Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Argument from Design: Design for who?
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 1 of 39 (145988)
09-30-2004 11:19 AM


Part I: Introduction:
William Paley made the most famous formulation of the Argument from Design, but contemporary Intelligent Design ultimately rests on a similar intuition.
There are generally two lines of argument in contemporary ID
1. Known natural mechanisms can't achieve "X". "X" can be either a specific biological system (the eye was the favorite of classical design arguments, but today's IDers prefer biochemical systems), or it can be an abstract quality of certain systems (e.g., "irreducible complexity", "specified complexity", etc.).
For now, let's assume this is correct, because it's the second part I'm interested in.
2. "X" was designed by something intelligent . Classically, this would be God, but these days it's often left unspecified.
Fundamentally this second argument always rests on an analogy with human artifacts, i.e., human artifacts are to humans as living things are to "Intelligent Designer".
For example, William Dembski writes:
There's only one known source for producing actual specified complexity, and that's intelligence. In every case where we know the causal history responsible for an instance of specified complexity, an intelligent agent was involved.
(from http://www.leaderu.com/...ces/dembski/docs/bd-specified.html)
So, ultimately the argument for the existence the "intelligent designer", despite the fancy rhetoric involved in argument 1, always rests on a variation of what Paley stated 200+ years ago.
However it's been noted that there are many differences between human artifacts and living things (for example, living things are self-reproducing) that render the inference as suspect. However, I think an important difference usually goes unnoticed:
Part II: Design for Who?
Why is Paley's famous watch example so compelling? Because the "design" of the watch serves no purpose to the watch itself. Therefore, it must serve a purpose to something else. The inference that another entity must be involved is compelling in the case of the watch.
But what about the design of organisms? Who benefits from the design? Well, the organisms itself does. In this case, the existence of another entity doesn't seem called for.
Indeed, there does seem to be two classes of design in the world.
1. Design that benefits humans, and is known to be made by humans.
2. Design that benefits the organism displaying the design, and is known to NOT be made by humans.
This design-for-other vs. design-for-self seems to be a crucial difference, and this undercuts the strength of many ID arguments.
For example, on this forum there have recently been attempts to say that we can infer the existence of the Designer with the same justification that an archaeologist infers the existence of human makers of excavated tools, etc. But tools by their nature don't benefit themselves, but another, so the existence of another is called for. The design of an organism, however, serves to benefit the organism itself, so invoking another is an unnecessary additional assumption.
Still, the "design" of the organism is something to be explained, I understand. But the general line of argument that a designing entity is a compelling inference based on analogy with human artifacts seems fundamentally flawed to me. I'm wondering what others think about 2nd line of argument listed above, and how this distinction for "design-for-other" vs. "design-for-self" affects either the validity or the appeal of the analogy to human artifacts.
This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 09-28-2004 05:58 PM
Released to [forum=-10]. --Admin

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 11:27 AM Zhimbo has not replied
 Message 5 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 11:43 AM Zhimbo has replied
 Message 12 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 12:28 PM Zhimbo has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2 of 39 (145994)
09-30-2004 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zhimbo
09-30-2004 11:19 AM


A comment on Dembski
Since Dembski's "actual specified complexity" means "something mind-bogglingly unlikely to have come about by any means other than design" he's really talking in circles.
Dembski's comment only means "if we've got a really strong case for design then we can conclude design". Actually producing that case for design by finding examples of CSI in biology, however, seems to be beyond him. Or any other member of the ID community.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zhimbo, posted 09-30-2004 11:19 AM Zhimbo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 11:34 AM PaulK has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 39 (146000)
09-30-2004 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by PaulK
09-30-2004 11:27 AM


Re: A comment on PaulK
quote:
PaulK:
Actually producing that case for design by finding examples of CSI in biology, however, seems to be beyond him. Or any other member of the ID community.
That is exactly what Meyers and Behe have done. You can add Kenyon and Minnich to those two.

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 11:27 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 11:39 AM ID man has replied
 Message 8 by MrHambre, posted 09-30-2004 12:04 PM ID man has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 4 of 39 (146004)
09-30-2004 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by ID man
09-30-2004 11:34 AM


Re: A comment on ID
Please show the relevant work where any of the four people you name has successfully identified CSI as defined by Dembski in biology.
I note in advance that identifying a structure as IC is inadequate - I want to see the full probability calculations covering all relevant possibilities, as required by Dembski.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 11:34 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 11:54 AM PaulK has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 39 (146009)
09-30-2004 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zhimbo
09-30-2004 11:19 AM


quote:
Zhimbo:
However it's been noted that there are many differences between human artifacts and living things (for example, living things are self-reproducing) that render the inference as suspect.
Reproduction (asexual and sexual) needs to be explained. Reproduction (asexual) is also seen as being IC.
added url in edit
Peering into Darwin's Black Box:
The cell divsion processes required for bacterial life
quote:
Zhimbo:
The design of an organism, however, serves to benefit the organism itself, so invoking another is an unnecessary additional assumption.
I would say the design of biological organisms benefits the population and not just the individual organism.
This message has been edited by ID man, 09-30-2004 10:58 AM

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zhimbo, posted 09-30-2004 11:19 AM Zhimbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Zhimbo, posted 09-30-2004 12:12 PM ID man has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 39 (146014)
09-30-2004 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
09-30-2004 11:39 AM


Re: A comment on ID and more double-standards
quote:
PaulK:
Please show the relevant work where any of the four people you name has successfully identified CSI as defined by Dembski in biology.
This isn't one of the four but it is relevant:
Odds against life
Then we have Meyer's DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification, and Explanation, pages 223-285 in Darwinism, Design and Public Education
quote:
PaulK:
I note in advance that identifying a structure as IC is inadequate - I want to see the full probability calculations covering all relevant possibilities, as required by Dembski.
I note that you still can't show that nature acting alone can do the things you want us to believe it can. Also just becasuse you say that identifying something as IC is inadequate means nothing to me.

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 11:39 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 12:00 PM ID man has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 39 (146017)
09-30-2004 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ID man
09-30-2004 11:54 AM


Re: A comment on ID and more double-standards
Your link is not relevant since it does not make the relevant calculations asked for. Moreover you offer no details of the argument from the other paper - and since your first example is clearly not what was requested there is no reason why I should believe the other claim.
And finally what is it with your continued lying about "double standards" ? You seem barely able to write a post without falsely accusing someone of this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 11:54 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:20 PM PaulK has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 8 of 39 (146020)
09-30-2004 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by ID man
09-30-2004 11:34 AM


ID according to ID man
In another thread, ID man asks:
quote:
How do we know that random mutations and NS were responsible? The reality is that we don't know we inherited the jaw bone from any reptiles.
MrHambre:
In that case, aren't hands and antennae and small ear bones all impressive testimony to the design capability of the Darwinian mechanism?
Please provide the evidence that shows RM & NS were responsible for these structures. I will bet you that you cannot.
Can you even provide the evidence that the different sizes of the beaks of the finch are the result of random mutations?
So have you even read Behe? He has no trouble acknowledging common descent or that the Darwinian mechanism is responsible for certain evolutionary changes.
For the record, I have no doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin’s mechanismnatural selection working on variationmight explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life.
Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, p.5
So I'd say the High Priest of ID is most certainly saying that we can attribute finch beaks to RMNS.
regards,
Esteban Hambre
This message has been edited by MrHambre, 09-30-2004 11:06 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 11:34 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:26 PM MrHambre has replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 9 of 39 (146026)
09-30-2004 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by ID man
09-30-2004 11:43 AM


"I would say the design of biological organisms benefits the population and not just the individual organism."
Can you give an example where design benefits the population but NOT the organism? (Actually, more accurately, the organism's genes, but I don't know if we need to get that picky yet.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 11:43 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:28 PM Zhimbo has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 39 (146029)
09-30-2004 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
09-30-2004 12:00 PM


