Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Confessions of a Design Heretic

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Those of you who’ve followed my posts and comments will have picked up that my view of Intelligent Design is pretty complicated. On the one hand, I defend design inferences, even strong design inferences. I’m entirely comfortable with questioning Darwinism (if that view still has enough content to identify it as a clear position, anyway), and have a downright dismissive view of both naturalism (if that view… etc) and atheism. I regularly see the ID position butchered, mangled and misrepresented by its detractors, most of whom should and probably do know better.

On the flipside, I don’t think ID (or for that matter, no-ID) is science, even if I reason that if no-ID is science then so is ID. My personal leaning has always been towards theistic evolution, and I see evolution as yet another instance of design rather than something which runs in opposition to it – a view which I know some ID proponents share, but certainly not all. I think non-scientific arguments for and inferences to design have considerable power, and see little reason to elevate particular arguments simply because some insist they’re “scientific”.

Here’s another part of that flipside, and the subject of today’s post. One of the more prominent ID arguments hinges on the trichotomy of Chance, Necessity, and Design. The problem for me is that I question the very existence of Chance, and I see Necessity as subsumable under Design.

Let’s start with the more straightforward issue first: Necessity and design. I think a problem straightaway is that design presupposes necessity, at least in the form of law – and the type of law/necessity you have serves as a limiting factor on design. But more than that, law is implemented and used in our own designs – you need only look at how software is designed and created to see man-made law at work. Likewise, the nature of physical laws of our universe is itself an open question, a thing which has to be explained. It would be enough to point out the mere possibility of “design” as an explanation of these laws to kick some dirt on contrast of necessity and design. The fact that we have intelligent agents implementing laws – arguably comparable laws – in software, systems and designs should be enough to give additional pause.

So what about chance? Well, let’s try to nail down the appropriate definition of chance here: Events and outcomes entirely unforeseen, undirected and unintended by any mind. I actually think that’s pretty straightforward, but let’s note what this definition is not identical to: The claim that outcomes were, largely or in part, the result of natural or material forces. It’s entirely possible for intelligent agents to foresee, intend, and orchestrate these outcomes, whether via direct intervention or well in advance (“front-loading”). Nor is the claim identical to “events and outcomes that were the result of accumulations of (small or large) changes over time”. Once again, such outcomes are entirely compatible with their being foreseen, directed, and intended by a mind, both in advance or directly.

Now, I think this is what many people who play the ‘chance, necessity or design’ card typically mean when they oppose chance to design. (I’m sure other people could go with another definition – but for our purposes I think I’m giving a fair view.) The problem is that, if this is what is meant by chance, then it’s not obvious that “chance” really exists to begin with. That’s not to say someone can’t assume that it exists, or that they can’t mount some kind of argument for the existence of chance based on whatever presuppositions or standards. People can assume whatever they like, and they’re certainly capable of arguing for just about anything. But while design can be verified by first-person experience (just design something), and law is both subsumable under design as well as generally verifiable (just observe regularity), chance – the sort of chance I’m talking about – is, and may well forever remain, a metaphysical assumption. For all we know, and for all science can tell us, this thing may as well not exist.

I want to stress: To question chance in the manner I’m speaking is not to question, say.. the existence of a gaussian distribution, or of uncorrelated patterns, or of any particular patterns at all. A mind could foresee or even determine a gaussian distribution. A mind could create or intend an uncorrelated pattern. But the pattern itself won’t get you where you need to go – not without, ironically enough, a Design Filter. Even Dembski asserts that his DF is incapable of ruling out design in cases where his filter does not go off – but the inability to determine the presence or lack of design in these mundane cases places the very existence of chance in these cases open to question. This doesn’t mean that chance is demonstrated not to exist – only that its existence is one of mere logical possibility. And that ain’t much.

Oddly enough, I think the DF – or investigations similar to the DF – only heightens my point. At least some of the events and outcomes we see in our universe are the result of intention, of guidance, of mind. In principle, most – even all – events and outcomes we see in our universe could be the result of these things, and as our technology grows our own capabilities become more and more incredible on this front. With this in mind, at least from my point of view, I see little reason to treat ‘chance’ in the sense I wrote about in this entry as more than an interesting and remote logical possibility, an extrascientific posit that doesn’t have much to commend it.

Comments
I know the creators of this site are anxious to make and support a clear contra-distinction between science and metaphysics, surely for the best reasons. Scientific accreditation for dissenting voices is evidently in constant jeopardy due to the dominant, overweening, totalitarian type of increasingly corporate-funded Establishment. If I were in a Russian pub or its equivalent, or any public place during Stalin's regime, and a friend started talking to me in a seditious vein, or maybe just whispering, I wouldn't respond verbally at all. I would simply run like the wind away from him. A broken career is not the same as a sojourn in a Siberian prison camp, but career-wise, I expect it could actually be more destructive, assuming one survived the gulag. Hence, it seems to me, at least in some cases, the sometimes hysterical-seeming railing of the scions* of scientism. In other instances, other agendas would be at work. Yet, it also seems to me that quantum physics and cosmology both interface with metaphysics and, indeed, theology and the realm of the spirit - and have done for a very long time; Arguably, have always done so, in view of the fundamental mystery of a finite universe and an infinite universe. However, each new finding we read about now, seems to provide confirmation of this threshold, opaque to our analytical intelligence. *A striking combination of alliteration and assonance, so I left it; but I think 'myrmidons' would have been more descriptive.Axel
February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
lolMung
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
Mung @ 193: "This is a habit of yours, and I have tried to point it out through object lessons rather than just blatantly accusing you of doing what you are so obviously doing." I guess you didn't learn *your* object lesson from him in that whole "You must be a Darwinist" thingie. ;)Ilion
July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
StephenB Yes, context and dynamic is always very important. But for me there is no other fair reading of Mungs words. So, when you need a lot of context and dynamic to call your words badly worded (instead of plainly wrong, which they are) and Mungs words wrong (instead of right, which they are) then you´re probably doing something wrong! ;-)Indium
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
--"Why this is so difficult for you I don´t know." I acknowedged that point quite expicitly and expained exactly why it happened. So I reject your insinuation that I cannot do that which I have already done. ---Indium: "It is very clear that he is talking about any one number (“you might choose”). The issue is what he was talking about then, not now. Why did he argue against the proposition that seven will likely not come up? If you cannot answer that question, then you do not fully understand the dynamic.StephenB
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
StephenB: I am very sure that you understand the relevant probabilities very well and that, maybe in a rush, you just made a rather trivial error. No problem with that. When you would just have said "Yeah, stupid mistake, sorry" everybody would have moved on long ago. Why this is so difficult for you I don´t know. But now you are beginning to make another error. When Mung says
—Mung: “On any single throw, it is more likely that a seven will appear than any other number that you might choose.”
it is very clear that he is talking about any one number ("you might choose"). So, maybe it is better to not repeat your error and stop this one early?Indium
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT
---Mung: "When you post a quote and say they are “Meyer’s own words,” when in fact they are Meyer quoting from a dictionary, that’s dishonest." What in the name of sense are you talking about? On the former thread, I wrote this about the definition of "information: According to Stephen Meyer, Webster defines “information” in at least two important ways: [a] “The communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.” [b] “The attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences and arrangements of something that produces specific effects.” There is Webster getting the credit. It is abbreviated for reasons of space. I also quote from Meyer's book, using his own words. Now, here is the interesting part. At a point somewhere in the middle of the discussion, Mung accused Meyer of "mangling" the definition. So, I responded by saying this: Here is the definition "in his own words." What part did he mangle? Unaware that both Meyer and I abbreviated the definition at times and extended it at other times, Mung accused BOTH of us of dishonesty for not using the exact set of words each time. This is the kind of emotional instability we are dealing with here, and I don't appreciate having to explain all this every time this man get's frustrated because I refute his points. On this thread, Meyer frames the definition of chance in his own words and they are not dictionary definitions. Anyone who wants to verify this point can simply run on up to @59 and @74 and check it out for themselves. For the record, the passages appear on pp. 175-177 (Signature in the Cell). Once again, Mung is shooting from the hip with the wrong facts and issuing recklessly absurd charges about my alleged dishonesty. This is getting very, very, old and it is a serious waste of my time. I think the best way to handle this problem is for Mung and I to agree not to comment on anything the other says, or anything someone says about us.StephenB
July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
From 2-12: ANY NUMBER other than seven, includes 2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12 From 2-12: Any other INDIVIDUAL number other than seven is the ONE among the others that you choose. From 2-12: ALL NUMBERS other than seven include, 2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12 From 2-12: Seven is less likely to come up than any other number other than seven or all numbers other than seven [combined, put together, considered as an aggregate etc].StephenB
July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
---Mung: "On any single throw, it is more likely that a seven will appear than any other number that you might choose." No kidding. That isn't what you said. You said that a seven is more likely to appear that any number at all. You just now added that last part "that you might choose," which means any other "individual" number, as I told you several times. Seven is more likely to appear than any individual number, not any number at all. If you had understood that seven is more likely to appear than any other individual number, you would not have challenged my statement of fact that on a single roll of the dice, seven will NOT come up. Are you now saying that you finally agree with my original point and that you should not have been arguing with me in the first place? (Mung will not answer). In any single throw of the dice, seven will likely NOT come up. That is the fact of the matter and that is what you were arguing against. ---"And now you assert that I “insisted that seven was more likely to come up than all numbers combined.“ Any number at all from 2-12 except for seven is the same thing as ALL NUMBERS other than seven. Its the same thing. How clueless you are. Now, answer the question. Do you agree with my original statement--You know--the one you argued against but now agree with without admitting it out of fear of being found out? Yes, I hope the administrators are watching. You just argue with people for the hell of it.StephenB
July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
Pick any number other than seven. On any single throw, it is more likely that a seven will appear than any other number that you might choose. I never said that a seven was more likely to come up than all numbers combined. Those were your words, not mine, and they were false. This is a habit of yours, and I have tried to point it out through object lessons rather than just blatantly accusing you of doing what you are so obviously doing. Object lessons appear some how harder to grasp over the net and I shall in the future attempt to refrain from employing them as a means to make a point. When you post a quote and say they are "Meyer's own words," when in fact they are Meyer quoting from a dictionary, that's dishonest. What's more, you know it was Meyer quoting from Webster's and you did it deliberately. And now you assert that I "insisted that seven was more likely to come up than all numbers combined.“ Which is yet another lie. Indeed, I hope the admins are paying attention.Mung
July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
Mung @115 should read Mung @118.StephenB
July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
---Mung: "Most likely because that’s what you wanted or needed me to be saying." That is exactly what you were arguing. I will take you through it step by step. StephenB @115: [On a single throw of the dice] “If these are fair dice, seven will probably NOT come up. [That is a fact and you are now about to argue against that fact]. Mung @115: “Seven probably WILL come up, when compared against the probability of any other number coming up. [That is incorrect. Seven will probably come up when compared against the probability of any other INDIVIDUAL number coming up-not ANY number at all. If you had understood this, you would not have challenged my comment that seven will likely NOT come up. So, @122, I corrected you “No, the probability of seven is greater than any other individual number but less than all other numbers combined. Thus, seven will probably NOT come up in one throw–just as I said.” As usual, you ignored the corrective. Indeed, you are still ignoring it. In one throw of the dice, seven will likely NOT come up.StephenB
July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
StephenB:
However, I have already had that discussion with Mung on another occasion, in which he insisted that seven was more likely to come up than all numbers combined. Naturally, I corrected him, indicating the seven is more likely to come up than any other individual number.
Here's what I wrote:
Seven probably will come up, when compared against the probability of any other number coming up. 1 way for a 2 1 way for a 12 2 ways for a 3 2 ways for an 11 3 ways for a 4 3 ways for a 10 4 ways for a 5 4 ways for a 9 5 ways for a 6 5 ways for an 8 6 ways for a 7
here Interesting how from what I wrote you managed to come up with: "he insisted that seven was more likely to come up than all numbers combined." Most likely because that's what you wanted or needed me to be saying.Mung
July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT
Sorry. Acipenser, nobody is buying your cover up. StephenB “Not all numbers have an equal probability of coming up. The number seven, for example, is more likely to come up than any other individuall number. Acipenser responds: “OK….you clearly do not understand basic probabilities.” Clearly, it was you who didn't understand as is obvious from your response.StephenB
July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT
Is it impossible to admit you were wrong? Perhaps it takes a bit too much fortitude to admit you were wrong.DrREC
July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
StephenB: So, Acipenser, now that I have acknowledged my badly written sentence, and the context in which it was written, are you prepared to acknowledge your former ignorance? Badly written statement? How funny. Your statement is factually incorrect and no context in the world is going to make your statement correct. Of course I understand the probabilities involved in a roll of a pair of dice since it was, afterall, me who had to point out your obvious and glaring error in this instance. Sorry, StephenB, the ignorance is all yours.Acipenser
July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT
--Acipenser: "Are you going to deny that you stated that every number between 2-12 has an equal probability of coming up? Seems as if your trying to wiggle your way out of the situation." Nope, I said it and it was a badly written sentence calculated to emphasize the point that randomness means "giving" all numbers an equal chance to come up. However, once I explained the context, that should have been sufficient. So I wrote, "Not all numbers have an equal probability of coming up. The number seven, for example, is more likely to come up than any other individuall number. I also alluded to another thread where I made the same point so that someone like yourself would not try to make the false claim that I didn't already know anything about the normal distribution. Acipenser responds: "OK….you clearly do not understand basic probabilities." So, I explained how those probabilities work: "There are six ways to get seven and only one way to get two. Seven is, indeed, more likely to come up that any other individual number." Acipenser, thus corrected, and unwilling to admit his error, copies my statement word for word and attributes it to himself: "There are six ways to get seven and only one way to get two. Seven is, indeed, more likely to come up that any other individual number." Obviously, it was Acipenser who didn't understand basic probabilities or he would not have contested the matter or copied my answer word for word as the correct answer. So, Acipenser, now that I have acknowledged my badly written sentence, and the context in which it was written, are you prepared to acknowledge your former ignorance?StephenB
July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
StephenB Not all numbers have an equal probability of coming up. The number seven, for example, is more likely to come up than any other individuall number. However, the dice should be fair, meaning that all numbers should be given an equal chance to come up. The dice should not be loaded to favor some numbers over others. StephenB:Since you insist on showing your ignorance, I am going to challenge you on that one. There are six ways to get seven and only one way to get two. Seven is, indeed, more likely to come up that any other individual number. Are you going to deny that you stated that every number between 2-12 has an equal probability of coming up? Seems as if your trying to wiggle your way out of the situation. Look at this statement of yours "The dice should not be loaded to favor some numbers over others." yet you should have known that seven is more likely to come up over any other number...clearly seven is favored in the rolling of a fair pair of dice.....which you accept on one level and ignore on another, e.g., All numbers between 2-12 have an equal probability of coming up. Seems a difficult thing for you to admit that you screwed up royally in presenting your dice analogy...but carry on it's great fun.Acipenser
July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
---nullasalus: “Not what I said, and you know it. I made it clear where my problem lied: With blanket statements, unqualified, about the lack of intention, guidance, or foresight in nature.” If you were trying to say that a roulette ball fell into the 16 pocket by chance, and not by design or necessity, what words would you use to express that idea?StephenB
July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
---Mung: "Charity is not something that you can offer to make yourself seem magnanimous. Pretty sure Jesus had a few choice things to say about people like you." When someone grossly misrepresents what you say or continually put words in your mouth in a misplaced attempt to make you look bad, the most charitable thing to do is tell them that you would prefer to believe that they are not lying and ask for an apology. In this one case, you did not not apologize for the misrepresentation or even acknowledge the mistake. Quite the contrary, you tried to cover it up with another misrepresentation. Thus, you violated reasonable standards of charity, I did not. ---"So I decline your offer. Ban me." Even if I had the authority to ban you, I likely would not do it. However, it is my understanding that, as an author of a thread, I have discretionary power in that one arena, though not for the entire blog. If I am correct, I have the privilege on those occasions of deciding who is contributing intellectual content, who is participating in fair debate, and who is just trolling around looking for a food fight.StephenB
July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
---Elizabeth Liddle: "It didn’t affect his main point, and I’m sure he doesn’t disagree that when you throw pairs of dice you get a non-flat distribution." Yes, of course. Thank you.StephenB
July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
[StephenB Not all numbers have an equal probability of coming up. The number seven, for example, is more likely to come up than any other individuall number. ---"Acipenser: "OK….you clearly do not understand basic probabilities." Since you insist on showing your ignorance, I am going to challenge you on that one. There are six ways to get seven and only one way to get two. Seven is, indeed, more likely to come up that any other individual number. Since you disagree, tell me which number you think will come up more often than any other individual number. It's your move.StephenB
July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
---Acipenser: "Got it, Upbed, StephenB means what he says except when he doesn’t and somehow his ignorance of basic dice roiling probabilities is too be ignored. Too funny. If you will recall, the context of my statement was to emaphasze the importance of randomness, the requirement of which is to give each side of each die a fair chance of coming up. Thus, I was not talking about the normal distribution of numbers, of which seven is the central tendency. If I had known readers would be trying to interpret it that way, I probably would have dramatized the distinction. However, I have already had that discussion with Mung on another occasion, in which he insisted that seven was more likely to come up than all numbers combined. Naturally, I corrected him, indicating the seven is more likely to come up than any other individual number. So, if I had not been aware of the difference, I would not have been able to issue the corrective. Naturally, Mung ignored the corrective as if it hadn't happened.StephenB
July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
Sheesh. StephenB made a small slip-up. It didn't affect his main point, and I'm sure he doesn't disagree that when you throw pairs of dice you get a non-flat distribution. If he does, he just needs to play with that applet for a couple of minutes and he'll see why it works. Anyone can make a mistake, and it's totally irrelevant to his point AFAICT. I expect God bears the same relationship to dice throws no matter how many dice you throw :)Elizabeth Liddle
July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
Not done yet, Aci? Use the other foot if you like. You are free to pee in your pants if it'll help.Upright BiPed
July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
Got it, Upbed, StephenB means what he says except when he doesn't and somehow his ignorance of basic dice roiling probabilities is too be ignored. Too funny!Acipenser
July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
As long as StephenB agrees with this: http://www.stat.sc.edu/~west/javahtml/CLT.html there isn't a problem, is there?Elizabeth Liddle
July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
As I said, Aci, stomp that foot.Upright BiPed
July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
Upright: Your problem is that it was pointed out to you that SG (in a fair reading) was referring to the mechanics of a thrown cube, even if he stated it in terms of the numbers painted on that cube. You ignored that observation. No, StephenB was quite clear in his statment of the results of throwing a fair pair of dice. All numbers between 2-12 have an equal probability of coming up was his claim. Nothing at all in his statements about throwing a fair pair of six-sided blank cubes.Acipenser
July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
No, I'm not saying that, Chris! I didn't mean that mutations with certain phenotypic effects are more likely than others (that may actually be true, interestingly, but it's not the claim I'm making). If by mutations we mean DNA sequences that differ from the parental sequence[s] then some types of changes are more likely than others. (Actually even that isn't a very good definition of mutation for sexual reproduction, because all offspring DNA will be a unique combination of the DNA from four grandparents. So let's say that a mutation is a sequence of DNA within a gene or pseudo gene that did not appear in either parent.) And these variations include: Single Nucleotide substitutions Repeated sequences Omissions New alleles in which part of the gene sequence is from one grandparent and part from another - the result may be longer or shorter, or the same length, as either or both of the grandparental alleles. And so we can say that these variation are much more likely than, for example, a general shuffling of a sequence (the sort of thing that used to happen at the old Grauniad, where it looked as though the printer had dropped the block, and stuffed the type back in willy nilly), or a reversal (I don't know whether reversals happen, but I haven't heard of sequences being reversed). So the important thing about mutations is not that they are "random", which doesn't tell you much, and, in any case, each one probably has a very specific cause, and if you knew enough you might even be able to predict it, but that they seem to be completely orthogonal to phenotypic effect. In other words, whether a mutation isn't more likely in an environment in which it will be beneficial than in an environment in which it won't be, or vice versa. But it is more likely to be a repetition than a reversal.Elizabeth Liddle
July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
1 2 3 7

Leave a Reply