Evaluating Dembski's ID

[Sideline]

Is the man made propeller irreducibly complex?

Nope.

A boomerang, a hand-held fan, an axle, and a paddle all contain elements of a propeller in less complex forms.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Is the man made propeller irreducibly complex?

I can’t think of anything that’s irreducibly complex in the biological sense. But yes, you could remove one or more blades, and it would still work, albeit very poorly unless you were careful to balance which blades were removed.

 

[Namesake]

As I said, for God, there is no “randomness”.

Since randomness exists, didn’t God create it?

 

[reggieM]

Since randomness exists, didn’t God create it?

Randomness exists for human beings and it is only a function of our ignorance of causes. God created human beings with certain limits of knowledge and with the potential to sin (and create more ignorance for themselves). Ignorance is a lack of knowledge and truth – so its not really a positive thing that God created.

 

[reggieM]

Nope.

A boomerang, a hand-held fan, an axle, and a paddle all contain elements of a propeller in less complex forms.

I don’t think you’re responding to the defintion of irreducible complexity.

An axle contains some aspect of a propeller, but it doesn’t function as a propeller without the other parts.

 

[rossum]

I don’t think you’re responding to the defintion of irreducible complexity.

An axle contains some aspect of a propeller, but it doesn’t function as a propeller without the other parts.

This is a correct response to the definition of IC. With an IC there is no function at all if any single parrt is removed. If there is a different function for a subsection of the system, then there is an evoluyionary pathway to develop that subsystem. Hence that subsystem cannot be said to be unevolveble, as is claimed for any subsystem of an IC system.

Behe’s mousetrap supposedly has no function if any part is removed; a propellor can have a function if parts are removed. Having a function allows something to evolve; evolution does have a problem with things that have no function.

rossum

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hey Rossum,

Is Searle’s scheme objective or subjective?

I suspect that for most scientists, qua scientists, would expect something a little more definite than Dembski is currently providing. It is good to see that Dembski is recognising the problem, but I do not think that many will accept his attempt to effectively define it away. A working design detector will require something a little more definite - the sort of thing that a programmer can code into the microprocessor included in the detector. I do not expect it to be easy to do that with Searle’s definition.

Searle’s book is called The Construction of Social Reality. His scheme gives us an analytical tool for classifying objects of scientific inquiry. His point is that social realities have objective aspects too.

Now when it comes to design, it seems inescapable that we are dealing with a social reality. By invoking Searle, Dembski admits this. Crucial to Dembski’s design detector is specification, which inherently involves a subjective judgment that a detachable pattern is present. Folks, by reason of their background knowledge, will have to agree that this pattern fits or is an example of a more generalized pattern. This string of numbers is the number pi to the nth decimal place. This stringy thing sticking out of e coli is a propulsion system, etc.

Now when I describe the BF as some kind of propulsion system (say, inboard motor), then I am isolating certain objective structural features of the organism and their function. I am then making the observation that this isolated pattern matches a another pattern, which just happens to be designed. Now Dembski’s point is that we can come to agreement as to the similarity of the patterns.

But so what? If I pick out certain grains of sand on the beach that conform to the pattern of a Star of David, I can get agreement from most folks that it is a Star of David. But I am not justified thereby in saying that this pattern of sand grains occurred by by design. When we isolate specific biological patterns and ask if they are designed, are we doing nothing more than that?

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Rossum sed:

I am not asserting that they are purely subjective, merely that he has not yet eliminated all subjectivity from his proposed definition. Dr Dembski has not yet given us an objective definition of what is, and what is not, a specificaition. Science needs such an objective definition, one with no subjective component.

I can only refer you to Section 2.5 of No Free Lunch (NFL) where he gives us statistical definition.

Given a reference class of possibilities Ω, a chance hypothesis H, a probability measure induced by H and defined on Ω (i.e., P(•|H)), and an event/sample E from Ω; a rejection function f is detachable from E if and only if a subject possesses background knowledge K that is conditionally independent of E (i.e., P(E|H&K) = P(E|H)) and such that K explicitly and univocally identifies the function f. Any rejection region R of the form Tγ = {w Є Ω | f(w) ≥ γ} is then said to be detachable fro E as well. Furthermore, R is then called a specification of E, and E is said to be specified.

I don’t think a purely objective definition is forthcoming or is even possible.

 

[Namesake]

Randomness exists for human beings and it is only a function of our ignorance of causes. God created human beings with certain limits of knowledge and with the potential to sin (and create more ignorance for themselves). Ignorance is a lack of knowledge and truth – so its not really a positive thing that God created.

So, you believe that God set limits on how much humans can ever know about His creation? And when we think we understand something, like randomness, we really are just deceived because God hasn’t allowed us to understand it. Is that right?

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Dembski sez at p. 63: "Detachability is always relativized to a subject or subjects possessing certain background knowledge.:

 

[Spirithound]

So, you believe that God set limits on how much humans can ever know about His creation? And when we think we understand something, like randomness, we really are just deceived because God hasn’t allowed us to understand it. Is that right?

Randomness, by its definition is impossible to understand. No mathematical or physical laws, theorems, axioms, or theories are going to predict what a random event is going to look like.

 

[rossum]

Randomness, by its definition is impossible to understand. No mathematical or physical laws, theorems, axioms, or theories are going to predict what a random event is going to look like.

I disagree. Random events can be predictable in statistical ways. Radioactive decay is a random event, but I can predict that within a given time half of the existing atoms of a radioactive isotope will decay.

Quantum mechanics can give us a good understanding of the underlying processes. It is just that we cannot currently say when a particular atom will decay.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

So, you believe that God set limits on how much humans can ever know about His creation? And when we think we understand something, like randomness, we really are just deceived because God hasn’t allowed us to understand it. Is that right?

Yes, there are limits on human knowledge.

Flatlanders are limited in what they can observe and experience.

We are flatlanders.

 

[Namesake]

Yes, there are limits on human knowledge.

Flatlanders are limited in what they can observe and experience.

We are flatlanders.

Then do you believe that God limited human ability to understand the universe? If so, why? What’s the point? Doesn’t that refute free will?

 

[Sideline]

This is a correct response to the definition of IC. With an IC there is no function at all if any single parrt is removed. If there is a different function for a subsection of the system, then there is an evoluyionary pathway to develop that subsystem. Hence that subsystem cannot be said to be unevolveble, as is claimed for any subsystem of an IC system.

Behe’s mousetrap supposedly has no function if any part is removed; a propellor can have a function if parts are removed. Having a function allows something to evolve; evolution does have a problem with things that have no function.

rossum

Uhm… yes. Exactly.

The notion of IC is that all the components of the system are interrelated. That if any part were removed the system would be unable to function.

That there are functional components propeller suggests that it is not irreducibly complex.

 

[buffalo]

Then do you believe that God limited human ability to understand the universe? If so, why? What’s the point? Doesn’t that refute free will?

Taking it from the top we are not God so we cannot have His understanding of the universe.

Secondly, we are limited to our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. So we can only understand what we can observe.

We also are not infused with the preternatural gifts of infused knowledge that Adam and Eve had. We lost this as a resut of original sin.

Does it negate free-will? No.

 

[Namesake]

Taking it from the top we are not God so we cannot have His understanding of the universe.

Secondly, we are limited to our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. So we can only understand what we can observe.

We also are not infused with the preternatural gifts of infused knowledge that Adam and Eve had. We lost this as a resut of original sin.

Does it negate free-will? No.

I think it does negate free will because we can never know what the rules are. According to your idea we must remain ignorant which implies that we cannot make a free choice. We are limited by our ignorance.

 

[buffalo]

I think it does negate free will because we can never know what the rules are. According to your idea we must remain ignorant which implies that we cannot make a free choice. We are limited by our ignorance.

A great argument for morality and life instructions coming from God.

1. We know we are not God.

therefore we cannot know as much as God,

therefore we are ignorant of some things.

We cannot be all-knowing therefore we are ignorant.

God has presented the information and rules to mankind. The free-will choice is to accept them and Him or not.

 

[Namesake]

A great argument for morality and life instructions coming from God.

1. We know we are not God.

therefore we cannot know as much as God,

therefore we are ignorant of some things.

We cannot be all-knowing therefore we are ignorant.

God has presented the information and rules to mankind. The free-will choice is to accept them and Him or not.

At great risk I invoke the ideas of Steven Hawking and his quest for a unifying field theory, a set of equations that unify relativity and quantum mechanics. Hawking claimed that when we get there we will know the “mind of God”.

The God Hawking refers to is more like Einstein’s God, but still the idea is useful in this conversation.

 

[buffalo]

At great risk I invoke the ideas of Steven Hawking and his quest for a unifying field theory, a set of equations that unify relativity and quantum mechanics. Hawking claimed that when we get there we will know the “mind of God”.

The God Hawking refers to is more like Einstein’s God, but still the idea is useful in this conversation.

Our Catholic teaching and tradition gives us much insight into the mind of God. Are you saying that a scientific equation will worth more?