The poster you mentioned had a lot of problems with his thinking, really.

Maybe this is why I reject Common Ancestry and Natural Selection as an answer, because silly people tend to believe it? Shame on me if that's the reason though. This is the nonesense he writes;

Intelligent design involves the following: Observation of the physical world, "gee God must have designed things this way."

Actually, that's the criticism of intelligent design. ID proponents do not identify who did the designing, instead, they claim that the scientific evidence points to a designer.

Further refinement of the theory, further observations, are unnecessary and pointless. Predictions? I dunno. What testable predictions could you make?

The thinking of the poster is a bit disjointed and difficult to follow, but prior to this statement the poster writes;

If god designed or created any species, why the heck did he do such a crappy job of it? How do you explain vestigial organs not just in man, but numerous other species as well? What about the junk DNA - DNA that seems to serve no purpose whatsoever? Why recycle so much of the DNA code in similar animals? Why organize animals into recognizable phylums? Why make any animal remotely related to any other?

This initial paragragh leads to the later confusion.

Indeed, what predictions do ID folks make? Well, for example, that there is no, so called, "Junk DNA".

The mistake begins though with this silly statement:

If god designed or created any species, why the heck did he do such a crappy job of it?

Clearly there is a mix of categories here. Two seperate arguments.

One is a religious argument about the deity of God and why He would, or would not, do a thing.

The other is a scientific argument about design. If something is a lousy design, does it mean it isn't designed?

If so, how did we get the Yugo?

While the poster does confuse the two categories I thought i'd take the opportunity to clear up both.

The answer to the religious question is that there is no requirement for God to have designed us perfectly.

The second was already answered. A lousy design does not mean there is no design.

I wonder if anyone here, to include Dafydd, actually believe that intelligent design (in any capacity) could ever be scientifically detected.

As an example.

Is there a way through scientific means to determine that the computer i'm using to type this message was Intelligently Designed, rather than the product of Natural Selection?

Great post - better than the last. I entirely agree. As to Baggi - I was confused at first. Then I finally understood what you were saying without actually saying it.

ID proponents do not identify who did the design? Soooo...space aliens are an option? Really, it is either God or space aliens, take your pick. Weird that you are so reticent to clearly lay that option on the table.

Not sure what is your opposition to the crappy design argument. I may have trouble accepting that God would make a crappy design, but space aliens? Sure. Probably a government contract given to the lowest bidder. In which case, I would anticipate lots of junk DNA and vestigial organs in animals. So why do ID people predict there is no junk DNA exactly? That part of your argument seems inconsistent with the rest.

Really I think your arguments just proved my point. You are entirely correct - there is no requirement for God to make us perfect or imperfect. In fact we can randomly assign motivations and thoughts to God which will fit any conceivable set of facts and observations we choose to make.

Let's go at this from another direction - what fact could we discover would definitely prove once and for all that God did NOT design us?

crickets chirping...

Do you not see a problem with that?

Wonderful post; I agree wholeheartedly.

Let's go at this from another direction - what fact could we discover would definitely prove once and for all that God did NOT design us?

I think this is the wrong question.

You're stuck on believing that proponents of ID want to have something to do with God. You'll stop asking the wrong questions when you realize that Intelligent Design is not promoting God as the designer.

So what is a better question?

I asked it already.

Can we use science to detect design?

Science can never difinitively answer these type of questions, so asking science to prove a negative is just silly.

In the same way, what would be the scientific test which would demonstrate natural selection or common ancestry as wrong?

Which leads me back to my prior question.

Can we use the scientific method to detect design?

Great post!

Baggi: I appreciate you comments and offer a refinement to your question:

Can we use the scientific method to select between Deterministic design and Stochastic design?

I'm having trouble understanding this question. Of course you can distinguish between Deterministic design and Stochastic design, or between ID and Evolution. In one direction, it's easy. As Darwin said, if you ever found a feature of life that cannot be created in small steps, evolution would be disproved. That, in fact, is what the ID people have been trying to do. There are other tests as well. If life had not turned out to share common DNA, it would have been a heavy blow as well.
The other direction is harder. Is there anything that can be discovered that would make us say, This cannot have been designed intelligently? Obviously, nothing can really prove that, but there's no question that the issue can be answered effectively. If evolution gives a clear and convincing enough explanation for enough details of life, most of us will sooner or later say, I believe in G-d, but why should I think that G-d spends his time designing things that look just as if they emerged by chance? Why not, after all, just let it happen?
That is what the Catholic Church eventually said about planetary orbits. It doesn't make sense to say that angels are moving them in ellipses as if they were following an inverse square law of gravity. It's possible, but it's pointless. At that point, you say: G-d may have created this, but he set up a system and is allowing it to run.

I don't know, and I have no way of finding out, but I suspect that if the 19th digit of Planck's Constant were different by one digit, either way, life would be very different from what it is today. Same for Napier and his Pi.

I also don't know how it got to be what it is; I'll leave that to the scientists to figure out and tell us.

Since I'm not a Smurf, I won't hold my breath while I'm waiting for the report.

Baggi: I appreciate you comments and offer a refinement to your question:

Can we use the scientific method to select between Deterministic design and Stochastic design?

I'm not sure that it matters.

What I mean is, both are design and brought about by an intelligence.

So it's sorta putting the cart before the horse.

We can discuss all day long what sort of design we can detect but why bother?

I'd like to know first if we can use the scientific method to detect design.

Baggi:

I'd like to know first if we can use the scientific method to detect design.

I'd like to know, even before "first" -- what, zeroth? -- how you define "design."

After all, you gave the following answer to a question:

Baggi: I appreciate your comments and offer a refinement to your question:

Can we use the scientific method to select between Deterministic design and Stochastic design?

I'm not sure that it matters.

What I mean is, both are design and brought about by an intelligence.

To me, this implies that you consider the theory of biological evolution itself to be evidence of "design." If that's the case, then of course, since evolutionary biology can indeed detect biological evolution (by definition), it can detect "design" -- if the definition of design extends to include biological evolution itself. (Hey, way to co-opt the opponent!)

That's so "A implies A" that Ayn Rand may as well resurrect herself so she can turn cartwheels and dance an adagio.

I have believed all along that by "design," you and all the other IDers meant intelligent design that could not be achieved by mere geological, chemical, and biological processes, following the natural laws of the universe. I have been under the impression that "intelligent design" implied a conscious Designer making conscious choices to fabricate each and every species separately.

But now you say that you will accept as evidence of "intelligent design" a natural system of biological evolution, because such a thing must have been designed by an intelligent, conscious, sentient Designer. (Have you run this by Michael Behe, to see if he would agree with your definition?)

In fact, if that is your position, you are in the same camp as Francis Collins himself.

So am I mistaken?

All other IDers proclaim that ID specifically means that every species, especially including human beings, was designed by a conscious Designer by means other than what JLS calls "stochastic" or random mutations tested by whether they enhance species survival or not, everything operating under purely natural processes. In other words, all other proponents of ID specifically reject the Collins continuum, where God -- the Designer -- creates the universe and all the physical laws, then just lets it run.

Are you with them, or are you with Collins?

By the way, the classic ID response of arguing that they're not talking about God is itself a red herring: They are, by their own admission, talking about a being that exists outside of spacetime, which has powers that to a human being are as near as makes no difference to omnipotent, whose intelligence is likewise asymptotic to omniscience. If that doesn't qualify such as being as "God," then what the hell else would it take?

When IDers argue this point, they are disingenuously trying to derail the conversation; ID carries the hidden assumption that the "Designer" is, in fact, the theistic God of the Bible.

Or do they claim there are two of them?

Dafydd

Dafydd,

You apparantly havn't read as much about Intelligent Design as I have. Every article I read under the banner of Intelligent Design states many times over that the theory does not seek to detect the designer, only the design.

Seperate and apart from the theory, in philosophical mode, some of them do state that they believe the designer to be God. Others have stated that they believe it could equally apply to a prior "seed" theory by aliens.

Regardless, Intelligent Design states that God is the designer in the same exact way that Darwin's followers and yourself state the implications are Athiesm. Which is to say, both are outside the realm of science.

So, back to the question, can design be detected by the scientific method?

I take it from your objection above that you would say purposeful or determinitive design can be detected by the scientific method but that unpurposeful or stochastic design cannot?

Dafydd: I assume from your response to Baggi that you would agree we can use the scientific method to distinguish between Deterministic design and Stochastic design. At least in some instances.

Where "design": is the purposeful arrangement of parts.

Stochastic design: Design derived from random processes acting in independent and uncoordinated fashion without regard to the final outcome.

Deterministic design: Design arising from an overall coordinated effort. Where independent activities work in a coordinate way to arrive at a predetermined outcome.

Note: The "overall coordinating force" need not come from outside the universe. Could well be undiscovered "natural laws". For example in thermodynamic or information theory we have the law of entropy. Where physical systems seek their lowest state of energy or maximum information. Conceivably biological systems operate under an "Inverse Entropy". Perhaps a new conservation of information. I am not arguing for either of these option just putting them out there to avoid the "God box" that seems to swallow these discussions at times.

Am I correct in my assumption?

jls,

Could you give me an example of Stochastic Design?

Baggi:

I take it from your objection above that you would say purposeful or determinative design can be detected by the scientific method but that unpurposeful or stochastic design cannot?

I see the issue as an example of the "null hypothesis". Assume any design is the result of random uncoordinated processes and then compute the probability of that event occurring. If the probability is outside the range of "reasonable" then look for an alternate hypothesis. With this approach you can never prove Deterministic Design but you can "disprove" Stochastic design.

Or as Spock says in Star Trek: If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Baggi:

Stochastic design: Design derived from random processes acting in independent and uncoordinated fashion without regard to the final outcome...
Example: Perfectly round stone found next to a stream bed.

Deterministic design: Design arising from an overall coordinated effort. Where independent activities work in a coordinate way to arrive at a predetermined outcome...
Example: Mount Rushmore

I'm not sure that I see where the "design" part is in the stochastic design.

The wind blows and a leaf falls off a tree is by design? Because that would seem to fit the definition of stochastic design and yet I don't understand why the word design is attached.

Baggi:

Every article I read under the banner of Intelligent Design states many times over that the theory does not seek to detect the designer, only the design.

I agree that IDers attempt to hide the fact that the "Designer" can only be God. But there are only two possibilities:

1. The Designer is outside spacetime, is more or less omnipotent and omniscient -- and is therefore a version of the theistic God of the Bible.
2. The "Designer" is "a prior seeding by aliens;" but that simply pushes the question back one step: So where did the aliens come from?

(This is an old debate; a contingent being is one that is created by another... teliologists have long understood that you cannot have an infinite succession of contingent beings in a finite universe; if there is any Designer, there must be a First Designer -- the Designer who created the first biosphere... and therefore all subsequent contingent designers.)

Ergo, eventually you're driven, willy-nilly, back to choice 1: IDers must believe that the First Designer is functionally (if not morally) God, because there is no other logical possibility.

Intelligent Design states that God is the designer in the same exact way that Darwin's followers and yourself state the implications are Athiesm.

But I don't state that the implication of evolutionary biology is atheism; I say that there is no implication of either God or atheism, as both questions are outside the realm of science. We do not disagree on this point.

I take it from your objection above that you would say purposeful or determinitive design can be detected by the scientific method but that unpurposeful or stochastic design cannot?

And I go back to my earlier demur: You must first define how you use the word "design" before I (or anybody else) can answer your question intelligently.

Could you give me an example of Stochastic Design?

Sure; natural crystals -- salt, quartz, geodes, etc. I don't think even IDers argue that rock candy only grows that way because there is a specific Rock Candy Designer who makes it so.

Here's another example: iron filings on a plate over a magnet, where the filings take on the shape of a 2D cross section of the corresponding magnetic field.

JLS:

I assume from your response to Baggi that you would agree we can use the scientific method to distinguish between Deterministic design and Stochastic design. At least in some instances.

Yes, "in some instances." Alas, we do not know whether the present case is one of those instances.

For example, God might've created the universe ten minutes ago -- but created it with a "memory"... all the pieces of evidence that the universe is billions of years old. He might have done so in order to encourage human beings to develop their minds by discovering the natural laws through the fabricated evidence that God planted... like a professor creating educational problems at the end of each chapter of his textbook.

We don't know; so we can't say that any oddball element of biology -- for example, the fact that dolphins have shoulder blades -- proves that intelligent design did not occur, or even makes it less likely. In other words, scientifically speaking, ID, like earlier forms of creationism, is an unfalsifiable conjecture.

Dafydd

But I don't state that the implication of evolutionary biology is atheism; I say that there is no implication of either God or atheism, as both questions are outside the realm of science. We do not disagree on this point.

Clearly we do. You want to define Intelligent Design as "not science" by forcing the issue on God.

Well sure, if you want to put the theory in a box and insist that God must be identified as the Intelligent Designer, well, that is not a question for science and is therefore not science. Very convenient.

But as we both know, the scientific method is not able to answer such questions. The implications of science (Which apparantly you missed this point earlier) does not somehow cancel the science.

You can't have it both ways. Does my speculating that Darwins theories lead to athiesm make Darwins theories unscientific?

Then neither does your speculating that Intelligent Design leads one to conclude there is a God.

Yes, "in some instances." Alas, we do not know whether the present case is one of those instances.

For example, God might've created the universe ten minutes ago -- but created it with a "memory"... all the pieces of evidence that the universe is billions of years old. He might have done so in order to encourage human beings to develop their minds by discovering the natural laws through the fabricated evidence that God planted... like a professor creating educational problems at the end of each chapter of his textbook.

Here you go again.

He asks you if the scientific method could be applied to distinguish between two things and you immediately start talking about God.

Are you so uncertain of your position that you must throw out these fallacies so quickly?

And I go back to my earlier demur: You must first define how you use the word "design" before I (or anybody else) can answer your question intelligently.

Assuming here that you intend to form an argument in good faith and not try and distract, i'll be happy to use dictionary.com definitions, you can choose which you prefer.

to plan and fashion the form and structure of an object, work of art, decorative scheme, etc.

intention; purpose; end.

adaptation of means to a preconceived end.

If it helps, the implication behind the design would be that it is caused, or purposed.

Could we use the scientific method to determine if something is a designed arrowhead vs a natural rock, for example. Or could we use the scientific method to determine if we're looking at a first degree murder, or a heart attack as another example.

I'll ask again, can we use the scientific method to detect design?

Sure; natural crystals -- salt, quartz, geodes, etc. I don't think even IDers argue that rock candy only grows that way because there is a specific Rock Candy Designer who makes it so.

Here's another example: iron filings on a plate over a magnet, where the filings take on the shape of a 2D cross section of the corresponding magnetic field.

I'll be honest, I still don't understand what Stochastic Design is.

Is there an example of stochastic design outside of nature?

I can't see how the things you've mentioned were designed but i'm not familiar witht he use of the word stochastic, so maybe it means something that's not designed and therefore, stochastic design is a silly use of the english language?

Not trying to be difficult here, sincerely do not understand.

Baggi:

I'm not sure that I see where the "design" part is in the stochastic design.

The wind blows and a leaf falls off a tree is by design? Because that would seem to fit the definition of stochastic design and yet I don't understand why the word design is attached.

I shall give it another try.

Design: An object or system that exhibits the apparently purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details. Think of the artful design of a graphic logo or the intricate lattice of a snow flake. Even the interlocking design of the Water Cycle (Evaporation, Clouds, Rain, Rivers)

My proposition is that "design" is fairly easy to detect but the process that created the design is more difficult. For the simpler case you could substitute the word "artifact" for design but that implies a human origin and begs the ultimate question.

I hope this helps advance the proposition.

Baggi:

I'll be honest, I still don't understand what Stochastic Design is.

Is there an example of stochastic design outside of nature?

My first thought in answer to your question is a troop of monkey's flinging paint at a canvas and calling it art. I also saw a clip of Tiger Woods whacking paint cans with a five iron and producing "art".

The result of this random (Stochastic) process is an object that exhibits inventive arrangements of parts and details..(aka Design)

Baggi:

But I don't state that the implication of evolutionary biology is atheism; I say that there is no implication of either God or atheism, as both questions are outside the realm of science. We do not disagree on this point.

Clearly we do. You want to define Intelligent Design as "not science" by forcing the issue on God.

A complete non-sequitur. The point on which I believe we agree is simply that the theory of evolutionary biology would not by itself prove there is no God, because God (as defined) could certainly have designed evolutionary processes. In fact, if there is a theistic God as in the Bible, and if evolutionary processes exist, then He created them.

If you believe that if life on this planet evolved, that means there is no God, then we disagree; but I rather thought you eschewed that paralogical and invalid conclusion.

You can't have it both ways. Does my speculating that Darwins theories lead to athiesm make Darwins theories unscientific?

You have just changed your statement. I thought you meant that the reality of evolutionary biology "implied" there was no God. That syllogism may be profound, but it's profoundly invalid reasoning.

Now it appears you are saying that belief in evolutionary biology may cause some people to reject belief in God. That, of course, is self-evidently true -- but trivial.

Then neither does your speculating that Intelligent Design leads one to conclude there is a God.

The syntax of this sentence is a muddle. In fact, the premise of Intelligent Design logically and inevitably leads to the conclusion that a being resembling God in nearly every respect must exist, and that this being is the First Designer, the one who created Universe; the only missing element is the moral one, about which ID tells us nothing.

It's an elementary lemma, but I will run through it again:

1. Let ID be true, that Universe was intelligently designed... using the definition of "designed" as you suggest: The form and structure of Universe was purposefully planned and brought into being.
2. Therefore there is a Designer; call it Gid, to avoid confusion with God of the Bible. What can we say about Gid?
3. Gid must predate Universe, else it couldn't have designed it;
4. Therefore, since spacetime is a characteristic of Universe, Gid must reside outside spacetime.
5. Gid must be so powerful, it can create particles and beings from the smallest -- a two-quark lepton -- to the biggest galaxies, from the lowliest microbe to the blue whale, from the sponge to human beings... not to mention creating the natural laws themselves that govern Universe. On any scale of potency comprehendable by humans, this is equivalent to saying that Gid is omnipotent.
6. Similarly, Gid's knowledge must be so great that on a human-sized scale, Gid is omniscient.
7. There are four characteristics that define the God of the Bible: He is outside spacetime, omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-good.
8. By definition, there cannot be two distinct creatures who are both omnipotent and omniscient (call them Gid and Gad). If they were both omnipotent, then Gid could create a rock so heavy that Gad could not move it:

(Sublemma) If Gid could, then Gad is not omnipotent; if Gid could not, then Gid is not omnipotent.

Thus, either Gid or God would have to be less than omnipotent -- and the other would have to know that.

9. Conclusion: Gid is in all respects the God of the Bible, except possibly in the realm of morality (Gid may not be omni-good).

You cannot get around this lemma, Baggi: If there is a Designer who created this universe, then within this universe, that Designer is God, as depicted in the Bible.

IDers know this; they're not stupid. But they also know they can never make this point out loud, as that will blow the whole "ID is a science" game out of the water.

Could we use the scientific method to determine if something is a designed arrowhead vs a natural rock, for example.

We can use the scientific method to distinguish artifactual from natural processes only if we exclude Gid from the realm of the possible. Because if Gid exists, then Gid can beat any scientific test that mere mortals can construct... in the same way that I can design a magic trick that defeats any attempt by a five year old to figure it out.

Of course, the intelligence difference between me and Gid would have to be so much greater than between a five year old and me that it would be even easier for Gid to fool me -- to make design look like natural process (or vice versa) -- than for me to fool the toddler.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which is essential to modern physics, argues that it is impossible for us to make an exact measurement of both position and momentum at the same time. In fact, the error of position times momentum is a constant, meaning that the more precisely you specify the one (the smaller the first error), the less you know about the other (the greater the second error).

Neither error can ever go to zero, because then the corresponding error would be infinite -- which cannot happen in a finite Universe.

The implication is that Universe is granular, not continuous: It's made up of little "cells" of spacetime, inside of which we can never look, not even in theory. Gid, if it existed, could possibly work inside those spacetime cells, hiding all its handiwork there.

If so, we could never distinguish between the work of stochastic processes and the work of Gid, the Intelligent Designer, if Gid didn't desire it.

For that reason, ID is an unfalsifiable thesis: It's impossible, even in theory, to design an experiment or measurement that could possibly disprove Intelligent Design; Gid can rig the experiment to produce any result Gid wants.

That alone makes it not a science. (There are many other reasons why it is not, as well; see the various court cases where ID or creationism have been ruled not to be sciences.)

Dafydd

JLS:

Here's another good example: Imagine a computer program that randomly combines English words together in syntactically correct ways. If a human reads through a few pages of such gibberish, he will surely see at least one sentence that appears to have semantic meaning. (I am convinced this technique explains some of Ezra Pound's poetry...)

Such a program might generate the sentence, "Colorless, green ideas sleep furiously," which (to me) has no semantic content whatsoever. But a page later, it may produce, "No wind is the king's wind," which appears to have content -- regardless of whether it was intelligently designed or, as in this case, randomly generated.

That is a perfect illustration of a random process outside nature producing apparent "design."

Dafydd

Dafydd: Your lemma goes off the rails at point eight.

By definition, there cannot be two distinct creatures who are both omnipotent and omniscient (call them Gid and Gad). If they were both omnipotent, then Gid could create a rock so heavy that Gad could not move it:

Point six lays the ground work.

Similarly, Gid's knowledge must be so great that on a human-sized scale, Gid is omniscient.

If you substitute "appears omnipotent" for "omnipotent" in the two quotes the logical flaw becomes apparent. In deed there is no limit to the number of creatures that could appear omnipotent from a "human-sized" perspective.

JLS

I think every point I could make has been made far better by Dafydd. But I will say this - Those of you who support ID, read the comments here and start to understand why most scientists have a visceral hatred of your argument. Shifting explanations, subject changes, cutesy word games. Changing the rules of the game and moving the goal posts seemingly at random. These types of discussions are often exasperating and pointless. ID'rs then whine and complain that they aren't being taken seriously, that their arguments are not being fully considered.

You're right, their not. Who's fault is that do you think?

Dafydd: Thanks for the example. It is profound.

Here's another good example: Imagine a computer program that randomly combines English words together in syntactically correct ways. If a human reads through a few pages of such gibberish, he will surely see at least one sentence that appears to have semantic meaning. (I am convinced this technique explains some of Ezra Pound's poetry...)

Such a program might generate the sentence, "Colorless, green ideas sleep furiously," which (to me) has no semantic content whatsoever. But a page later, it may produce, "No wind is the king's wind," which appears to have content -- regardless of whether it was intelligently designed or, as in this case, randomly generated.

That is a perfect illustration of a random process outside nature producing apparent "design."

At first I saw this as a simple problem of a random generator creating occasional content. Given some knowledge of the algorithm, it seems straight forward to be able to determine the random origins of the script.

On reflexion, an additional element emerges. I don't know if you intended this or not but the output of the process is actually a combination of Intelligent design (programming, English, words, syntax)acting through a random filtering process.

Seems like an interesting thought challenge to develop a heuristic to decode the script using scientific methods to understand the nature of the intelligence.

JLS

JLS:

If you substitute "appears omnipotent" for "omnipotent" in the two quotes the logical flaw becomes apparent. In deed there is no limit to the number of creatures that could appear omnipotent from a "human-sized" perspective.

You're right; a bit sloppy -- comes from working with words, not logical symbols -- but easily fixed, I think.

Assume Gid and Gad, seemingly two beings, each seemingly omnipotent from the limited perspective of a human being. It is thus impossible for a human to distinguish between two scenarios:

• Gid and Gad are honestly telling us they are two separate beings;
• There is actually only one entity, Gid; but Gid is telling us, for whatever unfathomable reason, that it is actually two entities. (Gid is ineffable and moves in mysterious ways, Gid's wonders to behold.)

We cannot tell the difference by any imaginable test; so logically, it makes no difference -- to us. We may as well consider Gid and Gad to be one as consider them to be two.

However, the last truly dualist religion in Christendom was wiped out by the Albigensian Crusade from 1209 to 1229. Thus, the odds are very nearly 100% that no current ID proponent is a secret Cathar who believes in multiple deities of equal power.

Rather, actual IDers in the real world will conclude that there is only one First Designer, and He is the God of the Bible.

So my lemma stands in its important aspect: What the particular group of people now called proponents of Intelligent Design mean by "Designer" is, in fact, God; it's an attempt to resurrect creationism without the overt trappings of religion that shot down earlier attempts to shoehorn it into the public schools.

Although it's theoretically possible to imagine a whole pantheon of First Designers, I'll bet you a Krispy Kreme donut that nobody at the Discovery Institute has ever defended that position.

Dafydd

You cannot get around this lemma, Baggi: If there is a Designer who created this universe, then within this universe, that Designer is God, as depicted in the Bible.

It doesn't matter. What you are putting forward is a philisophical argument. To take the bait one would have to move the discussion from what is science and what is not.

You've completely sidestepped the issue, which is, can design be detected by the scientific method.

IDers know this; they're not stupid. But they also know they can never make this point out loud, as that will blow the whole "ID is a science" game out of the water.

This is clever argument but simultaneously is not arguing from good faith. You place negative motives to those who disagree with you and are therefore able to dismiss them.

I expected better.

We can use the scientific method to distinguish artifactual from natural processes only if we exclude Gid from the realm of the possible. Because if Gid exists, then Gid can beat any scientific test that mere mortals can construct... in the same way that I can design a magic trick that defeats any attempt by a five year old to figure it out.

Again, all of the implications and philosophies that might be derived from scientific discovery are beside the point. Can design be detected by use of the scientific method?

You keep wanting to put the cart before the horse. It doesn't work that way.

For that reason, ID is an unfalsifiable thesis: It's impossible, even in theory, to design an experiment or measurement that could possibly disprove Intelligent Design; Gid can rig the experiment to produce any result Gid wants.

That's convenient for you and gives you a reason not to answer the question, i'm sure, but we disagree.

You have in effect fallen into the same exact trap that the religious fell into centuries ago. Like you, they were logical thinkers who had no humility and therefore believed they had the Bible all figured out. Therefore, science must have been wrong where it contradicted the Bible (Which turned out to be their understanding of the Bible).

You've built a nice little box for yourself wherein your understanding of the Universe is such that you know all that exists within it. And for Intelligent Design to be true, all that other stuff in your box must be true, therefore, Intelligent Design is false.

Have just a smidgen of humility and realize that there may be quite a bit out there that we do not yet comprehend. There may be other dimensions that don't play by the same rules ours play by. There could be something else entirely that we have yet to discover.

Like Donald Rumsfeld once tried to explain to the proud media, there are known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

Or something along those lines.

So let's start with the position that there is no Gid or anything like a Gid.

Can the scientific method be used to detect design?

Notice, I didn't say, "Can the scientific method be used to detect design in nature."

I think every point I could make has been made far better by Dafydd. But I will say this - Those of you who support ID, read the comments here and start to understand why most scientists have a visceral hatred of your argument. Shifting explanations, subject changes, cutesy word games. Changing the rules of the game and moving the goal posts seemingly at random. These types of discussions are often exasperating and pointless. ID'rs then whine and complain that they aren't being taken seriously, that their arguments are not being fully considered.

You're right, their not. Who's fault is that do you think?

I would say that the readers should notice the Dafydd is the one, along with his supporters like you, who want to impugn those who disagree with you both and who want to bring the realm of science into the realm of philosophy.

I've been very patient and willing to stick to just science here. And yet we've not moved anywhere in this discussion.

We still havn't answered the most dangerous question of all (Apparantly, because if it weren't a dangerous question it would have been answered already).

Can design be detected by the scientific method?

Baggi:

Your question has in fact been answered repeatedly by me and others. You have confused not receiving the answer you hoped to hear with not receiving an answer at all.

Design can be detected in some cases (obvious artifacts), but not every case of design can be detected.

You can ask your miraculous question a thousand more times, and you will receive the same, obviously unsatisfactory answer every time -- or you would, except this is the last time I will trouble to answer it. It has been asked and answered; move on to whatever point you intend to make.

Dafydd

Baggi: It feels like progress. It was a grudging slog and you have a won cautionary agreement but perhaps enough to move on. Just for the record here is my take on why such a small step has been so difficult:

Evolutionist believe that life (design) came about through a random (Stochastic) process.

Theologist believe that life (design) came about through a guided ( Deterministic) process.

If your definition of "design" implies guided or purposeful then by agreeing to the proposition:

Can design be detected by the scientific method?

They fear they are acceding to the proposition that "guided or purposeful" can be detected by the scientific method. Since we have no known mechanism for the "guidance" we are left with God. Since God brings along a cornucopia of issue (Gid, Gad, large stones, omnipotence) they hesitate to follow your lead. Thus the frustration.

JLS

JLS:

Just for the record here is my take on why such a small step has been so difficult.

Actually, my attempt to clarify Baggi's question before answering was due to an even more basic problem. Suppose somebody asked this question, asked it over and over, and refused to elaborate:

Can the eye see red?

Before I can answer, I must find out how the asker defines "red;" does it include the infrared part of the spectrum? Or is he limiting the color red to what is called the visible spectrum?

And where exactly does he draw the line between those two? There is no obvious dividing line in nature.

And by "eye," does he mean every eye, including a dog's eye? Or does he just mean the human eye?

And what does he mean by "see?" A completely color-blind person can still "see" red; he just sees it as the rest of us see black. If he looked at a paper with red-ink writing, he could read the writing. (If the ink were "infrared" in color, by contrast, he wouldn't be able to read it... and neither would you or I.)

Without knowing his definitions of red, eye, and see, I can't answer.

I'm not being puckish; in the present case, I not only need to know what Baggi means by design but also what he means by detect and by the scientific method!

We don't "detect" measurements by the scientific method; the scientific method presupposes the ability to take measurements. It's like asking, "can musical theory detect high C?"

The ability to hear a note and say "that's high C" predates musical theory; a person only need know what high C sounds like, and if he has good ears, he can say yea or nay to the next note. But that's not really a part of musical theory, as we normally define the term.

Too, by detect, does Baggi mean distinguish in all cases artifactual from natural -- or just in some cases? In short, the question he actually asked -- "Can design be detected by the scientific method?" -- was completely ambiguous. Did it mean...

1. Can the scientific method be used to accurately differentiate between natural formations and human artifacts in every circumstance?
2. Can scientists observe patterns in nature and in human artifacts?
3. Can science see the intelligent design that Baggi believes obviously permeates the entire universe?
4. Can science distinguish between completely natural processes and the machinations of Gid?

My answers would be (1) probably yes, (2) almost certainly yes, (3) definitely not, and (4) absolutely definitely not, not even in theory.

So without knowing which question he means, or even if he has a fifth one in mind, how can I possibly answer yes or no?

There is another distinction between science and ID: True science always attempts to specify its questions as precisely and unambiguously as it can... if possible, reducing a question to, "If I take measurement X on the following exactly-described apparatus, does it fall within range R, as predicted by theory?"

If it does not, and if this is subsequently confirmed by other scientists conducting similar experiments that also yield results contrary to theory, then the theory (model) is wrong and needs to be altered or replaced by a better one.

By contrast, ID, like other philosophies, prefers to ask broad, sweeping, inclusive, and therefore vague and ambiguous questions, questions that often force misleading answers (like Baggi's question) -- questions that cannot, under any circumstances, yield answers that debunk ID itself. (Think of First Designer Gid, who can always design a system that would fool any human observer into believing it was entirely natural.)

The distinction is a natural consequence of the purpose in asking: Scientists want to find the best model of physical reality, no matter what it turns out to be; this is why scientific models, even well-established ones, are routinely dumped in favor of better ones... ones that do a better job of explaining past measurements and accurately predicting new ones.

IDers want to prove that the spiritual precepts they have believed as articles of faith all their lives are really true, because that will make them feel better about Mankind and its place in the grand, universal scheme of things.

There is a place for both types of quest, but it's not the same place.

Dafydd

Dafydd:

Thanks for the reasoned reply. I take no quarrel with your desire for definition before answering the question and your explanation gave better insight into your thinking. I do have one problem. I followed you argument easily through the "red eye" explanation but got stuck at point four of your reply to Baggi. I don't see a great difference between point one and point four but obviously you do.

1. Can the scientific method be used to accurately differentiate between natural formations and human artifacts in every circumstance? (Yes, probably)

4. Can science distinguish between completely natural processes and the machinations of Gid? (Absolutely definitely not, not even in theory.)

If you accept that "natural formations" are examples of what I define as Stochastic design.

Stochastic design: Design derived from random processes acting in independent and uncoordinated fashion without regard to the final outcome...

And "human artifacts" are examples of what I define as Deterministic design.

Deterministic design: Design arising from an overall coordinated effort. Where independent activities work in a coordinate way to arrive at a predetermined outcome...

Then it follows:

The scientific method can be used to accurately differentiate between Stochastic design and Deterministic design.

Further: If the "machinations of Gid" happen to manifest themselves as Deterministic Design.

Then it follows that:

Science can distinguish between completely natural processes and the machinations of Gid?
QED

I can accept that "not all cases", "under some circumstance" or even that perhaps Gid does not manifest as Deterministic design. I also accept that we can never prove the "machinations" we detect are coming from Gid. My best guess of your intent is that we cannot prove the origin of the machinations but a plain reading of you comment suggest otherwise. Any clues?

JLS

JLS:

Any clues?

You're searching for way too complex and philosophical an answer. I try to pattern my thinking after Richard Feynman's: Always try to model as simply as possible, so long as you include all necessary variables.

In this case, I can explain the distinction between 1 and 4 very simply:

• If human beings made an artificial mountain, it would be easy for any geologist to tell it was manufactured by intelligent beings. Human mountain-builders are not smart enough to fool human geologists and geophysicists.
• But Gid, the "finite analog" of God, is so much smarter and more powerful than we that it can make an artificial mountain so close to the natural kind that mere humans could not tell the difference.
• Therefore, if there is a Gid -- and in a universe this big, odds are strong that there is a Gid somewhere -- we cannot reliably report that some structure is stochastic... because we can never fully rule out the possibility that it's designed by Gid but deliberately made to look natural.

That's all.

Since we cannot tell the difference between a natural structure and a Gid-produced structure, we need not include it in our equations; it's a needless postulate for purposes of science.

That doesn't mean there isn't a Gid, or even a God; it just means we don't need to assume either to explain, e.g., evolutionary biology.

Dafydd

Dafydd:

I gather from the first two points of your response:

If human beings made an artificial mountain, it would be easy for any geologist to tell it was manufactured by intelligent beings. Human mountain-builders are not smart enough to fool human geologists and geophysicists.

But Gid, the "finite analog" of God, is so much smarter and more powerful than we that it can make an artificial mountain so close to the natural kind that mere humans could not tell the difference.

That you agree with this conclusion:

Further: If the "machinations of Gid" happen to manifest themselves as Deterministic Design.

Then it follows that:

Science can distinguish between completely natural processes and the machinations of Gid?

Provided that Gid has not chosen to hide his work..(aka. Not manifest as Deterministic design)

No problem understanding so far but point three strikes me as odd:

Therefore, if there is a Gid -- and in a universe this big, odds are strong that there is a Gid somewhere -- we cannot reliably report that some structure is stochastic... because we can never fully rule out the possibility that it's designed by Gid but deliberately made to look natural.

This sentence doesn't make sense to me and I suspect the problem is what is meant by the phrase "we cannot report that some structure is stochastic". To me reporting that a structure is stochastic is equivalent to stating that all the observed frequencies, features and arrangements are consistent with a statistical prediction assuming random processes acting in independent and uncoordinated fashion. In other words, Stochastic means "no unexplained correlations", or "no super-natural glue detected" or "no Gid detected".

Re-writing your sentence with this meaning leads us too:

Therefore, if there is a Gid ...we cannot reliably report "no Gid detected"... because we can never fully rule out the possibility that it's designed by Gid to avoid detection.

I am sure you can see my problem. How about one more clue?

JLS

JLS:

Ah, now you see the importance of defining terms! My definition of stochastic is not "we can't tell it from an entirely natural process," but rather "it was created through entirely natural processes."

What I'm saying is that we can never say some structure is entirely natural... only that it's not obviously artifactual, we can't detect any obviously deterministic patterns."

We're speaking at cross purposes but not contradicting each other. We're actually saying the same thing; it just doesn't seem like it.

In Gid terms, we can never say "Gid didn't manufacture this;" the best we can say is, "we can't distinguish this from an entirely natural phenomenon; if Gid manufactured it, it did a good job of hiding its signature."

Dafydd

Dafydd:

I have been puzzling over your last post. It has a peculiar quality similar to the illusion of the old hag and the pretty girl. You look at it and see only the hag but all of a sudden the perspective shifts and a pretty girl emerges. I had a hard time finding a stable perspective. This seems to have happened with you while writing the post. You start by asserting a definition of Stochastic design that requires "absolute verification" of origins while rejecting a definition that allows falsification.

My definition of stochastic is not "we can't tell it from an entirely natural process," but rather "it was created through entirely natural processes."

You then explain your thinking by stating that a standard of "absolute verification" is futile while providing that only a definition allowing falsification can be productive.

What I'm saying is that we can never say some structure is entirely natural... only that it's not obviously artifactual, we can't detect any obviously deterministic patterns.

In trying to understand this combination it appears you have chosen a futile definition to start with and then your perspective shifted exposing the pretty girl and you ended up accepting the alternate definition.

We're speaking at cross purposes but not contradicting each other. We're actually saying the same thing; it just doesn't seem like it.

I am reminded of this quote from Einstein when speaking of the Scientific Method:

Note that this method can never absolutely verify (prove the truth of) 2. It can only falsify 2.[7] (This is what Einstein meant when he said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."[8])

The final comment in your post seems to support my interpretation. Is that about right?

JLS

JLS:

This will have to be my final word on this subject (though you are, of course, free to post as many more comments as you like!)

I don't like folding indeterminacy into the definition of stochastic. I would rather say "this appears stochastic, where stochastic means entirely the result of purposeless processes," than say "this is stochastic -- where stochastic only means it appears entirely the result of purposeless processes." To me, the former is clearer than the latter.

That's all I'm saying about that word.

On the larger question, I'm saying that a single measurement can prove that some structure is not stochastic; but no number of measurements can prove that it is stochastic, where stochastic is defined as I define it above. So yes, what AE said.

Dafydd

Dafydd:

Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate your forbearance with my technical arguments and your willingness to share you thinking in an open and honest way. Of course who would expect less from the coiner of the phrase "Argument by Tendentious Redefinition". I think that's great.

A few closing thoughts for your consideration: Your final post did not quite close the deal on our definitional discourse as clearly as I would like. Much of your philosophy is based the ideas expressed in this phrase:

Therefore, if there is a Gid -- and in a universe this big, odds are strong that there is a Gid somewhere -- we cannot reliably report that some structure is stochastic... because we can never fully rule out the possibility that it's designed by Gid but deliberately made to look natural.

If the ideas expressed in this phrase are not fundamentally sound the structure of your arguments unravel. You offered two competing definitions for stochastic:

My definition of stochastic is not "we can't tell it from an entirely natural process," but rather "it was created through entirely natural processes."

I will add a third on the chance that you were not intending to cast the second definition as an "absolute verification" challenge as follows:

"it seemingly was created through entirely natural processes."

If we take each of these definitions and apply them to the phrase we get, as previously discussed:

Therefore, if there is a Gid ...we cannot reliably report "no Gid detected"... because we can never fully rule out the possibility that it's designed by Gid to avoid detection.

Clearly non sensual.

Therefore, if there is a Gid ...we cannot reliably report that it was created through entirely natural processes... because we can never fully rule out the possibility that it's designed by Gid to avoid detection.

Clearly tautological. We can never reliably report that it was created through entirely natural processes under any circumstances...(absolute verification)...with or without Gid and regardless of any Gid machinations... aka. Tautological.

And the final possibility:

Therefore, if there is a Gid ...we cannot reliably report that it seemingly was created through entirely natural processes... because we can never fully rule out the possibility that it's designed by Gid to avoid detection.

Clearly illogical.

And that leads me to my final question:

If I can persuade you to reverse your position on the following statements:

My definition of stochastic is not "we can't tell it from an entirely natural process," but rather "it was created through entirely natural processes."

Therefore, if there is a Gid -- and in a universe this big, odds are strong that there is a Gid somewhere -- we cannot reliably report that some structure is stochastic... because we can never fully rule out the possibility that it's designed by Gid but deliberately made to look natural.

Since we cannot tell the difference between a natural structure and a Gid-produced structure, we need not include it in our equations; it's a needless postulate for purposes of science.
That doesn't mean there isn't a Gid, or even a God; it just means we don't need to assume either to explain, e.g., evolutionary biology.

Can science distinguish between completely natural processes and the machinations of Gid? (Absolutely definitely not, not even in theory.)

We can use the scientific method to distinguish artifactual from natural processes only if we exclude Gid from the realm of the possible. Because if Gid exists, then Gid can beat any scientific test that mere mortals can construct... in the same way that I can design a magic trick that defeats any attempt by a five year old to figure it out.

So my lemma stands in its important aspect: What the particular group of people now called proponents of Intelligent Design mean by "Designer" is, in fact, God; it's an attempt to resurrect creationism without the overt trappings of religion that shot down earlier attempts to shoehorn it into the public schools.

If so, we could never distinguish between the work of stochastic processes and the work of Gid, the Intelligent Designer, if Gid didn't desire it.
For that reason, ID is an unfalsifiable thesis: It's impossible, even in theory, to design an experiment or measurement that could possibly disprove Intelligent Design; Gid can rig the experiment to produce any result Gid wants.
That alone makes it not a science. (There are many other reasons why it is not, as well; see the various court cases where ID or creationism have been ruled not to be sciences.)

Do I get a Krispy Kreme donut?

Thanks again.

JLS

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)