Re: A comment on ID and more double-standards
quote:
PaulK:
Your link is not relevant since it does not make the relevant calculations asked for. Moreover you offer no details of the argument from the other paper - and since your first example is clearly not what was requested there is no reason why I should believe the other claim.
Nothing would satisfy you. From the link:
NASA hired Yale University's Harold Morowitz, a theoretics expert. Dr. Morowitz deals with "the laws of large numbers and probabilities." Here is how the "probabilities theory works: you take a set of circumstances, and you scientifically determine the odds of a certain outcome.
For instance, if you flip a coin, you have "even odds" of heads or tails. Once you get to 1/1015, the probability of an event ever happening is negligible. If you get to 1/1050, the event could not have happened in the known universe in its 15 billion-year history. After studying the complexity of a protein molecule, Dr. Morowitz concluded that the chance of life ever occurring by chance is 1/10236. 1/10236 takes into account all the atoms in the universe, and the chance that the right ones came together just once to form a protein molecule!
Details from the other paper? Look it up. All full bibliography was given.
quote:
PaulK:
And finally what is it with your continued lying about "double standards" ?
It is a fact, not a lie. But I can see why you nwould confuse the two.
quote:
PaulK:
You seem barely able to write a post without falsely accusing someone of this.
Reality is not a false accusation. I can see why you would want to confuse the two.
When you ask for IDists to present some form of evidence that you cannot provide, that is a double-standard. That is all I see on this discussion board.

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 12:00 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 12:43 PM ID man has not replied
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 12:46 PM ID man has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 39 (146033)
09-30-2004 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by MrHambre
09-30-2004 12:04 PM


Re: ID according to ID man
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do we know that random mutations and NS were responsible? The reality is that we don't know we inherited the jaw bone from any reptiles.
MrHambre:
In that case, aren't hands and antennae and small ear bones all impressive testimony to the design capability of the Darwinian mechanism?
Please provide the evidence that shows RM & NS were responsible for these structures. I will bet you that you cannot.
Can you even provide the evidence that the different sizes of the beaks of the finch are the result of random mutations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
MrHambre:
So have you even read Behe? He has no trouble acknowledging common descent or that the Darwinian mechanism is responsible for certain evolutionary changes.
Yes I have read Behe and he never says what changes those were.
quote:
MrHambre:
So I'd say the High Priest of ID is most certainly saying that we can attribute finch beaks to RMNS.
Behe is not a priest and you nor he has never given any evidence of what RM & NS can do, including the beaks of the finch.
Do you have the evidence for the varying beaks being caused by RM & NS or not? Do you even know the genetic differences involved?
Ya see this is all part of the double-standards I am talking about. You guys ask for evidence but can't provide any for your faith.

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by MrHambre, posted 09-30-2004 12:04 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by MrHambre, posted 09-30-2004 1:00 PM ID man has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 12 of 39 (146037)
09-30-2004 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zhimbo
09-30-2004 11:19 AM


I've brought up this line of problems for ID wayyyyy in the past, and it went unanswered. My guess is you're not going to see it answered this time around either. IDman has already blown it by answering someone else (not the OP) with a dodge.
But I felt I should correct part of your argument...
Indeed, there does seem to be two classes of design in the world.
1. Design that benefits humans, and is known to be made by humans.
2. Design that benefits the organism displaying the design, and is known to NOT be made by humans.
This design-for-other vs. design-for-self seems to be a crucial difference, and this undercuts the strength of many ID arguments.
#1 is too specific. There is design that benefits nonhumans, and is known to be made by nonhumans. Indeed some of these even benefit humans.
Examples of these are beaver dams, ant colonies, bee hives, spider webs, etc etc.
#2 becomes almost circular in its reasoning when applied to this specific debate. While it is true that when we look at biological organisms we see self-benefits (made neither by humans nor nonhumans), the ID theorist does a have a counter to this which COULD be valid.
The remainder of this reply will concentrate on that second point.
As human technology becomes more advanced it moves toward the creation of NEW and selfsufficient entities both mechanical and organic. Let me start with mechanical because it will be easier and more straightforward.
Right now computer systems have plenty of programs that do not help humans, but rather simply help the computer system. We rely on the computer and so want them to keep running smoothly, which makes these selfbenefit programs useful.
As we merge computers (and approach AI) with robotics, it will be natural to see more of such systems. Eventually we could install reproductive and training routines (parentage) so that the robot organisms would be actively creating the next line of robots for us, perhaps including how to make improvements with each line (both in hardware and software).
If we were wiped out these systems could continue and how would an alien race see them as any different than other biological entities we see today (given no fossil record for them to make statements about the past)? All of their features would be selfbeneficial only.
From this we can also reason that with sufficient knowledge about chemistry, bio or organic robotic organisms might not only be possible but MORE useful.
For example if we wanted to terraform a planet, or colonize known (class M?) planets that are too far for convenient living human travel, we could conceivably send bacteria and/or viruses frontloaded with chemical "scripts" to build life there. It wouldn't be exacting, owing to environmental influences, but some sort of life would "build itself".
This is likely the type of argument you'll see coming from any ID theorist trying to tackle your problem. And in a way it does seem sound.
Isn't it POSSIBLE the earth was seeded with life in this fashion? And that organisms are essentially very advanced selfreplicating selteaching robotic systems?
Here's where I think your line of argument will have to be extended... so what does that possibility mean for here and now? What implications does that have for life and evolution in general?
First off we'd have to realize if this is the case then the second category of design collapses into the first. After all, we would have had a purpose for those entities we created even if their life became independent and all teh features served themselves.
The ID theorist would have NO problem with that of course.
Unfortunately it soon becomes a double edged sword. IF THAT WERE TRUE then isn't our purpose EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE? Without direct and observable communication from the "creators" to the contrary, aren't all of our base instincts and ESPECIALLY our instincts what we are supposed to be like?
They keep wishing to say that ID leads away from the dog eat dog ethical ends of materialism, but why would that be so? We cannot be in a position to judge our makeup and so our makeup, our "design", becomes PARAMOUNT, right?
This ends up hitting them on a totally different level, but it stems from the same beginning argument you outlined, and hits them where it really counts. If they lose their moralizing capacity ID will be useless to them.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zhimbo, posted 09-30-2004 11:19 AM Zhimbo has not replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 39 (146038)
09-30-2004 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Zhimbo
09-30-2004 12:12 PM


"I would say the design of biological organisms benefits the population and not just the individual organism."
quote:
Zhimbo:
Can you give an example where design benefits the population but NOT the organism? (Actually, more accurately, the organism's genes, but I don't know if we need to get that picky yet.)
That is not what I posted. Of course it benefits the organism, but it also benefits the population. A population would mean that others benefit also.

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Zhimbo, posted 09-30-2004 12:12 PM Zhimbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Zhimbo, posted 09-30-2004 12:39 PM ID man has replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 14 of 39 (146044)
09-30-2004 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ID man
09-30-2004 12:28 PM


So, you're saying that it is a general principle of biological design that it benefits "the population"? Does the eye benefit the "population"? Does blod clotting? Does the bacterial flagellum?
All the classic examples of design are of things that benefit the individual, not the population. Can you give me an example of type of design you're talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:28 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 12:51 PM Zhimbo has replied
 Message 18 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:51 PM Zhimbo has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 15 of 39 (146048)
09-30-2004 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ID man
09-30-2004 12:20 PM


Nothing would satisfy you.
He's not being unreasonable. It is important to see what went into these calculations.
You have not shown that Behe used such calculations at all, and you must know as well as I that he never did.
As far as your reference to Dr Morowitz...
Dr. Morowitz concluded that the chance of life ever occurring by chance is 1/10236. 1/10236 takes into account all the atoms in the universe, and the chance that the right ones came together just once to form a protein molecule!
I would like to know how Morowitz knew what environment he was creating a mathematical model of?
To calculate the above takes way more than knowing "all the atoms in the Universe" (which I wonder what that means as they are NOT constant), and the chance they'll bump into each other and connect. There are forces and energies to contend with which are way too specific to be addressed by a "coin toss" formula.
When you ask for IDists to present some form of evidence that you cannot provide, that is a double-standard.
Oh I answered this question of yours and you still haven't replied. I will also point out that evolution, even if ultimately proven incorrect, is a model which INCORPORATES current evidence and so is the leading model. ID theorists claim their model must be championed and yet... where's the model?
There's a pretty big double standard.
Or if there is an ID model, please outline what it looks like.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:20 PM ID man has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024