Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

RDFish/Aiguy’s “What Does “Intelligence” Mean in ID Theory?”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[I’m for giving opposing viewpoints a fair representation. Aiguy is a widely respected critic of ID. I cross post his offering from TSZ What Does “Intelligence” Mean in ID Theory?]

Below I argue that despite insisting that it makes no claims about the nature of the Designer, ID’s equivocation on the meaning of “intelligence” results in implicit and unsupported connotations being lumped together as conclusions of the “design inference”.

Is it Intelligent?

Working in Artificial Intelligence, one comes to realize that asking if something is “intelligent” or not is generally a matter of definition rather than discovery. Here is a joke illustrating this point:

AIGUY: Here is our newest AI system. It learned to play grandmaster-level chess by reading books. It has written award-winning novels, proven the Goldbach Conjecture, written a beautiful symphony, designed a working fusion reactor, and talked a suicidal jumper down from the Golden Gate Bridge.
CUSTOMER: That’s very nice. But is this system actually intelligent?

I find that more often than not people don’t get this joke – at least not the same way I do. Some people think it’s obvious that a computer can’t be truly intelligent, so it’s ridiculous to ask that question. Other people think that anything that could do all the things this system does obviously is intelligent, so it’s funny that anyone would even bother to ask. Still others believe that the question is perfectly reasonable, and the answer could be determined by looking more carefully at the computer’s characteristics.

To me, the joke is that the question isn’t actually about the computer system, but rather it’s about what the word “intelligent” means. And there is no right or wrong answer; it is entirely a matter of our choosing what we consider intelligence to be, and thus whether we consider some particular thing (entity, being, system, process) intelligent or not.

[Footnote: As an aside, ID proponents often change the subject when talking about computer intelligence. If I point out that computers can design things, they respond that the computer only can do this because it was itself designed by a real intelligent agent, a human being. In other words, rather than try to judge whether or not a computer that can design things is intelligent per se, ID proponents start talking about “Who designed the designer?” and about how this computer came to exist. I’m not sure why ID proponents don’t realize that they believe human beings were also designed by a real intelligent agent, yet this doesn’t disqualify us from being intelligent per se!]

The concept of “intelligence” – like “life” – is notoriously difficult to pin down. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously remarked about pornography, we know it when we see it, but if you ask five cognitive psychologists what the word “intelligence” means, you may get seven different definitions. Broadly speaking, definitions of intelligence can be categorized as either functional, where the definition specifies something about how intelligent systems operate, or behavioral, where the definition specifies the sorts of tasks systems must be capable of in order to be considered intelligent. I have been in countless semantic disputes (as opposed to substantive disagreements) regarding the concept of intelligence because people have different types of definitions in mind.

[Footnote: People sometimes complain that if “life” is hard to define, why don’t I object to biologists that they are equivocating on that word? The answer is that biologists use the word “life” not to explain anything, but rather to generally describe the sorts of things they study. In contrast, ID Theory offers “intelligence” as an explanatory construct, and thus is obliged to say exactly what it means.]

ID Theory and Intelligent Behavior

In spite of this confusion over what the term “intelligence” means, ID theory offers it as the best explanation for the existence of complex form and function in biology, as well as universal fine-tuning (I’ll refer to these features collectively as “biological CSI” here for simplicity). In fact, the term “intelligent cause” is the sum total of ID’s explanatory framework – absolutely nothing else is said about what ID supposes to have been responsible. So it seems fair to ask what precisely is meant by this term in the context of ID.

Years ago William Dembski was asked (by me) in a forum interview what he meant by “intelligence”, and he replied that it could be defined as simply as “the ability to produce complex specified information”. I’ve heard this many times since (here’s a recent example from Sal at UD: https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/arguing-for-resemblance-of-design-rd-instead-of-intelligent-design-id/#comment-460109 ).

The problem with using a behavioral definition of intelligence like this is that it renders ID theory a vacuous tautology: ID claims the best explanation for CSI in biology is that which produces CSI. Simply labelling a hypothetical cause does not add anything to our understanding; the theorist must actually characterize the explanatory construct in a way that enables us to decide if it exists or not. Otherwise, for example, we could explain the existence of crop circles by invoking the “cerealogical force”, which is characterized by the ability to produce crop circles. How do we know that the cerealogical force exists? By the appearance of crop circles of course!

Why isn’t it obvious to everyone that defining “intelligence” this way makes ID into a vacuous claim? Because people typically make a set of implicit assumptions about other sorts of things an intelligent thing should be able to do, viz. the things that human beings can typically do. For example, if ID said this intelligent cause was something that, besides creating biological CSI, was also capable of explaining its actions in grammatical language, or proving a theorem in first order logic, or predicting lunar eclipses, then ID would indeed be making meaningful claims. The challenge then would be to provide some indication that these claim were true, but of course there is no such evidence.

Again: There is no evidence whatsoever that ID’s intelligent cause could do anything aside from produce the biological CSI we observe. There is no theory of intelligence that tells us that when some entity displays one particular ability it will necessarily have some other ability. Just like the chess-playing computer – or a human with savant syndrome – it may be that ID’s “intelligent cause” could do one thing very well, but could do nothing else that human beings typically do.

Of course, to the extent that the intelligent cause was supposed to be similar to human beings in other respects (and in particular had similar brain anatomy and neurophysiology) there may be reason to speculate a similarity in other abilities. But since the thing (entity, system, process, force, etc) that ID claims as the cause biological CSI may be a radically different sort of thing than a human being, there is simply no grounds to assume it has other abilities similar to humans.

[Footnote: Occasionally at this point an ID proponent will remind me that ID makes no commitments as to the nature of the Designer, and thus It could well be some extra-terrestrial life form with some sort of brain. The suggestion seems disingenuous, though, and in any event once we posit the existence of extra-terrestrial life forms as the cause of life on Earth, it is simpler to imagine that life on Earth arose as these organisms’ descendents rather than as the product of their advanced bio-engineering skills.]

If ID chooses to define “intelligence” behaviorally, then, the result will either be that (1) ID is vacuous, or (2) ID makes claims that are not supported by any evidence. What about if ID defines “intelligence” functionally instead?

ID Theory and Intelligent Function

Dembski’s most usual definitions for “intelligence” are functional, including “the complement of fixed law and chance” and “the power and facility to choose between options”. So intelligent entities, in Dembski’s view, are defined by their power to make choices that are not determined by antecedent events. What Dembski does not mention (although he is surely aware of it) is that what he is defining as “intelligence” is another way of describing libertarian free will, and in my experience discussing ID with its proponents on the internet, this is indeed an important part of what most people mean when they talk about intelligence.

I believe the concept of metaphysical libertarianism to be incoherent, but in any case it clearly cannot be mistaken for settled science. But ID authors (including Dembski and Stephen Meyer) fail to acknowledge that this particular metaphysical position underlies their theory. On the contrary, Dembski and Meyer argue that the “intelligent causation” posited by ID as the cause of biological CSI is something that is known to us by our familiarity with intelligent agents. This is specious. What we know is that human beings design and build complex machinery. We do not know how we do it (because we don’t understand how we think), and we do not know if our thought processes transcend physical causality or not. Thus when Stephen Meyer claims that the causal explanation proposed by ID is known to us “in our uniform and repeated experience of intelligent agency”, he is pulling a fast one.

To his credit, Meyer does say something specific about what he means when he talks about intelligence: He often refers to intelligence as being synonymous with “conscious, rational deliberation”. We all know what consciousness is, even if nobody has any idea how (or if) it functions causally in our thought processes. So to say that the cause of life, the universe, and everything was conscious is to make a concrete claim.

But just as ID can’t support the claim that the intelligent cause was capable of explaining its intentions, ID offers no good reason to believe the intelligent cause was conscious. Moreover, there is some reason to doubt that claim a priori: Our uniform and repeated experience confirms that a well-functioning brain is necessary (even if not sufficient) for conscious awareness, and unless ID is explicitly proposing that ID’s intelligent cause had a brain, the conclusion warranted by our experience would be that the intelligent cause did not likely deliberate its designs consciously. We human beings are conscious of our intentions and consciously imagine future events, but this conscious awareness is known to critically rely on specific neural systems. The generation of biological CSI may well have occurred in ways that are fundamentally different from human cognition, and so we have no reason to believe it involved consciousness as humans experience it.

What about SETI?

ID proponents often turn to SETI to legitimize their insistence that “intelligence” is a meaningful scientific explanation. If we could explain a SETI signal by invoking extra-terrestrial intelligence, they reason, why can’t ID invoke an unspecified intelligence as the explanation for biological systems? But of course SETI is virtually the inverse of ID: SETI looks for things that do not otherwise occur in nature in order to find extra-terrestrial life forms, while ID looks at things that do occur in nature for signs of extra-terrestrial non-life forms.

SETI is not a theory; it is a search for data. It is the assumption that an ETI is an extra-terrestrial intelligent life form that lends meaning (and research direction) to the SETI program. SETI astrobiologists make assumptions about the likelihood of various planets being hospitable to life as we know it, and astronomers look for signals coming from such planets. If SETI did find some signal and a paper was published that suggested this was evidence for a intelligent agent that was not a form of life as we know it, I would complain that the term tells us nothing at all about what was responsible. All we could say is that the cause was something we know nothing about except that it was capable of producing the signal we observed.

Conclusion

The broad connotations of the word “intelligence” in the minds of most people include consciousness, metaphysical libertarianism, and the ability to solve novel problems in varied domains. These are specific claims that cannot be supported empirically in the context of ID. Once all of these concepts are removed, however, there is no meaning left to the term “intelligent cause”. And therefore, ID tells us nothing at all about the cause of life, the universe, and everything that can be supported by the evidence.

Imagine if we found the Intelligent Designer and asked It, say, why It created so many different types of beetles. For all ID can tell us, the Designer may be unable to answer, because It may be some sort process with no conscious beliefs or desires at all, acting without any idea of what It is doing or why.

Comments
Hi StephenB, I will no longer ask you what "intelligence" means in the context of ID (or "designer" or "artist" and so on). Instead, I will simply ask you some particular questions. In these questions, "the Designer" means "That which ID proposes as the best explanation for life and the universe". 1) What, if any, evidence does ID provide to support a claim that the Designer experiences conscious awareness? 2) What, if any, evidence does ID provide to support a claim that the Designer could explain Its designs in grammatical language? 3) What, if any, evidence does ID provide to support a claim that the Designer can do anything else aside from produce the very things we are trying to explain (biological complexity, fine-tuned constants, etc), and if there is such evidence, what other things does this evidence lead us to believe the Designer could do? Cheers, RDFishRDFish
July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
RDF:
Fine, whatever – you’ve failed to define “art” in this context, so this obviously isn’t going to clarify anything at all.
Sorry, I am not buying a word of it. It requires no intellectual exertion at all to say that you don't understand the meanings of terms whose technical definition has been well established for over two thousand years. Anyone can play the "I still don't get it" card and then try to milk it indefinitely. Most of our discussion centers on this point and can, for all practical purposes, be reduced to it. We have replete examples throughout the whole history of thought, beginning with Plato's trichotomy (art, nature, and chance) and Aristotle's contrast between art and nature. My earlier definition of art as converting matter into form fits nicely into this pattern. The whole debate about Darwinian evolution is defined by these elements. Your claims to the effect that these terms have not been defined or that you don't know what they mean is simply not credible. If the two greatest thinkers who ever lived know what they mean and could define them for posterity, if ID proponents know what they mean, and If I know what they mean (and can successfully summarize the point in one sentence [which I did], then their meaning is clear. Any attempt to deflect that point is simply an evasion on your part to avoid reasoned dialogue. I wish I could be more diplomatic about it, but there it is. Peace!StephenB
July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
Hi CentralScrutinizer,
RDF: However, if ID is positing something like a human being as its Designer, we might as well conclude that we are this things descendents rather than its inventions. ID is of course positing something very different from a human being as the Designer. CS: I don’t see how that follows from what I said. There’s no reason to conclude that something with superior human-like intelligence need have the same physical nature of humans.
IDers very often state that CSI is invariably associated with the action of intelligent minds. IDers repeat over and over that the only thing in our uniform and repeated experience that has the ability to produce the sort of complex form and function we see in biology is a mind. Right? Well, what you seem to forget is that in our uniform and repeated experience, minds are invariably assocated with complex form and function - that is, complex physical bodies and brains that are chock-full of CSI! We never observe minds that do not critically rely on well-functioning brains. Sure, you can hypothesize that some unknown thing might be able to design things without a brain, but we have no way to see if that is true. Just like I might hypothesize that CSI could arise from unknown process without a mind. Neither are consistent with our uniform and repeated experience.
Thus no reason to conclude we are its/their descendents.
Right - this is only the best explanation if ID does posit the existence of some biological intelligent designer (which sometimes ID folks say is "not ruled out").
Computers can be programmed with a subset of human-like intelligence, but I would think it strange to call a computer a “descendent” of humans without doing serious violence to the term “descendent.”
No, I meant actual biological ancestors. You know, sometimes ID folks say "We do not rule out that the Designer was an extra-terrestrial life form". I rule that out for you, by pointing out that once you posit the existence of a life form pre-existing life on Earth, you might as well just assume we are their biological descendents. This doesn't matter, really, because nobody in ID really thinks that the Designer was a life form. Cheers, RDFishRDFish
July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
Stephen, As I pressed 'Post' I see I should clarify what I meant by an "observable characterization". I do NOT mean that we need to be able to actually observe ID's Designer. What I mean is that we need to be able to understand what ID is proposing in terms of things that we know from our uniform and repeated experience. Darwinism says that random mutations and natural selection accounts for the species; we both disbelieve that these things can in fact account for them, but we do at least know what mutations and differential reproduction mean (and if you don't, I can explain them in lots of different ways). I'm simply asking for the same sort of clear description of what ID says the explanation is. Cheers, RDFishRDFish
July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
Hi StephenB,
RDF: Since all “designers” and “artists” in our uniform and repeated experience are human beings, then when ID infers that a “designer” or an “artist” was responsible for the DNA molecule, it appears that ID is referring to a human being. SB: Nope. Doesn’t follow. Attacking the character of ID proponents does not help your argument.
Gee, Stephen, I do agree that nobody should attack anyone's character here, but help me out - exactly how did I attack anyone's character by challenging what I see as ID's equivocation on terms such as "designer" or "artist"? The reason I say these words are used to equivocate is because they derive their meaning from our use of these words to describe human beings, and they need to be given specific meanings if they are to be used in a very different context (such as theory that claims to explain the existence of life and the universe).
Again, the implication that ID proponents are engaging in semantic shenanigans is both false and unnecessarily insulting. They have no need to twist words since their argument is straightforward.
If that is the case, please provide the definitions. Once and for all, one single definition for the word "intelligence" in the context of ID.
Obviously, you missed the point about ID science lacking the wherewithal to speculate about the identity of the designer... Everything that exists has an identity.
Actually, I see this as yet another equivocation. Do we talk about the "identity" of an electric current? The "identity" of a rock? A cloud? Do we speak about the "identity" of evolution? No, we don't. Identities are usually associated with people. This isn't a critical argument, just another way that I see IDers equivocate about whether they are talking about something truly unspecified or something sort of like a human being.
SB: That isn’t true at all. A non-human cosmic designer would be an artist. RDF: And if pigs had wings, they could fly. SB: I don’t understand your dismissive response.
It wasn't dismissive of you - it's an expression that loosely means you are begging the question: Yes, if there was a non-human cosmic designer then you could call it an "artist" or anything else you'd like to call it, but calling the cause of life an artist is not evidence that there exists a non-human cosmic designer that has mental characteristics as we know them from our own human minds.
My statement is true by definition. If the universe was designed, it was an act of art. That should be clear.
Fine, whatever - you've failed to define "art" in this context, so this obviously isn't going to clarify anything at all.
ID doesn’t make the inference that artists are human beings.
We don't have to infer that - we can observe it in our uniform and repeated experience.
It makes the observation that CSI is known to be a function of art.
A "function of art"? What does that mean?
If CSI is always a function of art, then if follows that CSI in a DNA molecule is also likely to be a function of art.
I have no idea where you are going with this. But I see you refuse to answer my question, so I'll ask it for the third time: If you’d like to hypothesize that there are other types of things in the universe (or even outside of the universe!) that could have been responsible for creating DNA, I’d be interested in hearing how you would characterize these things, and then how we might go about determining if they exist. Please, Stephen - you reject the charge of equivocation, and yet you steadfastly refuse to provide a single, clear, observable characterization of the explanation ID is suggesting for the existence of life and the universe. Give it a try at least! Cheers, RDFishRDFish
July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
RDFish: It’s not hard to imagine something like a human being but even smarter. That’s where the whole “ID” thing comes from. However, if ID is positing something like a human being as its Designer, we might as well conclude that we are this things descendents rather than its inventions. ID is of course positing something very different from a human being as the Designer.
I don't see how that follows from what I said. There's no reason to conclude that something with superior human-like intelligence need have the same physical nature of humans. Thus no reason to conclude we are its/their descendents. Computers can be programmed with a subset of human-like intelligence, but I would think it strange to call a computer a "descendent" of humans without doing serious violence to the term "descendent."CentralScrutinizer
July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
semi related note; The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science - May 5, 2011 Excerpt: So, which of the two (general relativity or QED) is The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science? - It’s a little tough to quantify a title like that, but I think relativity can claim to have tested the smallest effects. Things like the aluminum ion clock experiments showing shifts in the rate of a clock set moving at a few m/s, or raised by a foot, measure relativistic shifts of a few parts in 10^16. That is, if one clock ticks 10,000,000,000,000,000 times, the other ticks 9,999,999,999,999,999 times. That’s an impressively tiny effect, but the measured value is in good agreement with the predictions of relativity. In the end, though, I have to give the nod to QED, because while the absolute effects in relativity may be smaller, the precision of the measurements in QED is more impressive. Experimental tests of relativity measure tiny shifts, but to only a few decimal places. Experimental tests of QED measure small shifts, but to an absurd number of decimal places. The most impressive of these is the “anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,” expressed is terms of a number g whose best measured value is: g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 73 (28) Depending on how you want to count it, that’s either 11 or 14 digits of precision (the value you would expect without QED is exactly 1, so in some sense, the shift really starts with the first non-zero decimal place), which is just incredible. And QED correctly predicts all those decimal places (at least to within the measurement uncertainty, given by the two digits in parentheses at the end of that). http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2011/05/05/the-most-precisely-tested-theo/bornagain77
July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
Joe: AF was answered on the work of art case, and EL on the pic of a glacier, indeed I identified the source. Move forward a few weeks and the same talking point is being recirculated on the knowingly false pretence it has not been answered. In addition, AF should know the way info carrying capacity is measured and how that has been modded to account for specific function. Such antics speak for themselves, and not well. KFkairosfocus
July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
RD:
And if pigs had wings, they could fly.
LoL! It takes more than the mere presence of wongs for flight to be able to occur.
ID ostensibly makes inferences from our uniform and repeated experience. In our uniform and repeated experience, artists are human beings. (Or perhaps other animals, if you’d like to take a liberal view of art).
Yes, we have experience with nature, operating freely and also with agency involvement- ie what it takes an agency to do. And when we observe something and we know that neither humans nor any other familiar agency was available, we infer it was some other agency. What would be stupid to do is say that mother nature miraculously got the ability to do something just because humans were not around.Joe
July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
Add “information” to the list of ID buzz words desperate for definitions that make sense.
LoL! We use the standard and accepted dictionary definituon, Alan. Meyer goes over that in "Signature in the Cell". It's as if you are proud to be an ignorant fool. The same goes for agency, Alan.Joe
July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
Which would be all fine and dandy if someone could tell us how to assess CSI in a work of art (Lizzie’s photo of a glacier) or a DNA molecule (cue KF log2 a big number).
CSI is teh wrong tool for a work of art and we have told you how to assess CSI for DNA. OTOH neither you nor any other anti-IDist can produce positive evidence for teh claims of your position. No one can assess accumulations of genetic accidents...Joe
July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
How do ID scientists study the effects of design, exactly?
How do archaeologists and forensic scientists study the effects of design?
Do they consider the process of environmental design that results in niche adaptation?
Do you have any evidence of this alleged "environmental design"? Please present it. cannot comment on the ontological nature of the designer.
Why not?
Well Alan, because reality dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence.
Dover’s scuppered any need to pretend the “Intelligent Designer” is not a religious concept.
Only in your little mind- and possibly the little minds of other anti-IDists...Joe
July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
BA77: Any science/non science demarcation criterion that will exclude the design inference on empirically tested found reliable signs, will also-- if consistently applied -- exclude darwinism. But, too often, we are not dealing with people interested in the slightest in fair-minded consistency, but ideologues bent on pushing an evo mat agenda or one of its fellow travellers. KFkairosfocus
July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
F/N: Add to the list of XXXXX -- you fill in your favourite non-vulgar adjective to denote ideologically motivated willful and misleading -- darwinist debate tactics, "I don't want to use reasonable and commonly used definitions (which would, so I pontificate away that your terms are meaningless." Just as a FYI, onlookers, from the Glossary under the resources tab this and every UD page: ______________ >> Information — Wikipedia, with some reorganization, is apt: “ . . that which would be communicated by a message if it were sent from a sender to a receiver capable of understanding the message . . . . In terms of data, it can be defined as a collection of facts [i.e. as represented or sensed in some format] from which conclusions may be drawn [and on which decisions and actions may be taken].” Intelligence – Wikipedia aptly and succinctly defines: “capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn.” Chance – undirected contingency. That is, events that come from a cluster of possible outcomes, but for which there is no decisive evidence that they are directed; especially where sampled or observed outcomes follow mathematical distributions tied to statistical models of randomness. (E.g. which side of a fair die is uppermost on tossing and tumbling then settling.) Contingency – here, possible outcomes that (by contrast with those of necessity) may vary significantly from case to case under reasonably similar initial conditions. (E.g. which side of a die is uppermost, whether it has been loaded or not, upon tossing, tumbling and settling.). Contingent [as opposed to necessary] beings begin to exist (and so are caused), need not exist in all possible worlds, and may/do go out of existence. Necessity — here, events that are triggered and controlled by mechanical forces that (together with initial conditions) reliably lead to given – sometimes simple (an unsupported heavy object falls) but also perhaps complicated — outcomes. (Newtonian dynamics is the classical model of such necessity.) In some cases, sensitive dependence on [or, “to”] initial conditions may leads to unpredictability of outcomes, due to cumulative amplification of the effects of noise or small, random/ accidental differences between initial and intervening conditions, or simply inevitable rounding errors in calculation. This is called “chaos.” Design — purposefully directed contingency. That is, the intelligent, creative manipulation of possible outcomes (and usually of objects, forces, materials, processes and trends) towards goals. (E.g. 1: writing a meaningful sentence or a functional computer program. E.g. 2: loading of a die to produce biased, often advantageous, outcomes. E.g. 3: the creation of a complex object such as a statue, or a stone arrow-head, or a computer, or a pocket knife.) Explanatory Filter — an inductively and statistically based procedure for reliably identifying credible cases of design as opposed to chance or chance plus necessity. For, while chance, necessity and agency may – and often do – jointly all act in a situation, we may for analysis focus on individual aspects. When we do so, we can see that observed regularities that create consistent, reliably observable patterns — e.g. the sun rises in the east each morning, water boils at seal level on Earth at 100 °C — are the signposts of mechanical necessity; and will thus exhibit low contingency. Where there is high contingency – e.g. which side of a die is uppermost – the cause is chance (= credibly undirected contingency) or design (= directed contingency). However, when an outcome (a) is sufficiently complex [e.g. for our practical purposes, the degree of contingency is beyond the configuration space set by ~ 500 – 1,000 bits of information storage capacity] and (b) comes from a reasonably narrow and independently specifiable target zone, then we may confidently conclude – based on massive experience — that (c) the outcome is intelligently designed for a purpose. A common example is a sufficiently long, ASCII text blog comment:where such a comment uses more than 72 – 143 characters, it is sufficiently long to have more than 10^150 – 10^301 possible configurations, i.e. that of 500 – 1,000 bits,and is complex in the universal probability bound [UPB] sense. It is also independently functionally specified as contextually and grammatically meaningful text in English, not the gobbledygook created by – by far and away — most cases of random typing or electrical noise: fghqwirt79wyfwhcqw9pfy79. So, we all confidently and routinely infer to design, not chance. So, when we see the DNA strands for life, ranging from 100 – 500,000 to over 3 – 4 billion functionally specific 4-state DNA elements [and since 100,000 bases has a configuration space of about 9.98 * 10^60,205], we need a very good reason indeed to reject design as its best explanation; not a mere dismissive assertion or the imposed assumption of evolutionary materialism under the color of “science.” FSCI — “functionally specified complex information” (or, “function-specifying complex information” or — rarely — “functionally complex, specified information” [FCSI])) is a commonplace in engineered systems: complex functional entities that are based on specific target-zone configurations and operations of multiple parts with large configuration spaces equivalent to at least 500 – 1,000 bits; i.e. well beyond the Dembski-type universal probability bound. In the UD context, it is often seen as a descriptive term for a useful subset of CSI first identified by origin of life researchers in the 1970s – 80?s. As Thaxton et al summed up in their 1984 technical work that launched the design theory movement, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: “. . . “order” is a statistical concept referring to regularity such as could might characterize a series of digits in a number, or the ions of an inorganic crystal. On the other hand, “organization” refers to physical systems and the specific set of spatio-temporal and functional relationships among their parts. Yockey and Wickens note that informational macromolecules have a low degree of order but a high degree of specified complexity.” [TMLO (FTE, 1984), Ch 8, p. 130.] So, since in the cases of known origin such are invariably the result of design, it is confidently but provisionally inferred that FSCI is a reliable sign of intelligent design. Irreducible Complexity, IC — A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. (Dembski, No Free Lunch, p. 285 [HT: D O'L]) Intelligent design [ID] – Dr William A Dembski, a leading design theorist, has defined ID as “the science that studies signs of intelligence.” That is, as we ourselves instantiate [thus exemplify as opposed to “exhaust”], intelligent designers act into the world, and create artifacts. When such argents act, there are certain characteristics that commonly appear, and that – per massive experience — reliably mark such artifacts. It it therefore a reasonable and useful scientific project to study such signs and identify how we may credibly reliably infer from empirical sign to the signified causal factor: purposefully directed contingency or intelligent design. Among the signs of intelligence of current interest for research are: [a] FSCI — function-specifying complex information [e.g. blog posts in English text that take in more than 143 ASCII characters, and/or -- as was highlighted by Yockey and Wickens by the mid-1980s -- as a distinguishing marker of the macromolecules in the heart of cell-based life forms], or more broadly [b] CSI — complex, independently specified information [e.g. Mt Rushmore vs New Hampshire's former Old Man of the mountain, or -- as was highlighted by Orgel in 1973 -- a distinguishing feature of the cell's information-rich organized aperiodic macromolecules that are neither simply orderly like crystals nor random like chance-polymerized peptide chains], or [c] IC – multi-part functionality that relies on an irreducible core of mutually co-adapted, interacting components. [e.g. the hardware parts of a PC or more simply of a mousetrap; or – as was highlighted by Behe in the mid 1990's -- the bacterial flagellum and many other cell-based bodily features and functions.], or [d] “Oracular” active information – in some cases, e.g. many Genetic Algorithms, successful performance of a system traces to built-in information or organisation that guides algorithmic search processes and/or performance so that the system significantly outperforms random search. Such guidance may include oracles that, step by step, inform a search process that the iterations are “warmer/ colder” relative to a performance target zone. (A classic example is the Weasel phrase search program.) Also, [e] Complex, algorithmically active, coded information – the complex information used in systems and processes is symbolically coded in ways that are not preset by underlying physical or chemical forces, but by encoding and decoding dynamically inert but algorithmically active information that guides step by step execution sequences, i.e. algorithms. (For instance, in hard disk drives, the stored information in bits is coded based a conventional, symbolic assignment of the N/S poles, forces and fields involved, and is impressed and used algorithmically. The physics of forces and fields does not determine or control the bit-pattern of the information – or, the drive would be useless. Similarly, in DNA, the polymer chaining chemistry is effectively unrelated to the information stored in the sequence and reading frames of the A/ G/ C/ T side-groups. It is the coded genetic information in the successive three-letter D/RNA codons that is used by the cell’s molecular nano- machines in the step by step creation of proteins. Such DNA sets from observed living organisms starts at 100,000 – 500,000 four-state elements [200 k – 1 M bits], abundantly meriting the description: function- specifying, complex information, or FSCI.) >> [and more] _______________ Prediction, the next move will be to try to twist into pretzels, because these point where the objectors are utterly determined not to go. In addition NOTHING brought to the table by a design thinker will ever be acceptable, even "grass is usually green" as we are all ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. KFkairosfocus
July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
Mr. Fox, since you are so concerned with ID's lack of scientific rigor, perhaps you can show us the exact mathematical demarcation criteria of Darwinism so that we may finally learn how to properly designate real Darwinian science from pseudo-scientific tripe?
“nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. … http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/05/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician/ “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003) Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013 Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/
Whereas nobody can seem to come up with a rigid demarcation criteria for Darwinism, ID does not suffer from such a lack of mathematical rigor:
Evolutionary Informatics Lab – Main Publications http://evoinfo.org/publications/
,, the empirical falsification criteria of ID is much easier to understand than the math is, and is as such:
Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997 Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
Well, do you have evidence of even one molecular machine arising by Darwinian processes Mr. Fox?,,, Without such a demonstration and still your insistence that Darwinism is true, then as far as I can tell Mr Fox, this is your actual demarcation threshold for believing Darwinism is true:
Darwinism Not Proved Impossible Therefore Its True – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10285716/ How Darwinists React to Improbability Arguments – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9IgLueodZA
,, I hope you can help me in all this Mr. Fox to designate a more rigid threshold, since as far as I can tell, without a rigid demarcation criteria, Darwinism is in actuality a pseudo-science instead of a science!bornagain77
July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
Agency, too!Alan Fox
July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT
Add "information" to the list of ID buzz words desperate for definitions that make sense.Alan Fox
July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT
It [ID science?] makes the observation that CSI is known to be a function of art. If CSI is always a function of art, then if follows that CSI in a DNA molecule is also likely to be a function of art.
Which would be all fine and dandy if someone could tell us how to assess CSI in a work of art (Lizzie's photo of a glacier) or a DNA molecule (cue KF log2 a big number). No useful method of calculating or even identifying (or even clearly defining, let alone operationally) CSI has yet emerged.Alan Fox
July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT
RDF
Since all “designers” and “artists” in our uniform and repeated experience are human beings, then when ID infers that a “designer” or an “artist” was responsible for the DNA molecule, it appears that ID is referring to a human being.
Nope. Doesn't follow. Attacking the character of ID proponents does not help your argument.
The knock was for semantic shenanigans substituting “intelligent agency” when they mean “human being”, as though there were a whole class of these things we know about.
Again, the implication that ID proponents are engaging in semantic shenanigans is both false and unnecessarily insulting. They have no need to twist words since their argument is straightforward. Obviously, you missed the point about ID science lacking the wherewithal to speculate about the identity of the designer.
You’re already concluded a human-like agent when you imply It had an “identity”.
No, not at all. Everything that exists has an identity.
Now, if you’d like to hypothesize that there are other types of things in the universe (or even outside of the universe!) that could have been responsible for creating DNA, I’d be interested in hearing how you would characterize these things, and then how we might go about determining if they exist.
Do you mean from a philosophical perspective? If so, the best candidate for the job would obviously be a supernatural Creator. How do we determine that? You know the drill by now: Regularity >> implies order>> which implies orderer. SB: That isn’t true at all. A non-human cosmic designer would be an artist. RDF: And if pigs had wings, they could fly. I don't understand your dismissive response. My statement is true by definition. If the universe was designed, it was an act of art. That should be clear.
ID ostensibly makes inferences from our uniform and repeated experience. In our uniform and repeated experience, artists are human beings. (Or perhaps other animals, if you’d like to take a liberal view of art).
Well, no, that's not quite the way it works. ID doesn't make the inference that artists are human beings. It makes the observation that CSI is known to be a function of art. If CSI is always a function of art, then if follows that CSI in a DNA molecule is also likely to be a function of art.StephenB
July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT
That isn’t true at all. A non-human cosmic designer would be an artist.
And if pigs had wings, they could fly. ID ostensibly makes inferences from our uniform and repeated experience. In our uniform and repeated experience, artists are human beings. (Or perhaps other animals, if you'd like to take a liberal view of art). Cheers, RDFishRDFish
July 5, 2013
July
07
Jul
5
05
2013
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT
Hi StephenB,
RDF: You may call them “hunters” or “murderers” or “artists” or whatever you’d like, but we both know that in each and every case, what we are talking about is a human being. SB: Where did you ever get the idea that the artist responsible for designing the DNA molecule was a human being?
Since all "designers" and "artists" in our uniform and repeated experience are human beings, then when ID infers that a "designer" or an "artist" was responsible for the DNA molecule, it appears that ID is referring to a human being.
Attacking the character of ID proponents does not help your argument.
The knock was for semantic shenanigans substituting "intelligent agency" when they mean "human being", as though there were a whole class of these things we know about. I didn't mean that theology was fiction or fantasy; I meant that non-human agents are - as in science-fiction, ghost stories and fantasy.
Obviously, you missed the point about ID science lacking the wherewithal to speculate about the identity of the designer.
You're already concluded a human-like agent when you imply It had an "identity".
Not necessarily. Maybe the victim neither died by accident or murder but was mauled by a dog.
Excellent! Now we're making progress. Yes, dogs are another thing in our uniform and repeated experience. Now, if you’d like to hypothesize that there are other types of things in the universe (or even outside of the universe!) that could have been responsible for creating DNA, I’d be interested in hearing how you would characterize these things, and then how we might go about determining if they exist. Cheers, RDFishRDFish
July 5, 2013
July
07
Jul
5
05
2013
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT
RDF
All these words like “artist” and “murderer” and “designer” all refer exclusively to human beings.
That isn't true at all. A non-human cosmic designer would be an artist.StephenB
July 5, 2013
July
07
Jul
5
05
2013
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT
RDF
You may call them “hunters” or “murderers” or “artists” or whatever you’d like, but we both know that in each and every case, what we are talking about is a human being.
Where did you ever get the idea that the artist responsible for designing the DNA molecule was a human being?
Flesh, blood, bone, brains, muscles, eyes, ears… homo sapiens. ID folks like to pretend that these could be any of, oh, any number of different types of “agents”, but as far as our uniform and repeated experience, that’s just fantasy and fiction.
Attacking the character of ID proponents does not help your argument. Obviously, you missed the point about ID science lacking the wherewithal to speculate about the identity of the designer.
The truth of the matter is clear: When a forensic scientist solves a case, or an archeologist discovers an artifact, what they conclude is that the object of the investigation is a human being.
Not necessarily. Maybe the victim neither died by accident or murder but was mauled by a dog.StephenB
July 5, 2013
July
07
Jul
5
05
2013
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT
Hi CentralScrutinizer,
The reason why intelligent people can design airplanes and electronics is their ability learn better and apprehend more complex relationships and their consequences than their less intelligent brethren.
There is a covariance of mental abilities in human beings, yes - psychologists call this the "g factor" for general intelligence, which is a weighted average of abilities across cognitive tasks. A number of theories have been advanced to account for this covariance. As I explain in the OP, however, because ID is not suggesting something with a human-like brain as its Designer, we have no reason to suspect that the same covariance will hold in something that may be radically different than a human:
RDFish: There is no theory of intelligence that tells us that when some entity displays one particular ability it will necessarily have some other ability. Just like the chess-playing computer – or a human with savant syndrome – it may be that ID’s “intelligent cause” could do one thing very well, but could do nothing else that human beings typically do.
Why is it difficult for you to accept the idea that such powers of cognition could be further maximized to the point of having the ability to design DNA? Of course, this superior intelligence would not be human. But it’s not difficult to envision something with more maximal human like powers designing DNA.
It's not hard to imagine something like a human being but even smarter. That's where the whole "ID" thing comes from. However, if ID is positing something like a human being as its Designer, we might as well conclude that we are this things descendents rather than its inventions. ID is of course positing something very different from a human being as the Designer. Cheers, RDFishRDFish
July 5, 2013
July
07
Jul
5
05
2013
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT
Hi Eric, Please read the OP for the answer to your SETI question. Cheers, RDFishRDFish
July 5, 2013
July
07
Jul
5
05
2013
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT
aiguy, er, RDFish: In that case, I think it is perfectly clear that ID is quite ridiculous: How could anyone think a human being was responsible for creating DNA? DNA is part of human beings! We cannot develop or survive without DNA. Still, you assert that DNA was created by a human being? That just doesn’t make any sense at all.
True, DNA was not created by a human. But it is evident that among humans there are differing levels of aptitude with regards to the ability design via the various faculties which normally fall under the rubric of "intelligence." Stupid people can learn to talk, and have a some idea of future consequences of their actions, but they can't learn how to design complex electrical circuits. (You can't fix stupid.) The reason why intelligent people can design airplanes and electronics is their ability learn better and apprehend more complex relationships and their consequences than their less intelligent brethren. Why is it difficult for you to accept the idea that such powers of cognition could be further maximized to the point of having the ability to design DNA? Of course, this superior intelligence would not be human. But it's not difficult to envision something with more maximal human like powers designing DNA.CentralScrutinizer
July 5, 2013
July
07
Jul
5
05
2013
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT
RDFish: Just curious, can you point me to the definitive, unambiguous definition of "intelligence" that underlies SETI's search for intelligence elsewhere in the universe? I've tried finding it, but there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer, so I'm afraid that SETI must be just some vacuous pseudoscience . . .Eric Anderson
July 5, 2013
July
07
Jul
5
05
2013
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT
Hi StephenB,
Just as the forensic scientist can discern murder from accidental death and know nothing about the identity of the murderer, the inference does point to a murderer; and just as the archeologist can differentiate between the design of an ancient hunter’s spear and the effects of wind water, and erosion without knowing anything about the hunter, the inference does point to a hunter.
Ok, now we're getting to the heart of the matter. You may call them "hunters" or "murderers" or "artists" or whatever you'd like, but we both know that in each and every case, what we are talking about is a human being. Flesh, blood, bone, brains, muscles, eyes, ears... homo sapiens. ID folks like to pretend that these could be any of, oh, any number of different types of "agents", but as far as our uniform and repeated experience, that's just fantasy and fiction. The truth of the matter is clear: When a forensic scientist solves a case, or an archeologist discovers an artifact, what they conclude is that the object of the investigation is a human being. All these words like "artist" and "murderer" and "designer" all refer exclusively to human beings.
So it seems fair to say that if that ID scientist can differentiate the art present in a DNA molecule from the effects of naturalistic forces without knowing anything about the artist, the inference does, nevertheless, point to an artist.
In that case, I think it is perfectly clear that ID is quite ridiculous: How could anyone think a human being was responsible for creating DNA? DNA is part of human beings! We cannot develop or survive without DNA. Still, you assert that DNA was created by a human being? That just doesn't make any sense at all. Now, if you'd like to hypothesize that there are other types of things in the universe (or even outside of the universe!) that could have been responsible for creating DNA, I'd be interested in hearing how you would characterize these things, and then how we might go about determining if they exist. Cheers, RDFishRDFish
July 5, 2013
July
07
Jul
5
05
2013
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
RDF:
Ok, so as far as ID SCIENCE can tell, ID can say absolutely nothing whatsoever about what caused the universe or biological complexity. Not one, single, solitary thing except “Whatever caused these things was able to cause these things”. Agreed?
Oh, I don’t know that I would carry it that far. Just as the forensic scientist can discern murder from accidental death and know nothing about the identity of the murderer, the inference does point to a murderer; and just as the archeologist can differentiate between the design of an ancient hunter’s spear and the effects of wind water, and erosion without knowing anything about the hunter, the inference does point to a hunter. So it seems fair to say that if that ID scientist can differentiate the art present in a DNA molecule from the effects of naturalistic forces without knowing anything about the artist, the inference does, nevertheless, point to an artist.StephenB
July 5, 2013
July
07
Jul
5
05
2013
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
ID Science,
oxymoron?
which studies only the effects of design,
How do ID scientists study the effects of design, exactly? Do they distinguish between designs created by people from those created by other organisms. Do they consider the process of environmental design that results in niche adaptation? Have they identified any candidates for having been produced by "supernatural" processes?
cannot comment on the ontological nature of the designer.
Why not? Dover's scuppered any need to pretend the "Intelligent Designer" is not a religious concept. Comment about the designer being God seems a commonly held opinion in these comment columns. What's the problem? Ontology being a philosophical concept that produces unanswerable questions, I agree that scientists should avoid the subject.Alan Fox
July 5, 2013
July
07
Jul
5
05
2013
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply