Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[JDaniel]

Biological evolution is not a random process. It incorporates some random elements but the overall process is not random. Natural selection is a major element of biological evolution and that is definitely not a random process.

Rossum:
can you give me an example, or two, of where randomnicity might enter into the realm of biological evolution?

You are shooting an arrow at a wall, painting a target around where the arrow lands and claiming a direct hit. Many different universes are possible, and in some of those universes many different lifeforms are possible. Some of those lifeforms may be intelligent. Until you know how many possible intelligent lifeforms there might be you cannot say anything useful about the probability of one particular intelligent lifeform appearing. If, say, 50% of possible universes contain some sort of intelligent life then us being here is not a big issue.

Sorry, guys, but this argument is one that always gets to me and wreaks havoc on my sensibilities. We don’t know of any other universe, or, universes, in at least the past 13.7 +/- billion years. The introduction of theoretical mathematics game theory, here, is absurd. But, to calculate the odds of THIS universe evolving as it has, plus, LIFE evolving as it has still has meaning precisely within the context of existent reality. I do not need to know anything about other possible lifeforms. If 100% of the existent universes (there being only one) contain some sort of existent intelligent life then us being here is a big issue.

I can shuffle two deck of cards and get the cards in a some order. The chances of getting that specific order are 1 in 104! = 1 in 1 x 10[sup]166[/sup]. Does that mean that I can never shuffle two packs of cards together? However I shuffle the packs I will always get the cards in one of the many possible orders so the odds against that particular order are meaningless in that case.

This might be true of a bunch of non-sapient beings, squirming on the head of a finishing nail, but, it’s not necessarily true of a bunch of sapient beings studying cosmology, in a lab setting. We are not speaking about the theory of chance, but about the existence of chance in the real world.

Sorry for butting in.

jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

This might be true of a bunch of non-sapient beings, squirming on the head of a finishing nail…

 

[reggieM]

The maths fundamental to String Theory indicate a related set of universes, each having different cosmological parameters, what Stanford Physicist Leonard Susskind calls the “cosmic landscape” (see his book The Cosmic Landscape and the Illusion of Intelligent Design for a whole lot more on those ideas).

That’s an interesting reference – I hadn’t heard of that before. Thanks.

Here’s part of a review which quotes some of the text. I don’t think Mr. Susskind is strictly interested in the math. He makes his metaphysical interests known – thus indicating that his motive is to try to overcome the theological implications of the fine-tuned universe.

Susskind thinks that this is something of religious' importance because he thinks that if there exists a mind-bogglingly huge enough number of universes (10 to the 500th power and growing), then inevitably ours, however unique or special it may seem to those of us who contemplate its apparently fine-tuned laws, is just a run of the mill’ inevitability. He believes that such an ensemble construction can make the world a safer place for non-theists and for philosophical materialism generally: “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.” (pg 355) He suggests that “many scientists” do not live up to their “moral” duty and calling, by sufficiently resisting the possibility that our universe is as special as it has come to be seen since the “cosmic coincidences” began to be catalogued in the 1980s. His persistent metaphysical insistence is that the appearance of design MUST be an “illusion.” Of course, when one begins with this metaphysical demand, it is virtually inevitable that one concludes with it too. What Susskind seems unable to notice, is that, theologically speaking, he’s just mashing his face against a wall. Indeed the `megaverse’ conjecture is of significant interest to theologians (who have never had any reason to doubt God’s interest in diversity), but while it may stimulate theological discussions, it hardly puts the theologian out of business! In this regard, the theological conception of a First Cause of causes is (obviously) mathematically scalar, and the big question “why is our world special” would simply give way to a now bigger question, “why a huge ensemble of worlds perhaps infinitely diverse?” As Aristotle and Leibniz asked, “why is their something . . .” Any argument in which design and purpose could be said to have been eliminated by string/brane theory’s “megaverse”, seems naïve and is easily enough sacked. If Susskind intended to wax theological, he should have taken a couple of minutes to investigate his topic. For reasons cited above, the subtitle that has been affixed to this title is misleading, whether Susskind understands that it is or not.

So the problems remain. The subtitle of the book points to Intelligent Design, calling it an “illusion”. This is an indirect admission that the universe “appears to be designed”. Mr. Susskin goes on to say that if his theory (unsupported by observations of “other universes”) is wrong – then there is no rational argument against the Intelligent Design proposal.

I find this an amazing concession about the strength of Intelligent Design ideas. Mr. Susskind admits that there is presently no rational defense against ID theory, with the exception of his own theory, which itself could “fall apart”.

Beyond this, as the reviewer states above, the proposal of a huge number of universes or perhaps an infinite number does not solve very much scientifically or philosophically. We would be stuck with the unknown origin of those universes, as well as the many problems that follow from an infinite string of self-generating universes.

I’d put it this way, if the multiverse/string theory is the best defense available against ID theory, then that is a very strong statement in itself. It certainly says a lot about any scientist who dismisses ID theory as if it is some kind of joke. It also leads to some important questions about why scientists like Mr. Susskind, after admitting that ID is consistent with the obvious appearance of design in the universe (which he calls “an illusion”), do not investigate the evidence on the existence of God with an open mind.

He reluctantly and indirectly admits that the existence of God (supreme, purposeful intelligence directing/designing the universe) is relevant. Why not leave that as one rational possibility and then seek out the evidence given to support it.

Is there more evidence that God exists than there is direct, observed evidence of a multiverse? That’s an important question, especially for a scientist who claims that his own theory is the only possible argument against Intelligent Design theory.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

An aspect of this discussion that has not been addressed so far is whether intelligent design is a reasonable explanation of the origin of the universe and the origin of life. Intelligent design is certainly reasonable because we have seen intelligent design at work in the things we produce by intelligent design. Intelligent design is something with which we are thoroughly familiar. It is therefore not irrational to argue that intelligent design is the best explanation for the way the universe came into being, or the way that life derived from inanimate matter.

Playing the natural selection argument with a random factor built in that yields very low probability of our universe turning out exactly as it did, or life emerging on our planet as successfully as it did, is not satisfactory. To say that given enough time any random gathering of atoms and molecules could produce life has not been proven, and cannot be proven. Even if an experiment were conducted, the time alloted for such an experiment duplicating the origin of life would most likely surpass the survival of the human race. Moreover, supposing the primal life form to have blossomed as a result of this experiment, that would only prove that an **intelligently designed experiment **proved successful.

There is no way that science or mathematics can prove the high likelihood that by chance the universe was formed to produce life or that life came by chance from inanimate matter. This is an opinion driven by atheism, not a fact driven by science. The explanation that both the Big Bang and evolution were pointless events without any goals intended is also frustrated by the evolutionist’s favorite phrase … natural slection. Natural selection implies a conscious watchmaker, not an unconscious one.

“[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.

 

[rossum]

I think we’re pretty much of similar viewpoints on the subjects at hand. It seems to me that you merely desire more precision in the use of the English language. I will concede that imprecision could cause some failure to communicate a message. But, Charlemagne’s usage is perfectly acceptable to most.

I agree that we seem to be “on the same page”. I come from a maths/science background where precision in language is very important, which is why I sometimes over-emphasise it.

One of my pet peeves with creationists is that they tend to widen the “Theory of Evolution” to cover Abiogenesis and Cosmology as well as biological evolution. Sometimes I can overreact whhen people blur the major differences between the three.

My apologies.

rossum

 

[rossum]

One reason this analogy doesn’t work is that it refers to a single event of shuffling. The supposed, chance arrangement of the universe resulting in planet earth with all the conditions suitable for human life requires a series of chance events, not just one.

Here I disagree. Given that we are an intelligent observer of this universe, we know that at least one place in the universe is suitable for intelligent life. That intelligent observer does not have to be human and that place does not have to be the planet earth. While we can calculate the odds of the universe being the way it is, unless we also know the number of possible universes which can contain some sort of intelligent life, the first figure is useless.

With regards to your analogy, you’d need to calculate the chances of getting the same order of cards twice in succession, for example. Doing that would be a demonstration of how the precise arrangement and order of the universe could come about by chance.

I do not need to get the same order of cards, I just need to get an order of cards which is “similar enough”. We are not aiming at a single target but at multiple targets. Unless and until we know how many possible targets there are, we do not know how unlikely it is that we will hit one of them.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth. *

I have been fascinated by the ultimate truth that there is no Ultimate Truth.

Is that because there is no Ultimate Truth, or because you have despaired of finding it?

 

[rossum]

rossum:

I am not an atheist; have you seen how many gods there are in Buddhist scriptures?

Are you disputing this source?

Edward Conze states in “Buddhist Scriptures” that what are sometimes referred to as ‘gods’ in Buddhist texts are merely ‘enlightened beings’, and not what the West means by the word “god”. [Conze, p221]

We may have different editions of Conze. In my edition on page 221 (Section 3, Chapter 1, Other Worlds) he says1) The ‘gods’ are really in a way ‘angels’, and their heavens might be called ‘paradises’.
I can also quote the Buddhist scriptures themselves. Here is part of the opening chapter of the Lotus Sutra:At that time Shakra Devanam Indra with his followers, twenty thousand gods, also attended. There were also the gods Excellent Moon, Universal Fragrance, Precious Light, and the Four Great Heavenly Kings, along with their followers, ten thousand gods.

Present were the gods Freedom and Great Freedom and their followers, thirty thousand gods, Present were King Brahma, lord of the saha world, the great Brahma Shikhin, and the great Brahma Bright Light, and their followers, twelve thousand gods.
The Lotus lists the enlightened beings, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, before it lists the gods. It sees the gods as different and inferior.

Who is the author of the argument below? What book did you find it in?

I can shuffle two deck of cards and get the cards in a some order. The chances of getting that specific order are 1 in 104! = 1 in 1 x 10[sup]166[/sup]. Does that mean that I can never shuffle two packs of cards together? However I shuffle the packs I will always get the cards in one of the many possible orders so the odds against that particular order are meaningless in that case.

When arguing about probability using either a lottery or shuffling cards is a common example. I have seen both used many times before in similar discussions. The wording and calculations in that example were all my own.

Could you please clarify for me the following quote? What part of evolution is random?

Biological evolution is not a random process. **It incorporates some random elements **

but the overall process is not random. Natural selection is a major element of biological evolution and that is definitely not a random process.

Genetic drift is entirely random, with no intervention from natural selection at all. Mutations are random with respect to their effect on the phenotype and are later sorted non-randomly by natural selection or sexual selection. The initial members of a new population are somewhat (though not completely) randomly selected from the larger population to give rise to the founder effect.

rossum

 

[JDaniel]

I agree that we seem to be “on the same page”. I come from a maths/science background where precision in language is very important, which is why I sometimes over-emphasise it.

One of my pet peeves with creationists is that they tend to widen the “Theory of Evolution” to cover Abiogenesis and Cosmology as well as biological evolution. Sometimes I can overreact whhen people blur the major differences between the three.

My apologies.

rossum

No problem whatsoever. I was pretty sure this was what was happening.

jd

 

[rossum]

can you give me an example, or two, of where randomnicity might enter into the realm of biological evolution?

Does “randomnicity” come from the same place that “misunderestimated” did?

Randomness appears in evolution as part of genetic drift, the randomness of mutations with respect to their phenotypic effect, and in the founder effect of very small initial populations.

Sorry, guys, but this argument is one that always gets to me and wreaks havoc on my sensibilities. We don’t know of any other universe, or, universes, in at least the past 13.7 +/- billion years. The introduction of theoretical mathematics game theory, here, is absurd. But, to calculate the odds of THIS universe evolving as it has, plus, LIFE evolving as it has still has meaning precisely within the context of existent reality. I do not need to know anything about other possible lifeforms. If 100% of the existent universes (there being only one) contain some sort of existent intelligent life then us being here is a big issue.

We have a sample size of 1 universe. Within our sample we have 100% appearance of intelligent life: every member of our sample that we tested has intelligent life. Given the data we have available then our appearance here is 100% likely. Like any scientific result this figure may change as we gather more data.

This might be true of a bunch of non-sapient beings, squirming on the head of a finishing nail, but, it’s not necessarily true of a bunch of sapient beings studying cosmology, in a lab setting. We are not speaking about the theory of chance, but about the existence of chance in the real world.

In order to say something about the chances of intelligent life appearing in this universe, then you have to say what proportion of possible universes are suitable for some sort of intelligent life. If, say, 50% of possible universes are suitable for some sort of intelligent life then us being here is not particularly unusual. If the proportion is 0.000 … 001% then we are indeed unusual. However there are a number of difficulties with accurately estimating the proportion of possible universes that are suitable for some form or other of intelligent life.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

Here I disagree. Given that we are an intelligent observer of this universe, we know that at least one place in the universe is suitable for intelligent life. That intelligent observer does not have to be human and that place does not have to be the planet earth. While we can calculate the odds of the universe being the way it is, unless we also know the number of possible universes which can contain some sort of intelligent life, the first figure is useless.

We can calculate the odds on some features of the universe appearing at random versus what we see elsewhere in the universe. So, the sample size is not one, but rather of the large number of planets and solar systems which are affected by the same laws and chance operations. This is where we see fine-tuning at work and the extreme improbability of something like our planet emerging from chance.

I do not need to get the same order of cards, I just need to get an order of cards which is “similar enough”.

Yes, that’s true. But the margin of difference between the two orders of cards is very small. If achieving the two similar series of cards was well-within the normal probability limits of a chance shuffle, then there would be no need for theories about multiple universes. We would simply say that chance operations commonly and frequently create and organize things like our life-bearing planet. But the fact that this is so improbable eliminates those more simple and direct arguments. On the natural level, some other solution is required.

We are not aiming at a single target but at multiple targets. Unless and until we know how many possible targets there are, we do not know how unlikely it is that we will hit one of them.

Within our universe, we have all of the possible targets for planets that we can observe. We can also see the effect of chance operations in the universe and we can analyse what they produce. From what we can directly observe, we see that the conditions for life appearing on a planet like earth are very improbable.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rossum

If, say, 50% of possible universes are suitable for some sort of intelligent life then us being here is not particularly unusual. If the proportion is 0.000 … 001% then we are indeed unusual. However there are a number of difficulties with accurately estimating the proportion of possible universes that are suitable for some form or other of intelligent life.

Have you opted for the 50%? That isn’t science.

Even Steven Weinberg, a religious skeptic, concedes “incredible fine tuning” at the time of the Big Bang for the eventual arrival of life.

 

[reggieM]

In order to say something about the chances of intelligent life appearing in this universe, then you have to say what proportion of possible universes are suitable for some sort of intelligent life. If, say, 50% of possible universes are suitable for some sort of intelligent life then us being here is not particularly unusual. If the proportion is 0.000 … 001% then we are indeed unusual. However there are a number of difficulties with accurately estimating the proportion of possible universes that are suitable for some form or other of intelligent life.

That is true. If 99.9% of the possible universes were suitable for human life, and were actually full of a nearly infinite number of human beings on various planets, then we would say that earth is not very unusual at all.

But I think we look at the probabilities first within the universe of cards that we are playing with. That is how we calculate the odds on a shuffle of cards and then the chances of a second shuffle matching the first. It could be true that there are an infinite number of decks of cards in different universes, but we calculate the probabilities on the cards we know about.

 

[JDaniel]

Does “randomnicity” come from the same place that “misunderestimated” did?

Very funny! Actually, the word is an urbanization, or, contraction of three seemingly unrelated words, “Randy”, “mini” and “city.” In its original vernacular it was, “Randy’s Mini-city.” But, I don’t think that it is anything more than a legend now. I don’t think the place exists - but, I could be wrong.

Randomness appears in evolution as part of genetic drift, the randomness of mutations with respect to their phenotypic effect, and in the founder effect of very small initial populations.

Interesting. They are each, by themselves, pretty significant, from a biological point of view. Any fluctuation on any one of those lines could have sent all of this in an entirely different direction - in fact, there is a potential infinity of directions that could have ensued. Then, add in the potentiality of random accidents from environmental sources, such as water (impurities or salination), cosmic radiation, minerals, toxins, air quality, pH, etc., etc., etc.

We have a sample size of 1 universe. Within our sample we have 100% appearance of intelligent life: every member of our sample that we tested has intelligent life. Given the data we have available then our appearance here is 100% likely. Like any scientific result this figure may change as we gather more data.

Granted - at least partially.

In order to say something about the chances of intelligent life appearing in this universe, then you have to say what proportion of possible universes are suitable for some sort of intelligent life.

Why, if there is only one universe?

If, say, 50% of possible universes are suitable for some sort of intelligent life then us being here is not particularly unusual. If the proportion is 0.000 … 001% then we are indeed unusual.

OK.

However there are a number of difficulties with accurately estimating the proportion of possible universes that are suitable for some form or other of intelligent life.

But of course! Except for the enjoyment of playing with “possibilities”, and the inevitability of multiverses rendered by string theory, which is just one of the theories about the construction of the cosmos. “…actually estimating the proportion of possible universes that are suitable for some form or other of intelligent life,” is virtually impossible.

jd

 

[rossum]

We can calculate the odds on some features of the universe appearing at random versus what we see elsewhere in the universe.

I was talking about intelligent life. How do you propose to accurately determine the numbers of possible forms that “intelligent life” can take? Have you read Fred Hoyle’s “The Black Cloud”? There are a great many possible forms that intelligent life could take. Unless you are sure that you have counted all of them then any figure that you migh come up with for the possible appearance of intelligent life will not be of much use.

So, the sample size is not one, but rather of the large number of planets and solar systems which are affected by the same laws and chance operations. This is where we see fine-tuning at work and the extreme improbability of something like our planet emerging from chance.

How do you know that intelligent life is confined to solar systems? How do you know how many suitable locations there are in the whole universe - we cannot even see all of it? How do you propose to test for the presence of intelligent life at, say, a stone age level of development on a planet 2,000,000 light years away from us?

Yes, that’s true. But the margin of difference between the two orders of cards is very small.

So you say. Please produce your evidence. All of us are guessing about the numbers so any conclusions drawn from those numbers are very unreliable.

Within our universe, we have all of the possible targets for planets that we can observe.

If you want your calculation to be of any rigour then you will also need to include all the planets that we cannot observe. You will also have to show that intelligent life cannot arise away from a planet.

We can also see the effect of chance operations in the universe and we can analyse what they produce. From what we can directly observe, we see that the conditions for life appearing on a planet like earth are very improbable.

Again, I would point out that we have a sample of one, or two if we include Mars. Therefore by observation we can say that there is 50% probability of life appearing, which might be revised to 100% if we can get better data from Mars than we currently have.

Any other figure must include some degree of speculation.

rossum

 

[rossum]

That is true. If 99.9% of the possible universes were suitable for human life, and were actually full of a nearly infinite number of human beings on various planets, then we would say that earth is not very unusual at all.

But I think we look at the probabilities first within the universe of cards that we are playing with. That is how we calculate the odds on a shuffle of cards and then the chances of a second shuffle matching the first.

My point is that the shuffles do not have to exactly match, they just have to be close enough. We could envisage a universe in which everything was exactly the same as this universe except that a small piece of rock on a planet 300 light years away from earth is 30 cm away from where it is in our universe. There is a very large number of possible universes which could also support human life, and an even larger number which could support other forms of intelligent life.

It could be true that there are an infinite number of decks of cards in different universes, but we calculate the probabilities on the cards we know about.

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

rossum

 

[rossum]

Interesting. They are each, by themselves, pretty significant, from a biological point of view. Any fluctuation on any one of those lines could have sent all of this in an entirely different direction - in fact, there is a potential infinity of directions that could have ensued.

Sometimes evolution can go off in fairly random directions - among large animals kangaroos hopping mode of locomotion is unique to Australia. All other hoppers are small: birds or jerboas. Sometimes evolution is constrained by the environemnt - fast swimmers all have the same shape: sharks, tuna, ichthyosaurs and dolphins. Their shape is constrained by the physics of fluid flow when moving fast through water. There is a debate between biologists as to how strong these two effects are. Gould was very much towards the random end of the spectrum while Conway-Morris is towards the constrained end.

The number of possible directions of evolution is constrained by natural selection. It is highly unlikely that a lifeform requiring a temperature of 18,000 degrees Kelvin to survive would evolve on earth.

Then, add in the potentiality of random accidents from environmental sources, such as water (impurities or salination), cosmic radiation, minerals, toxins, air quality, pH, etc., etc., etc.

All of that is factored into the randomness of random mutations. We know of many causes of mutations, we know that some mutations are more common than others and we know that some parts of genes are more prone to mutation than other parts. However in all cases, and no matter what the cause, the mutations is random with respect to its effect on the phenotype.

rossum

 

[ricmat]

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

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%.

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).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

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

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.

 

[reggieM]

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%.