry @ 126 “We are well aware of the supposed mechanism but this constant experimentation by nature would leave thousands (or should it be millions or billions by your account) of trails but no one seems to be able to point them out.”
A multi-wrong answer. You say there should be thousands or billions of “trails”.
Jerry, there ARE millions of “trails”. We call them species. And those are just the successful trails. For every one of those there are a thousand unsuccessful trails that died out quickly because they couldn’t compete with the successful ones.
If life as we see it really was designed, why did that Designer make so many beetles? There are at least 350,000 species of beetles that are known to science and doubtless many more that aren’t. They account for 40% of all insect species and a whopping 25% of all species. Why did The Designer spend 4 billion years and wind up making every fourth species a beetle?
vjtorley @ 129 “First, the atheists on this thread have conceded that an undirected process can, given enough time, duplicate the results of any intelligent activity. In practical terms, what that means is that if they were exploring a strange planet, and suddenly came across a very complex structure, they would refuse to make the inference that it must have been designed by an intelligent being, no matter how complex it was.”
Not ANY intelligent activity. Intelligence can use foresight to design things that evolution will never produce. A rotary joint that can pass power/food would be one example.
As for complexity, going by what we observe, the more complex the structure is, the less likely I would be to attribute it to an intelligence. If you observe differently, please tell us about something humans have designed that is more complex than, say, a common e. coli bacteria. Regarding RepRap, I would never mistake that for an evolved machine.
I don’t say that intelligence can never duplicate an evolved organism. Intelligence and evolution are both material processes and in theory an intelligent person or persons can duplicate anything evolution can produce, but so far we haven’t come close. This may change in the not too distant future and we may see human designed organisms in our lifetime. But not so far. Yet you persist in comparing an evolved organism with the relatively puny works of man and insisting that the evolved creature must have been designed.
If I found a flying saucer crashed in the woods I would say it was the product of intelligent design – unless it appeared to be capable of reproducing which would indicate it might be capable of evolving.
“Only one of you had the guts to answer: djmullen said maybe one or two million years. I’ll give credit where credit’s due: I think that’s a fair answer, although I hope he would date that from the time when the earth’s crust was cool enough to support life (4.4 billion years ago).”
I was the only one willing to make a s.w.a.guess and I’d be surprised if I was even close. Nobody really knows how long it took to develop life. We aren’t even sure of exactly how old the earth is. The 4.5 billion year figure you hear is the age of meteorites and lunar rocks. The oldest early rock we’ve found so far is 4.4 billion years old and it’s a zircon crystal. The oldest actual rock we know of on earth is Acasta Gneiss from Canada and it dates to just over 4 billion years old. Since the evidence of the first life, if it even exists today, is sub-microscopic in size and we can’t even find rocks from the period when it probably started, anything other than a s.w.a.g is impossible. We don’t even know what the conditions were when the first life developed. Pool of chemicals? Underground? Space aliens dumping their garbage?
“Either that, or you really do think that some blind processes can produce mind-bogglingly complex structures with a host of technically advanced functions, just as fast as intelligent agents can.”
Oh come on! We intelligent agents have been making “complex” structures for how long? 2000 years? 3000? 10,000? Evolution has had several billion years to do its work. Why should anybody be surprised that evolution is beating intelligence with that kind of head start?
“djmullen asked me:
Are you upset by the idea that something can produce things human intelligence can’t or do you just object to evolution being that something?
Frankly, I do find it philosophically odd to suppose that I (who possess intelligence) am unable to create anything that blind, dumb, senseless natural processes cannot. If I really thought that, I’d probably vacuum my brain out of my head. Honestly, what’s the use of having a brain if you can’t do anything special with it?”
Well, start vacuuming because you can’t. Are you trying to tell us that you think that you’re the Intelligent Designer?
“But what upsets me even more is the inconsistency of attitude, on the part of the skeptics who think that a blind process can do just as well or even better at making things than a whole team of intelligent scientists. If I really thought that then I’d be inclined to ask: “Well, who’s smarter then? The blind process or the scientists?””
I realize that I’ve already answered this once, but I’ll do it again and try to make it more concrete, more “hands on”. Goto http://www.worldchampionshipcheckers.com/ Download GilDodgen’s World Championship Checkers program. (Yes, UD’s Gil Dodgen.) Set the difficulty level to max. Play ten or twenty games and get trounced badly every time by the computer program. Now who’s smarter? The blind process or vjtorley? I’m rooting for you, but if you think the computer program is smarter because it can do some things better than you … well, I disagree.
