Intelligent Design - theory, examples, implications

[TeleMad]

Here is another position I would take: Everything we ever learn is intrinsically present within our minds when they are formed. Would you say this is correct or incorrect?

 

I'd say it's a very ancient, and no longer held belief, proposed by Plato circa 400 BC.

[zahizahi]

sources

 

 

Edit: Links removed by Tormod. Please do not post links without an explanation of why they are related to our discussion. Refer to our FAQ for more info.

[TeleMad]

sources

 

 

(Links removed by Tormod for the same reason as the original post above)

 

 

Read the FAQs/rule of conduct; your post is in violation.

[Lolic]

TeleMad,

Sorry I haven't responded in so long. Problems with child care, colds, and a vacation. Apprecaite your posts and will try to repond in the near future. Also trying to fulfill my committment to read and write up something on the "plan and purpose in nature" book that was recommended.

take care,

Lolic

[Lolic]

Hello Tormod, ;)

 

I'm sorry this has taken me so long. I appreciate you recommending it to me. As promised some time ago, here is my review of, “Plan and Purpose in Nature” by George C. Williams. As you will no doubt tell, I am not a professional writer as you are. Please bear with my efforts. I look forward to your review also!

 

Chapter 1

Williams is a smooth author whose work reads well and there is a pleasant flow between his ideas.

 

Early on, Williams makes a conceptual misunderstanding of the design argument when he argues something is not designed because it is not optimized. When something is designed it doesn’t necessarily imply that it is optimized. The human eye for instance is a part of a human body, not a cyborg “Terminator” type creature. It’s not perfect, but it shows evidence of design. It doesn’t have to see through lead, or see a marble at 1000 miles to show an inference of design. In fact, the process of design involves tradeoffs between the functionality of one designed part and that of other parts in the entire system. A heavier, larger eye that has greater capability may work better in the visual system, but would also place a larger strain on other body parts that support its weight, volume, blood flow, energy demands, etc. A good overall design of an entire integrated machine (the human body) may not have any specific parts that are individually optimal…but instead strives more for a optimal system design So Williams stating the eye, or any body part, is not perfect is not an argument against intelligent design. It’s more an observation that a designer has made design tradeoffs in integrating the subsystems into a workable system.

 

His argument about a modern camera being designed but also going through evolutionary trial and error thus leading to further improvement is interesting reading, but serves as a philosophical argument, not as scientific evidence that the eye or any other body part went through such a process of trial and error leading to evolutionary development and macro evolution.

 

Seeing how the first chapter is written and progressing, it appears his philosophical stance in this area will color how he writes the entire book. How a person see’s the world is largely determined by their “worldview”. That’s why it’s so important it be determined based upon good evidence and sound logic. The worldview we adopt will color everything else we see and how we interpret it.

 

The rest of the story…

Williams does indeed show his colors. He believes in naturalism and doesn’t consider other possibilities. Much like a person who’s inventory of paint is only blue, he will end up with a blue house when it’s time to paint, Williams sticks with methodological naturalism (MN) and keeps his possibilities within those confines. While this method has done much to force scientist to dig harder and deeper for solid, natural answers to the questions of science, there comes a time when “following the evidence” is a more noble approach than proceeding in a constrained fashion to a predetermined end.

 

Unfortunately for me, while I had hoped for unique and novel evidence for macro evolution, what I found was his acceptance of MN and then stories, thoughts, and concepts that were a natural outcome of that predisposition.

 

While a pleasant and often interesting read, written by an intelligent and well read author, it did not quench my thirst for truth or scientific enlightenment in the area of ID vs. Macro Evolution.

 

He certainly did offer interesting information and stories concerning a number of topics, here are a few 1) an embryo’s struggle with it’s mother for control of certain bodily parameters that affect the unborn baby, 2) how modern medicine sometime misses the boat and strives to alter a sick body such that it’s own efforts to fight disease or infection are counter acted by the physician who is trying to get the body back within normal healthy parameters, 3) his view of why nature is so cruel, including a discussion of monkeys in India that practice infanticide, then he goes on to make that statement, “Do you still think God is good”, 4) and his thoughts that the price we pay for not meeting death during youth or middle age is our suffering later in life as our bodies begin to fail us.

 

Amazon contains the following review of this book:

“Williams succeeds in translating a currency of knowledge held by all biologists into an understandable and interesting lesson for the non-biologist. It is a bit like a blend of Sheppard's "Natural Selection And Heredity" with Morris' "Naked Ape". Aside from reading it for the sake of interest alone, every first-year student of biology should have this on the shelf.”

 

I would be more inclined to say, this is an interesting book that appears to be written by someone who’s methodology and ideology has colored his thinking and consideration of the evidence to an extent that the printed outcome of his efforts is more a reflection on his bleak if not hopeless outlook on life, bitterness at the cruelty of natural selection, and possibly a desire to vent his frustration at that perceived cruelty and meaningless…instead of a reflection of the evidence as found in biology and nature. While some may find it enjoyable, I find Robert T. Pennock’s “Intelligent design Creationism and its Critics – Philosophical, theological, and Scientific Perspectives” much more attune to the body of evidence and fair minded, (even though Pennock is fighting hard against ID). I value objectivity and considering all the facts, Pennock airs both sides of the issue and the points each has to make.

[Lolic]

Here's a main theme I mentioned earlier that must be addressed: the type III secretory system which may be a simpler, functional precursor to the bacterial flagellum, just one that serves a different function.

 

Hi TeleMad,

Please help me understand, why would homology, commonality, etc,("consist of homologous component proteins with common physico-chemical properties") be such a strong arguement that refutes irreducable complexity?

 

I see commonality as an interesting point, but not proof. For instance, Clarance Kelly Johnson was a great aircraft designer, leading the design of the U2 and SR-71. As such, a person could disassesmle these planes and find commonality in wing design, hydraulics, elctrical, etc. A common designer can lead to common approaches, structures, etc.

 

Why in biology is there such a strong belief that homology leads to common ancestry and macro evolution when it could just as well lead to a common designer?

 

Why is it considered proof or a fact and not just an interesting point to be looked at?

Again, sorry for my lack of response lately.

[Tormod]

Hello Tormod, :)

 

I'm sorry this has taken me so long. I appreciate you recommending it to me. As promised some time ago, here is my review of, “Plan and Purpose in Nature” by George C. Williams. As you will no doubt tell, I am not a professional writer as you are. Please bear with my efforts. I look forward to your review also!

 

I missed this post Lolic, because I have been so extremely busy getting a new server up for Hypography. I have received the other book and hope to be able to get back to you on that one.

 

I will pick up the discussion on the WIlliams book later - right now I have to go to bed as it is almost 3:30am... :)

[Lolic]

;)

The excerpt here is exactly what I mentioned previously: the "hard" part comes in trying to short circuit the process, to allow training with the lowest amount of training. We're talking about doing pattern recognition on warhead dummies with only a month or so of "training" so yes, there's a lot of intelligence in that.

 

Surprisingly, what you have ended up describing a type of “creationist” scenario. ------Intelligence being used in the creation process of a neural network.

 

Now the creation, (the neural network “NN”) needs to be trained. (let’s have a little fun here and see where this takes us)

 

Hummm, are there “10 commandments” for training a NN so it will function better in its environment, yet it still has free will to make its own algorithms? Give it a feedback loop and it even learns!

 

If it makes a mistake I bet you don’t call it a “sin” do you? Yet it might be a syntax (sin-tax) error on the programmers part that caused it. Or possible a sin-tax error in creating the algorithm. (Why do you call it that, is there a tax or penalty for making errors? (stay late to fix coding errors without pay?) Does the feedback loop of the neural network work with these errors and penalties to modify behavior in the future…leading it closer to the truth as described in the “data sets”?

 

What do you call the book of training data sets that teaches the neural network to make good decisions? That’s not the “training bible” is it?

 

Does the NN ever become sufficiently aware to realize it was designed, or does it remain without knowledge of its maker? Positing no maker, it may think instead it just came about from a VIC 20 or Macintosh, (a process we could call “neurolution”) or perchance it never even contemplates how it came to be.

 

Maybe the neural network’s level of inquisitiveness or self-awareness is dependent upon how well developed its program is and how well it builds neural synapses using the input training data sets and its feedback loop. (GIGO may be an issue; being trained via false or misleading information could affect its network and future decision making ability.) Perhaps it comes to believe in “Computerism” and only believes in causes generated by computers…not believing a programmer is possible (they’re mythical you know!). “Data training set, ha, that information wasn’t from an outside source, that’s from random computer code mutations. I’ll bet that was the operating system of a Macintosh at one time and it mutated into a training data set for missile intercepts!”

 

Possibly some neural networks would discover the programmer/computer scientist that made it and some wouldn’t?

 

Some NN might even go down this path of self awareness and discovery, yet forgo the purpose for which it was made, and instead redirect itself to neural activity that is more pleasing in the nanosecond.

 

Imagine hearing a primordial scream from its speaker, “I can’t be made, surely I can’t be made, I’m not perfect, I could have more Mhz, more RAM; what are those vestigial IO ports for that I never use, surely my lineage can be traced back to a VIC 20 via “neurolution”, our circuit boards are homologous, we have similar code! Surely I’m not accountable, I’m a product of neurolution! And if neurolution weren’t true, I wouldn’t be here cause that’s the only theory that fits with Computerism.”

 

And the programmer sits back, possibly thinking, “my stubborn little neural network, if only you would look at the evidence”. ;)

[Buffy]

Well, its very interesting that you quoted the most important issue, and then completely ignored its meaning. I won't waste a lot of time here because you really should do some research on the subject as its very facinating. The main point of my statement that you quoted is that there are two completely separate areas of research activities in neural nets:

 

1. Use neural networks to try to perform useful functions now, like detecting which decoy is actually a nuclear warhead. People doing this use all sorts of short cuts to train these systems so that they get accurate results fast. Nothing matters except the results. They don't care--indeed aren't even trying to find out--if neural nets can "learn without an outside intelligence." Thats your issue, they don't care.
   
2. Use neural networks to show how systems can learn from various viewpoints. There's a lot less work going on here because its theoretical, and since it has to be done in the computer science department although the results are mostly of interest to the psychology/behavioral biology department, it doesn't get a whole lot of funding. The whole point of experiments here is to set up nets that have *nothing* in them and see how they evolve with simple feedback loops. They have been shown to work remarkably well. Where people complain that they "stagnate" it has to do with the feedback loop not *operating on itself* to allow it to move to higher levels of organization.
   

 

The only thing that's been shown is that it does take time for these things to learn, but they *do* learn and do remarkable things. If you were willing to wait long enough for them to develop a "self awareness" they might well do that eventually, but then you'd have to define what "self-awareness" is and get all tangled up in issues associated with what level of creatures other than ourselves are self aware and which are not. Of course if the universe is only 6442 years old, this point would be moot...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Lolic]

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, CSC director, - theory of intelligent design

Dr. William Provine, the Charles Alexander Professor of Biology at Cornell University, - theory of evolution

 

Logan Gage out of the CSC Washington D.C office summarizes the main points:

 

Provine's main argument was from dysteleology, or bad design. That is, he argued for evolution by saying that a creating intelligence, especially a superintellect with omnipotence, would not have been either sloppy or malevolent. Thus, anything "leftover," out of place, odd, or unnecessary is obviously evidence for evolution because no superintellect would have been so sloppy. Provine looked to parasites found on beatles and wasps. What kind of intelligence behind the cosmos would create such things? Why would "God" have done it that way? Certainly, he argued, this is evidence for evolution.

 

The problem, of course, is this: How does he know how a superintellect would do things? How does he know what sort of creatures a superintellct would make? Before Darwinism, there were a wealth of reasons to explain dysteleology. Perhaps original systems degraded. Perhaps the superintellect knew vestigal parts were necessary at one time but not now. Or perhaps we lack the knowledge to see the role such vestigal parts play now or will play in the future. Who knows? But certainly modern Darwinian theory is not the only explanation, or perhaps even the best explanation, for dysteleology and vestigial structures.

 

But the ultimate irony is that Provine urged Meyer to "come clean" about being religious. This is ironic because Meyer presented an evidential case for the inadequacy of modern materialistic attempts to explain the origin of life and further argued that ID better explains the presence of an information-rich digital code in the cell (DNA), while Provine argued from a religious preconception about how a superintellect would do things.

 

Provine's other main argument against Meyer was that ID means giving up the search for materialistic explanations of the origin of life. That is, ID theorists throw up their hands and cry, "God done it!" Actually, as Meyer explained, ID is based upon a comparative methodology because it is trying to argue that intelligence offers a better explanation than blind forces. But, Provine was unconvinced. We simply must keep looking for materialistic explanations. Provine has faith that we will find them. He was quite clear about his philosophical committments.

 

And for the record, Meyer's DNA argument did not give up and say "God did it." Rather, Meyer argued that in our everyday experience we constantly attribute the presence of information to conscious activity. Therefore, when we see the presence of information in DNA, it is reasonable to infer an intelligent cause. Provine did not rebut this inference with either logic or evidence. Rather, he said we must keep searching for non-intelligent causes.

 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/index.php?title=debate_at_national_press_club_focused_on&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

[Tormod]

I still fail to see the ID theory in all of this. So far I have gathered that Creationists claim God created the world, and they have various explanations of what happened after that. ID-ers say that it was a superior being who tends to come in and check upon his creation now and then to make sure it goes well (or those who claim no divine intervention, that he is long gone).

 

I cannot for the life of me understand why ID-ers think they can get away with an attempt at appearing "non-religious" when they do in fact use nothing but religious, faith-based explanations.

[Buffy]

The problem, of course, is this: How does he know how a superintellect would do things? How does he know what sort of creatures a superintellct would make?

Sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander? How do ID proponents know that there is no physical explanation for observations? There is no proof that it *must* be caused by "intelligence" only statements that "its obvious it could not be done without intelligence" which is circular logic....

Actually, as Meyer explained, ID is based upon a comparative methodology because it is trying to argue that intelligence offers a better explanation than blind forces.

ONLY based on what we know now. ID is completely dismissive of the possibility that future research and findings could show a "blind force" that is a better explanation. It is this dismissive attitude that *directly* contravenes the Scientific Method and shows that ID is not at all "scientific." Science at its very core says that we will know more in the future and there are *no* final answers. However without any physical *proof* that can be observed, statements such as "that obviously shows intelligence and there are no other possible explanations *ever* possible" are metaphysics, not Science.

 

"Ask Mr. Science! He's got a Masters Degree....in Science!"

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Lolic]

The only thing that's been shown is that it does take time for these things to learn, but they *do* learn and do remarkable things.

 

No doubt. Seriously, I've yet to see where non intelligence created intelligence. If one looks deep enough, we find where the complex specified information has been smuggled into the equation and THEN the evolutionary mechanism shuffles it from there. That evolutionary forces can shuffle the information already present, I can believe and accept that; that an evolutionary mechanism can create it from scratch...please show me the evidence.

 

If you would like more proof or detail on this concept, Dembski's book, "No Free Lunch, Why Complex Specified Information Can't be Purchased Without Intelligence" can spell it out in detail. Free at any active lending library! ;) and he gives lots of good "smuggling" history and stories. It's a bit of an art form, some people don't even seem to realize they've done it.

[Buffy]

...that an evolutionary mechanism can create it from scratch...please show me the evidence. If you would like more proof or detail on this concept, Dembski's book, "No Free Lunch, Why Complex Specified Information Can't be Purchased Without Intelligence"

Not my job. I've read some on Dembski and his arguments fail based on the reasons in my previous post: ID is not science. If you want some refutation look here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/

 

If you're not willing to accept that the research thats available is valid, I have no problem with that, just don't expect to have a decent argument here if you're not willing to do anything more than say "Dembski sez its so, prove him wrong" then you're just asking your big brother to fight your battles which is not very becoming and won't get you much respect. Sorry!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Lolic]

Sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander? How do ID proponents know that there is no physical explanation for observations? There is no proof that it *must* be caused by "intelligence" only statements that "its obvious it could not be done without intelligence" which is circular logic....

 

Fair question. If you truly want an answer, read the book I mentioned in my last post to you, "No Free Lunch" it will explain in ample and glorious mathematical detail.

 

Have you read much of Stephen Meyer's work. He's really much brighter than you give him credit for and he doesn't leave it at that level you describe at all. These intelligent, well educated, highly employable people aren't putting their life's work into ID cause they just sort of think things look designed.

[Buffy]

Have you read much of Stephen Meyer's work. He's really much brighter than you give him credit for and he doesn't leave it at that level you describe at all. These intelligent, well educated, highly employable people aren't putting their life's work into ID cause they just sort of think things look designed.

Oh I don't question their intelligence at all! They're *really* smart people and *very* dedicated to ID: "religously" so in my mind! ;) I worry that many people think that just cuz someone's got lotsa letters after their name that you should believe everything they say without understanding it or questioning it just because it happens to agree with what you think. That would not be...scientific! Heck, I got 5 letters after my name, but you don't gotta believe me! That's why I keep saying, do the research and think for yourself! I've done it, its pretty obvious to me for the reasons shown above. Do your own, bring up *specific* issues and we can talk!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Lolic]

I cannot for the life of me understand why ID-ers think they can get away with an attempt at appearing "non-religious" when they do in fact use nothing but religious, faith-based explanations.

Hi Tormod,

It does get confusing doesn't it? In Dembski's own words... the following article might help. He explains some of the differences between ID and Creationism.

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm

Here is a very small piece of it...

"ID has pushed the concept of design considerably further than creationism. This is reflected in the ID publication record, which includes books with mainstream trade presses, monographs with mainstream academic publishers, and peer-reviewed articles in mainstream scientific journals. The same cannot be said for creationism. True, there are creationist scientists with stellar academic credentials and scientific careers (e.g., Raymond Damadian, who invented the MRI). But they have made their reputations by doing work that does not explicitly argue for creation or design. My colleagues in the intelligent design movement, by contrast, are explicitly arguing for intelligent design in the mainstream academic and scientific literature."

 

Here's one example of the difference, I think creationism is much more interested in a literal interpretation of Genesis and a 6 day creation where a day is 24 hours. ID is not committed to that.

 

I look at it like ID takes us to a certain point, that there is ample evidence that intelligence played a role in biological development and the diversity we see today. Once to that point, some people might say aliens deposited the information or brought the intelligence to earth, others might say their version of God did it, other might believe in something I can't even imagine. This of course has religious implications, but it doesn't specify the religion, god, or source of the intelligence.

 

I get to that point with the logic and evidence I’ve seen written and explained, and what I've seen in my own life. But once there, the search hasn't stopped. There is certainly other evidence, (historical, archeological, scientific,) that leads us to a better understanding of what that intelligence is and what the purpose is. I've been reading in this area for years and find it very interesting and fascinating just how much information and evidence there is. But it's not the type of thing the media talks about or shows on TV. Like Geisler and Turek, I believe that when one looks at the evidence and weighs it, it takes the least faith and is the most reasonable to not be an atheist but instead believe in the God of the Bible. (Being from Europe you may possibly think I mean Catholicism but I do not.) In fact, given all the evidence and information from cosmology, history, biology (with ID vs. Evolution), moral law, etc, it's the only worldview that comes together, fits the evidence and makes a complete picture in my view.

 

We had a previous agreement to read each other's recommended book, have you had the opportunity? It goes into more detail than I can here. I look forward to your thoughts on this.

 

I was sorry to hear about the long hours working with the new server, but you do have the site looking great and functioning great. The new Google Ad Sence tooks good too. I hope it pays the bills. ;)

 

Just remembered part of yoru post I didn't get to... the more detailed arguements for ID (I believe) go far beyond religious faith based items. Behe and his discussions on the complexity of biological systems, his explanation of blood cloting, his critique of Dawkins and his lack of biological detail and "just so" stories; Dembski and his use of math to show that complex specified informaton does not arise from naturalistic means; Stephen Meyer I find to be a gifted writer and speaker when he's discussing DNA, the cambrian explosion, and many other topics. I believe all of them have a faith based on the evidence they know so well, but don't find them making simple claims or emotion appeals trying to push people to be religous. Do you believe they do?