Evaluating Dembski's ID

[reggieM]

Thank you for the reference. The date of 1994 is far too late to be a prediction. The term “junk DNA” was first used in 1972 and scientists have been discussing it ever since.

The breakthroughs that revealed the coding function of some Junk DNA came much later than 1994. So, while ID theorists were not the first ones to propose that there was functionality in that part of the cell, ID theory added to th e knowledge and supported the prediction that it was not Junk.

In 2003, Scientific American explained that “the introns within genes and the long stretches of intergenic DNA between genes, Mattick says, ‘were immediately assumed to be evolutionary junk.’” John S. Mattick, director of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia was then quoted saying this might have been “one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.”

 

[rossum]

Demsbki claims to have a reliable method for detecting design.

He does ineed claim to have such a method. I have never seen a scientific test of his method and without a test it is not possible to be sure that his claim is correct. Unless and until Dembski’s proposed method has been properly tested I continue to be sceptical about its reliability.

That’s it. He doesn’t need to characterise the designer in any given instance where the method is applied if all he is setting out to do is identify the presence of design or rule it out. One doesn’t need to know anything about the designer in order to determine whether or not some object is designed.

Agreed, but without characterising the designer/s in some way it is very difficult to make any hypotheses about what the designer/s could or could not have done. This is easy for evolution. To quote Darwin:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

• both from Chapter Six of Origins.
  How can we make a statement about what the designer/s could not do without characterising them in some way? Could the designer/s make a pegasus? We cannot say without further knowledge of the designers. Although ID claims to be able to detect design in existing organisms it is unable at the moment able to predict what the designer/s may or may not do in future. This makes it very difficult for ID to propose testable hypotheses. Without testable hypotheses it is going to be very difficult for ID to gain acceptance as science.

For example, if SETI succeeds in establishing contact, it will be on the basis of a signal they’ve distinguished from random noise. They will have made a design inference without any knowledge of the designer.

You are mistaken here. The SETI program is looking for narrowband radio signals. This involves the assumptions that any ETI will communicate in pretty much the same way as we do - using narrowband radio. Hence the SETI project is making assumptions about the designers - that they are restricted by the same physics of electromagnetic waves as we are. With an omnipotent designer we could not make that assumption. The assumption is that their civilisation is on a similar technical level to our own.

I don’t think Pegasus presents a problem for ID.

That is exactly my point, nothing at all presents a problem for ID. It can be used to explain anything at all. Because it can explain anything it actually explains nothing.

Can you describe an organism that could not have been designed? Evolution can easily describe something that could not have evolved, as Darwin did. The fact that we do not find such organisms is evidence in favour of evolution.

Evolution can definitively say that we will never find a natural living pegasus. ID cannot make such a prediction. In the absence of any predictions we cannot test those predictions scientifically and hence ID currently has not succeeded as science.

The real concern with ID ought to be whether its method reliably detects design. IOW, does it have a problem with false negatives? Does it ever falsely attribute design to something which in fact is not designed?

Dembski agrees that his own design detection methodology does suffer from false negatives: False negatives are a problem for the Explanatory Filter. This problem of false negatives, however, is endemic to detecting intelligent causes. One difficulty is that intelligent causes can mimic law and chance, thereby rendering their actions indistinguishable from these unintelligent causes. It takes an intelligent cause to know an intelligent cause, but if we don’t know enough, we’ll miss it.

Source: The Explanatory Filter
Dembski claims that his method does not have a problem with false positives, though this has never been tested. Dembski agrees that the result of his method does depend on the knowledge available at the time; it is always possible that the (name removed by moderator)ut of new knowledge will change the result.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I’ve been misled by my evolutionst sources who came up with the term “Junk DNA” in order to “prove” evolution. That’s why they invented the term – because “junk DNA” was supposedly evolutionary by products and junk mutations.

Some of it is just that: pseudogenes, poly-A, transposons.

Now we see that evolutionists have reversed themselves on this, as on many other issues.

Two points: firstly it is generally agreed that some non-coding DNA is functional and other parts are not. That view has not changed - we know that there are functional and non-functional parts.

Secondly, when the evidence changes science changes. The evidence showed that Newton’s gravity was not fully accurate so it was dropped. The fact that science changes when the evidence changes is a strength of science and goes a long way to account for it’s success. “When the evidence changes I change my mind. What do you do sir?” - Keynes.

So for those who say that evolution is more certain than is the law of gravity, I disagree. I don’t see the law of gravity reversed like this, and I don’t accept that evolutionary theory defines a natural law either.

You need to learn more physics. Newton’s gravity was dropped because Einstein’s gravity works better for massive objects. Einstein’s gravity is known to be incorrect for very small massive objects and will need to be replaced by a theory of Quantum Gravity. The theory of evolution is indeed on more secure foundations than the theory of gravity.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

Although ID claims to be able to detect design in existing organisms it is unable at the moment able to predict what the designer/s may or may not do in future. This makes it very difficult for ID to propose testable hypotheses. Without testable hypotheses it is going to be very difficult for ID to gain acceptance as science.

ID can predict what the designer will not do in the same way it predicts what evolutionary processes will not do. But in any case, I fully agree that some assumptions about the nature of the designer are necessary to conduct the science.

You are mistaken here. The SETI program is looking for narrowband radio signals. This involves the assumptions that any ETI will communicate in pretty much the same way as we do - using narrowband radio. Hence the SETI project is making assumptions about the designers - that they are restricted by the same physics of electromagnetic waves as we are. With an omnipotent designer we could not make that assumption. The assumption is that their civilisation is on a similar technical level to our own.

Again, you’re right that some assumption about the Designer is necessary. For example, Christian evolutionists assume that God would not create species ex nihilo but make it look like they evolved – because they don’t believe that God would intentionally deceive people. But with an om(name removed by moderator)otent designer, anything would be possible including the creation of the entire universe just one second ago and the implantation of memories and knowledge in the minds of all human beings.

But again, some assumptions are made. Just as science itself emerged from theological ideas about the rationality of the universe (since God is the source of reason and truth), any investigations of intelligent design that can be found will reflect the belief that the Designer uses rationally understood patterns (order, symmetry, specified complexity, language).

That approach is based on Christian and Judiac belief in the nature of God. Just as SETI assumes that extraterrestrials are similar to human beings. But the process is very much the same.

 

[buffalo]

He does ineed claim to have such a method. I have never seen a scientific test of his method and without a test it is not possible to be sure that his claim is correct. Unless and until Dembski’s proposed method has been properly tested I continue to be sceptical about its reliability.

Agreed, but without characterising the designer/s in some way it is very difficult to make any hypotheses about what the designer/s could or could not have done. This is easy for evolution. To quote Darwin:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

• both from Chapter Six of Origins.How can we make a statement about what the designer/s could not do without characterising them in some way? Could the designer/s make a pegasus? We cannot say without further knowledge of the designers. Although ID claims to be able to detect design in existing organisms it is unable at the moment able to predict what the designer/s may or may not do in future. This makes it very difficult for ID to propose testable hypotheses. Without testable hypotheses it is going to be very difficult for ID to gain acceptance as science.

You are mistaken here. The SETI program is looking for narrowband radio signals. This involves the assumptions that any ETI will communicate in pretty much the same way as we do - using narrowband radio. Hence the SETI project is making assumptions about the designers - that they are restricted by the same physics of electromagnetic waves as we are. With an omnipotent designer we could not make that assumption. The assumption is that their civilisation is on a similar technical level to our own.

That is exactly my point, nothing at all presents a problem for ID. It can be used to explain anything at all. Because it can explain anything it actually explains nothing.

Can you describe an organism that could not have been designed? Evolution can easily describe something that could not have evolved, as Darwin did. The fact that we do not find such organisms is evidence in favour of evolution.

Evolution can definitively say that we will never find a natural living pegasus. ID cannot make such a prediction. In the absence of any predictions we cannot test those predictions scientifically and hence ID currently has not succeeded as science.

Dembski agrees that his own design detection methodology does suffer from false negatives: False negatives are a problem for the Explanatory Filter. This problem of false negatives, however, is endemic to detecting intelligent causes. One difficulty is that intelligent causes can mimic law and chance, thereby rendering their actions indistinguishable from these unintelligent causes. It takes an intelligent cause to know an intelligent cause, but if we don’t know enough, we’ll miss it.

Source: The Explanatory FilterDembski claims that his method does not have a problem with false positives, though this has never been tested. Dembski agrees that the result of his method does depend on the knowledge available at the time; it is always possible that the (name removed by moderator)ut of new knowledge will change the result.

rossum

The problem is one of how to translate the ability of the human mind to detect design. When we look at a computer we see design. Design is very complex and has many features.

To properly summarize we may be dealing with thousands of variables and a supercomputer to crunch them.

This may take some time and money to perfect.

 

[rossum]

The problem is one of how to translate the ability of the human mind to detect design. When we look at a computer we see design. Design is very complex and has many features.

Agreed. However it needs to be pointed out that the human mind is not a particularly good design detector. Our evolutionary history (yes, I know but bear with me) has predisposed us to see design where there is none - we are biased towards false positives. If we see movement in the grass and we think “tiger” and flee we have a great gain if there is a tiger or a small loss if it was a rabbit. We see castles in clouds, we see faces in rocks, we see the Man in the Moon. We see conspiracies where there are none. Humans are biased towards false positives. Any reliable design detector should not emulate the human brain, otherwise it will be prone to false positives.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Agreed. However it needs to be pointed out that the human mind is not a particularly good design detector. Our evolutionary history (yes, I know but bear with me) has predisposed us to see design where there is none - we are biased towards false positives. If we see movement in the grass and we think “tiger” and flee we have a great gain if there is a tiger or a small loss if it was a rabbit. We see castles in clouds, we see faces in rocks, we see the Man in the Moon. We see conspiracies where there are none. Humans are biased towards false positives. Any reliable design detector should not emulate the human brain, otherwise it will be prone to false positives.

rossum

Let’s start with things that we know we have designed. Our minds have not deceived us there. Then apply these rules and tweak.

Your comment regarding the false positives can also be applied to interpreting raw data. Some minds have a bias there too.

 

[reggieM]

The theory of evolution is indeed on more secure foundations than the theory of gravity.

What method did you use to determine the comparative security of each of those foundations?

 

[reggieM]

Your comment regarding the false positives can also be applied to interpreting raw data. Some minds have a bias there too.

Some have been deceived by what they thought was there but really wasn’t.

 

[buffalo]

Some have been deceived by what they thought was there but really wasn’t.

:yup:

 

[rossum]

What method did you use to determine the comparative security of each of those foundations?

Cosmologists have worked on the properties of the initial monobloc at the time of the Big Bang - extremely small and extremely massive. Quantum mechanics gives reasonable answers consistent with the currently observed properties of the universe. Einstein’s General Relativity (which incorporates his theory of gravity) fails to correctly describe the monobloc, and also very small black holes. The basic problem is tht Einstein’s theory is not a quantum theory - it still assumes smoothness at certain points. Quantum theory is not smooth, it is lumpy and so far the lumpiness, at an extremely small level, seems to be a better description of the universe.

We know that we will need to replace Einstein with a theory of Quantum Gravity - lumpy gravity rather than smooth gravity.

There are no such problems with evolution. In no case is evolution in conflict with either another scientific theory or with observations. The theory of evolution is far from complete, but it is well established.

rossum

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hey Rossum,

Regarding actual tests of the Explanatory Filter (EF)…

I’d like to ponder this for a liddle bit.

Dembski sez (p. 96 of Design Revolution: “Where direct, empirical corroboration is possible, design actually is present whenever specified complexity is present.”

ID therefore asserts that we can infer design any time we find SC, even when we don’t have access to the causal history.

So this suggests two lines of attack against ID. First, you attack the premise. Set up experiments in which something with a known causal history is only apparently designed. Let the ID guys apply the EF to it, and, after they make their design inference, bring out the proof that it was produced only by chance and necessity.

Second, with respect to actual biological phenomena, you produce the causal history which shows how it was produced by purely natural processes.

 

[reggieM]

There are no such problems with evolution. In no case is evolution in conflict with either another scientific theory or with observations. The theory of evolution is far from complete, but it is well established.

If the theory of evolution is not in conflict with observations, on what basis do you say that it is “far from complete”?

 

[Spirithound]

If the theory of evolution is not in conflict with observations, on what basis do you say that it is “far from complete”?

Perhaps it’s like a jigsaw puzzle that appears to match the box-top.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

testing ID cont’d:

Dembski apparently thinks that his premise has been demonstrated. But how? He alludes to other fields where design inferences are made to show that this type of reasoning is normal and sound. e.g. cases of data falsification. And he applies the EF in thought experiments. But does anyone know of any tests such as I’ve suggest above? Ought to be possible, not?

 

[Orogeny]

If the theory of evolution is not in conflict with observations, on what basis do you say that it is “far from complete”?

There are still things that are not known, but all of the observations that we have at this time affirm the theory. If any observations were in conflict, either the theory would have to be modified to fit the evidence or would have to be replaced with a different theory that not only explains the rogue observation but also all of the other observations that do fit the current theory.

Peace

Tim

 

[rossum]

Perhaps it’s like a jigsaw puzzle that appears to match the box-top.

A good way to put it. All the pieces we have in place so far match the picture on the box-top. There are still gaps in the jigsaw, but there is nothing about the gaps that would indicate that the picture is incorrect (gap too big, too small or the wrong shape).

rossum

 

[reggieM]

There are still gaps in the jigsaw, but there is nothing about the gaps that would indicate that the picture is incorrect (gap too big, too small or the wrong shape).

What would be some examples of “gaps” in this case? Also, why would those gaps mean that the theory of evolution is “far from complete” and has no conflicts with observations?

If we knew where the pieces of the puzzle should go, the puzzle would be done. If we don’t know where the pieces go, then the pieces conflict with our observations.

 

[buffalo]

Perhaps it’s like a jigsaw puzzle that appears to match the box-top.

Actually, we only have a few percent of the pieces in a huge puzzle. How can we possibly know what the complete picture looks like?

 

[Orogeny]

Actually, we only have a few percent of the pieces in a huge puzzle. How can we possibly know what the complete picture looks like?

How many pieces are there in the puzzle and what do you base this on? If you don’t know, you can’t make this claim.

Peace

Tim