“… why not worship Nature Herself?”
Why waste time and effort worshiping something that can’t appreciate your worship?
“… the question of whether there is an intelligence behind certain complex systems in nature is logically independent of whether that intelligence is benevolent or malevolent, or whether it is single or multiple.”
That’s right. If Life on Earth was designed, it could have been designed by a benevolent or malevolent Designer or group of Designers. That’s the theory, anyhow. But when you look at the actual life on earth, you see that half the organisms on this planet make their livings by killing and eating the other half and that many disease organisms are exquisitely designed to kill and eat us. You can tell a lot about an Inventor by looking at His inventions. Personally, I think the most blasphemous thing a believer can say is, “God designed this world.”
“Viewed in its entirety (parasites and all), the biological world, as we see it now, does not look like the creation of a single benevolent Deity.”
I concur.
I haven’t been following this thread and I am too lazy to read the preceding 129 comments – so I apologise if this is repetitive.
Vjtorly’s essay in #129 caught my eye. This response is rather long but I can’t find a convincing way to abbreviate it.
Vjtorley wrote::
“In practical terms, what that means is that if they were exploring a strange planet, and suddenly came across a very complex structure, they would refuse to make the inference that it must have been designed by an intelligent being, no matter how complex it was.”
This kind of thing comes up with great regularity. The writing on the planet we have never visited; the prime numbers in the bit stream from another galaxy etc. Can we deduce just because of its complexity that something has been designed and was not produced by natural causes?.
What do you mean by “complex”. If you are using the word in its non-technical sense which is something like “lots of different parts linked together in some way” then there are many natural phenomena that are extraordinarily complex – e.g. almost any weather system, or the earth’s water cycle.
Of course maybe you define “complex” as in “complex specified information” – but then “complex” means “very unlikely to have been created through natural causes”. So that doesn’t help answer the question as it is circular.
Having said that, there are many contexts in which we deduce without hesitation that an object was designed. So perhaps we should rephrase the question. Can we deduce just because of some features of an object that it is has been designed and was not produced by natural causes?.
Inferring design is no different from inferring any other type of cause. There are two parts – how plausible is it that the cause exists in the first place? And how plausible is it that the cause brought about the outcome? For example, to take a down to earth case. An archelogist finds some arrow shaped flints. It seems extremely plausible they were designed. But this conclusion would be radically weakened if they were dated to 50 million years ago.
Take the example of the finding a well known English passage written in the rocks on the previously unvisited planet. What could we deduce about the cause of the writing in these extraordinary circumstances? We should recognise up front that this is utterly extraordinary and whatever the cause it may well be very implausible. We need to consider some hypotheses as to how it got there. One might be that some alien knew our language and wrote something for reasons unknown. Another might be that a natural process not yet understood copied writing from our planet on to this one. A third is that a fragment of the earth escaped into space and landed on the planet. A fourth is the rocks just happened to wear that way. In the first three examples the cause is implausible, in the fourth example it is implausible that the cause led to the effect. We would then want to go on and do further tests – try and date the writing etc. (on balance I would give priority to exploring the third)
But for this process to work we need to consider hypotheses at a greater level of precision than “designed” or “natural”. And we have to use more information than just the objective features of the object. Until we do that the only honest answer is “I haven’t the foggiest idea”. Suppose we discover that there are actually millions of such fragments of what are recognisably human text scattered around the universe in places where there is no reasonable scope for life? We might begin to consider the idea that there is a common natural cause which our intelligence has built on i.e. we have got cause and effect the wrong way round. The universe would turn out to be an even more extraordinary place than we had conceived.
PaulBurnett:
By excluding tides and rays I also exclude field workers and geologists? Sorry, but that’s quite weak. A laboratory need not be a room full of bubbling beakers. But to expand the definition to ‘a place with energy and matter’ is absurd. To apply it to a time when there were no people to ‘experiment, investigate, observe, etc.’ is to attribute intelligence to inanimate matter. Which it turn stems from the materialist fantasy that chemicals and compounds, left to themselves, will seek intelligent solutions to the problem of their own inanimateness.
The fatal difficulty with Paley’s watch argument is that it is ultimately based on an argument by analogy. As many logicians have pointed out, arguments by analogy are completely worthless. The reason for this is that there is nothing in an analogy itself that can possibly verify or falsify the analogy.
This is clearly the case with the watch = cell analogy. Paley lists off all of the characteristics of a watch that he alleges indicate to an unbiased observer that the watch has been designed. However, none of these characteristics prove anything at all, unless one cites the obvious bit of external information: that we know from experience that watches are designed and built by people. You can consult with a watch maker, or look up the details of watch construction in a book or on Wikipedia (or a YouTube video), and there you would find information that would unambiguously confirm that watches are indeed designed and constructed objects.
However, you can’t do this with a cell or with any other complex entity that is not known via external means to be designed or constructed. Nobel prize-winner Jacques Monod in Chance and Necessity extends Paley’s watch argument to a dead honeybee found on the path in the heath, and argues that without external information one should conclude that the honeybee, like the watch, is designed and constructed by an intelligent agent.
But we know that this is clearly not the case: honeybees are constructed by honeybees (or, to be more precise, by honeybee genomes interacting with their environment via their phenomes). And so, we may conclude that Paley’s analogy between a watch and a honeybee is, indeed, invalid (at least insofar as it applies to the construction and operation of watches versus honeybees).
The same argument holds for one of the “icons” of the ID movement: Mt. Rushmore. We know for certain that Mr. Rushmore was designed and constructed because we have records of its design and construction. These records constitute the external information that validates the inference of design in the case of Mt. Rushmore.
However, we do not have similar external information about the Old Man of the Mountain (now sadly gone from the mountains of New Hampshire). You could make an argument by analogy that both Mr. Rushmore and the Old Man of the Mountain were produced by the same processes (either via design or “natural” processes), and which ever way you argued, the argument itself would have no logical force at all.
Most people would agree that Mr. Rushmore is indeed designed, whereas the Old Man of the Mountain is not. However, this inference is not directly derived from an observation of the two mountains themselves, but rather from external information about their origins. We have external historical information that verifies that Mr. Rushmore is indeed designed, but we have no such information about the Old Man of the Mountain. Rather, we have historical evidence that the Old Man of the Mountain was there when the first people (who left historical records) first beheld it.
This is the case with all examples of “designed” versus “natural” objects and processes of which I am aware. What verifies that the “designed” entities were, in fact, designed is information external to the entities themselves. The same is true for the “natural” entities, and so we are left right where we started from: making arguments by assertion and analogy, which have no logical force.
In science, arguments are not verified or falsified on the basis of analogy alone. Rather, they are verified or falsified on the basis of induction (and, sometimes, abduction and consilience). While it is the case that all forms of logical argument are ultimately based on analogy (i.e. transduction), what distinguishes between pure argument via analogy and induction/abduction/consilience is the fact that the former is essentially anecdotal evidence (and therefore useless), whereas the latter is evidence for the operation of a “natural law” (i.e. a consistent regularity in the structure and function of empirical reality).
Ergo, if one wishes ID to be considered to qualify as science, it will be necessary to ground it in induction/abduction/consilience using empirical methods. Until (and unless) this happens, it will remain pure airy speculation.
For more on this, see:
http://evolutionlist.blogspot......gical.html
Allen_MacNeill,
——”While it is the case that all forms of logical argument are ultimately based on analogy (i.e. transduction), what distinguishes between pure argument via analogy and induction/abduction/consilience is the fact that the former is essentially anecdotal evidence (and therefore useless), whereas the latter is evidence for the operation of a “natural law” (i.e. a consistent regularity in the structure and function of empirical reality).”
Your statement itself is here relying not on empirical evidence or a natural law, but rather by inference, or, analogy. If we are to regard it as valid, then we can regard Paley’s inference as valid. You folks never put the mirror to yourself.
Allen_MacNeil:
One way to evaluate a contorted cloud of reasoning is to consider what comes out the other side.
For example, without historical information we would not be able to tell that Mt. Rushmore was carved by men? Any evidence beyond the relevant historical record is merely anecdotal?
In the absence of that history, such reasoning would leave us willfully ignorant and subject to nonsensical “scientific” alternatives to the obvious.
How interesting that we should carefully avoid drawing ID conclusions from analogies, but shouldn’t hesitate to extrapolate the history of biology from bacterial resistance.
Re #134 and #135
Allen is of course correct that you cannot argue that X is Y because A is Y and has some similarities to X. However, whatever you think of Paley’s argument, it is also true that if we came across four figures representing human heads in the Amazonian jungle we would infer without question that they were the product of intelligent action – indeed human intelligent action.
But why? The reason is that we know there are humans around, they often build this type of thing, and that is by far the most likely cause. Move those same images to an unhabitable planet, or prove they were created 50 million years ago, and the case for design weakens. It is so extraordinary. You have to start thinking who the designer could have been and how they created the shapes – and comparing that to bizarre alternatives that include no design. Please see #131 above.
Of course we can infer design. But the same rules of inference apply as they do for any other cause. Among other things you cannot argue – cause X is extraordnarily unlikely therefore Y is the cause – Y might be equally unlikely.
Mark Frank:
But Allen is selective in the application. If someone carves faces in rock, don’t assume that all faces in rock were thus carved.
But if a tiny change to a biological organism results from mutation, do assume that many or all biological changes were caused by the same thing. How convenient.
A detailed image of Washington or E.T. on Mars might have natural causes? You can tell bad math when it produces the wrong answer, and bad logic when it leads to absurd conclusions.
Re #137
“A detailed image of Washington or E.T. on Mars might have natural causes? You can tell bad math when it produces the wrong answer, and bad logic when it leads to absurd conclusions.”
Did you read my comment #131?
When confronted with utterly bizarre situations like this common sense or intuition as to the correct inference is not a guide. We are dealing with something beyond the bounds of our imagination. On the face of it (no pun intended) there is no plausible way that either design or non-design could be the cause. We need to sit down work out the possibilities and evaluate them – not jump to one conclusion because the other is implausible.
Mark Frank:
I thought for sure it would indicate that you didn’t really mean what I thought you meant. But it doesn’t, and you did.
All of your illustrations boil down to the same thing. If we find Mt. Rushmore on Mars, design is not only uncertain but unlikely.
I’ll accept the absurd when there’s evidence. But this is poor logic anchored only by your personal ideas about what is or isn’t plausible, and it leads you to reject the obvious and cling to the nonsensical.
Mark Frank and Allen MacNeill
Thank you both for your posts. I’d like to address the key issues. Mark Frank wrote:
I am well aware that weather systems are extremely complex, if we define complexity in terms of incompressibility of information. Defined in this way, anything random is complex.
You seem to think that “specified complexity” is a question-begging term, where the improbability of a natural origin is built into the definition. Not so. The following quotes by two respected scientists (both evolutionists) bear me out.
Both of these authors affirm a natural origin for life; yet both of them invoke the term “specified complexity.” The term clearly has a non-question-begging meaning.
I am also well aware that Orgel and Davies used the term “specified complexity” in a purely qualitative sense. That’s fine by me.
I wanted to keep my discussion of complexity as non-technical as possible, as I am not a mathematician, and make no claim to being well-read on the subject of complexity. That was why, in my original post (#81) I used a concrete illustration that everyone could grasp: a self-replicating machine (a.k.a. a von Neumann machine). I then followed up with another example: a self-replicating space probe. You can read about them here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....ng_machine
Both of these machines have features which differ significantly from the examples Mark Frank cites.
First, they actually do something. They make copies of themselves. A von Neumann probe can also travel through space. Neither of the examples of complexity which Mark Frank cited (arrowheads and letters on the rocks on an alien planet) can do anything. They just sit there.
The same goes for the Mt. Rushmore example cited by Allen MacNeill. The faces don’t perform any function.
Second, the machines I described have parts which: (a) co-ordinate to perform the function; and (b) contain smaller sub-parts (nested hierarchy of function). Notice that I haven’t invoked any notion of “irreducible complexity” here; all I’m saying is that a von Neumann machine would have to be a pretty intricate device, while Mt. Rushmore, the letters in stone and the arrowheads are not.
Third, a von Neumann machine would have to use a program of some sort to make copies of itself. The program would of course be written in some sort of code.
So there we have it: complexity; specificity; functionality; nested, co-ordinated parts; a program; and a code. These are the key features of my examples, which I use to argue for intelligent design. Here’s my argument.
There are three mutually exclusive and exhaustive possibilities.
1. By definition of the word “intelligent,” only an intelligent designer can generate an entity exhibiting the following traits: complexity; specificity; functionality; nested, co-ordinated parts; a program; and a code. In that case, it follows that life (which exhibits all these traits) was intelligently designed. QED.
Actually, I think there’s a lot to be said for possibility 1. How else would you define “intelligent,” if not in terms of what it can do? And aren’t tools, machines and codes normally considered signs of intelligence? Wouldn’t an entity instantiating all of the above listed traits, then, be a pretty good candidate for an intelligently designed entity?
But if that inference strikes you as too fast, then possibility 2 might appeal to you.
2. By definition of the word “intelligent,” only an intelligent designer can generate an entity exhibiting the above traits rapidly. Blind, undirected processes can also generate an entity exhibiting the above traits, but they take a longer time to do so. In that case, for a given entity E exhibiting the above traits, there should be some cutoff time T such that no blind, undirected process should be capable of generating E in less time than T. It then follows that if we can prove E was generated in less time than T, then E was intelligently designed.
That leaves possibility 2. All right then. Please stipulate your cutoff time T for the creation of a von Neumann machine, a von Neumann probe and a simple cell. Earlier, djmullen suggested one or two million years. Does that sound reasonable to you?
3. Both intelligent designers and undirected processes are capable of generating an entity with the above combination of traits rapidly. In that case, they are functionally equivalent, and the distinction between intelligent and blind processes is meaningless. For what else could the term “intelligent” mean, if it does not mean: able to make a device with a specific function, or able to create a code – or at the very least, able to do these things more quickly than a blind process could? If the term “intelligent” does not mean that, then I know not what it means.
Possibility 3 also implies that the special respect which we accord to beings whom we designate as “intelligent” (humans, and possibly chimps, dolphins and New Caledonian crows) is chauvinistic and arbitrary. We might as well respect a rock – or at the very least, any undirected natural process capable of duplicating the feats of intelligent designers.
Personally I find possibility 3 absurd. I also think it’s empirically false. I say to the skeptics: show me an undirected process that can do what intelligent designers can do, in the same amount of time. I’d really like to see it.
Allen MacNeill wrote:
Who said I was using an analogy? If I said, “Gee, the cell looks like my watch, so it must be designed like my watch,” that would be an analogy. But I haven’t argued that, anywhere. I have argued that the cell has a number of traits, which as far as we know, are only found in devices that are intelligently designed (inductive inference). I have also argued that these traits define what we mean by the word “intelligent.” So either our definition of “intelligent” is wrong, or the cell is indeed designed.
(I should add that the traits which I suggested could be used to define “intelligence” can be applied literally to living cells, not analogically. For instance, DNA isn’t something “like” a code. It is a code. I can produce plenty of scientific citations to back that up, if you wish.)
I then explored a fallback option: maybe undirected processes can produce these traits, but slowly. Note: this is a very generous inductive hypothesis, as we have no evidence that undirected processes can produce this combination of traits at all. We can then modify our original definition of “intelligent” to include a speed requirement.
Then I argued as follows: if scientists can show that the first cells arose very quickly, then we can infer that they must have been designed.
(By the way, if you want to exclude the possibility that the first cells arrived from Mars or some other planet, where they arose naturally, you could always look at the isotopic composition of the rocks in which they were found. Anyway, Mars is the same age as Earth, so if life on Earth turns out to be 4.4 billion years old, a “Martian origin” hypothesis won’t help you.)
However, if you reject both of these inductive hypotheses, and the accompanying definitions of “intelligent” that I have proposed, then I think you owe us an account of what you mean by “intelligent.”
Mark Frank also wrote:
With respect, I disagree. I just don’t see how human beings could possibly estimate the plausibility of a non-human designer’s existence, let alone try to guess what it would bring about. That kind of inference strikes me as too a priori. It’s pure guesswork.
How on earth am I supposed to estimate the plausibility of the following: aliens; aliens visiting the Earth in a UFO in 50 million B.C.; aliens from another universe; angels; demons; God? If you could give me a numeric estimate for any of the above, I’d be impressed.
Allen MacNeill:
You argued that it is only because we know from experience that watches are designed and built by people that we can infer that any given watch (say, one we find on the ground) was designed. Strictly speaking, you should have added the qualification: watches are designed and built by people, and as far as we know do not arise by any other process.
To sum up, I would contend that if it’s OK to make an inductive inference about all entities that we would call “watches”, (As far as I know, all watches are designed; this is a watch; therefore this was probably designed), then it is equally legitimate to make an inductive inference about entities instantiating some property P (As far as I know, all entities with property P are products of design; I have just discovered from looking down my microscope that this cell is an entity with property P; therefore this cell is probably a product of design).
I would also argue that the properties I have listed above look like being the kind of properties that would define what we mean by “intelligence.” You might call that a suasive definition of the term. And if you like, you might want to add a speed requirement.
But if I am completely wrong here, then nothing short of a metaphysical and moral revolution follows: animism would then be the new game in town.
Vjtorley
So I am going to concentrate on this bit of your comment:
I wrote:
“Inferring design is no different from inferring any other type of cause. There are two parts – how plausible is it that the cause exists in the first place? And how plausible is it that the cause brought about the outcome?”
And you responded:
“How on earth am I supposed to estimate the plausibility of the following: aliens; aliens visiting the Earth in a UFO in 50 million B.C.; aliens from another universe; angels; demons; God? If you could give me a numeric estimate for any of the above, I’d be impressed.”
It is quite possible that it may be almost impossible to make the estimate. But that just means you don’t know the answer. The logic is still there. X causing Y depends on both X existing and X being able to cause Y. If you happen to be unable to estimate the plausability of either part of this then it follows you cannot estimate the plausability of X causing Y.
Now ID requires a designer with some pretty amazing abilities. So if you have no idea of the plausability of that designer existing then you have no idea of the plausability of a designer being the cause.
All I am asking is that the hypothesis that include design be subject to the same scrutiny as hypotheses that do not include design.
Try reversing the ID argument. Suppose I say to you “it is absurdly unlikely that a designer exists with the power to create life. Therefore the solution is not design. Therefore, it an unspecified natural process.” I think you would find this a most unsatisfactory argument. You would want me to desribe this unspecified process – show that it exists and how it could cause life. But that is exactly the trick the ID people are playing.
vjtorley in #140:
First, thank you for a well-argued response, and especially for your suggestion that there are three distinct explanations for the existence of “design”.
Before going further, I believe that it is necessary to distinguish between two very different senses of “design”:
1) the “design” (or “plan” or “program”) that specifies the construction and operation of a complex object/process (call this Type 1 design), and
2) the “design” (if any such exists) according to which the “plan” or “program” of a Type I designed object/process came into being.
I have absolutely no objection to the assertion that Type I design explains the construction and operation of complex entities, such as living organisms. That is, living organisms are complex entities that are constructed and operated according to a “design” that is encoded into their genome and expressed in their phenome (as s result of the interactions between the genome and its environment). This is the sense in which both Orgel and Davies use the term “specified complexity”.
The genome of an organism (and the environment in which that genome is expressed) do indeed “specify” the construction and operation of complex, homeotelic entities, and so such genomes/environments constitute the Type I design for complex functional entities, including living organisms.
We can infer the existence of (and study the operation of) Type 1 designs using empirical methods. We can, for example, identify the information encoded into the genome of a living organism and investigate how this information is expressed in the structure and function of such organisms. In so doing, we may derive an “operational rule” about the origin of Type 1 design:
• Type I designs apparently only derive from previously existing Type 1 designs (this is merely Schleiden & Schwann updated).
The controversy between evolutionary biology (EB) and intelligent design (ID) is therefore not about the existence of “design in nature” per se, but rather about the origin of such design. EBers assert that Type 1 design is an emergent property of phenotypic variation, heredity, fecundity, and differential reproductive success. IDers assert that these “natural” processes are insufficient to produce Type 1 design, and that therefore another kind of design – Type 2 design – must be invoked to explain the origin of Type 1 design.
Type 2 design is fundamentally different from Type 1 design insofar as Type 2 design does not arise as an emergent property of purely natural objects and processes (“natural” being defined as “amenable to empirical analysis”). Instead, Type 2 design must derive from a non-natural source of information (i.e. not the information encoded into either genomes or environments). As most IDers repeatedly assert, the characteristics and properties of this non-natural source of information are inaccessible to empirical investigation (indeed, they cannot be named nor even described).
Ergo, two fundamentally different research programs are pursued by EBers and IDers. The former use widely accepted principles of empirical investigation and logical inference to analyze the complex structures and functions of living systems and to infer the kinds of emergent properties these systems would have to have to come into being without an “external” source of Type 2 design. The latter do little or no empirical research at all, as the focus of their explanatory system is, by their own admission, beyond the scope of empirical investigation.
The first – evolutionary biology – is therefore (despite all its faults and inadequacies, of which there are many) a science. The second – intelligent design – is, by the same logic, a form of metaphysical speculation without any program for empirical verification whatsoever. That is, it is not a science, by any generally accepted definition of that term).
Allen,
I am not sure the distinction you describe plays out the way you have said. Over on the Barbara Forrest thread there has been a discussion about methodological naturalism which I guess is probably a repeat of the one about 5-6 weeks ago. I have not read all of both the current one or the previous one so do not know what is new but assume there is only a couple key points in the whole discussion that keeps getting repeated.
One of them which I hold is what one of the commenters brought up, namely the difference between naturalists, or what ever you want to call them, and ID supporters is the range of conclusions one considers. ID can consider the complete range of conclusions that a naturalist would accept but accept additional ones.
So the distinction you paint of ID and not ID is not accurate. An ID physicist could be employed in every areas of physics and there would be no constraint on anything he or she did. It is just the ID physicist may come to some different conclusions or even propose some studies that a naturalist might not consider. Similarly an ID evolutionary biologists could examine everything a naturalist evolutionary biologists did but may come to some very different conclusions on some data findings. So the distinction you portray is fictitious.
If there were some evidence that some intelligent entities roamed the universe 4 billion years ago, I doubt that one person in evolutionary biology would dismiss the design hypothesis out of hand and I bet it would be the number one hypothesis even if we knew very little about these intelligences other than they existed. They would be remarking on the amazing design these creatures imparted to life and the system they set up. They would be saying that these “ancients” must have designed life because there is no way that chance and natural laws could result in such amazing interacting complexity.
So I have to disagree with you. ID subsumes naturalism in all its forms except the limitations of the conclusions it can make. As the commenter on the Barbara Forrest thread said,
“Barbara thinks science must find physical causes and as well as effects. Science must only observe physical EFFECTS and can infer any CAUSE.”
vjtorley @ 140: “The same goes for the Mt. Rushmore example cited by Allen MacNeill. The faces don’t perform any function.”
Exactly! Specifically, they don’t reproduce, thus they don’t evolve. We know of only two ways to manufacture CSI – evolution and intelligence.
The logic goes something like this:
1) Mount Rushmore is not alive, therefore it did not evolve.
2) Intelligent humans are known to make things like Mt. Rushmore and they are known to have been operating in the area during the time Mt. Rushmore was being created.
3) Conclusion: The odds strongly favor intelligent design for Mt. Rushmore.
Ditto for watches found on heaths.
The logic for a rabbit on a heath goes something like this:
1) Rabbits are alive. Therefore they evolve and are products of evolution. Evolution is known to make CSI.
2) Intelligent humans have never been known to manufacture rabbits, nor have any other intelligent entities been observed making bunnies.
3) The odds are overwhelming that rabbits are made by evolution and not by intelligent designers.
djmullen:
It’s so much easier to hold onto hopes and assumptions when we wrap them in circular arguments.
By the rule of parsimony, natural forces alone are only the best explanation if they are sufficient to explain the phenomena.
If they are insufficient, and if adding intelligent design to natural forces is sufficient, then it is the better explanation.
If one attempts to insert an unknown natural force there is no evidence for as an explanation, ID + NF is the better explanation, because there is evidence that ID exists and can do certain things in concert with NF that NF by itself cannot (humans and human artifacts).
Of course, ID + NF is only the better explanation if NF is insufficient and ID is known to produce similar phenomena.
Unless the naturalists wishes to win by fiat (asserting a win by default), then in order to show that NF is the better theory when it comes to explaining a phenomena, they must show that NF is a sufficient explanation for the phenomena.
Note that any sufficient NF description must utilize reasonable descriptions of any chance that is involved based on the laws governing the explanation of the phenomena.
If NF is not a reasonably sufficient explanation for the phenomena, and ID + NF is, then ID + NF is the better theory.
ScottAndrews, what is circular about the phrase you quote?
William J. Murray, I would be interested in seeing your evidence that Darwinian evolution is insufficient to explain the life we see.