Chance, Law, Agency or Other?

If we have separate evidence of an existing designer (and by separate I mean not “artifacts”…it has to be bones or something), then maybe design. Until then, we can assume that a high-information fitness function exists, and that it shapes trees into such an unlikely functional configuration (unlikely relative to all possible configurations.)

If we conclude design, we have to stop asking all questions. Suddenly. Except for who designed the designer.

</end canned UD critic answer>

That is the answer someone will be posting in 5, 4, 3…

Naw, It’s all front loading.

Well, I’m not aware of trees growing quite like that naturally, and I am aware that humans have “trained” plants to grow in similar fashion (at Disney World they grow pumpkins shaped like the iconic Mickey Mouse ears), so I’ll go with d, purposeful efforts of an intelligent agent.

I could change my mind if you showed me that the tree’s ancestors had the same shape, or if seeds from it grew in the same shape.

So what’s the point, that we can recognize design in some things? Is that controversial?

I think I would assume intention (which is option D).

But the D (from design) is not a show stopper. I just don’t understand why anyone would think so narrowly? Maybe reverse engineering would be an interesting activity to consider as an example on how to proceed.

To know that some system was designed does not change anything, it just broadens the horizon with regard to the kind of processes that can be considered while you are attempting to figure out how it works.

A real scientist (someone who seeks knowledge) would then ask “how?”, as in “how was this done?” because that’s still very much unknown.

A real philosopher (someone who seeks truth) would then ask “why?”.

“D”, because we have a photo of the apparent designer. But if you airbrush out the designer from the photo, then A,B,C or E become true.

[Also to russ (5)] congregate (3): “So what’s the point, that we can recognize design in some things? Is that controversial?”

Sadly, yes, it is controversial — at least it is when materialists feel that the recognition of design might threaten their materialist assumptions. It is only not controversial when those materialist assumptions are safe (cf. Dawkins in Expelled).

Atom’s response in post 1 is humorous satire, although unfortunately it was hard to tell that it was satire until the end.

To russ, the person in the photo cannot be assumed to be the designer. In any undesigned option, the person could just as easily be the discoverer. Remember, in addition to your general knowledge (e.g. about trees), the only specific information you have to go on is the photo.

In other words, the question is whether one should infer design, even if you don’t know anything about a designer. Can you properly infer design just from the object in question?

Eric, I was being sarcastic. But we know that humans do that kind of thing, so its reasonable to assume that the guy in the photo could have designed it. It’s the best explanation. Of course, airbrushing out the designer does not mean he never existed. That was part of the sarcasm.

Off Topic:

Cool Video:

Laminin Protein molecule:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

It seems the source may be correct for the importance of the Laminin protein molecule:

Here is what wiki says about Laminin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminin

Laminin is vital to making sure overall body structures hold together. Improper production of laminin can cause muscles to form improperly, leading to a form of muscular dystrophy. It can also cause progeria.

and this:

https://www.bdis.com/discovery_labware/products/display_product.php?keyID=238

Laminin, a major component of basement membranes, has numerous biological activities including promotion of cell adhesion, migration, growth, and differentiation, including neurite outgrowth.

russ (7), Sorry, I didn’t catch the sarcasm. Given the serious responses I have seen from ID skeptics, I just couldn’t tell the difference. I’ve had conversations lately where the other person could have copy+pasted your note and it would have fit right into their line of thinking.

As others have noted, it is sad but true that it is hard to satirize the opposition.

Perhaps we need to use a warning of some kind — something at the end that makes the tongue-in-cheek nature obvious.

Time to whip out the explanatory filter:

The object in the picture contains roughly 9 branches coming out from the stem. I would guess the range of possible directions they could point could be anywhere from zero (horizontal) to 90 degrees (skyward), and they all (looking from above) could point anywhere in a 360 degree span around that main stem.

So we know this is highly improbable.

Now all we need to do is determine if this was a regularity or came about by design. Any arrangement of branches pointing out is highly improbable, but does this specify a pattern or design? If so we could rule out the idea that this is an intermediate probability.

So for proving specification, I will in this instance use minimum description length to make my inference. All 9 of the main branches (except the outer two, which exhibit the same bends anyway) form the same bent shape. It also repeats a familiar pattern allowing me to describe it in far fewer words: a chair.

Well, I guess the only rational way to the evidence is through D, with C playing a very minimal role.

“Off Topic:

Cool Video:

Laminin Protein molecule:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related”

Well that’s an odd coincidence ;D

I inferred design based on the fact that I know it is possible for humans to do such things, and that there were humans around at the time the tree existed. Is there a more formalized, “scientific” method for inferring design? If so, can someone demonstrate how would it apply, step by step, to the example here, showing all calculations?

BA77:

It seems the source may be correct for the importance of the Laminin protein molecule

But then, what do topless laminins (laminin-311, laminin-321, laminin-411 and laminin-421) tell us? Did they suddenly realize they were naked? And why have disintegrins that disrupt interactions between laminins and their receptors been named ADAMs?

BTW, ADAMs have been identified in snake venom!

DLH–

I can’t remember exactly where, but in some published essay or book, William Dembski pointed out the question-begging logic behind saying “we can identify human designs because we have seen humans design things, but not so with non-human designs”. Well, when we saw the human being designing something, how did we know that that was what he was doing? Dembski gives the example of a human being taking a whittling knife to a stick. How can we even tell that the human being is acting as a designer as he manipulates the knife, rather than just using it to absently hack away at the stick? Only by detecting design in the result! Hence we infer from the presence of design to the designing activity of the human, and not the other way around.

Indeed, in our own individual psychological development, how could we ever have conceived of humans as being designers, apart from having made a design inference from the results of intentional human action? The ability to make such an inference from the designed nature of effects to the designing nature of the cause would seem to be intrinsic to human developmental psychology. For example, it is hard to see how infants could ever pick up language without making such an inference. It is also hard to see how an infant could ever begin to develop an awareness of the existence of other persons absent an inference that there are agents causing the order behind sensory events.

The bottom line is that accurate design detection is logically prior to knowledge of designing agents. While identifying agents depends on design detection, design detection does not depend on identifying agents.

i am intrigued by how few of our resident skeptics of ID are weighing in on this topic. i find it very telling actually…..

Difficult question. I have to choose E.

It’s certainly not something that could be created by nature, or by any kind of random means.

I might be tempted to say it was something created by the gentleman standing next to it. But I do not have any understanding of how he might have done it. In fact, I think it’s impossible to create something like that.

Therefore, I have to discount the “intelligent design” option. It was clearly created by something not of this world. And while the creator “may” be intelligent, I have no evidence to support that, seeing as how I know nothing about the nature of the creator or what conditions it may be operating in.

So, I’m left with “E”. There is no satisfactory conclusion. Go back to the lab and look for another hypothosis.

LOL . . .

Hint: look up “espalier.”

Here we actually see yet another case where functionally specified complex information [straightness, symmetrical bends and branches, configuration of a chair -- well over 500 bits of information are highly probable] traces yet again to design.

The presence of a human in context of course invites the well, we know a candidate designer was present objection. To which the reply is: unless you can — without begging the question — rule out that a designer was possibly present, given what we know of FSCI, it is a reliable sign that points to design ad the best explanation.

So, obviously option D is the best. [And, the reasons put up by some to revert to other options are highly revealing.]

Well done, BarryA. VERY well done.

GEM of TKI

This tree is an example of the astonishing power of evolution. Further, it shows how could two separate species evolve traits that just happen to fit so perfectly together.
The arrangement of branches accommodates perfectly the posteriors of both early and modern man.

Our early ancestors were hardy and rugged individuals but they appreciated a comfortable resting place for their rear-end as much as we do today. Individuals rested comfortably and in a way that facilitates social interaction could thereafter face the next struggle with a small but significant advantage.

The tree entices the primate to take a comfortable seat. The resulting shaking of the branches releases a shower of pollen into the hair of the seated individual.He or she then moves on through the forest until another rest is required. The most comfortable natural seat is sought and the pollen is carried there, accomplishing the plant’s goal of pollination.

To those untrained in the discipline of darwinism this mutual arrangement may appear to defy logic. To the untrained eye it may even have the appearance of design but this is clearly incorrect thinking. In fact we often see even more complex evolved symbiotic relationships. For example, plants have evolved the means of production of nourishing and sweet-tasting nectar as a reward to birds that assist in pollination of the plants.

The chair tree is a more straightforward and easier explained case of bottom-down/bottom-up evolution.

PS: Let us hypothesise a photoshopping game, just for fun; just in case Chas Johnson decides to weigh in and can find the usual artefacts of manipulation. Where does this point? Again, the FSCI leads to — Design; just, the context of the design would be different: cheating or a joke..

Sparc:

http://jcsm.org/myspace/laminin.jpg

Well using the same Darwinian logic for similarities of morphology being sufficient proof for establishing evolution as conclusive beyond any doubt, The morphological similarities of laminin to the cross of Christ, as well as its central role in “holding our body together (as well as holding all other animal bodies together)”, obviously warrants conclusive evidence that the designer of life was in fact Jesus Christ. To think otherwise makes you a materialistic Crank with a hidden religious agenda to sneak your (non) religion into our schools (oops that diabolical deed has already done).

At any rate, That the disruptive ADAMS,

http://www.udel.edu/PR/NewsRel.....leslr.jpeg

disintegrins, would disrupt laminins, would be found in snake venom as well as would look morphologically just like a snake only furthers this Darwinian line of reasoning of similarties being conclusive scientific proof and proves beyond any doubt that that serpent, Satan. did indeed tempt man in the garden of EDEN and caused the fall of man and the world from perfection.
I haven’t searched the theological reasoning for the topless laminins but I’m sure, using this same Darwinian line of reasoning of similarities being conclusive proof, will give me more irrefutable evidence to refute the crankpot Darwinists with.

Left a word out:

I haven’t searched the theological reasoning for the to^pless laminins

top … less laminins

Don’t be silly. Nature designed the chair.

What happened was Nature was walking around in her garden, in the cool of the day, as it were, when suddenly the idea occurred to Her, “Gee! It certainly would be nice to sit down every now and then!”

And right then and there She thought of Chair. Cause let’s face it, even Nature gets tired of walking around all the time, creating millions of species and body plans out plain old atoms and stuff.

Nature’s always having great little inspirations like that. Heck, I remember the time She said to Herself, “Self! Let’s make a liver.” Right out of the blue! Can you believe it? She’s so creative.

And what about the time She made light? Without light, we’d all be in the dark. In fact we’re still in the dark about light. Nobody can figure it out. Is it particle? Is it wave? Who the heck knows? So that was another great idea She had.

Or think about our solar system for a moment. I mean really think about it! Stuff orbiting the sun, stuff orbiting stuff, stuff staying out of stuff’s way. When Nature got done figuring all THAT out, she really needed to sit down.

And that’s where Chair comes in. Nature is resting. (To tell the truth, She hasn’t really had any great new ideas in a long time. I don’t know why She stopped creating things all of a sudden, but She did. Except, of course, for the chair.)

Matteo wrote:

can’t remember exactly where, but in some published essay or book, William Dembski pointed out the question-begging logic behind saying “we can identify human designs because we have seen humans design things, but not so with non-human designs”. Well, when we saw the human being designing something, how did we know that that was what he was doing? Dembski gives the example of a human being taking a whittling knife to a stick. How can we even tell that the human being is acting as a designer as he manipulates the knife, rather than just using it to absently hack away at the stick? Only by detecting design in the result! Hence we infer from the presence of design to the designing activity of the human, and not the other way around.

Exactly! he made the point in an essay in the Design Revolution. (Excellent book, btw.)

Makes the point perfectly. Those who need to “See a designer around” before they could possibly concede design must first identify someone as a designer…and you can only do that by inferring design!

Unless I missed something, no one has responded to this point from Congregate #3:

I could change my mind if you showed me that the tree’s ancestors had the same shape, or if seeds from it grew in the same shape.

pubdef wrote:

Unless I missed something, no one has responded to this point from Congregate #3:

I could change my mind if you showed me that the tree’s ancestors had the same shape, or if seeds from it grew in the same shape.

If the tree’s ancestors had teh same shape, then it took this shape through mechanical necessity (development program.) But then the question gets pushed back one level: how did the tree’s ancestors come to take this shape?

The reason no one responded (I believe) is because we all see that it doesn’t really answer BarryA’s implied question.

We could also say it has this shape becuase it had the same shape two seconds ago and things tend to keep the same shape over time…but that doens’t really answer Barry’s implied question, either.

teh = the*
doens’t = doesn’t*

To further clarify the explanatory power of Darwinian theory, we now turn to the chair-shaped tree. The insects that evolved through natural selection to avoid humans, and thus the deadly chemicals, evolved further to recognize subtle indicators of human presence, such as chairs. This tree, through natural selection, evolved to fool the insects into thinking that humans might be around to poison the insects with the deadly chemicals, and, thus, this variety of tree stood a better chance of survival from avoiding attack by insects that fear humans. Thus, through natural selection, the chair-tree passed on its chair-tree genes to future generations.

Gil, your post is an excellent contribution to the overwhelming body of evidence for macroevolution. But I would like your clarification on the origin of this:

http://bp2.blogger.com/_Lj5KP8.....-thumb.jpg

Which came first, the chair-tree, or the man-tree? And do we have in one or the other a missing link that finally proves a theory which was already been proven?

re: #31

Could it not be that the tree, through gradual evolution, provided progressively more comfy seating for Neanderthals/Cromagnans, and benefited from early man’s aversion to insects? In killing the bugs that preyed on men, they would have likely killed some of the tree-eating species as well, thus forming a symbiotic relationship between man and chairtree.

Re #17 and #27:
“Dembski’s whittler” is clever, but a few minutes thought brought me to why it doesn’t get Dembski where he wants to go.

The fundamental point is not so much that we have seen humans design things as that we have seen humans make things; better, that we have seen humans do things; better yet, that we have seen humans. So, the inference to human design is fundamentally different from an inference to nonhuman design.
This leads to illumination of why Intelligent Design is, essentially, (1) creationism and (2) religious.

Concerning (1), the real point is not that someone/something designed the flagellum, but that someone/something made it. (If I’m wrong, tell me — is it a viable hyptothesis within the ID paradigm that living things were designed by an intelligence, but the design was implemented without intelligence? You might say that “front loading” is such a hypothesis, but I don’t think that works as a separation of design and implementation.)
Concerning (2), the real point of dispute between ID and ID opponents is not whether it is possible to detect design, but whether a designer of living things exists.

Unless I’m missing something here, that is not a tree; it is a chair, hypothetically either fabracated or purchased by the fellow standing beside it. Further research is needed to decide which.

It supports neither ID nor the ToE, and looks pretty uncomfortable.

[8]

The fundamental point is not so much that we have seen humans design things as that we have seen humans make things; better, that we have seen humans do things; better yet, that we have seen humans. So, the inference to human design is fundamentally different from an inference to nonhuman design.
This leads to illumination of why Intelligent Design is, essentially, (1) creationism and (2) religious.

So then, if you discovered an abandoned city on Uranus or Jupitor, you would conclude that it was either designed by humans, or was natural, not artificial? And would anyone who credits its existance to design be described as propounding a creationist or religious view?

re: #35

The planet “Jupitor” should not be confused with the more familiar “Jupiter”, since it is in a different universe than our own, which is one of billions of universes that make all events possible.

pubdef wrote:

The fundamental point is not so much that we have seen humans design things as that we have seen humans make things; better, that we have seen humans do things; better yet, that we have seen humans. So, the inference to human design is fundamentally different from an inference to nonhuman design.
This leads to illumination of why Intelligent Design is, essentially, (1) creationism and (2) religious.

Why is it different? How do you know humans can make things? Because you’ve seen a few do so? You are also using induction to infer “making” ability in most humans based on a limited number of examples.

We use induction to infer “making” and “designing” ability in most intelligences, based on the limited number of examples we’ve seen (human design.)

As I’ve written here before, artifacts establish the historical presence of designing intelligences. So your point devolves into my original post (#1)…you will argue that deisgn can’t be true, because we have no “evidence” of ancient non-human designers. (Conveniently, there can never be any such “evidence”, since even if we found a big signature that said “Made by Alien 115″, it couldn’t have been designed, since we have never seen a non-human alien intelligence designing. So that evidence wouldn’t count, nor would any set of evidence.)

So I’d rather not use your reasoning.

DLH wrote:

The question of whether it is possible to detect design and the question of whether a designer of living things exists are the same question. If I demonstrate design has occurred (i.e., detect design) I have necessarily demonstrated the existence of a designer, because design does not happen without the existence of a designer.

Bingo.

pubdef wrote:

This leads to illumination of why Intelligent Design is, essentially, (1) creationism and (2) religious

1) What is your definition of “creationism”?

2) if we limit ID to cases of human design, is it still religious?

If so, then you need to explain how detecting signs of intelligent activity on material objects becomes a religious proposition.

If not, then it isn’t ID that is religious, since you’re using ID in both cases. ID has religious implications (as does Darwinism), but it doesn’t have religious premises.

Sorry Barry, I mistook #38 for DLH when it was you. Good point either way.

The choice is obviously D! But nowhere does this challenge “materialist assumptions” like other commenters have suggested. At the risk of sounding like a darwinist, this was clearly designed by a natural entity, a human being is the most likely explanation. It was also designed for a discernible purpose - making a chair that you could take a picture of and show off how cool you are! It’s a very neat chair. You don’t have to have a signature saying whodunit to identify the designer, the shape, size, and nature of the design that took place suggests that it was a skilled human designer.

Here’s a question, if there was a flaw in the design, could you infer that the designer was less-than-fully capeable of carrying out the design? For large, complicated designs, can the effects of miscommunication be detected when multiple designers are involved? These are the kinds of questions I’m really interested in.

Pubdef, (33),

You make a valid point along with some that appear to be mostly incorrect.

Regarding the detection of design, if one comes across a beaver dam, one infers either instinct or intelligence or both in the beavers. instinct is simply a low-level “hardwired” intelligence, very much akin to computer programs. If someone happens on a valley where no humans have been (which is unlikely to happen now) and finds a beaver dam, it is reasonable to infer some kind of intelligence, even if one has never seen a beaver.

Could one say that a given dam was made by beavers and not humans? Not securely, as conceivably humans could imitate beavers. Could one say that a dam was made by humans and not beavers? If it were 500 feet high and made of reinforced concrete, on this earth, probably yes. But in either case, one can say that the dam was the result of intelligent design, and not the random falling of mud, logs, concrete, and/or steel. The inference of intelligent design is at least partly independent of the designer.

BarryA (37) has successfully shown how design can be separated temporally from making something. This is also true for the springing of traps. Frontloading is a demonstrably real phenomenon.

Your valid point is that this is in some sense creationism and religious. If one accepts that there was a designer, then that designer had to be more intelligent than us (as we can neither create life nor transport it at will to another solar system yet). So from our perspective, even if material, this designer is effectively godlike. Furthermore, if this designer was material, the question of “Who designed the designer?” is appropriate, leading to an ultimate designer or designers that were (are?) not dependent on the organization of matter for its/their intelligence. So, yes, there would be rather clear creationist (in the broader sense) implications.

The problem you don’t get is that there is no requirement that science, unless there is a question-begging definition of science, is not required to be compatible with atheism. An interpretation of science compatible with atheism has to win on the merits. It looks like such an interpretation is losing rather badly in several areas, most prominently on the OoL. Tough break. You have to win on the merits, and if you lose, then you have to either concede and move to our side, or maintain a faith-based atheism. As for me, I’ll go with the evidence. And I think every scientist should be able to do the same without intimidation. Do you?

The problem you don’t get is that there is no requirement that science, unless there is a question-begging definition of science, is not required to be compatible with atheism.

Enough with the double negatives, already. Do you mean to say, “Science is required to be compatible with atheism”?

Who is doing the requiring? The scientists or the atheists?

File under: Incoherence.

BarryA,

Codes can be granted the ability to produce the effect of intelligent agency when given a machine set that is compatible to that particular code. In another way, codes can mimick the effects of a mind and body when a machine(s) are able to be used by the code.

That would explain how the genetic code with its compatible machine set (nano robots within the cell) could produce yet another code with a compatible machine set, in other words, reproduce.

Our automobile factories can use a code in combination with robotic arms (machines) to purposefully produce the car. The code and compatible machine set (robotic arms) can mimick the effects of a welder. Another famous example would be IBM’s Deep Blue computer beating the chess champion Gary Kasparov using Machine Code and its machine set, the computer and monitor with its powersource, electricity.

The obvious point would then be what produced the ‘original’ genetic code and the ‘original’ set of compatible machines that make the cell. After all, a code has only been shown to come into existence through intelligent agency (either another code with compatible machine set or through a mind with a compatible machine set).

So in my opinion, this would regress until a mind becomes the final answer as to any codes’ origin. Also, observation has shown us that each and every time a mind has been shown to exist, a compatible machine set has been present (biological body).

So I think I have shown that a code can in fact produce the effects of intelligenct agency, although this has always regressed back to a mind at the irreducible point of origin.

When dealing with the origin of life (OOL as they call it I guess), if you exclude the design inference, then that makes all other inferences atheistic in nature. So if the evolutionary proponents are going to sit there and deny the inference of design, they are in effect in the business of validating atheism with respect to the origin of biological organism(s).

By the way, (D) is the obvious answer to the question posed. I see a recognizable pattern that has a low probability of existence. Extremely low probability. Exceptionally patterned. Very intuitive.
Very cool.

“Another famous example would be IBM’s Deep Blue computer beating the chess champion Gary Kasparov using Machine Code and its machine set, the computer and monitor with its powersource, electricity.”

He actually had some interesting things to say about Deep Blue. I believe he made a comment that if a computer could beat him in chess then a computer could write the best books, plays, or something to that effect.

“Who is doing the requiring? The scientists or the atheists?”

Sadly it could be both if many scientists regard themselves to be atheist or agnostic.

Still can’t find any justification for why things that are “scientific” must be in terms of matter and energy. I find the third fundamental entity (information/intelligence) to be just as testable.

Lemme see. Could it be A? B? C? D? E? Mind if I sit down while I think about this?

An interesting question, but not necessarily in the way intended. Consider the fact that all of the commentators so far have compared the object in the photograph with a “natural” tree, and concluded that the “tree” in the photograph must have been designed (perhaps by the person next to it in the photo).

However, this immediately raises the question, if ID is valid, aren’t both the “chair tree” and a “natural tree” designed? Indeed, I believe that virtually all of the commentators here would agree.

In that case, how useful is the so-called “explanatory filter”, as clearly it cannot distinguish between the level of design exhibited by the object in the photograph and the “natural” objects with which it is compared? Indeed, if ID “theory” is valid, it seems likely that essentially all living objects and processes (and formerly living, but now dead ones, such as corpses and fossils) are designed, or are artifacts produced by designed entities.

Ergo, the “explanatory filter” apparently cannot produce a quantitative assessment of the level of design of any living (or formerly living) object or process. Extending this line of reasoning, the “explanatory filter” is also useless for the purposes of verifying or falsifying “borderline” cases.

For example, it cannot be used to determine if the “blueberries” so abundant in some of the photographs taken by the Mars surveyor robots are the product of living organisms (and therefore of “design”), as doing so would involve calculations that would indicate that the “blueberries” either did or did not exceed some quantitative threshold indicating design. But, in the same way that the “explanatory filter” cannot distinguish between an espaliered tree and a “natural” tree (i.e. one not modified by a human “designer”), it cannot quantitatively distinguish between a non-living Martian “blueberry” and a living one (or one produced by a living entity or process).

One of the most basic principles of modern biological science is that, if one cannot statistically analyze the validity of one’s empirical results as compared with one’s proposed hypothesis for the origin of such results, then one isn’t “doing science”. Yet, on the basis of the foregoing, the “explanatory filter” (and, by extension, the soi dissant “theory” of “complex specified information” upon which it is based) is utterly useless as an analytic tool in the empirical sciences.

Furthermore, the originator of the “explanatory filter” itself has said this about quantitative analysis of hypotheses about design:

“ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.”

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ub.....00152.html

Discovering how, exactly?

Allen,

I am not sure you are making a valid point. There are two different issues, the basic design of the organism and its potential capabilities and how that organism’s outward appearance or capabilities is affected by the environment. These are two completely separate issues.

On each issue the EF could be applied. You seem to be conflating issues when they are really quite separate.

Allen_MacNeill @ 47

I think you’re missing the irony of the picture: how the human intelligence behind the specified complexity that makes up a chair can be so evident, while any intelligence at all behind the orders-of-magnitude greater specified complexity required to produce a tree can seem so obscure to so many people.

If both are the products of design, of course there are going to be borderline problems. Take a co-authored book for example: it may not be self-evident from a cursory reading ot the text which author wrote what. Familiarity with each author’s own unique style may be required, and even that may not be enough. Or take a co-written piece of software: it may be impossible for a third party to sort out which coder wrote what code.

I don’t see how that borderline problem relates to the Mars blueberries. It seems to me that whether they display sufficient specified complexity to wiggle, or to have used to have wiggled — in contrast to the rocks that surround them — is exactly everyone’s waiting to see.

allen is not making many valid points at all…..he is just showing that he has never read any of Dembski’s works…..Dembski’s point in defining the explanatory filter was NEVER to be able to ALWAYS detect design in every instance. rather, it was to show that somethings show irrefutable levels of design. beyond that, your post is pretty poor actually…..

the point of the explanatory filter is to show merely that somethings are certainly designed. your post has done zero to address that….

“However, this immediately raises the question, if ID is valid, aren’t both the “chair tree” and a “natural tree” designed?”

Yes, but on different levels. Normally we look at the CSI required to code for the tree, in this case we are looking at how the tree was arranged to grow in the pattern that it did after the fact.

“Indeed, I believe that virtually all of the commentators here would agree.”

No kidding, but see the above point.

“In that case, how useful is the so-called “explanatory filter”, as clearly it cannot distinguish between the level of design exhibited by the object in the photograph and the “natural” objects with which it is compared?”

I’m assuming your understanding of the Explanatory Filter (or what I like to call the “X” filter) literally stems from the way I applied it to the EXTERNAL ARRANGEMENT of the tree, and for the most part that was the original question that was being asked.

The X filter can ALSO be applied to the genome of the tree if that’s the type of issue you’re looking towards.

“Indeed, if ID “theory” is valid, it seems likely that essentially all living objects and processes (and formerly living, but now dead ones, such as corpses and fossils) are designed, or are artifacts produced by designed entities.”

That’s a possibility but nonetheless I think you have fallen for a somewhat common misconception. ID only concerns itself with CERTAIN aspects in biology (and physics/cosmology). You wouldn’t need every last characteristic of life to be the product of design for it to be a valid theory.

“Ergo, the “explanatory filter” apparently cannot produce a quantitative assessment of the level of design of any living (or formerly living) object or process.”

Again, you’ve confused what the explanatory filter IS with WHAT we’re applying it to.

“Extending this line of reasoning…”

Which we can explicitly see is based off of a straw man…

“…the “explanatory filter” is also useless for the purposes of verifying or falsifying “borderline” cases.”

If you would like, I can show you how I personally use the Explanatory Filter (or simply the “X” filter) and apply it to a biological structure such as the flagellum. Then you know how you can apply it at the biological level.

“But, in the same way that the “explanatory filter” cannot distinguish between an espaliered tree and a “natural” tree (i.e. one not modified by a human “designer”)”

Dude, the X filter is part of our every day reasoning, it’s not that tough to apply it to the Tree in the image. Chance? Heck no. Regularity? Though highly improbable, the fact that it conforms to a specified low descriptive yet familiar pattern we see repeated elsewhere means that this is consistent with being an intentional arrangement. Design? Yes, see the previous sentence for clarification.

“…it cannot quantitatively distinguish between a non-living Martian “blueberry” and a living one (or one produced by a living entity or process).”

See the above elaborations on the X filter, you’re assuming it cannot be applied at the biological level because we used it in a different context.

“One of the most basic principles of modern biological science is that, if one cannot statistically analyze the validity of one’s empirical results as compared with one’s proposed hypothesis for the origin of such results, then one isn’t “doing science”.”

We totally agree with this and it’s one of the reasons we express skepticism over Darwinian evolution.

Take the following video as an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w

As an evolutionary explanation, you have protein parts just pop out of no where, magically gather at the same location, in the right order, without any interfering parts getting in the way, and in a way where they are interfacing compatibly to form a functional flagellum capable of overcoming Brownian motion. No attempts to statistically quantify the likelihood that such a pathway will be crossed are made. And without numbers (which you agree are important), there is no way to falsify (or verify) that the pathway can even occur. When Dembski (or many of the other people on UD, myself included) attempt to quantify such a pathway, we see that it has no realistic chance of happening (since the odds tend to satisfy the UBP). So in terms of not rigerously testing their results statistically Evolutionists are just as guilty.

“Yet, on the basis of the foregoing,”

Which was based on a misconception.

“the “explanatory filter” (and, by extension, the soi dissant “theory” of “complex specified information” upon which it is based) is utterly useless as an analytic tool in the empirical sciences.”

See bottom point.

“Discovering how, exactly?”

Would you like me to show you how it’s done with the flagellum?

Wow, five posts to answer, what fun.

#35:

So then, if you discovered an abandoned city on Uranus or Jupitor, you would conclude that it was either designed by humans, or was natural, not artificial?

I would hypothesize that it was designed by something in the same general category as humans, i.e., an evolved being constituted of matter, which I would proceed, to the extent of my available brains, time, and resources, to learn as much as I could about.

And would anyone who credits its existance to design be described as propounding a creationist or religious view?

It would depend on the nature of the proposed designer. (See below for my attempt to define “creationist.”)
#37:

Consider a robot that makes robots like itself. The robot is not intelligent. It simply follows a computer code that tells it to place nut B on bolt A and twist clockwise. Through a whole series of such instructions another robot is produced by non-intelligent means. But the robot itself was obviously the product of intelligence.

By “the robot itself,” I assume you mean the first robot; so I don’t see how “the robot itself” is not a “created” object, or how your proposal differs from front loading.

#37 again:

The question of whether it is possible to detect design and the question of whether a designer of living things exists are the same question. If I demonstrate design has occurred (i.e., detect design) I have necessarily demonstrated the existence of a designer, because design does not happen without the existence of a designer.

I have no quarrel with “if design, then designer,” except that it seems circular; but I don’t quite understand your first sentence here. It is certainly possible that we can detect design and that a designer of living things does not exist. (If you mean to say “the question of whether it is possible to detect design in living things and the question of whether a designer of living things exists are the same question,” that would not be responsive to my point, which is that our ability to detect design by humans — in archeology, crime scene investigation, etc. — does not mean that we can, by the same principles and methods, infer design or a designer of humans. (Sorry if this needs more explication than I have time for here.))

#38:

We use induction to infer “making” and “designing” ability in most intelligences, based on the limited number of examples we’ve seen (human design.)

I would think that induction would be of limited validity if there is insufficient similarity between the inferred instances and the observed instances; so I would question the validity of inferring, from artifacts of human intelligence, that other things were intelligently designed by something or someone that we know nothing about.

#39:

1) What is your definition of “creationism”?

I’ve never had to define it before, but I suppose this will do: the belief that nature, and most specifically, living things, were intentionally brought into being by some entity outside of nature.

2) if we limit ID to cases of human design, is it still religious?

I don’t see how it would be, but it seems superfluous. Detection of design is simply a component of other activities and disciplines (archeology, CSI, etc.).

If not, then it isn’t ID that is religious, since you’re using ID in both cases. ID has religious implications (as does Darwinism), but it doesn’t have religious premises.

Again, if we’re only talking about detection of human (or animal) design, I don’t see why we have to use the term ID. As for ID not having religious premises, I don’t agree. Behe, for example, has said that he arrived at ID through scientific inquiry, unrelated to his Christian beliefs; but I question whether he would have reached his conclusions in the absence of a prior conception of (even without belief in) a supernatural, intelligent being.

#41:

The problem you don’t get is that there is no requirement that science, unless there is a question-begging definition of science, is [ ]required to be compatible with atheism. [I removed an apparently spurious "not" from your sentence.]

I have no expectation that science will be compatible with atheism. (I do think it must be materialistic; if anyone can tell me how they can do nonmaterialistic science, I’d like to hear it.) I do object to disingenuous claims that ID has nothing to do with theism. I think there’s a fundamental dishonesty going on when some in the ID community are saying “we just want to do science, follow the evidence where it leads, the Darwinists are suppressing scientific inquiry, we are the Galileos of our age” and others are saying that the problem is that we have to abandon materialism.

Daniel King, (42)

My bad. I was in a hurry and didn’t proofread well enough. The sentence should read,

The problem you don’t get is that, unless there is a question-begging definition of science, there is no requirement that science must be compatible with atheism.

A non-question-begging definition of science might be the study of reproducible events, or perhaps the study of events for which there is a known physical mechanism (although the latter would rule out quantum mechanics). A question-begging definition of science would be the explanation of events in nature by means of natural processes. How can we know ahead of time that all events, including the Big Bang and the OoL, are in fact explained by natural processes? The latter definition of science would appear to beg that question.

pubdef, (54)

Thanks for your charitable reading of what I was trying to say, and as my previous comment noted, I butchered.

I agree that the theistic implications of ID should be owned. That is part of why I made comment 41. That does not mean that the theism must be front-loaded. But it does mean that anti-theism cannot be front-loaded. (Well, unless one does like Prof. Dawkins and insist that only naturally evolved aliens are allowed).

Behe’s religion did not require ID (compare Kenneth Miller). He was driven to it by his science. However, his belief in God made it much easier to accept ID as a possibility. Perhaps more to the point, Antony Flew, in spite of being an atheist, came to the realization that ID was substantially correct, and almost perforce became a theist, although not a Christian.

D for all trees, not just the tree shown.

nterested
05/20/2008
9:52 pm
allen is not making many valid points at all…..he is just showing that he has never read any of Dembski’s works…..Dembski’s point in defining the explanatory filter was NEVER to be able to ALWAYS detect design in every instance. rather, it was to show that somethings show irrefutable levels of design. beyond that, your post is pretty poor actually…..

Interested, your points are good (as are those of others addressing Professor MacNeill’s comments) except for the first error you made: MacNeill not only has read Dembski, but has taught his work to students.
http://evolutionanddesign.blog.....ding-list/
His error does not, then, stem from ignorance.

Allen_MacNeill:

“Ergo, the “explanatory filter” apparently cannot produce a quantitative assessment of the level of design of any living (or formerly living) object or process. Extending this line of reasoning, the “explanatory filter” is also useless for the purposes of verifying or falsifying “borderline” cases.”

Wrong. The EF is about affirming the demonstrable presence of CSI. To do that, it uses a definite, although arbitrarily drawn, quantitative level for the minimum complexity requested to define CSI (Dembski’s UPB). So, it is perfectly quantitative. Only, its goal is not to quantify CSI, but just to identify those cases where CSI is certainly present.

A few notes, to avoid furhter misunderstandings:

a) Design does not equal CSI. There are simple designs which don’t exhibit CSI. Correctly, they will not be identified by the EF (the design nature could, anyway, be proved in other ways, for instance by direct observation of the process of design). On the other hand, all correctly identified CSI is designed (empirically).

b) Not all CSI can necessarily be detected by the EF, because not all the necessary information can be available. Let’s remember that the EF, to be applied, needs reasonable information about three different points: the computation of the complexity, the specification, and the exclusion of necessary pathways.

c) The EF does not attempt to quantify how much CSI is present, and therefore to compare different examples of CSI. It just compares CSI with non CSI. That’s its goal.

d) An approximate comparison between different levels of CSI can, however, be attempted by comparing the levels of complexity (not of specification, because specification is a property of the whole, which is either present or not, a binary variable in other words). In a general sense, a more complex specified item could be said to exhibit more CSI than a simpler one. So, as you see, even the “level” of CSI can in theory be assessed, although it can not be easy to do that. An attempt to do that for protein families can be found in the second paper by Abel and Trevors, which applies the concept of Shannon entropy.
In the case of the tree, anyway, if you can show that the CSI implicit in the “espalier” form is indeed superimposed to the CSI implicit in the tree (which should be rather intuitive, but not necessarily easy to demonstrate), then you can correctly conclude that the espalier tree has more CSI than a similar, normal tree.

To sum up: ID and the EF are pretty quantitative, and they do very definite things (which, indeed, cannot be said of many other evolutionary concepts).

I’m curious about this. I would infer design because I know about chairs, and the designers who use them (I even have a colleague who claims to teach chair theory).

But how would one infer or even suspect design if one knew nothing of the designer?

Bob:

RE: how would one infer or even suspect design if one knew nothing of the designer?

All that is required to identify that a given observed case is credibly designed, is that, based on experience of designs and designerS, one identifies reliable signs of design. The explanatory filter, with the construct: specification + complexity, has proved reliable enough when it rules “design.”

The subset of CSI, functionally specified, complex information [or T & A's Functional Sequence Complexity], is even more specific, as it looks at function that expresses itself through complex organisation and associated information that would otherwise be overwhelmingly improbable. [That is, the available probabilistic resources would be most likely fruitlessly exhausted on a random search or one not instructed by active information.]

So, one does not need knowledge about THE designer to infer to design, and one knows a lot about designers already.

In the case of the photo of the chair, the structure shown exhibits patterns of complex organisation that put it well within the threshold of FSCI. And that would hold even if the photo was a fake (Just, instead of espalier, it would be photoshop or the like!)

Back to work . . .

GEM of TKI

PS: GP [and Allen], T & A, by suggesting a metric dimension of functionality [cf Fig 4 in their paper], can give us a metric for degree of functional performance/specification. In either case, we see a vector metric, with one variable for degree of complexity, and another for functionality and/or specification. Metrics come in various forms: ratio, interval, ordinal, nominal, and quantities come in scalar and vector forms too: 5 m/s North is not equal to 5 m/s South.

F2XL asked (in #52):

“Would you like me to show you how it’s done with the flagellum?”

Yes, I would. Specifically, I would like to see how one arrives at a quantitative analysis of the level of “CSI” in something like the flagellum of E. coli versus something like a Martian “blueberry” in such a way that one can be reasonably certain that the former is indeed “designed” but the latter isn’t.

This is precisely the kind of statistical analysis that is the bread and butter of experimental biology. One formulates an hypothesis, formulates a prediction on the basis of that hypothesis, designs an experiment to test that prediction, counts or measures the results generated by that experiment, and then analyzes how well the results fit the predictions flowing from the hypothesis using some form of analytic statistics.

Show me how this can be done with the flagellum of E. coli. Specifically, show me how the analytic mathematics/statistics of the XF can be used to calculate a number that indicates succinctly the level of CSI in a chosen object or process, such that everyone who does such a calculation will agree that it does (or does not) rise to the level of statistical significance.

Bob –I would infer design because I know about chairs,

Maybe not as much as you might think. When is a dead horse a chair?

You would infer design because of what you know about design, not what you know about chairs.

thank Charlie……then i don’t know what to say except for i feel a wee bit embarrassed for him.

I am a little bit tired of all the discussions about the necessity of knowing about the designer to infer design. I think it should not be so difficult as it seems.

First of all, design is defined in relation to a designer. Although some commenters have tried to confuse the terminology, there cannot be design without a designer. Otherwise, you have to call it something else (Dawkins is correct enough when using the term “apparent design”, meaning something which has some characteristics of a designed objetc, but in reality is not the product of a designer).

But what is a designer? It is important to remark that, although our reference model is that of humans, the concept of designer does not require the full set of human characteristics: a designer can be easily defined as any conscious being who has the ability to act and to generate, through his action, new design, and in particular new CSI.

So, a designer needs not be human. He must, however, have the following characteristics:

a) Be conscious (experience conscious representations)

b) Be intelligent (that is, aware of principles like meaning and purpose)

c) Be able to act upon matter

d) Be able to superimpose CSI from his conscious representations into matter, through his actions

That&#