The Circularity of the Design Inference

_{Winston Ewert

November 14, 2014

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Keith S is right. Sort of.

As highlighted in a recent post by vjtorley, Keith S has argued that Dembski’s Design Inference is a circular argument. As Keith describes the argument:

In other words, we conclude that something didn’t evolve only if we already know that it didn’t evolve. CSI is just window dressing for this rather uninteresting fact.

In its most basic form, a specified complexity argument takes a form something like:

Premise 1) The evolution of the bacterial flagellum is astronomically improbable.
Premise 2) The bacterial flagellum is highly specified.
Conclusion) The bacterial flagellum did not evolve.

Keith’s point is that in order to show that the bacterial flagellum did not evolve, we have to first show that the evolution of the bacterial flagellum is astronomically improbable, which is almost the same thing. Specified complexity moves the argument from arguing that evolution is improbable to arguing that evolution didn’t happen. The difficult part is showing that evolution is improbable. Once we’ve established that evolution is vastly improbable, it seems a very minor obvious point that it would therefore not have occurred.

In some cases, people have understood Dembski’s argument incorrectly, propounding or attack some variation on:

The evolution of the bacterial flagellum is highly improbable.
Therefore the bacterial flagellum exhibits high CSI
Therefore the evolution of the bacterial flagellum is highly improbable
Therefore the bacterial flagellum did not evolve.

This is indeed a very silly argument and people need to stop arguing about it. CSI and Specified complexity do not help in any way to establish that the evolution of the bacterial flagellum is improbable. Rather, the only way to establish that the bacterial flagellum exhibits CSI is to first show that it was improbable. Any attempt to use CSI to establish the improbability of evolution is deeply fallacious.

If specified complexity doesn’t help establish the improbability of evolution what good is it? What’s the point of the specified complexity argument? Consider the following argument:

Each snowflake pattern is astronomically improbable.
Therefore it doesn’t snow.

Obviously, it does snow, and the argument must be fallacious. The fact that an event or object is improbable is insufficient to establish that it formed by natural means. That’s why Dembski developed the notion of specified complexity, arguing that in order to reject chance events they must both be complex and specified. Hence, its not the same thing to say that the evolution of the bacterial flagellum is improbable and that it didn’t happen. If the bacterial flagellum were not specified, it would be perfectly possible to evolve it even thought it is vastly improbable.

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

So Keith is right, arguing for the improbability of evolution on the basis of specified complexity is circular. However, specified complexity, as developed by Dembski, isn’t designed for the purpose of demonstrating the improbability of evolution. When used for its proper role, specified complexity is a valid, though limited argument.

Comments

keiths:
As I said, Mung is a real asset to the ID movement.
Can I quote you on that?Mung_{November 18, 2014
November
11
Nov
18
18
2014
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

keith s:
But you haven’t addressed the points I made to Winston, namely that 1) Dembski presents a lengthy argument in support of his claim that “chance” and “law” cannot produce CSI, and 2) he then dubs this the “Law of Conservation of Information”. You don’t need lengthy arguments to demonstrate something that is true by definition, and something that is true merely by definition doesn’t merit the designation “Law”.
I'm having problems following your logic. If we want to do Euclidean geometry, we "define" a point, a line, a plane, etc. Then we use these terms to "demonstrate something is true" sometimes using "lengthy arguments." Now, if you were to "prove" that a "point" is exactly what you termed a "point" to be, then something will have gone haywire. Definitions are definitions; they can't pass into the realm of "theorems" or "laws." But this is not what Dembski has done. He has marshalled a "lengthy argument" to logically "demonstrate" that one cannot use an algorithm to increase the information of what is being inputted into the algorithm itself. He then sees this as something that will always hold, and, so, constituting an inviolable 'law,' which he then terms the "Law of the Conservation of Information." If Dembski had said: "I define that Law of Conservation of Information as meaning that the use of an algorithm cannot increase the information of what is inputted into the algorithm," and then went on to say: "I will now PROVE this definition true by invoking this Law," you'd have something to get upset about. But he didn't do that. It is because the Law of the Conservation of Information is 'generalizable' that it constitutes a "Law;" not just because he says so by "fiat." You're welcome to undermine his argument. ( As far as the power of EA, I'm sure Winston Ewert can address any argument you'd want to make)PaV_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

HeKS, thank you very much for your clear and well-written explanation of CSI. IMHO this should be an OP.Box_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

@R0bb #62
His understanding is that, in order to calculate CSI, we must choose as a chance hypothesis the actual cause of the event. When I asked how that works when the actual cause is design, he said:
No, no, no! You do not calculate the CSI (the high improbability of the specificity) of an event that was designed. That would be calculating the probability, or rather improbability, of something that was done intentionally, which is incoherent.

R0bb, your characterization of what I said is misleading. The context in which our discussion took place was related to a challenge from Barry to show natural processes producing 500+ bits of CSI. You answered his challenge by pointing to an article by Ewert where he provides a high CSI calculation for a pattern with respect to a couple of natural processes known NOT to have produced the pattern and you then declared Ewert was saying that natural processes had actually produced huge amounts of CSI. In response, I pointed out to you that in order to claim that natural processes had ACTUALLY produced a specific amount of CSI, you would need to calculate the CSI on the basis of the natural process actually known to have produced the effect in question. This is different from trying to determine whether or not some object, pattern, event, etc. displays CSI when the cause of the object, pattern, event, etc. is not already known. In that case, you would calculate the CSI with respect to all known, relevant chance hypotheses and if all of them resulted in a high CSI calculation then you would say the object, pattern, whatever demonstrates high CSI (or perhaps just CSI period, depending on what metric is being used). It remains true that you do not calculate this type of CSI on the hypothesis of design. In other words, you do not ask: How highly improbable is the existence of this effect matching an independent specification given the assumption that it was intentionally brought about as the product of design. You can't do this, because improbability is calculated with respect to random/chance processes, not the intentional actions of conscious agents. When people talk about CSI with respect to designed objects/systems, they are often using a different meaning of the word "complex", such that it means "consisting of many well-matched parts". And by "specified" they typically mean that the particular relation of those parts have been specified for the purpose of bringing about a specific function. Where they mean CSI in the same sense as that calculated on the basis of chance hypotheses, they are not giving an actual specific calculation of CSI on the hypothesis of design, but merely saying that the thing in question matches an independent specification (usually a functional one) and is highly improbable on all known, relevant natural hypotheses. If Ewert disagrees with any of this, he's more than welcome to say so and I would appreciate the correction.HeKS_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

And I love this part: "....has thus disproven 150 years of evolutionary theory." wowUpright BiPed_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

@R0bb #45 Why didn't you point Ewert to my extensive post on the issue of CSI later in that thread, which happened to flow directly out of my conversations with him? Here it is: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/heks-strikes-gold-again-or-why-strong-evidence-of-design-is-so-often-stoutly-resisted-or-dismissed/#comment-518656 If he sees anything wrong there, I'm happy to be corrected. HeKSHeKS_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

After all the posturing, they look rather silly letting textbook material reduce them to insults.Upright BiPed_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

Adapa: You seem to argue a lot from authority (with a good deal of sneering mixed in). Why is that? Do you not feel comfortable with your own ability to understand and debate the issues? Are you not comfortable admitting this?Phinehas_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Alicia Renard Having found TSZ due to numerous links and references here, I searched “Upright Biped” in their archive and discovered the semiotic theory. Refining my search, I find this that should supply adapa with the background. Thanks and wow. Upright Biped is just another internet boy wonder who invented his own custom version of reality and has thus disproven 150 years of evolutionary theory. That explains a lot of the inane claims he makes actually.Adapa_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

Adapa: Why resort to a sock puppet? This makes whatever point you are trying to make seem more cowardly than cute.Phinehas_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

R0bb:
You make a good point. When Dembski says, “Natural causes are incapable of generating CSI”, it sounds like a flat-out tautology.
I'm actually making the opposite point. :-) The fact that Dembski made that statement, backed up with a lengthy argument, indicates to me that he didn't see it as tautological. If he had been going by his later definition of CSI, then his statement would have been true by definition, and it wouldn't have required an argument at all -- just a restatement of his definition of CSI.
In my opinion, the LCI is so murky and problematic that there’s very little hope of discussing it productively.
That's for sure, and the problems begin with the inaccurate name itself.keith s_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

No one in science understands the UB magical mystery process which apparently doesn’t involve either chemistry or physics.
Wow Adapa, Full-throttle defense mechanism. Immediate. No waiting. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Adapa, here’s what you do: Go find a biophysicist. Let me tell you what to ask him: >> Mr. Biophysicist, is the nucleic triplet CTA arranged in that order because of the thermodynamic properties of the DNA molecule? After he tells you “no”, ask him this: >> Mr. Biophysicist, does that mean that the arrangement is independent of what is called the “minimum total potential energy principle”? After he tells you “yes”, then ask him this: >> Mr. Biophysicist, if CTA is not determined by the thermodynamic properties of the DNA molecule, then is it arranged that way because of the thermodynamic properties of leucine? After he tells you “no”, then ask him this: >> Mr. Biophysicist, if the arrangement CTA is not based on the thermodynamic properties of leucine, does this mean that the arrangement CTA is physically and chemically “discontinuous” with leucine? After he tells you “yes”, then ask him this: >> Well Mr. Biophysicist, if the arrangement CTA is physically and chemically discontinuous with leucine, then how does the arrangement CTA result in leucine being added to a polypeptide? After he tells you “it has to be translated” then come back here and tell me again that no one understands what I’m telling you. We can then talk about why the organization of the system preserves the necessary discontiniuty during translation. You might even figure out why it's necessary. Imagine that.Upright BiPed_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Upright Biped writes: Adapa, are you familiar with the concept that information requires a medium in order to exist? Having found TSZ due to numerous links and references here, I searched "Upright Biped" in their archive and discovered the semiotic theory. Refining my search, I find this that should supply adapa with the background.Alicia Renard_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

BTW do I have a thank you note coming for the Shannon inspired explanation for the specification/expression discontinuity
Not sure if you'll get that note from Adapa but I'll send one myself. That was a very helpful explanation. Thanks!Silver Asiatic_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

UBP:
Adapa, you do not understand the process of translation, and it is apparent that you wish to remain that way.
I had to arrive at that conclusion also, unfortunately.Silver Asiatic_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

You can say it but you’ll look even sillier and less scientifically informed than you already do. Sure you want to ride that train? I don't get on the same train as you Darwinists because your worldview 'trains' you to fling personal insults every time you get in the corner. You guys do this every time and you DONT EVEN KNOW WHY. And apparently you don't know how it makes you look when you do it, which relates to the inability to look at oneself honestly. Now I asked you specifically for the information storage location for the area morphology where the rim of my nostril joins the face, and I gave you a stripped down way to quantify some of that information as in a polynomial, crude as it may be. Now suppose that a person's face is made up of a billion such arc segments, you really think those trillions of bits of CSI are specified as follows: It’s called the PAX3 gene. Oh really? One gene completely specifies billions of unique faces throughout history, each with a billion arc segments? That little gene surely can store an astronomical amount of information now! A Genome-Wide Association Study Identifies Five Loci Influencing Facial Morphology in Europeans We identified five independent genetic loci associated with different facial phenotypes, suggesting the involvement of five candidate genes—PRDM16, PAX3, TP63, C5orf50, and COL17A1—in the determination of the human face. Three of them have been implicated previously in vertebrate craniofacial development and disease, and the remaining two genes potentially represent novel players in the molecular networks governing facial development. Doesn't look like the researcher discovered where all of the CSI is stored, specifying the complete morphology of the face, or they wouldn't be using words like "potentially represent" and "associated". BTW do I have a thank you note coming for the Shannon inspired explanation for the specification/expression discontinuity or is this something you already mulled over in school?groovamos_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

keith s:
But you haven’t addressed the points I made to Winston, namely that 1) Dembski presents a lengthy argument in support of his claim that “chance” and “law” cannot produce CSI, and 2) he then dubs this the “Law of Conservation of Information”.
You make a good point. When Dembski says, "Natural causes are incapable of generating CSI", it sounds like a flat-out tautology. But one could also make the following argument: The Law of Conservation of Information doesn't merely say that natural processes are extremely unlikely to yield high-CSI events (which would be purely tautological). It also deals with the question of what a natural process can do in combination with a previous process. For example, can one process yield a complex unspecified string, and then a deterministic process convert it to a specified string? I don't know if that's a good argument. In my opinion, the LCI is so murky and problematic that there's very little hope of discussing it productively.R0bb_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed you do not understand the process of translation, and it is apparent that you wish to remain that way. No one in science understands the UB magical mystery process which apparently doesn't involve either chemistry or physics. But you know what? That's not science's problem. Let us know when you finally decide yo publish your amazing original research, K?Adapa_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

SB #108 I hope you found my contribution useful for your research. I thought it was something to do with the OP!markf_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

Adapa, you do not understand the process of translation, and it is apparent that you wish to remain that way. It is also vividly apparent that you think you can avoid any corrections of your misunderstandings by lobbing juvenile taunts at me. You are entirely correct about that; you can choose any avoidance mechanism you wish.Upright BiPed_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT}

Heh. Here is what Mung claims is not a quote mine. I wrote:
Mung quote mines Tamara Knight:
Mung: Because you asked about measuring information. Tamara: No, I asked about measuring information… No? You asked about measuring information but you did not ask about measuring information? How does that work?
Here’s what Tamara actually wrote:
No, I asked about measuring information in the Dembski sense.
You’re a real asset to the ID movement, Mung. Glad you’re not on my side.
Mung's "defense"? That he quoted the omitted words later in his comment. Apparently, a quote mine isn't a quote mine if you quote the omitted words later. As I said, Mung is a real asset to the ID movement.keith s_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

Mung Is that when you’ll understand the question in #111? Don't feed the troll.Adapa_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: Adapa, did you not understand the question in #111 ? Adapa: I’m sorry Upright Biped, remind us again when and in what scientific journal your amazing original research will be published? Mung: Is that when you’ll understand the question in #111? 125 Adapa: Troll Is that a no?Mung_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

keiths:
The meaning was completely changed by your selective editing. In other words, you quote mined a fellow IDer, which I think is hilarious.
What's hilarious is your constant re-definition of what it means to quote mine. keiths recently accused me of quote mining. Want to know what was hilarious about that? The text he claimed was missing was right there in the post in which he claimed I quote mined. keiths. not the best source for what it means to quote mine, nor the best source of actual examples of quote mining.Mung_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

Mung Is that when you’ll understand the question in #111?? Troll.Adapa_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

Adapa:
I’m sorry Upright Biped, remind us again when and in what scientific journal your amazing original research will be published?
Is that when you'll understand the question in #111?Mung_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

I'm sorry Upright Biped, remind us again when and in what scientific journal your amazing original research will be published?Adapa_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

Adapa, did you not understand the question in #111 ?Upright BiPed_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
Yes, it was minor.
No, it was major. You presented it as a quote, but you redacted some key words. There was no ellipsis to indicate that you had done so. The meaning was completely changed by your selective editing. In other words, you quote mined a fellow IDer, which I think is hilarious.keith s_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

groovamos Well interesting that you didn’t answer my challenge question to you, asking where is my nose (or part of such) specified. A drawing is a specification for a part. Something specifies the shape of that part of my nose. It's called the PAX3 gene. A Genome-Wide Association Study Identifies Five Loci Influencing Facial Morphology in Europeans Since my nose is very symmetrical, I can say that there is a specification somewhere with a tolerance for the appearance of my nose. You can say it but you'll look even sillier and less scientifically informed than you already do. Sure you want to ride that train?Adapa_{November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply