Evaluating Dembski's ID

[FrankSchnabel]

Hey Rossum,

Thanks for your help.

So far all tests of the EF have been done on human design. Extending the EF to non-human design may not be valid. Quite how we would get an agreed example of non-human design presents a problem for ID.

Whether or not we can legitimately infer design of natural phenomena using the EF is the big question. To do so means we are extrapolating from our experiences with one class of phenomena where causal histories are more accessible and applying it to phenomena where they are not. All we know is that the EF works here, and we feel justified in applying the EF there.
This is not unreasonable. Darwinian theory itself rests on big leaps of extrapolation.

But is it really true that “Where direct, empirical corroboration is possible, design actually is present whenever specified complexity is present”? To falsify this statement would require finding a true and corroborated instance of apparent design that would force the EF to crank out a design inference. IOW, a determination of the presence of design where it really doesn’t exist. It seems increasingly unlikely that we will every find such a case. Someone would have found one by now.

 

[reggieM]

The scientists that conducted the research disagree with you reggie.

They seem to disagree with you since they said:

Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues.

Additionally, the article stated:

The scientists do not know how the cellular machinery guiding this process may have originated …

They used language to let the rest of the scientific world know what they found (by the way, we are discussing a webpage article, not the scientists’ paper).

Interesting comment. You’re qualifying the source because you couldn’t deal with what it said (that it’s just “a webpage article”).

If the story on that page fit your views you wouldn’t have to explain that it’s not the scientific paper.

I’m familiar with the way you dodge issues. Again, you skip over the problems here with the anti-Darwinian control-loop found in this organism, which caused the scientists to have to deny (ridiculously) that this doesn’t support Intelligent Design theory. Why would they add that to their findings?

It’s obvious that this is, indeed, evidence to support ID – that’s precisly why they denied it.

But more importantly, you dismissed the article without even reading it (except to buy-into the Darwinian catch-phrases and claim that this finding is perfectly consistent with Darwinian theory).

You can use all the bluster you want, Tim. I’m merely observing your responses (as I do with all the Darwinists here) and my case gets stronger all of the time.

Or let me put it this way, you’ve done nothing at all to convince me that you’re correct on this issue.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hey Rossum,

Regarding RNA sequences, if we encounter one with “Rossum was here” contained therein, we would be tempted to make a design inference. RNA sequences certainly are contingent. This particular pattern would qualify as a specification. The only question is whether this paticular combination of letters could have arisen by chance. That conclusion will turn on how stringent we want to be. When will we rule out chance? If the odds are less than 1 out of a million, billion, brazillion?

I don’t think the EF has a problem in this instance.

 

[Orogeny]

They seem to disagree with you since they said:

Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues.

Additionally, the article stated:

The scientists do not know how the cellular machinery guiding this process may have originated …

And I guess you missed this:

“The work also confirms an idea first floated in an 1858 essay by Alfred Wallace, who along with Charles Darwin co-discovered the theory of evolution.”

and this:

“The research, published in a recent edition of Physical Review Letters, provides corroborating data, Rabitz said, for Wallace’s idea.”

and this:

"Chakrabarti said that one of the aims of modern evolutionary theory is to identify principles of self-organization that can accelerate the generation of complex biological structures. “Such principles are fully consistent with the principles of natural selection. Biological change is always driven by random mutation and selection, but at certain pivotal junctures in evolutionary history, such random processes can create structures capable of steering subsequent evolution toward greater sophistication and complexity.”

Hmm. Looks like it fits within the model.

I hate quote mining.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

I’m familiar with the way you dodge issues. Again, you skip over the problems here with the anti-Darwinian control-loop found in this organism, which caused the scientists to have to deny (ridiculously) that this doesn’t support Intelligent Design theory. Why would they add that to their findings?

And you ignore the actual evidence presented. I guess you really do know more about science than scientists do.

It’s obvious that this is, indeed, evidence to support ID – that’s precisly why they denied it.

Well, your professional opinion aside, it doesn’t do any such thing.

But more importantly, you dismissed the article without even reading it (except to buy-into the Darwinian catch-phrases and claim that this finding is perfectly consistent with Darwinian theory).

Once again, a claim that is false. I have read the article several times. It is you, not I, that have ignored what is written.

You can use all the bluster you want, Tim. I’m merely observing your responses (as I do with all the Darwinists here) and my case gets stronger all of the time.

If that makes you feel good to think so, I’m happy for you.

Or let me put it this way, you’ve done nothing at all to convince me that you’re correct on this issue.

Hard to convince someone that doesn’t want to be convinced.

Peace

Tim

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Rossum also sed: "So far ID has failed in all of its attempts to show that certain organs, or organelles, could not have evolved. We do not know who Seth’s wife was, nevertheless we can reasonably infer her existence from the genealogies in Genesis. Unless we have some very strong evidence to the contrary we can reasonably assume that Seth fathered Enosh in the usual way. ID needs similarly strong evidence to overturn the reasonable assumption that evolution produced the whole variety of life on earth from simple beginnings about 4.5 billion years ago.

Assuming we can calculate the probabilities that a certain biological form could have arisen by chance, and that probability is less the universal probability bound, would we not then be justified in “sweeping the field” of all possible naturalistic explanations? Even if we were able to conceive of possible evolutionary explanations, isn’t it reasonable to reject them if they are too improbable?

 

[rossum]

Additionally, the article stated:

The scientists do not know how the cellular machinery guiding this process may have originated …

How are you sure that the article is correctly reporting what the scientists said? We all know that reporters can make mistakes. Wouldn’t it be better to go and have a look at what the scientists themselves actually wrote rather than what the reporters have written? Secondary sources are not as reliable as primary sources.

Interesting comment. You’re qualifying the source because you couldn’t deal with what it said (that it’s just “a webpage article”).

If you believe everything that is written in every “webpage article” then I have this bridge in New York that I would like to sell you…

rossum

 

[rossum]

Whether or not we can legitimately infer design of natural phenomena using the EF is the big question. To do so means we are extrapolating from our experiences with one class of phenomena where causal histories are more accessible and applying it to phenomena where they are not. All we know is that the EF works here, and we feel justified in applying the EF there.
This is not unreasonable. Darwinian theory itself rests on big leaps of extrapolation.

All science relies to some extent on extrapolation. We have seen the sun rise in the east every day in the past. We can reasonably extrapolate that it will rise in the east tomorrow. I would disagree with your use of “big leaps” with respect to evolution. All evolutionary processes have been observed just as much as we have observed that the sun rises in the east.

But is it really true that “Where direct, empirical corroboration is possible, design actually is present whenever specified complexity is present”?

This statement is currently not of any use, since there is no fully agreed example of specified complexity available. The detection of specified complexity depends crucially on the existence of a specification and so far Dembski has been unable to supply an objective definition of what constitutes a specification. Without an objective definition then what constitutes a specification becomes dependent on which individual is performing the test, and that disqualifies it as science. Science must be reproducible by different researchers. The statememt may be possibly true but we cannot currently test it because we have no objectively tested examples of specified complexity to try it out on.

To falsify this statement would require finding a true and corroborated instance of apparent design that would force the EF to crank out a design inference. IOW, a determination of the presence of design where it really doesn’t exist. It seems increasingly unlikely that we will every find such a case. Someone would have found one by now.

Taking a chance to blow my own trumpet here, you might wish to refer to my proposal for a Theistic Design Detector. This points out that with an omnipotent designer we can detect design in pretty much everything from the most complex living organism to a grain of sand. If design is so omnipresent (an inevitable consequence of an omnimax designer) then it ceases to be a useful concept.

rossum

 

[Spirithound]

It seems increasingly unlikely that we will every find such a case [of false design]. Someone would have found one by now.

This is really an empirical question that I’m not sure we can make yet. How long have we been observing things of Specified Complexity? If something is complex enough to qualify, wouldn’t it take quite a while to evolve? We could be staring at things for centuries before we see anything interesting. Remember the previously-mentioned figure of a billion bactera and 20,000 years?

Even if we were able to conceive of possible evolutionary explanations, isn’t it reasonable to reject them if they are too improbable?

A phrase I like to use is “Every week some idiot wins the lottery.” It means we have a singularly improbable event, winning the lottery, but if millions of people play, somebody is going to win. similarly, have our statisticians taken into account all the times this evolution has failed to take place? Maybe now, 20,000 years with our 1B bacteria later, it’s due for something crazy to happen?

 

[Spirithound]

This points out that with an omnipotent designer we can detect design in pretty much everything from the most complex living organism to a grain of sand. If design is so omnipresent (an inevitable consequence of an omnimax designer) then it ceases to be a useful concept.

I’ve been thinking about this. Can you explain to me at what point do we go from ID to Creationism?

 

[reggieM]

How are you sure that the article is correctly reporting what the scientists said? We all know that reporters can make mistakes. Wouldn’t it be better to go and have a look at what the scientists themselves actually wrote rather than what the reporters have written? Secondary sources are not as reliable as primary sources.

If you believe everything that is written in every “webpage article” then I have this bridge in New York that I would like to sell you…

rossum

That’s definitely true, it could be a mistake. I would hate to think that Princeton University would be no more trustworthy than a shyster con-man trying to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge, but that could the case.

More likely the scientists will retract what they said.

But my point with Tim stands. He passionately defended the findings and was outraged that I would post it (because it supposedly supported his view).

He didn’t even read it before he was claiming that it supported evolutionary theory.

If the article is correct he’d have to do a lot more work to reconcile the findings with evolutionary theory.

Instead his comment was:

“Hmm. Looks like it fits within the model.”

That is supposedly “objective science” from him.

If the article is proven to be a mistake, Tim will say:

“See, I told you not to trust it.”

 

[rossum]

Regarding RNA sequences, if we encounter one with “Rossum was here” contained therein, we would be tempted to make a design inference.

That was how I constructed the designed RNA sequence I posted elsethread, though the sentence I used was different. Some GM organisms have the equivalent of “Copyright GM Megacorp” written into their DNA.

However the recognition of these sequences depends on how you translate the set of RNA codons into letters. If I picked a different relationship between codons and letters, say using the Cyrillic, Arabic or Devanagari alphabets then I would probably get nonsense for the same RNA sequence. Equally well I could pick a randomly generated Latin alphabet translation and design RNA from that, which would probably not be recognised as designed using the standard RNA → letter translation.

An alien from another civilisation would have essentially no chance of recognising any sort of human designed message in RNA because it would not have the required background knowledge of human languages. The same of course applies to us - we may possibly have “Copyright Sirius Cybernetics Corporation” written into our genes in Sirian and not be able to recognise it.

Making a design inference is extremely sensitive to the knowledge available when the inference is made.

RNA sequences certainly are contingent. This particular pattern would qualify as a specification. The only question is whether this paticular combination of letters could have arisen by chance. That conclusion will turn on how stringent we want to be. When will we rule out chance? If the odds are less than 1 out of a million, billion, brazillion?

Creationist calculations of probabilities are notorious for using an overly simplistic model, jumping directly from a lot of dissociated bases to a fully formed DNA sequence with only one possible ordering. This model is wrong on two counts. Firstly there is more than one way to code for anything due both to the redundancy in the genetic code and to the fact that in many positions different amino acids can function just as well. To illustrate the second of these, Yockey (1992) has calculated that there are 2.3 x 10[sup]93[/sup] ways to arrange amino acids into a functioning Cytochrome C, an enzyme with about 100 amino acids. This means that the probability is never “one in …” but always “N in …” where N is a number that should be calculated as part of the model.

Secondly, DNA in living organisms does not appear from nowhere. We get our DNA from our common ancestor with the chimps. That in turn got its DNA from an early primate and so on back to the earliest life, which was vastly simpler than anything alive today. Every single one of those ancestors succeeded in reproducing, so every single one of them had DNA (or its precursor) that functioned well enough for them to reproduce. That is a very efficient filter, removing all the billions of combinations that do not work and only allowing through those combinations that do work well enough to reproduce. If any one of our ancestors had failed to reproduce then we would not be here today. This is the point of Dawkins’ image of Climbing Mount Improbable by many many small steps rather than one giant leap. By not including the effects of billions of generations of natural selection the common creationist probability model fails to give a correct account of evolutionary mechanisms.

The creationist probability model works well enough for sequences designed by humans, who start with a blank piece of paper. It does not work well for sequences that arise as a result of random mutation and natural selection because it fails to model the effects of natural selection over many generations.

Thank you for some interesting questions.

rossum

 

[Orogeny]

But my point with Tim stands. He passionately defended the findings and was outraged that I would post it (because it supposedly supported his view).

Not outraged at all reggie. Why do you feel that you need to make that assertion?

He didn’t even read it before he was claiming that it supported evolutionary theory.

Well, since I told you that I did read it, I suppose I should be outraged that you are calling me a liar, but I am not. I have pity for someone who has to make such assertions to hide their mistakes.

If the article is correct he’d have to do a lot more work to reconcile the findings with evolutionary theory.

Instead his comment was:

“Hmm. Looks like it fits within the model.”

That is supposedly “objective science” from him.

If the article is proven to be a mistake, Tim will say:

“See, I told you not to trust it.”

The quotes from the scientists are what they are. If they didn’t say that, then I will evaluate what they did say.

Peace

Tim

 

[rossum]

Assuming we can calculate the probabilities that a certain biological form could have arisen by chance, and that probability is less the universal probability bound, would we not then be justified in “sweeping the field” of all possible naturalistic explanations? Even if we were able to conceive of possible evolutionary explanations, isn’t it reasonable to reject them if they are too improbable?

I think that it is not possible to calculate such a probability with any degree of accuracy. Indeed I would suspect that the error bars on such a calculation would be so wide as to prevent it being used for anything.

Biological forms arise from their parent or parents. You would need to calculate the probabilites for every generation back to the origin of life 4.5 billion years ago. That is not a practical proposition given the amount of information that has been lost over time.

Merely looking at probabilities is not sufficient. If I shuffle two packs of non-identical cards together then there are 104! = 1.03 x 10[sup]166[/sup] possible arrangements of those cards. Despite the probability of any particular arrangement being below Dembski’s UPB, one of those arrangements is seen in the shuffled pack. Extremely improbable events do happen, and can happen very easily in some circumstances. How improbable is the precise current arrangement of all of the sandgrains on Bondi Beach?

rossum

 

[reggieM]

Despite the probability of any particular arrangement being below Dembski’s UPB, one of those arrangements is seen in the shuffled pack. Extremely improbable events do happen, and can happen very easily in some circumstances.

Yes, but I think the problem is in how the improbable arrangements are replicated over time and the patterns that are found.

One arrangement of a shuffled deck looks like what we’d expect in a random assortment. There’s very little pattern or specified complexity. It’s highly improbable that that particular pattern occured, but it remains a non-specified complex pattern.

A single shuffle of the deck that had all four colored suits grouped together would be far more specified and far more improbable.

The numbers in specified order are even more improbable. So it’s not just complexity, like the sands on a beach, but “specified” complexity where there is pattern and function, as in language versus a jumble of letters.

 

[reggieM]

Not outraged at all reggie. Why do you feel that you need to make that assertion?

That’s a good question. I felt the need to make that assertion because that is what I perceived and I thought it would help to point that out. Obviously it didn’t but perhaps I learned from that.

I’ve learned that I find it difficult to communicate with you. In my opinion, some of that is my fault and some is yours.

I don’t understand your motives with regards to evolutionary theory.

But I do know that we share the same ultimate goal in life and we share the supernatural gifts received at Baptism and Confirmation – so we can communicate with God that way. God has permitted us to have different opinions and that is part of His plan.

I did not mean to disrespect your faith. I meant that your committment to evolution seems to me to be something like a religious conviction. Perhaps I should have said like how a fan supports his favorite sports team – with a lot of committment and emotion.

I did not call you a liar. My opinion merely differed from yours on that matter.

 

[rossum]

Yes, but I think the problem is in how the improbable arrangements are replicated over time and the patterns that are found.

DNA is replicated by a simple mechanical copying process, which is subject to occasional errors. Viable patterns are found by eliminating all those patterns that fail to reproduce. Only patterns that succeed in reproducing get into the next generation.

One arrangement of a shuffled deck looks like what we’d expect in a random assortment. There’s very little pattern or specified complexity. It’s highly improbable that that particular pattern occured, but it remains a non-specified complex pattern.

Here we disagree. The random seeming pattern has a prior specification in the mind of God - that exact pattern of cards was known to God in advance. That apparently random pattern is just as specified as the arrangement in suit/value order.

A single shuffle of the deck that had all four colored suits grouped together would be far more specified and far more improbable.

No, any single arrangement is just as improbable as any other single arrangement. That is basic probability, the chance of any given order is 1 in 104!.

The numbers in specified order are even more improbable. So it’s not just complexity, like the sands on a beach, but “specified” complexity where there is pattern and function, as in language versus a jumble of letters.

The sands on a beach are just as specified in the mind of God as anything else. Can you show me anything that does not have a prior specification in the mind of God? Dembski’s filter collapses to answer “yes” to the question “Is this thing designed?” That is probably inevitable, given an omnimax deity responsible for the entire universe. Having thus reduced Dembski’s design detector to a green light constantly on and a red light constantly off, we can see that it is of no practical use.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

Here we disagree. The random seeming pattern has a prior specification in the mind of God - that exact pattern of cards was known to God in advance. That apparently random pattern is just as specified as the arrangement in suit/value order.

The apparently random pattern is the result of a random shuffling. It results in an expected random, complex, non-specified assortment (from the human perspective). The arrangement in the suit/value order is a specification.

On shuffling the deck, one evaluates the results. Is the result in an expected, random sequence or is it specified by grouping?

If you’re questioning the nature of the term “random” I think that’s a different issue. In the mind of God, nothing is random. If human beings had divine intelligence, nothing would be random for us either.

For example, if we knew the placement of all the cards in the deck, the velocity, frequency and placement of the shuffle – there would be nothing random in the result.

God has limited our intelligence in order to show us what randomness is like. But He has also given us enough intelligence to understand what non-random specificity is like.

No, any single arrangement is just as improbable as any other single arrangement. That is basic probability, the chance of any given order is 1 in 104!.

I think you’re abstracting a single arrangement from the notion of specificity within the range. There are 52 cards and there are probabilities assigned to the placement of every card as well as for strings of cards. When we look at groupings within the range, we’re signifying something different than by looking at the whole string as a “specified arrangement”. For example, one can calculate the probability of having 10 consecutive red cards versus less then ten. The one arrangement is far more improbable than the other.

The sands on a beach are just as specified in the mind of God as anything else. Can you show me anything that does not have a prior specification in the mind of God? Dembski’s filter collapses to answer “yes” to the question “Is this thing designed?” That is probably inevitable, given an omnimax deity responsible for the entire universe. Having thus reduced Dembski’s design detector to a green light constantly on and a red light constantly off, we can see that it is of no practical use.

You may be right but I’m not following this.

Is this thing designed? That means, is this thing a random assortment or is it specified as in language or functions in an organism.

A complex-specified result has a function or purpose within an order or series. It’s what astronomers might call “fine-tuning” where things need to be in the right place in order for them to work. There is something necessary about the arrangement.

Again, entering the mind of God is a very good idea because it can teach us about what He wants to reveal to His creatures.

He gives us the experience of randomness and of ignorance. Since we don’t know the origin, things might appear random. He also gives us the experience of order and purpose.

 

[rossum]

The apparently random pattern is the result of a random shuffling. It results in an expected random, complex, non-specified assortment (from the human perspective). The arrangement in the suit/value order is a specification.

You say “from the human perspective”. Why? One of the aims of ID is to extend the scientific perspective to include the supernatural. From the ID point of view the inclusion of the supernatural should be welcomed - why are you limiting your perspective to the purely human?

One of the issues I have with Dembski’s CSI is the problem of defining objectively what does and what does not constitute a specification. In this case we differ on whether or not the advance knowledge in the mind of God of the precise ordering of the double deck constitutes a specification or not. The detection or not of design rests crucially on the existence or not of a specification, and we have no objective way to determine whether or not there is such a specification. This is a very good illustration of this particular problem with Dembski’s work and shows that it needs to be resolved before the CSI concept can progress further.

You may be right but I’m not following this.

My apologies for not explaining things more clearly. If God created the whole universe and the universe is unfolding exactly according to God’s plan then any working design detector will detect design in everything in the universe from the smallest grain of sand, which is shaped and placed exactly according to God’s plan, to the largest galaxy, which is also shaped and placed exactly according to God’s plan. In such a universe a working design detector will register “designed” whatever you point it at. Such a detector may well be correct, but it is also useless since it cannot distinguish anything.

To put it another way, given an omnimax designer is there anything at all that such a designer could not have designed? We would need such an object to be able to test the “not designed” part of our design detector. What could we use to complete our testing?

rossum

 

[Namesake]

To put it another way, given an omnimax designer is there anything at all that such a designer could not have designed? We would need such an object to be able to test the “not designed” part of our design detector. What could we use to complete our testing?

Quantum gravity? Oh no, not that, because so far quantum gravity theories point to a universe with no beginning, no point of creation, no end, no borders, therefore no creator.

I suppose the fundamentalists should move into theoretical physics next because that discipline is more likely to exclude a designer than biology ever could. However, theoretical physics is way too hard for most of us to understand. That is the realm of Newton, Planck, Einstein, Feynman, and Hawking, not us mere mortals.