Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science


"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1133688184.766185.155710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Steven J. wrote:
> > "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1133679200.885643.194250@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Ken Shaw wrote:
> > >> topmind wrote:
> > >> > Ken Shaw wrote:
> > >> > > topmind wrote:
> > >> > > > I did a write-up (link below) proposing a version of ID that does
> > >> > > > belong in science textbooks. It is based on a long debate I
> > >> > > > participated in called "Is String Theory as hard to test as ID?" in
> > >> > > > alt.atheism. I argue that ID can be "science", although a weak
> > >> > > > science. I suggest it belongs in textbooks because good textbooks
> > >> > > > should anticipate common questions, and ID-like questions do happen
> > >> > > > in
> > >> > > > biology class. I've witnessed it with my own ears in my school
> > >> > > > days.
> > >> > > > The book can briefly describe it and then explain that it is
> > >> > > > difficult
> > >> > > > to test with the scientific process.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/intel.htm
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Please let me know what you think. Don't let my arrogant handle
> > >> > > > scare
> > >> > > > you; critique away...
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > -T-
> > >> > >
> > >> > > To start with you have fallen into a common ID fallacy. Well designed
> > >> > > human objects are no more complex than necessary. Biological systems
> > >> > > are almost universally more complex than is necessary. Claiming that
> > >> > > the "intelligent designer" behind all life does not also follow the
> > >> > > KISS principle means you can't compare complex human creations to
> > >> > > biological systems in your working definition of ID which pretty much
> > >> > > ends the whole issue.
> > >> >
> > >> > This is answered at the bottom of the link:
> > >> >
> > >> > "The intelligent being(s) could be aliens, humans who came back in
> > >> > time, smart robots, being(s) with god-like powers, etc. ID [as defined
> > >> > here] does not actually attempt to identify a specific intelligence at
> > >> > this stage. Further, the intelligence does not have to be supernatural
> > >> > or omnipotent to qualify as a potential designer. In fact, the
> > >> > designer(s) may be sloppy, lazy, have limited skills, use
> > >> > trial-and-error, etc."
> > >> >
> > >> > Been there done that. You are not using the same definition of ID that
> > >> > I am. Next...
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Nice try at the old handwave argument but that won't cut it here.
> > >> Quoting from your web site's "Working Definition of Intelligent
> > >> Design":
> > >>
> > >> Intelligent Design (ID) is based on the observation that the only fully
> > >> observed source of complex devices or machines is from intelligent
> > >> designers: our fellow humans who engineered and built them. Thus, it is
> > >> reasonable to suspect or at least inquire that complex life forms were
> > >> perhaps also made by intelligent being(s).
> > >>
> > >> My argument is not about the competency of the putative designer but
> > >> with the comparison you are trying to make in the first place.
> > >
> > >> Intentional complexity is not and can never be indicative of design by
> > >> an intelligence recognizable as such by men.
> > >
> > > Can you please clarify this? It appears to be answered by item 9.
> > >
> > I should probably let Ken answer, but his point seems to be, not that
> > complexity cannot be known for sure to be a product of intelligence, but
> > rather that if we can see that something is more complex than it needs to
> > be -- that it has steps and components that are just not needed for whatever
> > it does -- then we have a reason (not a conclusive reason: in the case of,
> > e.g. a Microsoft program other considerations can override this one) to
> > conclude that it was *not* the product of intelligent design.
> >
> > In brief, his point is that some sorts of complexity are arguments *against*
> > design, since design seeks simplicity.
>
>
> I answered this at the bottom of the article:
>
> "Further, the intelligence does not have to be supernatural or
> omnipotent to qualify as a potential designer. In fact, the designer(s)
> may be sloppy, lazy, have limited skills, use trial-and-error, etc."
>
> It is possble that we are the product of a kid playing around, not
> caring about efficiency. Plus, fancy hubcaps and fins (50's style) are
> things we build that are wasteful. Don't even get me started about
> Hummers :-)
>
>
> > >
> > >> On another point you raise another fallacious argument regarding
> > >> complexity in your point #8. You attempt to equate evolution with an
> > >> increase in "complexity".
> > >
> > >
> > > No, I did not. Please re-read it. Actually, I have yet to find a good
> > > consensus definition of "evolution" from an *observational* perspective
> > > instead of the usual process-based perspective.
> > >
> > Yet your point 8 still seems mistaken. Of course, for a sufficiently broad
> > definition of "evolution," then all the agents you mention do produce
> > "evolution." In the case of biological evolution, however, "change in the
> > ratios of inheritable characteristics in a population over time" seems more
> > easily quantifiable and observable than "an increase in complexity."
>
>
> Those other mentioned agents may do that also. Nobody has ruled out the
> possibility of a meteor splashing and baking a pool of semi-organic goo
> and having an eyeball fly out as a result. It can be proven unlikely,
> but not impossible. (Add to that some anthropic probability pool.)

This is a variation on the tornado-in-the-junkyard argument that creationists
think is so clever. We also know there's a non-zero probability of all the
air in a room rushing spontaneously to one corner. But I think we can pretty
much rule out both scenarios.

>
> Further, changing ratios on a *small* scale may not extrapolate to a
> large scale. It looks good on paper, but has never been tested and
> observed on a large scale. Thus, that statement stands as true. (This
> is similar to the "macroevolution" complaint by some creationists. They
> don't dispute minor changes.)

And no one's every observed an electron directly either. None of this
helps arguments *for* IDiocy.

>
>
> > It
> > seems to me that "evolution can increase complexity" is not a necessary
> > claim of evolutionary theory, unless you wish to define "complexity" before
> > hand in such a way that, e.g. change from something like _Pikaia_ to
> > something like _Homo_ can be shown to be an increase in complexity.
> > Otherwise, there is no need to consider complexity one way or another.
>
> But we still have the problem of distinguishing evo from *other* kinds
> of change agents.

What *other* kinds of change agents? Evolution cites an imperfect genetic
copying mechanism pruned by the environment. Tell us what other mechanism
you have in mind.

> People are really interested in seeing how a process
> can make things like brains and eyeballs, not merely changing
> something, especially minor things.

And people in hell are really interested in ice water. What people want really
want in a scientific theory (or find wanting in one) doesn't really help the case
for IDiocy.

Deadrat

>
> [snip]
>
> -T-
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution Theory Collapsed, Quick Put Back Up
    ... Engineers strive for simplicity, not complexity. ... not a good indicator of design. ... AND natural selection. ... Yes of course natural selection acts on the random mutations. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How to disprove Intelligent Design
    ... > complexity or irreducible complexity. ... > an intelligence by using one or more of the various techniques of ID. ... For the purposes of the science of intelligent design, ... If you can disprove one of these assertions mathematically, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Pitmans Miller Time
    ... this evidence could equally be explained by common ... design and common descent. ... The real absence in the pattern is more than ... You have presented no metric of "level of functional complexity". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why Evolution is a metaphysical hypothesis
    ... must have been created by an intelligent agent. ... just that if the results are of such complexity that they could ... cognitive thought, planning, design, knowhow and implemented it. ... complexity involved is to date beyond the reach of our best scientists ...
    (talk.origins)
  • The Axioms of Complementary Set Theory
    ... A singleton set ... are included in it and it has a finite quantity of scale levels. ... internal complexity, that can be the basis for infinitely many unique ... which gives us the ability to define their deep ...
    (sci.math)