Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Back to Basics

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The materialists have been doing a little end zone dance over at the The Circularity of the Design Inference post. They seem to think that Winston Ewert has conceded that Dembski’s CSI argument is circular. Their celebrations are misplaced. Ewert did nothing of the sort. He did NOT say that Dembski’s CSI argument is circular. He said (admittedly in a rather confusing and inelegant way) that some people’s interpretation of the CSI argument is circular.

Ewert is making a very simple point. To make a design inference based on mere probability alone is fallacious. I don’t know what all of the fuss is about. But just in case this is not clear by now, let’s go back to basics. The design inference requires two things: A huge ocean of probability and a very tiny island of specification. If you don’t have both, it does not work.

Perhaps a poker example will illuminate the issue. There are 2,598,956 five-card poker combinations. Only 1 of those combinations corresponds to the specification “royal flush in spades.” The probability of a royal flush in spades on any given hand is 0.000000385. Now let us suppose the “search space” (i.e., the ocean of probability) is “four consecutive hands of poker.” The probability of a series of events is the product of the probability of all of the events. The probability of receiving a royal flush in spades in four consecutive hands is 0.000000385^4 or 0.00000000000000000000000002197 or about 2.197X10^-26.

Here’s the interesting point. The probability of ANY given series of four poker hands is exactly the same, i.e., 2.197X10^-26. So why would every one of us look askance at the series “four royal flushes in spades in a row” even though it has the exact same low probability as every other sequence of four hands?

The answer to this is, of course, the idea behind CSI. Low probability by itself does not establish CSI. The fact that in the enormous probabilistic ocean of four consecutive poker hands the deal landed on a tiny little island of specification (“four royal flushes in spades) is what causes us to suspect design (i.e., cheating).

Ewert writes:

The fact that an event or object is improbable is insufficient to establish that it formed by natural means. That’s why Dembski developed the notion of specified complexity, arguing that in order to reject chance events they must both be complex and specified.

Poker analogy: The fact that a series of four poker hands has a very low probability (i.e., 2.197X10^-26) is insufficient to establish that it was caused by pure chance. That’s why we need a specification as well.

Ewert:

Hence, its not the same thing to say that the evolution of the bacterial flagellum is improbable and that it didn’t happen. If the bacterial flagellum were not specified, it would be perfectly possible to evolve it even thought it is vastly improbable.

Poker analogy: It is not the same thing to say that a series of four hands of poker is improbable and therefore it did not happen by chance. If the four hands were not specified, it would be perfectly possible to deal them by pure chance even though any particular such sequence is vastly improbable.

Ewert:

The notion of specified complexity exists for one purpose: to give force to probability arguments. If we look at Behe’s irreducible complexity, Axe’s work on proteins, or practically any work by any intelligent design proponent, the work seeks to demonstrate that the Darwinian account of evolution is vastly improbable. Dembski’s work on specified complexity and design inference works to show why that improbability gives us reason to reject Darwinian evolution and accept design.

Poker analogy: Dembski’s work on specified complexity and design inference works to show us why that improbability (i.e., 2.197X10^-26) gives us reason to reject chance and accept design (i.e., cheating).

In conclusion it seems to me that after all the dust settles we will see that Ewert was merely saying that Miller’s Mendacity (see the UD Glossary) misconstrues the CSI argument. But we already knew that.

Comments
126 Phinehas November 18, 2014 at 11:39 am After the first hand, the hand becomes the prior specification, doesn’t it? Yes In other words, wouldn’t the probability of getting a Royal Flush in Spades four hands in a row be exactly the same as the probability of getting any five hands in a row? That's essentially what I said in post#6: The probability of getting the same hand in four consecutive deals, where the hand *is* specified in advance, is (3.8477e-007)^4 = 2.1918e-026 The probability of getting the same hand in four five consecutive deals, where the hand is *not* specified in advance, is (3.8477e-007)^3^4 = 5.69641e-0202.1918e-026cantor
November 18, 2014
November
11
Nov
18
18
2014
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
cantor:
The point being, something’s rotten in Denmark if the same hand is dealt 4 times in a row, regardless of whether or not said hand meets any prior specification.
After the first hand, the hand becomes the prior specification, doesn't it? In other words, wouldn't the probability of getting a Royal Flush in Spades four hands in a row be exactly the same as the probability of getting any five hands in a row?Phinehas
November 18, 2014
November
11
Nov
18
18
2014
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
111 Alicia Renard November 17, 2014 at 10:24 am I have no idea what “blind watchmaker thesis” is. . You might want to expand the circle of books and articles you read to include opposing viewpoints.cantor
November 18, 2014
November
11
Nov
18
18
2014
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
'what are the blind watchmaker research programs?' I think they're pretty much in the dark, Cantor.Axel
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
Dr JDD, If you'd like to understand why KF's "islands of function" rhetoric is bogus, I'd recommend the book Arrival of the Fittest, discussed in this thread. It's very bad news for ID. You'll be hearing a lot about it, so you might as well read it.keith s
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
Dr JDD, I just had an emergency of zero notice come over my bows, I thank you for taking time to respond as above. Gotta run. KFkairosfocus
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
Alicia Renard says:
KF: Sparse blind search is not a good strategy to find isolated islands of function in that space, one dominated utterly by bit strings in no particular order or organisation and of near 50:50 distribution. Let’s continue with an example related to reality. How common is functionality in proteins? Of all possible proteins (as there is no upper limit to the length of a protein sequence this is infinite – the longest known sequence in living organisms being titin variants that approach 35,000 residues). Interestingly, there seems to be an observed increase in the length of proteins found in Archaea, bacteria and eukaryotes that, in itself suggests that new proteins do not arrive in living organisms by random assembly. Titin contains two sub-domains, one of 100 residues – the other of 80, each repeated over a 100 times which again suggests an evolutionary path of adding subunits. Of course you can move this back to an issue of abiogenesis and ask where did the first self-sustaining self-replicators come from but this does not appear to be your argument when talking about “islands of function” with regard to protein sequences. To repeat what others have said, the evolutionary process of small variations arising and being sifted by a differential reproduction process is what you need to model if you want to demonstrate that such a process is not viable or adequate to explain life’s diversification from life’s common ancestor.
And they say that ID uses circular arguments. This is circularity and assumptiveness dressed up in knowledge. Titin is certainly an interesting protein to discuss and think of, but notice how Alicia approaches it:
Titin contains two sub-domains, one of 100 residues – the other of 80, each repeated over a 100 times which again suggests an evolutionary path of adding subunits.
No, it does not. That is your interpretation based on an a priori assumption (that you use to validate your assumption thus a circular argument. This is a fallacy when discussing a protein as you have failed at the most basic level to first understand the function of the protein. In this case, titin is essentially a structural type of protein that spans the cell and plays a significant role in contraction. Hence why it is massively expressed in cardiac tissue and muscle tissue. Once you understand it's function, the fact that it is made up of multiple repeating subunits makes perfect sense - optimisation for function. In fact, given its role it would be unusual or odd, or unexpected for a protein like titin to have non-repeating units. It does nothing of the sort to suggest that evolution has a "path" of adding small subunits - that is overtly assumptive and as said, ignores the whole point of the protein (function - something many materialists have a hard time grasping). Whether the deception is intended or not, the point is this is why you fail at the basic level of "wisdom" in science - you have the question all wrong. There is a book that says a lot about foolishness of men and their supposed wisdom when they cannot even acknowledge the existence of a Designer... Oh by the way, seeing as Thornton et al have it all sorted out, I suppose you can explain to us all how a large highly conserved protein essential for life such as the ATPsynthase enzyme came around when it did not have a simpler template that we know of to work evolution's magic on and step-wise produce such a vital protein? I would love to hear how blind unguided processes led in a step-wise manner to such an essential protein.Dr JDD
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
Adapa, the question is do those self-replicators come as a royal flush or through an iterative process?Collin
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
Collin Do you think that the iterative feedback process evolved via an iterative feedback process or came about all at once? As soon as you had imperfect self replicators competing for resources you had the iterative feedback process of evolution. Everything since then was just refinements to the process.Adapa
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
KF @ 108, I don't quite follow your explanation, but I don't have a good grasp on how to determine specification so I think the communication problem is on my end. Thanks for the effort. Do you think Dembski would consider crystals "well-specified," as Orgel called them?Learned Hand
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
Adapa @85 "Interesting that there’s been no comment on the observation that the OP “dealt a royal straight flush” poker example is fundamentally wrong when used as an analogy for long term iterative feedback processes like evolution." Do you think that the iterative feedback process evolved via an iterative feedback process or came about all at once? And when it came about, was it so stable that it had zero chance of death per iteration? Let's say that at each iteration there was a 1% chance that the process failed due to fatal mutation, for an individual is multiplied by (1% times number of days old) and it iterated each day. Let's also say that the reason that death is more likely as time goes on for the individual is because the likelihood of detrimental mutations increases at that rate. Finally, let's say that a mutation-detection-and-correction mechanism evolves. It evolves because it confers a benefit on the individual's survival and reproduction. Does this mechanism evolve all at once like a royal flush? If not, does it begin to confer benefits on the organism before it is fully developed? If so, how does it continue developing when its job is to prevent further mutations? Wouldn't it be more successful the more it failed (thus a paradox)? Seems like with some systems, including OOL, it really is royal flush all at once or a paradox.Collin
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Richard Dawkins espouses Militant Atheism: "Mock them, Ridicule them." - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPqqp8KVuQU She (a Journalist) said she was a creationist. Then the firestorm began. - December 27, 2013 Excerpt: Q: What adjectives would you use to describe the reaction? Angry, defensive, fearful, histrionic, sometimes misogynistic, hazing. Something more than an academic argument about cosmology and consciousness was at stake.,,, http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2013/12/she_said_she_was_a_creationist.html So, Michael Behe Was Right After All; What Will the Critics Say Now? - Casey Luskin July 16, 2014 Excerpt: Will Ken Miller, Jerry Coyne, Paul Gross, Nick Matzke, Sean Carroll, Richard Dawkins, and PZ Myers Now Apologize to Michael Behe? (for their ad hominem attacks),,, Is an apology from Behe's critics then forthcoming? In a world where debates were conducted with the goal of discovering truth rather (than) scoring points, it sure ought to be. Unfortunately, I'm not sure we live in that world. What we'll probably get is nothing more than PZ Myers's concession, offered in the context of the rant quoted above,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/so_michael_behe087901.html Update per Nancy Percy: The microbiologist, Kas Thomas, who wrote the article expressing doubts about Darwinian theory (posted below) is shocked, shocked that he is being vilified by Darwinists: " I am not a creationist, and yet now I know from first-hand experience what it feels like to be on the receiving end of scorn born of dogma — scientific dogma. I don’t know why it should surprise me to find there are bullies on all sides of this issue. Until now, I stupidly thought scientific minds were more tolerant and less bullying than religious thinkers. The comments here show the truth. There are closed-minded, intolerant bullies on both sides. “Bully” meaning someone who is not content to leave one well-reasoned comment, then move on; someone who has to keep leaving more and more comments, using the most vitriolic language, simply because they can’t get their way.... It’s pretty clear who the bullies are here. I must say I’m shocked at the degree of intolerance and disrespect shown in some of these comments by Darwinists, who in many cases (it turns out) are anything but open-minded, tolerant, or reasonable. The comments speak for themselves. As I say, it’s clear who the bullies are." Here's the original article again: http://bigthink.com/devil-in-the-data/the-trouble-with-darwin Darwinists protesting too much (Over "Darwin's Doubt) - Telling signs of a worldview in trouble - By Subby Szterszky | July 23, 2013 Excerpt: "Their online followers echo the disrespect in even harsher tones; any rare voice of dissent in support of Meyer is promptly browbeaten into silence. The attitude is not unlike a bunch of insecure schoolyard bullies, closing ranks and reassuring each other by trading insults aimed at the uncool kid across the yard." http://www.focusinsights.org/article/science-and-technology/darwinists-protesting-too-much Casey Luskin points out that the following anti-ID philosopher even goes so far as to publish a paper saying that the bullying tactics of neo-Darwinists are justified since many ID proponents are Christian: Anti-ID Philosopher: "Ad hominem" Arguments "Justified" When Attacking Intelligent Design Proponents - Casey Luskin - June 4, 2012 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/anti-id_philoso060381.html do you think we can sue for all that?bornagain77
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
Alicia @ 110. Did you not read the OP? If not, your question can be excused. Read the OP. If you have read the OP and still ask that question, I don't think I can help you any further.Barry Arrington
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
Barry #85: "So much for professors of population genetics being able to read for comprehension." Now we know where Joe gets his abusive and offensive nature from. Lap dogs always tend to do things that they think will please their master. But seriously, you have banned ID opponents for far less serious infractions than Joe displays several times per day. If you want UD to encourage civil and honest discussion, as you claim, you are very clearly demonstrating your hypocrisy by not dealing with Joe as he should be. If you are not going to do it because it is the right thing to do, then do it to reduce your personal legal liability. Blog moderators have been held legally accountable for libelous comments posted on their sites when the moderator has not acted on them. I am not threatening to take this action but we all know that it is only a matter of time before Joe makes libellous comments about another commenter who wi take action.centrestream
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
Intelligent Design and the Origin of Biological Information: A Response to Dennis Venema http://www.discovery.org/a/17571bornagain77
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
KF You should spend some time reading Biologos. Try this thread by Dennis Venena, for example and I recommend reading comments by Roger Sawtelle. You could do worse than learn a little humility from him.Alicia Renard
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
KF writes: Empirical observational warrant for blind watchmaker thesis OOL is _____________ ? I have no idea what "blind watchmaker thesis" is. There is currently no empirically-based theory or hypothessis for the origin of life on Earth. How could there be when no evidence remains of early life? For creating sets of hundreds of proteins in such a way that they can be coordinated is ___________? The evolutionary explanation is, briefly reiterated rounds of variation and selection on populations, one very powerful illustration being the ongoing Lenski experiment All at once we can recognise is a non starter, for stepwise, the actual observational base is:_________________? Trying to squeeze the juice of meaning out of this lemon but failing. Why then did Orgel and Shapiro end up in mutual ruin____________? (By contrast the origin of FSCO/I by intelligently directed configuration is all around us with cumulatively trillions of cases in point, i.e. vera causa is in hand.) Ah, something familiar! FSCO/I and variants only comes into play once you decide that all other possibilities other than design are improbable. Why you just don't settle for the straightforward explanation that our Lord God created the Universe, with everything, including us, in it I really can't understand. And why we should expect to know God through models and mechanisms I don't know either.Alicia Renard
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
BA writes: Alicia @ 93. So much for professors of population genetics being able to read for comprehension. As I explained above, Winston said no such thing. Do you mean Dr Ewert did not write:
CSI and Specified complexity do not help in any way to establish that the evolution of the bacterial flagellum is improbable. Rather, the only way to establish that the bacterial flagellum exhibits CSI is to first show that it was improbable. Any attempt to use CSI to establish the improbability of evolution is deeply fallacious.
and
So Keith is right, arguing for the improbability of evolution on the basis of specified complexity is circular. However, specified complexity, as developed by Dembski, isn’t designed for the purpose of demonstrating the improbability of evolution. When used for its proper role, specified complexity is a valid, though limited argument.
What has Felsenstein misunderstood about what Ewert wrote?Alicia Renard
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
Joe #95
When I have posted anything resembling an insult that was unprovoked? Evidence please or admit that you are dishonest
How about this: The background – Keith S had noted that VJ valued open discussion. Joe picks up on it thus:
…..And we know that you and your ilk do not value open discussion. CSI exists regardless of how it was formed. That keith s can’t get that fact demonstrates he is not into an open discussion. keith s wants to dominate discussions with his strawmen, lies and misrepresentations.
markf
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
LH: Specification is not told by the clock, though "after the fact" has been used for saying the equivalent of painting the target around where the arrow hit; e.g. throw your lottery then say oh the number we pulled, let's print it on a ticket and call it the winner. Which would be different from, pull a set once, then choose it as a target then later try to hit it again. (If a supposedly fair lottery with the old fashioned balls keeps hitting the same number that is a sign of cheating or defects. Guess why.) Just to start, proteins fold or fail, and attempts to play around with them often end in destabilisation, cf here. It is told by independence or reasonable detachability. Functionality of the good old 6500 C3 is either there or not, for instance, and it is readily observable. BTW, that's why so many fishermen swear by it though there is a warning on putting Carbon Tex washers in the drag on older units as the gears may strip if the drag is set too hard . . . another case of interactive function and limits to variability due to the island of function nature of the entity. OK when I have some more time. KFkairosfocus
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
Joe Umm well saying biological function = biological specification is done before we observe it. No. People were observing biological function for thousands of years before the concept of biological specification was ever thought up. It's all just post hoc rationalization which makes it meaningless.Adapa
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
A: Recent events should make it plain who makes those decisions around UD. It 'ent moi. KFkairosfocus
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
AR: I already pointed you here, please cf, it does address that exact question. In addition, recall the root and first challenge is at OOL, where hundreds of mutually interacting proteins, and many other molecular machines ahve to be put together in an integrated cell. Empirical observational warrant for blind watchmaker thesis OOL is _____________ ? For creating sets of hundreds of proteins in such a way that they can be coordinated is ___________? All at once we can recognise is a non starter, for stepwise, the actual observational base is:_________________? Why then did Orgel and Shapiro end up in mutual ruin____________? (By contrast the origin of FSCO/I by intelligently directed configuration is all around us with cumulatively trillions of cases in point, i.e. vera causa is in hand.) KFkairosfocus
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
Now how about you stepping up and supporting your accusation against me?Joe
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
Umm well saying biological function = biological specification is done before we observe it.Joe
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Joe Again- biological specification refers to function. We do not know if there is functionality until we observe it. Orgel’s specified complexity wrt biology also refers to functionality. All done post hoc. Dembski's specification has to be made before the observation. UD's own ID Fundamentals page says so as I've already posted twice.Adapa
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
R0bb- Why can't it be that Dembski took Orgel's SC and just expanded on it? That is made it more specified?Joe
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
AGAIN- Natural selection is non-random only in that not every individual has the same probability of being eliminated. Ernst Mayr goes over this in "What Evolution Is". Contingency rules when it comes to natural selection.Joe
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
Learned Hand- Read "No Free Lunch"- Orgel is referenced there and in conjunction with "Dembski's" specified complexity.Joe
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
Alicia @ 93. So much for professors of population genetics being able to read for comprehension. As I explained above, Winston said no such thing.Barry Arrington
November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply