Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Abiogenensis Research Is ID Research

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

An ID hypothesis is that abiogenesis is practically impossible without intelligent agency. A predictionmade by this hypothesis is that no method of abiogenesis absent intelligent intervention can ever be demonstrated in a laboratory. The prediction may be falsified in principle by demonstrating a chemical pathway whereby abiogenesis takes place. This is a legitimate hypothesis that makes a testable prediction. Therefore all attempts to demonstrate that abiogenesis is possible absent intelligent intervention is an attempt to falsify biological ID. So I don’t want to hear the tired canard again that ID has no research programs. We have many of them and they’ve been going on for God only knows how long. At least since Aristotle in 350 B.C. said it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, and so forth. Through Louis Pasteur’s experiments showing sterile mediums remain sterile forever in 1862. To the Miller-Urey experiment “demonstrating” how electrical discharges, water, and a few noxious gasses could produce a dilute concentration of a few amino acids. Biological ID research has thus demonstrably been proceeding for thousands of years and continues through today most recently with Harvard University throwing its hat in the ring setting out to prove abiogenesis is possible and plausible committing $1 million per year to the effort. But don’t you dare say that 2000+ years of failure is anything more than an argument from ignorance you ignorant IDers! 😛

Comments
Monimoniker: I mean, the basic laws of physics all being expressly designed so that a single planet within a solar system on the edge part of a galaxy among billions of other galaxies would be formed to support life, and life on that planet would not only eventually evolve to discover these basic physical laws, but also be in the unique position to observe and learn about the rest of the universe? Context-wise, it’s a bit hard for me to see what’s so special about this location we humans inhabit compared to a lot of other locations that could have been. (I’ll skip expressing my other concerns about TPP.) We aren't on the edge of the galaxy. The edge of the galaxy does not have enough heavy elements to support or create a solar system like ours. We are prety close to being at the halfway point between the edge and center. We are also between two major spiral arms. Also I would like to know about the other locations that would have better suited us to make scientific discoveries. Of Newton, Kepler, & Galileo in the book "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty" by Morris Kline, Kline states that these scientist-mathematicians believed that "God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomenon." So I guess being a Creationist or IDist would limit our scientific capabilities and understanding to that of Newton, Kepler, Galileo and Copernicus. I can live with that.Joseph
September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
Hawks: The reduction of a more complex structure could, indeed, be an increase in information (depending on your definition thereof). It would be a decrease. Just like withdrawing money from a bank account is a decrease in that account's funds- or removing an air conditioner from a car would be a decrease in that car's components. Hawks: But remember that we are talking about how non-designed evolution could cause this 2-part system. Yes I know. Hawks: The 3-part (or 4,5,6-whatever-part) system from which it came from must have come from information increases. No one is saying that the more complex structure arose via "non-design evolution". Hawks: Taking two existing structures and combining them sounds an awful lot like co-adaptation. I thought you guys claimed that it couldn’t happen(?). In either case, it is still an increase in information. Well to you subtraction is really addition. In that sense it would be an increase. However in reality the best it could be is a reshuffling of existing information, meaning neither an increase nor a decrease took place. But in other cases it is a clear loss. And I thought it was evolutionists who said co-adaptation couldn't happen? IOW adaptive evolution was a no-no. Organisms don't really adapt. Those already suited when some change came survived and were better able to pass on their successful trait.Joseph
September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
Well don't I feel like the ahole now. Sorry for questioning your sincerity, Monimonika. Ribosomes and DNA are interdependent. One can't exist without the other. Ribosomes are machines that construct proteins according to the digitally encoded specifications contained in DNA (coding genes) and the proteins are (among other things) components of cellular machinery that replicate the DNA molecule.DaveScot
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT
By DaveScot on comment #81: The problem is there is no consensus list. Some people will point to the human eye, I've even seen the knee used, flagella, immune system, blood clotting, the human brain, consciousness, etcetera. For me there's only two interdependent structures in the list. Ribosomes and DNA. So there. Now you have a list. Happy now? Somehow I don't think so. You came here with a chip on your shoulder, a conclusion that ID is BS, and not a sincere question in sight. Tell me I'm wrong. To be honest, I am happy. Thank you for actually taking some time to point to even two examples of what you would call ID structures. I'll read up on them a bit more (particularly ribosomes). I'm hoping for there to be some non-criteria-defined similarities between the two things you mentioned (as well as with the flagellum, just to have a possible third item to compare with). Such similarities could (I think) bolster support for there being a shared designer, at the very least. Also, I see that you pointed out how subjective the interpretation of the "criteria" could be in making the list. I think that this is the main reason that I have this chip on my shoulder (and why I have a problem with Joseph's answers). You seem to draw the limit at the basic(?) levels of what makes up living organisms (as opposed to non-living materials that the living are made out of), while a few others seem to claim that the limit can go as far as to include the entire planet and everything on it (and maybe beyond) as being completely planned out by a designer. I mean, the basic laws of physics all being expressly designed so that a single planet within a solar system on the edge part of a galaxy among billions of other galaxies would be formed to support life, and life on that planet would not only eventually evolve to discover these basic physical laws, but also be in the unique position to observe and learn about the rest of the universe? Context-wise, it's a bit hard for me to see what's so special about this location we humans inhabit compared to a lot of other locations that could have been. (I'll skip expressing my other concerns about TPP.) Similarly, going from claiming that DNA is an IC structure to also including something like the entire human brain as being IC is just taking way too big of a leap in scale in my opinion. If ID theory is applied to the creation of the laws of physics, then even the leap from designing the properties of matter to designing DNA is hard to swallow. If such leaps are allowed, context becomes meaningless because then everything could have been designed to work the way they do, no matter how much the processes involved could be narrowed down and specified. I do not think that the possibility of there being designers for either the basic properties of matter and life itself can be completely thrown out, but such theories get tested when some IDists (due to human-nature) start assigning intentions to the designer (or designers if there were/are more than one). Perception on what the intentions of the designer might be/have been is, in my opinion, what either makes or breaks the believability of ID theory for most of us. One may say that ID theory does not take into account the intentions of the designer, but the very point of describing something as designed is because some sort of intention was recognized (or imagined in some cases). Some, particularly those who believe in a certain kind of God, may say that the intentions were human-centric and will use it to explain why many things are the way they are. Others may limit the scope of what the designer did to only a few very basic things early on at the beginning of life (or the universe). I'm more toward being sympathetic to the latter, although I can't get myself to accept both life and the universe being the points of design in the same reality because of the scale differences. Some others may say that the process of design occurred more than once at different times (and are not necessarily all for the sake of us human beings). But that suffers from the problem that the intentions inferred from it become inconsistent with each new design example given. At least with the second one, the intention to create life on this planet is simpler to understand. How far the designer planned the results of how life would develop/evolve would vary depending on intentions assigned, but I'm leaning toward "not much, just planned enough so that there would be replication, along with the desire to keep replicating, and left it at that." Okay, I'm off to read up on ribosomes. Thanks again, DaveScot!Monimonika
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT
Joseph, "By taking a more complex structure and reducing it. Or by taking two existing structures and combining those. Neither instance is an increase of information. " The reduction of a more complex structure could, indeed, be an increase in information (depending on your definition thereof). But remember that we are talking about how non-designed evolution could cause this 2-part system. The 3-part (or 4,5,6-whatever-part) system from which it came from must have come from information increases. Taking two existing structures and combining them sounds an awful lot like co-adaptation. I thought you guys claimed that it couldn't happen(?). In either case, it is still an increase in information.Hawks
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
The only committed Darwinian that ever did experiments was Theodosius Dobzhansky If we had more asylums more Darwinians could be committed.DaveScot
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
The only committed Darwinian that ever did experiments was Theodosius Dobzhansky and the current crop of Darwinian mystics led by Richard Dawkins pretend he never existed. Not only did he provide a sensible criterion for what a species was, which the Darwinians ignore entirely, but he also destroyed the whole selection fantasy with experiments on the pet animal of the Darwinian geneticists - Drosophila, an animal which has not changed in millions of years. The mystery is how Dobzhansky managed to remain a Darwinian. The same can be said about Julian Huxley who, in no uncertain terms, presented convincing evidence that evolution was not even going on any more. It boggles my mind. It is hard to believe isn't it? I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."John A. Davison
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
Monimoniker: As for the second part addressed to me, does this mean that if we humans don’t know (or can’t imagine) how something came about, we should default to “intelligently designed”? Only if it also fits the criteria. The process is that everytime we observe X or X-like and know the cause it has ALWAYS been due to an intelligent agency. And we have NEVER seen unguided, purposeless process produce X or anything X-like. Therefore when we observe X or something X-like and don't know the cause we can safely infer an intelligent agency was involved. And yes new discoveries can either confirm or refute that inference. But that is how it works in all fields! And the more we discover about living organsims the longer the list of IC systems will be. IDists know that discovery will confirm our premise just as it has to date. IOW the more we find out about living organisms the better ID is as an explanation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hawks: And how precisely could a biological system generate a 2-part system without an increase in information? By taking a more complex structure and reducing it. Or by taking two existing structures and combining those. Neither instance is an increase of information.Joseph
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
There must be something the matter with me because I always regarded Intelligent Design as a given without which nothing in either ontogeny or phylogeny could possibly make any sense. Anyone who has ever performed transplantations between amphibian embryos would feel the same way I am certain. Most Darwinians are armchair theoreticians who never did an experiment in their entire lives. They don't need to do experiments as they have all the answers don't you know. They are pathetic creatures, "born that way," "prescribed" losers. I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT
Monimonika I don't think the problem is that there is no list. The problem is there is no consensus list. Some people will point to the human eye, I've even seen the knee used, flagella, immune system, blood clotting, the human brain, consciousness, etcetera. For me there's only two interdependent structures in the list. Ribosomes and DNA. So there. Now you have a list. Happy now? Somehow I don't think so. You came here with a chip on your shoulder, a conclusion that ID is BS, and not a sincere question in sight. Tell me I'm wrong.DaveScot
September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
By Joseph in comment #75: I do not have time to compile a list for you. That is why I gave you the criteria so you could do some looking. I ask for a list, thinking that it must exist given the claims that the evidence for ID is abundant. You (Joseph) say there is no such list, as far as you know, but that it would be a long one if someone were to simply apply the criteria provided by Behe. I ask for you (or someone else) to actually make at least part of this long list (mostly because Behe's criteria is way too vague to me. So examples, such as those on this not-yet-existing list, would've been very helpful in understanding what the criteria meant). You say you "don't have time" (which, by the way, I actually do think is a valid reason) and that I should be the one to make The List. (Note the "The" in front of "List".) I think I'm being given the run-around here, so instead I'll drop the discussion about this obviously-never-going-to-be-made list. As for the second part addressed to me, does this mean that if we humans don't know (or can't imagine) how something came about, we should default to "intelligently designed"? That's how I read it. Doesn't that kind of push ID theory into a corner each time there is a new discovery or insight into how things work or came to be (thus shrinking a few more items off The List)? Or does Behe think that our present scientific knowledge of the natural world is all that there will ever be from now on? By Behe: The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important. But what are these biochemical systems and how are they related to each othe- Oh, yeah, list doesn't exist. Sorry about that. You can ignore me now. Thor, the intelligence behind lightning, is causing a big booming sound outside and I need to shut the windows.Monimonika
September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
Joseph, "to Hawks, A see-saw is a 2-part IC system although the ‘C’ part may be questionable. Now for sheer-dumb-luck to produce a see-saw just requires trees and a very strong wind. One tree falls south and the tree directly to its west falls east. No intelligent intervention required. Or it could be one tree falling and resting on a big rock that was already near-by." And how precisely could a biological system generate a 2-part system without an increase in information? That was the question, after all. Without an increase in information, it does not matter how much luck, selection or directing you do to try to get your new 2-part system. You won't get it. And yes, I'm willing to discuss exactly what information could be in this instance.Hawks
September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
Karl Pfluger: Joseph, Bill Dembski disagrees with you. I know how he defines it. And seeing this is his blog I will take his word for it when and if he tells me. It also appears he agrees with what I said- that is according to what you posted: me- As I already stated CSI can be tested absent of probabilty. Just look at the number of bits. Then to falsify that inference demonstrate that 500 bits of information can arise without the aid of an intelligent agency. WD: Specified complexity would be immediately overturned if some probability distribution induced by known mechanisms operating in known ways rendered the thing we’re trying to explain reasonably probable. So where is your demonstration? Instead of harping on semantics that is what you should concentrate on- showing us any information can arise without the help of an intelligent agency. Then we can compare what you can demonstrate to what we observeJoseph
September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
Joseph wrote:
As I already stated CSI can be tested absent of probabilty. Just look at the number of bits. Then to falsify that inference demonstrate that 500 bits of information can arise without the aid of an intelligent agency.
Joseph, Bill Dembski disagrees with you. From page 96 of The Design Revolution:
Indeed, to attribute specified complexity to something is to say that the specification to which it conforms corresponds to an event that is vastly improbable with respect to all material mechanisms that might give rise to the event.
And on page 97:
Specified complexity would be immediately overturned if some probability distribution induced by known mechanisms operating in known ways rendered the thing we're trying to explain reasonably probable.
Besides, where do you think the magic number of 500 bits came from? It's derived from a probability bound: From Intelligent Design, p. 166: In The Design Inference I justify a more stringent universal probability bound of 10^-150 based on the number of elementary particles in the observable universe, the duration of the observable universe until its heat death and the Planck time. A probability bound of 10^-150 translates to 500 bits of information. Accordingly, specified information of complexity greater than 500 bits cannot reasonably be attributed to chance. This 500-bit ceiling on the amount of specified complexity attributable to chance constitutes a universal complexity bound for CSI.Karl Pfluger
September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
In the previous post, the last paragraph by Behe is without foundation. Just because "some evolutionary biologists" insist on those several factors does not mean that they are true. Natural selection, migration, population size, founder effect, genetic drift amd gene flow - none of these ever had anything to do with either the emergence of any new life form or that of any of the higher taxonomic categories. They are purely illusory, based on the unfounded assumption that chance and circumstance had played a role in phylogeny. Besides, evolution is finished. How many times do we, Robert Broom, Julian Huxley, Pierre Grasse and myself, have to tell you? "Of the few innocent pleasures left to men past middle life - the jammimg common-sense down the throats of fools is perhaps the keenest." Thomas Henry Huxley After he had been replaced as Prime Minister, Churchill became a member of Parliament. He seemed to be asleep much of the time. One Member of Parliament whispered to another - "They say he is senile." Churchill responded - "They say he is deaf too." That's me, old senile John A. Davison (He was once a decent scientist but something happened to him in the 1980s), only it is not I who is deaf. It is my many adversaries on both sides of the ideological fence. I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable," John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
To Karl Pfluger, As I already stated CSI can be tested absent of probabilty. Just look at the number of bits. Then to falsify that inference demonstrate that 500 bits of information can arise without the aid of an intelligent agency. IOW we have direct observations of intelligent agencies creating CSI. We have NEVER observed unguided, purposeless processes do so. Therefore when we observe CSI and do not have direct observation of the cause it is safe to infer ID. And like any inference it can be either confirmed or refuted via future research. And just because you can "summarize" the statements doesn't mean that summarization is correct. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- to Hawks, A see-saw is a 2-part IC system although the 'C' part may be questionable. Now for sheer-dumb-luck to produce a see-saw just requires trees and a very strong wind. One tree falls south and the tree directly to its west falls east. No intelligent intervention required. Or it could be one tree falling and resting on a big rock that was already near-by. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Monimoniker, I do not have time to compile a list for you. That is why I gave you the criteria so you could do some looking. Monimoniker: Okay, I’ll accept that the design inference can extend into other areas, but then I start to wonder about what part of the reality we live is definitely not designed? Dr Behe provides an answer:
“Intelligent design is a good explanation for a number of biochemical systems, but I should insert a word of caution. Intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism. Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of "neutral," nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important.”
Joseph
September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
Joseph, The argument you quote can be summarized as follows: 1. If it has CSI, it's designed. 2. Biological systems have CSI. 3. Undirected natural processes do not produce CSI. 4. Therefore, biological systems are designed. The problem is that this argument remains circular if CSI is defined in terms of the probability that an undirected natural process could produce the system in question: 5. A system is defined as having CSI if the probability that it was produced by an undirected process is low enough. What you need is a definition of CSI which is independent of this probability. Lacking that, the argument continues to suffer from circularity.Karl Pfluger
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
Joseph, "“Naturally” has nothing to do with it as both intelligence and design are “natural”. Also it all depends on the complexity (or lack thereof) of the system." The reason I put naturally in quotes was that I, in effect, meant non-designed. I swear I will be more careful in the future. "And no one I know would say that sheer-dumb-luck couldn’t cobble together some 2 part system. But it all depends upon the starting point. " I know of someone who probably would (or at least should) say "that sheer-dumb-luck couldn’t cobble together some 2 part system". PaV (or was it BarryA) tried to argue that RM+NS could not create new information. If you were to hold that belief, I find it hard understanding how a "2 part system" could possibly be created by sheer-dumb-luck.Hawks
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
Joseph, so I take it there was a slight misreading of what I asked for earlier. By me in comment #52: Is there a list somewhere that names (potentially) IC structures in existing biological organisms? I asked for examples of IC structures inside living organisms, not for the (entire?) organisms themselves. By Joseph in comment #69: To find out what structures are IC look for the following (Dr Behe's original criteria): "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components " (emphasis added)" I am sure the list will be very long and that is why Dr Behe focused on the systems he did. I can't help but be disappointed with the reasoning here. If the list would become so long, why is it supposedly so hard to come up with one here? I'm not asking for the entire list, I'm asking for a list long enough (around 20 items will do, any more and I'll probably nod off) that could be used to compare/contrast and get a better grasp of what the criteria means. It's so I could see if there are similarities beyond the criteria present within that list. By Joseph: Apples and oranges. One is a design inference from biology and the other is a design inference from other sciences. IOW TPP demonstrates the design inference extends beyond biology and is not limited to it. Okay, I'll accept that the design inference can extend into other areas, but then I start to wonder about what part of the reality we live is definitely not designed? What's to stop a designer from designing things specifically so that I would be sitting here typing this sentence up? Would you consider that this specific act of mine is too insignificant to have to have been carefully planned out from the very beginning? Why or why not? Where would the line be drawn? How would you know how far ahead the planning of the designer(s) went? What would be the criteria for labeling something as unplanned/undesigned when even we know that intelligent beings like humans can design things to appear as if by random? Hey, I'm smelling a whole new area of scientific research based on the ID theory...Monimonika
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
To Karl Pfluger, The correct reasoning is as follows: ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., "Darwinism, Design and Public Education", pg. 92)- 1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. Also CSI has a defined lower limit of 500 bits of information (Shannon information is useless in this regard as it does not consider content. IOW to Shannon 500 bits of random characters has as much "information" as 500 bits of meaningful data). It should be noted that this can be easily refuted by demonstrating that 500 bits of information (not Shannon info) can arise from scratch via unguided, purposeless processes. Anything less than that (the demonstration) is mere whining.Joseph
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
Biology is a science and nothing anyone says will ever change that. It was as an experimental science that the whole fabric of the Darwinian myth was destroyed and that was done by a Darwinian named Theodosius Dobzhansky. It is no wonder that the current generation of "Darwimps" pretend he never existed. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
Monimoniker: I am just stuck on the the very big leap from stars, planets, supernovas, etc. to the microscopic structure of a bacteria. The relation between the extremes seems stretched. Aples and oranges. One is a design inference from biology and the other is a design inference from other sciences. IOW TPP demonstrates the design inference extends beyond biology and is not limited to it. The only “list” I am aware of is in Dr Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box”. However that list does not contain a living organism. Monimoniker: It doesn’t? I should clarify. What I meant was that a living organism, as in life itself, which we know is IC, is not in his book. All he talks about are the structures contained in living organisms. To find out what structures are IC look for the following (Dr Behe's original criteria):
"Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components " (emphasis added)
I am sure the list will be very long and that is why Dr Behe focused on the systems he did. And seeing that biology is about living organisms that is probably why he didn't include a living organism as that is outside of biology.Joseph
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
regarding Dembski definition of IC, you quoted: “If the irreducible core of an IC system consists of one or only a few parts, there may be no insuperable obstacle to the Darwinian mechanism explaining how that system arose in one fell swoop. ” Hawks: Does that, in essence, mean that ID admits that IC can arise “naturally”? "Naturally" has nothing to do with it as both intelligence and design are "natural". Also it all depends on the complexity (or lack thereof) of the system. Even a two part system would/ could be IC. And no one I know would say that sheer-dumb-luck couldn't cobble together some 2 part system. But it all depends upon the starting point.Joseph
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
Hawks asks: "Does that, in essence, mean that ID admits that IC can arise “naturally”?" Yes, as defined originally by Behe. In fairness, however, I should note that Dembski did attempt later to distinguish between IC systems having low specified complexity versus those having high SC (CSI), arguing that the latter could not have arisen through natural processes. Dembski's refinement runs into trouble, though, because he admits that to determine that a system has CSI, we must estimate the probability of its production by natural means. Systems with CSI have a low probability of arising through natural means. This renders the reasoning circular: 1. Some systems in nature cannot have been produced through undirected natural means. 2. Which ones? The ones with high CSI. 3. How do you determine the CSI of a system? Measure the probability that it was produced through undirected natural means. If the probability was vanishingly small, it has CSI. 4. Ergo, the systems that could not have been produced through undirected natural means are the ones which could not have been produced through undirected natural means.Karl Pfluger
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT
Nullasalus (sorry for previous typo) It would seem you can reduce the problem to a choice of "stuff exists or it doesn't" or "stuff exists and we can detect it, and stuff also exists that we can't detect". Science can, in my view, progress with either assumption, and may, from time to time make discoveries of new stuff that was previously undetectable. The problem for science is to look for stuff without any idea of what to look for or where to look. This is why I suspect it is a waste of time looking for a soul, for example. Physics and metaphysics are very different subjects; one might say orthogonal.Alan Fox
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT
Nullalus
Even if there is a God, if there is a soul, an afterlife - by the definitions laid down for supernatural, these things can’t be… supernatural. Because anything that truly exists does not fit the definition. You can’t demonstrate the supernatural, only because to demonstrate it - no matter WHAT ‘it’ is - would make it no longer supernatural.
I agree. Quite a dilemma, isn't it?Alan Fox
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT
Joseph, regarding Dembski definition of IC, you quoted: "If the irreducible core of an IC system consists of one or only a few parts, there may be no insuperable obstacle to the Darwinian mechanism explaining how that system arose in one fell swoop. " Does that, in essence, mean that ID admits that IC can arise "naturally"?Hawks
September 17, 2006
September
09
Sep
17
17
2006
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
I love the Animal Planet Channel, especially when they stage Dachshund races which they do on a regular basis. Otto is an incredibly fast Dachshund, considering he is so "crippled" as one your posters described him. He loves to run and "do laps." "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
September 17, 2006
September
09
Sep
17
17
2006
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
Thank you for your answer, Joseph. I can understand that ID is still in the beginning processes of accumulating supporting evidence, narrowing down the specific aspects (number of designers, when designing was accomplished, how many times designing occurred, whether there is an ultimate purpose, etc.) and thus may not be able to answer my questions for a long time to come. However, this point struck me as odd: As for motives/ intentions of the designer- "The Privileged Planet" authors (Gonzalez & Richards) state that the purpose for the design of the universe was for scientific discovery. And in order to do that one needs discoverers somewhere in the design which will allow for that. So, according to prominent IDists, not only did the designer shape the universe from its very basic beginnings so that there will eventually be humans (or some type of semi-sophisticated intelligence) to discover the designed aspects of said universe, the same designer (or maybe a different demi-designer) designed the bacterial flagellum and the immune systems (which are both IC structures according to Behe). I am just stuck on the the very big leap from stars, planets, supernovas, etc. to the microscopic structure of a bacteria. The relation between the extremes seems stretched. What also struck me was the lack of a list of structures that could be called IC. Bacterial flagellum was given as an example (not sure if that is old news or not) and the immune system was also mentioned in Dover. I'm quite sure there are more that get talked about even here on this blog. So why is there no list compiled somewhere? I don't expect it to be a definitive list (too early for that), but with so much talk about there being a lot of evidence for design, I'd expect that such a list of design examples would be easy to make. The only "list" I am aware of is in Dr Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". However that list does not contain a living organism. It doesn't? This is the first time I have learned of this (I've always assumed otherwise). What is on that "list", then? What's the point of mentioning Darwin/evolution if the design inference is only applied to non-living, non-organic things? I think I'll just have to wait a bit more and hope that someone can either find the organic (non-human created) IC structures list or tell me how to go about finding it myself.Monimonika
September 17, 2006
September
09
Sep
17
17
2006
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
Alan Fox, "Yes, giving a concept a name does not give it existence." I think you misunderstand the extent to which I was saying that. Even if there is a God, if there is a soul, an afterlife - by the definitions laid down for supernatural, these things can't be... supernatural. Because anything that truly exists does not fit the definition. You can't demonstrate the supernatural, only because to demonstrate it - no matter WHAT 'it' is - would make it no longer supernatural. Supernatural is just another way of saying 'unknown but real'.nullasalus
September 17, 2006
September
09
Sep
17
17
2006
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply