Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[rossum]

Hi Rossum. I haven’t been involved much in this thread, but I think you mis-use the idea of probability in your above statement. I’ve seen a similar statement many times from others as well.

The fact that something actually happened doesn’t mean that the probability of it happening was 100%. If you have a sequence of independent events each with it’s own probability then you multiply the probabilities together to get the overall probability of the multi-stage event. To say that the probability of something happening is 100% means that in all the previous stages, the probability was 100%.

I was talking about Bayesian Posterior Probability. P(H|D) = 100% where H is the hypothesis that this universe contains intelligent life and D is the data obtained from the one universe we can observe. My apologies for not making myself clearer.

Using your logic, the probability of man appearing was also 100%. Each and every stage up to man had to happen. I can see how a YEC might come to that conclusion (God made each event happen), but it seems to fly in the face of the whole “evolution by random chance” thing (which I think you believe).

Two points. Firstly I do not “believe” evolution, I accept evolution because that is the way the evidence points. If the evidence changes then my acceptance will change. I have no religious attachment to evolution - the Buddhist scriptures are indifferent as to most questions origins or similar.

Secondly, part of Darwin’s insight was that evolution is not a random process. Mutations are indeed random with respect to their effect on the phenotype, but natural selection is definitely not a random process.

rossum

 

[o_mlly]

A plausible theory to explain what phenomena?

If the phenomena you wish to explain is the origin of life, the answer is yes.

An equally plausible question: Is Darwinism a plausible theory?

If the phenomena you wish to explain is the intra-specie evolution of organisms, the answer is yes.

If the phenomena you wish to explain is the origin of species, the anwer is no. No evidence produced shows an evoluiton of a “specie.” Note that Darwinists cannot even agree on a definition of the term “specie.” So their arguments are dead ended from the start.

If the phenomena you wish to explain is origin of life, Darwinists admit they don’t have a clue.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[rossum]

rossum:

In all the universes we know about the measured probability of intelligent life is 100%. Anything further than that involves an element of speculation.

In our universe intelligent life exists only because it was fine-tuned from the start to be so.

Just as I said, you are speculating. You are perfectly entitled to do so, but you should not mistake your speculation for anything more than what it is.

But the odds that its destiny was accidentally programmed from the start are a good deal less than 1%.

Please show your data and your working, or is this just more speculation?

It was incredibly unlikely that the the universe should be so fine-tuned to produce life. Had there been no sufficient outward burst of heat and light, had there been no sufficient degree of hydrogen and helium, had there been the absence of a hundred other conditions at the time of the BB, the universe would have collapsed upon itself.

Had any of those conditions obtained, then we would not be here to observe them. Given the fact that we are here then the number of possible universes is constrained to the smaller number of possible universes in which intelligent life is possible. The anthropic principle applies here.

Likewise, there are a thousand conditions that had to be observed by our sun, our planet, our moon, even our geography and gravity, and these all had to be fulfilled simultaneously; not to mention the conditions that were necessary to produce the first speck of life (irreducibly complex) on our planet. The notion that all this was 100% probable right from the get-go without a guiding intelligence orchestrating the whole affair only proves that hope springs eternal in the atheist and Buddhist breast.

My apologies for not explaining myself more clearly. The 100% probability is a posterior probability, not a prior probability. I suspect that the value of the prior probability is not calculable - any assumed value would be speculation.

My scientific opinions do not have anything to do with Buddhism; Buddhism is indifferent to the questions which science finds interesting.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The earth is not counted in the search for intelligent life in the universe since it’s not part of the territory where we are searching. We are looking beyond earth. With that in mind, the amount that we’ve found is 0% not 100%.

Then you are not looking for “intelligent life in the universe”, you are looking for “intelligent life in part of the universe”. The answer to that modified question is probably heavily dependent on what part of the universe you are looking at. A 1 km sphere at the centre of the sun is very unlikely to contain intelligent life. The surfaces of all earth-like planets in the whole universe (except earth) are rather more likely to contain intelligent life.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

Then you are not looking for “intelligent life in the universe”, you are looking for “intelligent life in part of the universe”. The answer to that modified question is probably heavily dependent on what part of the universe you are looking at. A 1 km sphere at the centre of the sun is very unlikely to contain intelligent life. The surfaces of all earth-like planets in the whole universe (except earth) are rather more likely to contain intelligent life.
rossum

You make a reasonable judgement about the possibility of life on a 1 km sphere at the center of the sun as an inference based on what we know about the sun now. We do not need to investigate every square inch of the sun’s mass to draw a reasonable conclusion like that.

You conclude that it is more likely that other planets will have intelligent life and base that probability/likelihood on what you know about planets and what you know about life on earth. So, earth serves as a reference point for your exploration.

We may not be able to conclude with precision exactly what the probability for life in the rest of the universe actually is, but we know what some of the constants probably need to be in order to sustain intelligent life like we have on earth – or even to have another planet capable of life as is on earth.

The chance that those constants and fine-tuned variables occur elsewhere in the universe is considered by many cosmologists to be virtually impossible. The fact that they came together for the planet earth itself requires a series of ordered, simultaneous and cooperative arrangements that cannot be replicated by any random, chance processes that we know of.

At the same time, we know that ordered precision can be the product of intelligence. We know that the human mind can create such design and is capable of understanding that design through mathematics (the fact that the universe shows mathematical symmetries and can be “understood” is something more than random, chance produces).

The proposal that some kind of intelligence was involved in creating, guiding or designing the precise, balanced conditions that make earth capable of life is more than a reasonable conclusion.

The atheist-physicist, Leonard Susskind (originator of the String Theory) says in a book aimed at refuting Intelligent Design:

“If String Theory itself is wrong, perhaps because it is mathematically inconsistent, it will fall by the wayside and, with it, the String Theory Landscape. But if that does happen, then as things stand now, we would be left with no other rational explanation for the illusion of a designed universe.” (*The Cosmic Landscape and the Illusion of Intelligent Design *pg 355)

Mr. Susskind concludes that the apparent design of the universe is an “illusion” even though there is only one theory (his own, according to him) that could support that conclusion, and that theory is far from certain.

On this basis, the the idea that universe was intelligently designed/created should be considered at least a plausible alternative and worthy of investigation.

 

[reggieM]

Secondly, part of Darwin’s insight was that evolution is not a random process. Mutations are indeed random with respect to their effect on the phenotype, but natural selection is definitely not a random process.

Natural selection acts on mutations and mutations are random. Therefore, natural selection is dependent on the random generation of mutations. Additionally, natural selection is affected by environmental conditions which also occur randomly.

Beyond that, the origin of natural selection itself was a random process. Natural selection would not be able to function (if it could even exist) without life forms to work on. The origin of the universe, earth and life itself are the result of randomness at the beginning and throughout the process.

So, of the evolutionary process, there are 3 major parts (mutations, environment and the origin of natural selection) which are random and one part non-random. Therefore, evolution is mostly a random process and even the non-random part of it originated through randomness itself.

 

[ricmat]

I was talking about Bayesian Posterior Probability. P(H|D) = 100% where H is the hypothesis that this universe contains intelligent life and D is the data obtained from the one universe we can observe. My apologies for not making myself clearer.

Thanks for the clarification. Not to get too into this, but it seems that this formula is not a probability so much as just a percentage observed, which doesn’t say anything about how things got that way.

Two points. Firstly I do not “believe” evolution, I accept evolution because that is the way the evidence points. If the evidence changes then my acceptance will change. I have no religious attachment to evolution - the Buddhist scriptures are indifferent as to most questions origins or similar.

I’m missing something here. On another thread I used the word “believe” with respect to evolution and that drew a similar negative reaction as yours above. When I say “believe” I’m using the sense of the word which means to accept. Perhaps “believe” has accrued a negative meaning because the same word is often used in a religious sense.

Secondly, part of Darwin’s insight was that evolution is not a random process. Mutations are indeed random with respect to their effect on the phenotype, but natural selection is definitely not a random process.

rossum

I agree. Natural selection is not a random process. And so far as I know, ID folks all agree that Natural selection works to change the allele frequency in existing populations. Natural selection never was the point of contention (at least not for me).

When I try to explain my position on these forums, I usually do it with the following notation (although sometimes I forget):

[random mutations + natural selection], by which I don’t mean random[mutations + natural selection].

 

[ricmat]

My apologies for not explaining myself more clearly. The 100% probability is a posterior probability, not a prior probability. I suspect that the value of the prior probability is not calculable - any assumed value would be speculation.

Although an exact number for the prior probability might not be calculable, scientists and engineers often do a “best case / worst case” sort of analysis, or even just an analysis saying “These are the conditions I’m assuming for this calculation.”

Wouldn’t it be nice if someone would/could actually work through some numbers like that? I’m not smart enough to do it, but it would be interesting to see such an analysis.

 

[ricmat]

Then you are not looking for “intelligent life in the universe”, you are looking for “intelligent life in part of the universe”. The answer to that modified question is probably heavily dependent on what part of the universe you are looking at. A 1 km sphere at the centre of the sun is very unlikely to contain intelligent life. The surfaces of all earth-like planets in the whole universe (except earth) are rather more likely to contain intelligent life.

rossum

It may be only “part of the universe”, but that part which reggie is excluding is extremely small. If we’re actually the only ones, it seems to me that it requires a lot of thought as to why that is.

 

[rossum]

I’m missing something here. On another thread I used the word “believe” with respect to evolution and that drew a similar negative reaction as yours above. When I say “believe” I’m using the sense of the word which means to accept. Perhaps “believe” has accrued a negative meaning because the same word is often used in a religious sense.

It may be that I have been involved in the creation/evolution debate for too long. One of the common creationist arguments is “evolution is a religion/belief just as much as creationism therefore it should not be taught in schools.” Hence the tendency to (over)react assertions of “belief” in evolution. My apologies.

When I try to explain my position on these forums, I usually do it with the following notation (although sometimes I forget):

[random mutations + natural selection], by which I don’t mean random[mutations + natural selection].

A good way to show it.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

Secondly, part of Darwin’s insight was that evolution is not a random process. Mutations are indeed random with respect to their effect on the phenotype, but natural selection is definitely not a random process.

Darwin’s comment in 1860:

I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. (Letter from Darwin to Gray, 22 May 1860) (bold words added by me for emphasis)

Within ten years, in his autobiography, he would write:

“[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin.

 

[greylorn]

I would also suggest that you work with Dembski’s version of ID. He is the only one that has laid out the ID program for all to see, both in terms of its theory and also in terms of its philosophical underpinnings. Much useless spinning of wheels should be avoided thereby.

East Anglican: Dembski has responded to the God of the Gaps charge and laid it to rest. Read his Design Revolution.

cordially

Frank,
A favor please. I’ve read “…Black Box” and “Edge of Evolution,” and am a Michael Behe fan. I’ve accepted Intelligent Design in various forms as a necessary theoretical requirement for the last 50 years. I don’t need to read Dembski to become more convinced, but will need to read him if he offers any interesting theories of his own re: the nature of the designer.

Does he? If so, could you outline his theories?
Thank you.

 

[reggieM]

Frank,
A favor please. I’ve read “…Black Box” and “Edge of Evolution,” and am a Michael Behe fan. I’ve accepted Intelligent Design in various forms as a necessary theoretical requirement for the last 50 years. I don’t need to read Dembski to become more convinced, but will need to read him if he offers any interesting theories of his own re: the nature of the designer.

Does he? If so, could you outline his theories?
Thank you.

… I’ll jump in here if you don’t mind. I would recommend Dembski’s work also. He has come up with some brilliant ideas regarding probability and metrics to evaluate design in nature.

At the same time, he doesn’t do anything much on the nature of the designer. He’s really looking at the scientific evidence.

Classic Catholic theology is the best resource for evidence on the nature of the designer, in my opinion.

 

[Namesake]

Note to EA: A lot of what flies under the banner of ID is a bunch of hooey. But Demmski deserves to be taken seriously. So does Behe.

Are you aware that Behe was destroyed in Dover? Behe lost any claim to credibility in that trial.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*Are you aware that Behe was destroyed in Dover? Behe lost any claim to credibility in that trial. *

Oh, you mean the way Galileo was destroyed by his trial?

 

[Namesake]

*Are you aware that Behe was destroyed in Dover? Behe lost any claim to credibility in that trial. *

Oh, you mean the way Galileo was destroyed by his trial?

OK, so you must think Behe represents real science. Is that right?

 

[greylorn]

No.

Perhaps I’m unqualified to respond to this because I’m not an atheist. However, I propose that since my understanding of the nature and purpose of God differs from those of Catholics, Christians, and derivative sects, I’m qualified enough.

I appreciate Michael Behe particularly because he limits himself to his field of expertise. He disproves Darwinism, and implicitly makes his case for ID in the process.

Unlike other anti-Darwinist writers, he does not make the mistake of introducing his own theories, leaving that thankless task to crackpots and cranks like myself.

But as Behe himself points out in “The Edge of Evolution,” the Intelligent Designer remains unidentified.

As I mention elsewhere, Christians will assume that the Designer is the God they already worship. Catholics, noting that Behe himself is, in his own words, a “conventional Roman Catholic,” will go on believing as they’ve believed. The only difference Behe’s writings will make to their lives is another book on the coffee table, perhaps next to “Brief History of Time.”

Even if highly objective atheists completely accept the validity of Behe’s arguments, don’t expect them to show up for Sunday Mass anytime soon, or start bowing to Mecca 5x daily. I.D. is a grimacing skeleton. The Designer is faceless. It offers no place where engineers, scientists, and others trained in objective thinking who want to believe in I.D. to go to put some flesh on the skeleton. .

So I pronounce Intelligent Design an implausible theory, for lack of any coherent description of the Designer.

Yes, Darwinism sucks, and its theoretical paradigm does not work in the real world. The scientific odds against random DNA changes producing all the insect species on this planet are 1 in 10-with-an-exponent-greater than the number of electrons in the universe.
Darwinists have not even a theory as to how the first cell might have arisen from natural processes. But no matter, because as weak as Darwinism is, its competition is even weaker.

Most religions, certainly Catholicism, believe that God created man. Yet no religion has a credible answer for why an omnipotent God would have created human beings, That is an intolerable weakness in religious belief systems. Why?

There is a direct correlation between intelligence and motivation. We expect people to have reasons for doing things. The quality of the reason is expected to improve with the intelligence of the person doing something. A God of infinite intelligence should have an absolutely irrefutable reason for creation. Such reasons are not found in any catechism or bible. The reasons for creation so far offered by religion would not make a decent afternoon soap opera plot, and wouldn’t convince Judge Judy. Or Judge Bill, or Ignatz.

Dumb as it is, Darwinism does not need to invent a reason for the creation of human beings. That gives it a powerful advantage over Christianity in the minds of those who seek clear and credible answers.

.

 

[reggieM]

I appreciate Michael Behe particularly because he limits himself to his field of expertise. He disproves Darwinism, and implicitly makes his case for ID in the process.

I like him for that reason also.

But as Behe himself points out in “The Edge of Evolution,” the Intelligent Designer remains unidentified.

I think he takes science as far as it can go, and biology alone (and even with the help of physics) cannot identify the Designer. This is so because the Designer transcends the physical world – standing (so to speak) above and beyond it, which is a necessary position to have in order to design it. So, the tools used to understand the created world and see the obvious design in nature, are not sufficient to understand the nature of the Designer. For that, you need higher powered tools – namely, of philosohpy first and then theology later.

ID merely points to the existence of intelligence working in nature. The design that even some atheists can recognize can only be the product of purposeful intelligence. For the reasons you gave, chance mutations and natural processes could not create even the diversity we see in the insect world. The so-called “simplest” and first known multicellular creatures are an enigma to science because they are vastly more complex than Darwinism predicted. DNA itself could not have evolved for reasons which are obvious to an impartial observer. Once present, the information that DNA carries also cannot be the product of mutations since it is precise, complex, ordered and purposeful.

I.D. is a grimacing skeleton. The Designer is faceless. It offers no place where engineers, scientists, and others trained in objective thinking who want to believe in I.D. to go to put some flesh on the skeleton. .

ID is merely the first step in a path for understanding the nature of God. Honest atheists need to look at that evidence as the first step towards accepting the presence of an Intelligent Designer in nature. After that, the journey needs to move towards philosophical paths. Science can really do little more.

So I pronounce Intelligent Design an implausible theory, for lack of any coherent description of the Designer.

You’re judging the theory for something that it does not attempt to provide evidence for. It is not required to give a description of the Designer but only to show that Darwinism is impossibly wrong and that Intelligent Design is the only rational and satisfactory answer we have.

Now again, the support for the nature of the Designer comes from other sources.

Most religions, certainly Catholicism, believe that God created man. Yet no religion has a credible answer for why an omnipotent God would have created human beings, That is an intolerable weakness in religious belief systems. Why?

There is a direct correlation between intelligence and motivation. We expect people to have reasons for doing things. The quality of the reason is expected to improve with the intelligence of the person doing something. A God of infinite intelligence should have an absolutely irrefutable reason for creation. Such reasons are not found in any catechism or bible. The reasons for creation so far offered by religion would not make a decent afternoon soap opera plot, and wouldn’t convince Judge Judy. Or Judge Bill, or Ignatz.

Before I answer this (and many others here can also) – what Catholic answers to this question have you evaluated so far? You have concluded that there is no credible answer so I hope you have looked at the answers that Catholicism gives. Beyond this, we are talking about the Intelligence that created, designed, invented and developed nature, its laws, its structure and it’s plan as it unfolds. I think we have to be careful about thinking that we’re going to receive an “absolutely irrefutable” reason on demand. Nature itself teaches us about the Designer. For one thing, messages that we receive from nature are extremely complex, very subtle and while being intelligible and comprehendable by highly sophisticated, yet precise, mathematical formulas – they come from a Mind that we may not be able to fully capture in a few minutes on a web-forum, or even after years of study.

Dumb as it is, Darwinism does not need to invent a reason for the creation of human beings. That gives it a powerful advantage over Christianity in the minds of those who seek clear and credible answers.

Certainly, yes I think atheistic materialism is a lot simpler, clearer and easier to deal with than theistic philosophical systems. Darwinism is likewise. Unfortunately, Darwinism does not fit the real universe of life and beings such as they really are. It’s an imaginary world – and like all storybook tales, it’s very powerful and attractive on the imagination because the story moves along and everything is wrapped up nicely at the end. All the problems are swept away and Cinderella gets Prince Charming in the end and everybody is happy.

But when we truly search for the nature of the Designer, we have to put aside Darwinian fairy tales.

The creation of human beings has to do with the communication of intelligence and being on creatures. It’s the expansion of the glory of God via intelligent, free beings that are capable of finding and embracing the presence of God. We could look at the beauty of the earth itself – its something communicated and given.

 

[greylorn]

… I’ll jump in here if you don’t mind. I would recommend Dembski’s work also. He has come up with some brilliant ideas regarding probability and metrics to evaluate design in nature.

At the same time, he doesn’t do anything much on the nature of the designer. He’s really looking at the scientific evidence.

Classic Catholic theology is the best resource for evidence on the nature of the designer, in my opinion.

Thank you for the feedback. I’ll trust you and put Dembski on my discretionary “agreeable-reading” list.

I am conversant with Catholic theology and once believed it absolutely. It contains several critical internal contradictions. I find it to be inconsistent with the very Bible which birthed it, as well as with the evidence provided by the universe which God created.

I attempted to address one of the logical issues in an older thread entitled, “Can God Think?” and learned therefrom that the only answers to these challenging questions which Catholics seem willing to consider are those which the Church has already given.

I do not believe that those answers work. That is only my opinion.

 

[greylorn]

I think he takes science as far as it can go, and biology alone (and even with the help of physics) cannot identify the Designer. This is so because the Designer transcends the physical world – standing (so to speak) above and beyond it, which is a necessary position to have in order to design it. So, the tools used to understand the created world and see the obvious design in nature, are not sufficient to understand the nature of the Designer. For that, you need higher powered tools – namely, of philosohpy first and then theology later.

Your statement, “…the Designer transcends the physical world…” exemplifies the problem. Behe himself seems to have been sucked in by this assumption. There is no reason to believe that, except that it is part of Catholic teaching.

Consider the designers in our world. Each is not only a part of the world, but intimately engaged in the details of their design area. An electrical engineer must know the mathematical rules of electrical behavior, and must be able to derive solutions for complex electrical geometries from basic principles. The really fine engineers have a feel for the way electrical energy moves which cannot be taught in any lecture hall or explained in any book.

An architect must know not only the rules of mechanics which determine whether a building will stand or topple,but must have a feeling for form and style, and effective use of space.

So it is with every field of design. In all cases the human designer is immersed in the world wherein his designs will be put to the test.

Is it any wonder that the Church has no answers to any question relating the spiritual to the physical, or God to reality?

I’ll take the liberty of quoting myself:

“Since it is impossible to find a thing in a place where we cannot look, why not seek the source of creation in a place where we might actually be able to find it? Our minds, senses, and instruments operate only within this matter and energy universe— therefore doesn’t it make sense to seek the creator within the universe on the chance that He might have been lurking there all along?”

Finally,I propose that solving serious problems with philosophy and theology (as these fields are currently constituted) is like trying to break into the Cheyenne Mountain military base with a camouflage suit and a Dremel tool.

Those fields of study are embedded in the dark ages. Philosophy is about words and meanings. Theology is about defending ideas developed by guys who, if they had any understanding of physics at all, believed in dead-wrong Aristotelian physics. The so-called “progressive” theologians seem to like the idea that God is dead. They have no answers capable of connecting any God-concept with physical reality.

What saddens me is that so many intelligent and well read individuals are content with the paucity of conceptual value offered by philosophers and theologians. In my less than humble opinion, the entire lot of them would better serve the world by picking beans and planting trees.

Continued…