How do you plan to measure complexity?

[Bradskii]

The Discovery Institute’s view on complexity is not a ‘thought experiment’. Either you are badly misinformed or are deliberately bending the truth somewhat.

 

[Gorgias]

The Discovery Institute’s view on complexity is not a ‘thought experiment’. Either you are badly misinformed

I’m willing to entertain that notion.

Yet, @Sophia’s OP didn’t address the Discovery Institute, but rather, a particular thought experiment (“how much complexity is sufficient to convince you of an intelligent creator?”) which she’s taken and seemingly twisted a bit…

Do you have a citation from the Discovery Institute that is both what Sophia discussed and which is not a thought experiment?

 

[Bradskii]

Here is a link: Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design | Center for Science and Culture

Follow it as far as your patience will allow to get a definition of complexity.

 

[Dan123]

Reminds me of a succinct way of putting it I once saw. Everyone believes their great grandparents had sex to product their grandparents, even though no one alive today was there to see it.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I am claiming that this is what they did actually teach and believe if one reads their writings. It’s an historical fact. It’s not like I’m making this stuff up

I have read their writings, and I disagree. As with the Progressive Creationist’s interpretation of Genesis, the distortion of the Fathers’ writings required to make them conform to ‘Progressive Creation’ is to my mind too great to be tenable.

 

[Gorgias]

Here is a link: Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design | Center for Science and Culture

Follow it as far as your patience will allow to get a definition of complexity.

So, they say:

ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause. The form of information which we observe is produced by intelligent action, and thus reliably indicates design, is generally called “specified complexity” or “complex and specified information” (CSI).

This still sounds like an illative sense argument to me: at which point does a person say “I have seen sufficient evidence of complexity to satisfy me that intelligent action produced this effect”?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

at which point does a person say “I have seen sufficient evidence of complexity to satisfy me that intelligent action produced this effect”?

It doesn’t matter. I have known people look at a crystal of bismuth and refuse to believe that it was a “natural” product, while others have looked at computer-generated images and refused to believe that they were not entirely manufactured. Personal belief or refusal to believe is no basis for scientific acceptance. A more objective approach is required, such as a numerical valuation based on measurements. So far I have not been able to find out any way of evaluating FSCI. Can you help?

 

[Gorgias]

It doesn’t matter. … Personal belief or refusal to believe is no basis for scientific acceptance.

And, to be honest, that’s the cliff off which this thread is gonna jump, eventually. Subjective refusal to believe is not an indication that the thing disbelieved is not objective. So, we can have an objective measure, but the fact that someone says “nope, not gonna believe it!” doesn’t make it one whit less objective. Anything is deniable. That’s what ‘subjectivity’ is all about.

So far I have not been able to find out any way of evaluating FSCI. Can you help?

FSCI is one of those sets of measurements that calls for an illative sense prudential judgment. No matter how much they attempt to frame it up as empirical, there will always be someone who says “yes! it’s true!” at the first ‘proof’, as well as someone who says “no! it’s false!” at every ‘proof’.

(That’s why @Sophia’s claim of finding an objective measure fails – it’s not about the measure, it’s about the illative sense assent (or lack thereof)… )

(We’re kind of circling the same drain over in the ‘objective truth/morality’ thread, interestingly enough…)

 

[Hugh_Farey]

And, to be honest, that’s the cliff off which this thread is gonna jump, eventually.

I don’t see why it has to. I understand that some believers in Creationism, at least the ID wing of it, think that FSCI can be measured, and that by comparing measurements, we can identify ID. Fair enough. Now all we want to know is how to make the measurements. Any idea?

 

[Gorgias]

I guess you consider yourself to be qualified to decide what I meant when I created the topic.

Your meaning is clear enough, and clearly enough stated. I’m not disputing what you’re trying to do in this thread. I’m just disputing that it’s reasonable. Important distinction, there.

I shrugged it off, because your assumption is irrelevant. And I will shrug it off next time.

Ahh, the sign of an open mind…

What nonsense. Only ID iots can deny an actual, physical evidence.

Did Jesus exist?

“Anything is deniable” - you say? No one can deny that falling off a high cliff is lethal. That is the beauty of actual, physical evidence. It is objective - while this whole “complexity” is not.

Oh, you can deny it all right… all the way up till the point your head makes contact with the ground. The point isn’t that one can reasonably or logically deny anything – the point is that one may deny anything.

 

[Wesrock]

Eh, some comments in this quote that are inaccurate, but on the other hand I really do not like ID theory either, so do I put myself in the middle or butt out?

Hmmm

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I have to agree with Bradskii. I’m afraid Richca has reasoned himself into so many knots that Design, and more specifically FSCI, has been rendered meaningless.

“How do we measure that which is the substance of your question in the opening post.”
“I mean what kind of equation could be written to explain the whole automobile? There isn’t one”
“So, we can recognize or measure design.”

Well, no. Recognising is not the same as Measuring. From the air, a river looks very like a tree. Has one been designed and the other not? How can you tell? There is a perfectly good theological sense in which they have both been designed. And a perfectly good scientific sense in which both are examples of the beautiful way in which the laws of nature cohere to present a universe which is not only inherently comprehensible, but which contains organisms able to comprehend it. I think Bradskii would agree that all this is design in at least some sense. But is there anywhere that is more intelligent than anywhere else? How can you tell?

 

[Richca]

So everything is designed. Every crystal, every bacteria, every snowflake, every water molecule etc etc.

So you do not differentiate between something that is designed and something that occcurs naturally. It’s all designed.

Am I correct?

As I said above, the book of nature, i.e, the whole creation, is the design and plan of God conceived in his intellect from all eternity. Analogously but on a finite scale of course, when a human builder wants to build a house, he first forms the idea of it in his intellect and may draw blueprints for it up. The blueprints are like the form or idea of the house the builder has in his mind. Subsequently, that idea or form of the house is formed in matter or the materials the craftsmen use to construct the actual house with every part in order.

Whatever naturally occurs in nature are nothing other than the effects of second causes proceeding from the First Cause, God, and of his eternal design and plan, blueprint as it were in his intellect, of the universe from beginning to end. The effects produced naturally from creatures or second causes proceed from their various natures designed and created by God. Whatever exists, whatever happens in this world proceeds first of all from God himself and his eternal plan and design for the universe down to the minutest details. This plan is executed under his providential care and guidance through the mulititude and variety of all the creatures he created who produce effects according to their various natures. No creature can exist, preserve its existence, or cause anything without God and his continual activity as the First Cause of all.

The products that humans make through their intelligence are obviously not on a par with the universe we observe that God himself created. We are able to produce the things we do because God has gifted us with spiritual faculties of intellect and will by which we are made in his image and likeness, and of course our bodies by which we are able to use the various members of the body to make things such as our hands. The artifacts produced by humans are analogous to the entire creation as an artifact of God.

 

[Sophia]

So everything is designed. Every crystal, every bacteria, every snowflake, every water molecule etc etc.

So you do not differentiate between something that is designed and something that occurs naturally. It’s all designed.

Am I correct?

You sure are! If everything is designed from the snowflakes through leprosy all the way to the Holocaust, then there is no need for anything else. However, if there are some “natural” events, then we need to find out which events are designed (artificial) and which ones are natural?

First of all Sophia, as the host of this thread and inquiring into ID and hoping to have a rational discussion about it and at the same time calling IDers, ID**iots, I would say is inappropriate on your part and as we will see momentarily is going to reflect, in my opinion, back on your own person and intelligence, or lack of it.

I am not a subscriber to Politically Correct speech. I call them as I see them. Of course talking about my “lack of intelligence” would be exactly as insulting IF I took it seriously. But I don’t. In this thread I am NOT talking about God, and the Bible, and the first few chapters of Genesis. I am only talking about the “sterile” question of something being the result of a creative process (does NOT have to be intelligent!) or being the result of a natural process. (You know: natural vs. artificial?)

The expression of “intelligent design” is just a new placeholder for “creation science” (and I prefer to call it “cretin science” ) and as such it is a fair game for criticism, just like “phrenology” or any other pseudo-science. Your example of an automobile is yet another substitute for Paley’s watch - and exactly as useless to substantiate that a “snowflake” or the “eye” are designed.

Being a Christian or a Catholic does NOT mean that one has to subscribe to the idea that God is a scientist, who designed and fabricated this whole shebang, we call the universe and then needs to tinker with every atom and molecule. It is much more rational to postulate that God created the framework, where the creation will unfold itself according to the laws of nature - also designed by God. With God’s perfect design, there is no need for “patching” the screw-ups by introducing “miracles”.

In the book of nature, we find through our reason that natural things everywhere are analogously designed like human artifacts

And this is where you lose your credibility. There is no “analogous” design. Reason does not tell you that since an automobile is (obviously) designed, therefore the “eye” is also designed.

If you would wish to make a meaningful contribution, you would present the theoretical method of distinguishing between natural and artificial objects, and then get down to the actual details, and show how it works in a few individual cases. Because “analogies” simply do not work. Behe, Dembski and their flock of pseudo-scientists with their “intelligent design” are the laughing stock of science, and deservedly so.

 

[AndrewAxland]

Sorry, Richca, but that whole post is sort of a dog’s breakfast theologically speaking. It’s all over the place. If you want to argue using Aristotelianism or Thomism, it would behoove you to get some formal training in both.

 

[Bradskii]

When I say ‘designed’ I mean specifically designed by God. As opposed to Him allowing nature to take its course.

IDers say that some things are designed by God BECAUSE they couldn’t occur naturally. What we need to know is where the dividing line is between:

1. Things that occur naturally (following the laws of nature that God decreed).

and

1. Things that can’t have occured naturally where God has needed to step in and specifically design it. +

(1) If God designs everything then He doesn’t need to be bound by laws of nature, so why do they exist?
(2) If God set the laws of nafure and they don’t work to produce what He needs, then He is not omniscient.

Over to you…

 

[rossum]

As I said above, the book of nature, i.e, the whole creation, is the design and plan of God conceived in his intellect from all eternity.

Then ID cannot be scientific. If ID claims to have a design detector, then it will have to show that its proposed detector works correctly. That means testing it on both designed objects (the green light shows) and undesigned objects (the red light shows).

If the entire universe is designed by God, then what target object are you going to use to show that the detector will correctly recognise an undesigned object?

No scientist will accept a “detector” which cannot be properly tested to show that it will reject undesigned objects.

I have myself proposed a design for a design detector which partly avoids this problem, but which still has some problems to be solved to do what ID requires: it would flag every grain of sand as designed. See Proposal for a Theistic Design Detector.

rossum

 

[rossum]

(1) If God designs everything then He doesn’t need to be bound by laws of nature, so why do they exist?
(2) If God set the laws of nafure and they don’t work to produce what He needs, then He is not omniscient.

I use the illustration of two pool players. The first player takes her shot. The cue ball follows exactly the path she wanted, bouncing off the cushions, striking the other balls as intended and completing the shot she wanted. The second player is not quite as good, he needs to nudge the cue ball during its travel to make sure the shot completes as he planned.

ID is looking for signs that the cue ball was nudged; in effect they are looking for signs that God’s initial design of the universe and its laws was a miscue.

As you say, that implies that God is less than omniscient, or less than omnipotent. An omniscient and omnipotent god would not need to intervene to get the result He wanted once the universe was started with its laws and initial conditions.

rossum

 

[Bradskii]

Exactly. And I’m keen to see how Richa responds.

 

[Sophia]

Well, I responded to this post of yours, and somehow it disappeared into the “bit-bucket”.

Your meaning is clear enough, and clearly enough stated. I’m not disputing what you’re trying to do in this thread. I’m just disputing that it’s reasonable. Important distinction, there.

If something wishes to masquerade as science, then it must conform to the requirements of science. A clear, unambiguous definition (“what is complexity?”) and a method to distinguish between “simple” and “complex” entities. No science will accept something in the “illative sense”.

Ahh, the sign of an open mind…

An open mind is not the one that is willing to consider any nonsense.

Did Jesus exist?

The existence of Jesus is not a scientific proposition. But as soon as someone will try to introduce a “theology-science”, or an “angelology-science”, or a “demonology-science”, then that person WILL be held to the same requirements as any other scientist.

Oh, you can deny it all right… all the way up till the point your head makes contact with the ground. The point isn’t that one can reasonably or logically deny anything – the point is that one may deny anything.

You will never catch me sneaking into an insane asylum, and attempt to have a conversation with the inmates. I presume that the discussion partner is at least somewhat rational.