A simple case for intelligent design

[TagliatelliMonster]

Things don’t suddenly become SC, the thing is that if you have incomplete information you might make a mistake and mislabel the object as SC.

And by "incomplete information", you mean "already knowing if it has natural origin or not".

The same is true with any other test, you might wrongly assume that a sample is 1,000,000yo but in light of new data and information you can potentially notice that some of the daughter element was caused by contamination, and notice that the sample is actually 500,000yo.

But that "new data" will not be "discovering it is not that old".
Instead, it will be learning something that would trigger you changing the test or criteria.

But the "new information" you talk about doesn't change the object nore does it change your criteria or test or method. Because your "new information" is simply finding out that you were wrong to call it designed.

Obviously the sample didn’t became younger suddenly, it is just that new information was given

Which changed the test, not just the date. And fyi, not only will the date of that sample change, but the date of ALL samples dated with that test will change!

That simply shows your lack of understanding and your unwillingness to make an effort in trying to understand the argument, something can be artificial or “with unkown origin” and still not be SC

This 4th option doesn't invalidate the other 3.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Its not based on ignorance, it’s based on the best and most accurate information that one can have to date.

And if the best and most accurate information doesn't provide an answer, you consider that to be postive for the "sc" case. Which is where the argument from ignorance sets in.

In an ideal world, if one has absolute knowledge one can conclude SC with 100% certainty

If you have absolute knowledge, then you don't need to, because then you already know if its designed or not.



To go to your own analogy, you wouldn't require dating methods either, because you'ld already know the date of everything. This is the point of having a good methodology... to attain a sufficient level of accuracy without actually knowing the answers in advance.....

All tests have the same limitation, it doesn’t matter what test you perform there will always be a possibility of misinterpreting the data, if you reject Demskies filter, then by that logic, you should reject all tests.

You have given me only reasons to reject it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So in conclusion,

When someone knows with certainty that something is SC one can proclaim design with certainty, the problem is that given that we humans have limited knowledge we can never tell with 100% certainty if something is SC, at best we can make conclusions with the best available data, and we can knowing that there will always be a possibility of failure.

Can agree with this conclusion?

No. "specified complexity" is not a real metric, as we have seen by now.
The "certainty" of it, is based on knowing how it came about, which is ridiculous because the entire point of the method is supposed to be figuring out how it came about.


It is senseless in every way.

 

[leroy]

My point is simple. The "attribute of specified complexity", like you like to call it, is not determined based on the properties of the object in question.

We try to find out if X is designed or not. Your dembski method says we need to look for "specified complexity". And supposedly we do that by studying the object in question. This means that from its properties, function, etc we conclude if it has "specified complexity" or not.

In the DNA sequences posted by @tas8831 , you agreed it would qualify the criteria.
And then its natural origins are discovered. You agreed that it then would no longer qualify the criteria.

Yet discovering its natural origins, doesn't change the object X. Its properties, its function, everything about it that previously made it qualify "specified complexity", is still there.

Yet, discoverning its natural origins disqualified it as "specified and complex".

This means that the properties of the object aren't actually the metric by which SC is determined.
Or at least, there is some other unstated metric.

If SC is purely based on the properties of an object, then object X would still qualify after discovering its natural origins.

I'll add that for this "method" to be meaningfull and usefull, it SHOULD be based on just the properties of the object. But clearly, it isn't.



And that "information" seems to be that you need to know its origins ahead of time.
Which makes the method useless, since the whole point of it is to find out its origins.



Exactly. Just like I said. You need to know ahead of time that it's of artificial origin or not.
Apparantly, the "criteria" to determine "specified complexity" is "is it of natural origin or not?"

Which is hilarious, since the whole point of your method is in fact to find out if it is of natural or artificial origin.
But for the method to work, you actually need to know already if it is one or the other. Absolutely hilarious.



And if it gets discovered that the entire thing is of natural origins, then it loses the "attribute of SC".
Because "the attribute of SC" is not based on the actual properties of the object under investigation. It is rather based on already knowing if it is natural or not, and if it isn't, it employs pretty much the argument from ignorance to then call it designed (until shown otherwise).



Which is ridiculous, if the point of the method is to find out if an object is designed or not.



Yep. And by now, we know how that is meant exactly.

It sums up as "it was designed if nature can't / didn't produce it".
Kind of like "you're a bachelor if you aren't married" or "you're dead if you are not alive anymore".

So really, just stating the obvious.
And this piece of "criteria", moreover, is exactly what also sets up this entire thing as a monstrous argument from ignorance.



Why not? That makes no sense to me, considering the actual terms "specified complexity". Those terms clearly refer to properties of an object. So are these terms just very poorly chosen, or... ?

Sounds very arbitrary to me. Kind of like a get-of-jail free card to avoid having to deal with inevitable false positives based on the aspect of the argument from ignorance.



Evolution is as true as it gets in scientific expalantory models of reality.



Yes. The obvious.

Ok, I understood you point, and the answer is no, you don’t have to know a priori the origin of something in order to conclude ID.

But you do need to know some stuff.

1 Is the “thing” complex? Does it have many parts?

2 How many possible combinations are there, and how many of those combinations would produce something with function, meaning, or some other independently give pattern

3 Is there a bias in the natural laws for producing that pattern?


Consider the example that I always use with radiometric dating, obviously you don’t have no know the age of the rock before dating the sample, but there are a few things that you have to know, like the half live of the element, the amounts of parent and daughter elements, if there was nay contamination etc.

So with that said, why is it a problem?

 

[leroy]

And if the best and most accurate information doesn't provide an answer, you consider that to be postive for the "sc" case. Which is where the argument from ignorance sets in.

No, if there is not enough information then you shouldn’t conclude SC

 

[leroy]

No. "specified complexity" is not a real metric, as we have seen by now.
The "certainty" of it, is based on knowing how it came about, which is ridiculous because the entire point of the method is supposed to be figuring out how it came about.


It is senseless in every way.

Well that was already clarified, you don’t need to know how something came about in order to claim SC.

One example would be the text that you are writing in this forum, I don’t have any external evidence that shows that the text was written by an intelligent designer, I didn’t saw you writing the text, there are no video recordings nor pictures of you writing the text, all I have is the text itself.

But yet, I can apply Demskies filter,

The text is long, there are many possible combinations of letters, only a small portion of these combinations would produce text with meaning, and as far as I know there is not a bias in natural laws for creating meaningful text in a computer, (I mean natural mechanisms like rocks and cement falling from the ceiling or mice crowling in your keyboard can type some letters, but no natural mechanism that we know of would type meaningful words and sentences.)

 

[leroy]

There's far more to the "process" of pyramid building then just figuring out how to get those heavy rocks to the top.

.

Well, let’s focus on that process alone, we might don’t know what mechanism was used to move the rocks to put them on top of each other. But still we know that that process was done by intelligent designers right?

Carving is a mechanism. A well understood one. One that we fairly easily recognise. Humans, and non-human ancestors, have been doing it for quite some time now

That is interesting, how do you know that our non human ancestors have been doing it?

Have you seen them? Are there any pictures? How do you know that non-humas (non homo sapiens sapiens) where carving and creating stuff?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok, I understood you point, and the answer is no, you don’t have to know a priori the origin of something in order to conclude ID.

So, this "concluding ID" is then based only on the actual properties of the object in question?
Its function, its whereabouts, its composition, structure, etc?

But you do need to know some stuff.

1 Is the “thing” complex? Does it have many parts?

This would indeed be properties of the object in question.
However, I don't see how "complexity" is an indicator for design. Design can't result in simple things??
But that's another discussion, let's first focus on what exactly is being looked at. Later we'll get to the "why" of those things.

2 How many possible combinations are there, and how many of those combinations would produce something with function, meaning, or some other independently give pattern

You're already contradicting yourself here, it seems to me.
How could you possibly know this, unless you have a priori knowledge of its potential origins?

3 Is there a bias in the natural laws for producing that pattern?

Same as above. This requires a priori knowledge of potential origins.

And more importantly, both points 2 and 3 sets the entire thing up for a huge argument from ignorance.
"it's designed if we don't know how nature can produce it", is basically what you're saying here.

Consider the example that I always use with radiometric dating,

That false analogy...

obviously you don’t have no know the age of the rock before dating the sample, but there are a few things that you have to know, like the half live of the element, the amounts of parent and daughter elements, if there was nay contamination etc

1. half life of the element being tested: this is knowledge that enables the test itself. It is not equivalent to the information you speak of in context of the dembski nonsense. If the half life turns out wrong, then ALL samples dates with that method are wrong. Not just the one sample. And off course, not knowing the half-life of an element means that no test can be done on that element in the first place.

2. amount of parent / daughter elements: this is again what the test actually is. That is how you figure out the date. OBVIOUSLY you need to know this to set a date. It's literally what the test is.

3. contamination: this is also part of the test and there are objective ways to figure that out.

So with that said, why is it a problem?

None of the "potential problems" you raise with dating mechanisms, is actually analogous with the "potential problems" you raise with this dembski nonsense.

You keep saying you don't agree with my point, but your defenses only seem to confirm my point.....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, if there is not enough information then you shouldn’t conclude SC

That means that you can't assess if life (first life, or otherwise) is SC.
It means you can never assess SC, unless you have a priori knowledge of its origins.

Once more, it comes down to confirming my point.............................

You can't assess SC unless you know if it has natural origins or not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well that was already clarified, you don’t need to know how something came about in order to claim SC.

You JUST said that without such information, you can't conclude SC.

One example would be the text that you are writing in this forum, I don’t have any external evidence that shows that the text was written by an intelligent designer, I didn’t saw you writing the text, there are no video recordings nor pictures of you writing the text, all I have is the text itself.

And you know already that text written in a specific language is not a natural phenomenon and that it is of human origin. So once again, you conclude SC because you already know that it doesn't have natural origins.

It's the same thing every time........................

But yet, I can apply Demskies filter,

Yes, because you already know in advance that text in a certain language is not of natural origin.

The text is long, there are many possible combinations of letters, only a small portion of these combinations would produce text with meaning, and as far as I know there is not a bias in natural laws for creating meaningful text in a computer, (I mean natural mechanisms like rocks and cement falling from the ceiling or mice crowling in your keyboard can type some letters, but no natural mechanism that we know of would type meaningful words and sentences.)

Exactly. You already know all this a priori. You don't need some silly "filter".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, let’s focus on that process alone, we might don’t know what mechanism was used to move the rocks to put them on top of each other. But still we know that that process was done by intelligent designers right?

Why would we focus on that process alone?
It's only a small part of it.

We know it was done by humans, because the process of building entails quite a bit more then just stacking the stones. The sheer fact that the stones are carved out, is already evidence enough to conclude that it's not a natural structure.

That is interesting, how do you know that our non human ancestors have been doing it?

Manufactured stone tools dated to a time when Homo Sapiens hadn't evolved yet. More then 1.5 million years old.

Have you seen them? Are there any pictures?

Yep. See above.

How do you know that non-humas (non homo sapiens sapiens) where carving and creating stuff?

Because there were no humans round at that time.
Homo Sapiens is only 200.000 to 300.000 years old.
We have found such tools as old as 2 million years.

 

[leroy]

You're already contradicting yourself here, it seems to me.
How could you possibly know this, unless you have a priori knowledge of its potential origins?

You don’t have to know the “origins” of anything in order to calculate all the possible combinations of a pattern, imagine a Combination padlock, you don’t need to know the origin of the lock, nor the origin of the “combination” nor the origin of the man who created the lock, in order to calculate all the possible combinations.

Same as above. This requires a priori knowledge of potential origins.

You don’t require knowledge of potential origins, all you require is information of the natural mechanism relevant to the object.

The same is true when you date a sample; one has to be aware of the natural mechanisms that might contaminate the rock, nut that doenst mean that you need to klnwo the date or the rock a priori.

And more importantly, both points 2 and 3 sets the entire thing up for a huge argument from ignorance.
"it's designed if we don't know how nature can produce it", is basically what you're saying here.

Its not based on ignorance, is based on the best available information that we might have, if the best available information that we have indicates that an object has many parts, many possible combinations, where only 1 or few combinations would produce something with meaning, function or some other independently given pattern and there are no bias in the natural laws for creating such pattern, then you can proclaim SC.

Note, that at no point you have to know the origin of the object in order to conclude SC.

And if you disagree then you have to actually justify your objection, at what point am I assuming the origins of the object?



If new information comes in, then you have to consider this new information and reevaluate the object to see if it still has the attribute of SC

 

[Polymath257]

You don’t have to know the “origins” of anything in order to calculate all the possible combinations of a pattern, imagine a Combination padlock, you don’t need to know the origin of the lock, nor the origin of the “combination” nor the origin of the man who created the lock, in order to calculate all the possible combinations.

Sure you do. Suppose I give you a rock face. How many combinations can produce that *exact* rock face? Only one. So does that mean all rock faces are equally created? No.

So, the question becomes what combinations do you consider to be equivalent for purposes of counting. And *that*, without pre-defined criteria, is ill-defined.

So, if we have a rock face that looks vaguely like a person's face, you want to include ALL possible rock faces, but if it looks like a specific person's face, you want to include only those that look like that specific person. Why? And in the first case, why not include only those that look like that specific rock face?

The point is that your criterion for choosing 'which combinations' is vague and ill-defined.

In the case of the lock, our knowledge of the possible combinations of the lock itself allow us to compute the number of combinations. But even there, do you include all possible types of lock? Why or why not? Why not just include those combinations that look like what we see? Which would be precisely one in all cases, giving a probability of 1.

You don’t require knowledge of potential origins, all you require is information of the natural mechanism relevant to the object.

But that is precisely what you are NOT including when you deal with the origin of life. You can't include it because nobody knows the relevant physical mechanisms.

The same is true when you date a sample; one has to be aware of the natural mechanisms that might contaminate the rock, nut that doenst mean that you need to klnwo the date or the rock a priori.

No, we have well-defined methods of measuring the amounts of the isotopes, how to llook for contamination, how to determine half-lives, etc. For your situation, we have no well-defined methods for determining equivalent combinations, no no well-defined methods for doing the necessary counting.

Its not based on ignorance, is based on the best available information that we might have, if the best available information that we have indicates that an object has many parts, many possible combinations, where only 1 or few combinations would produce something with meaning, function or some other independently given pattern and there are no bias in the natural laws for creating such pattern, then you can proclaim SC.

Not is we don't know the relevant physical mechanisms. If that is the case, we don't have any method of determining relevant combinations or even whether there is natural bias. And, in that case, *any* calculation will be meaningless.

Note, that at no point you have to know the origin of the object in order to conclude SC.

No, but you do need to know relevant physical mechanisms and which combinations are likely to appear naturally. And, in the case of life, we simply don't know those.

And if you disagree then you have to actually justify your objection, at what point am I assuming the origins of the object?

If new information comes in, then you have to consider this new information and reevaluate the object to see if it still has the attribute of SC

In the situation where you want to do these calculations, we simply don't know the relevant physical mechanisms. That is part of what research into abiogenesis is all about.

In terms of evolution, though, we *know* some of the mechanisms and the naive calculations simply don't apply. But to do more accurate calculations is not going to be easy and possibly not even possible.

 

[leroy]

That means that you can't assess if life (first life, or otherwise) is SC.
It means you can never assess SC, unless you have a priori knowledge of its origins.

Once more, it comes down to confirming my point.............................

You can't assess SC unless you know if it has natural origins or not.

My claim that life (say the first living thing) had the attribute of SC is based on 4 premises

*in this context I define life as any organic thing that can reproduce

1 you need many (say a few hundred) amino acids (+ some other stuff)

2 there are many different combinations allowed by the laws of nature, in which amino acids can exist.

3 these amino acids have to be organized in a very specific order in order to reproduce, (only 1 or few combinations would result in life)

4 there is no natural law that would “force” amono acids to organize in a convenient order.


Whant an specific example?

In order to have life you need a long chain of left handed aminoacids (obviously you need much more than that, but let’s keep it simple) given that the ratio of left and right handed aminoacids tends to be 50/50 the vast majority of possible combinations would include at least some right handed aminoacid. And based on what we know to date, there is not a mechanism that would favor a pattern of just “left handed aminoacids” based on what we know nature favors a 50% 50% ratio.

So the claim that left handed aminoacids chains have the attribute of SC is based on these 3 assumptions

1 there are many possible ways in which amino acids can form chains

2 of all the possible combinations, only a small minority would result in just left handed aminoacids

3 there is no bias in the natural laws that favors a chain of just left handed aminoacids.

Note that at no point I need to know the potential origins of life, I don’t need to know who created life a priori, and all these premises are perfectly testable, falsifiable and open to any new discoveries,


And if you have any objection please clarify to me exactly what is it what you are objecting

1 that long left handed amino acids chains are not SC,

2 That they cant be created naturally despite being SC

3 you have life with any other ratio of right and left handed aminoacis?

 

[leroy]

Why would we focus on that process alone?
It's only a small part of it.

We know it was done by humans, because the process of building entails quite a bit more then just stacking the stones. The sheer fact that the stones are carved out, is already evidence enough to conclude that it's not a natural structure.



View attachment 37039

Manufactured stone tools dated to a time when Homo Sapiens hadn't evolved yet. More then 1.5 million years old.



Yep. See above.



Because there were no humans round at that time.
Homo Sapiens is only 200.000 to 300.000 years old.
We have found such tools as old as 2 million years.

But how do you know that these things where carved by intelligent designres? Why not simply saying that there were created by a natural mechanism or by chance?

I would suggest that these carvings have the attribute of SC, but perhaps you have a better method of detecting design

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don’t have to know the “origins” of anything in order to calculate all the possible combinations of a pattern, imagine a Combination padlock, you don’t need to know the origin of the lock, nor the origin of the “combination” nor the origin of the man who created the lock, in order to calculate all the possible combinations.

But we aren't talking about padlock combinations. We are talking about molecular combinations. To be able to calculate what structures / combinations nature can produce, you have to know what nature is capable of and what not.

And that is exactly what I said it is: knowledge concerning the origins of the object in question.

You don’t require knowledge of potential origins, all you require is information of the natural mechanism relevant to the object.

That mechanism being the potential origins..........

The same is true when you date a sample

No, it isn't.

; one has to be aware of the natural mechanisms that might contaminate the rock

Contaminate. Not produce.

Its not based on ignorance, is based on the best available information that we might have, if the best available information that we have indicates that an object has many parts, many possible combinations, where only 1 or few combinations would produce something with meaning, function or some other independently given pattern and there are no bias in the natural laws for creating such pattern, then you can proclaim SC.

Here we go again. The bolded part: this refers to knowledge concerning potential natural origins of the object.

So two points about that:
1. either you know it was produced by nature, which disqualifies it as SC
2. either you don't know it was produced by nature, which then makes it qualify as SC and as an argument from ignorance.

When you don't know how nature produced something, that just means that you don't know. It doesn't mean that therefor nature DIDN'T produce it.

And so we can neatly circle back to the dna example that @tas8831 gave you....

Before discovering its natural origins (meaning "we don't know how nature did it"), you'll call it SC and thus designed.

After the discovery, suddenly it's not longer SC


Over and over again, your defense comes down to the same two things... those two things being that you either have to know a priori that nature produced it, or you engage in an argument from ignorance.

In this entire exchange NOT ONCE did you actually come up with positive evidence FOR your SC or design. Not once. Every single test you gave was useless and subject to either a priori knowledge or an argument from ignorance.



Now for the icing on the cake....
For a few posts now, I've took on your own example of pyramids. I actually DID mention how we can infer design there, and I DID provide positive evidence FOR design.

That evidence was carving. The stones are carved. That's real positive evidence FOR design: signs of manufacturing, signs of artificial manipulation of rock. Incidently that is ALSO the way that we know rushmore was designed and that other picture I gave you probably not. Not because "it resembles famous people". Not even because it resembles people, famous or otherwise. But because it bares the hallmarks of carving, of manufacturing.


You have given me NOTHING even remotely close to that. All I got from you were arguments from ignorance, arguments from awe, opinions and a priori knowledge turning your design conclusion in a state-the-obvious contest.

Note, that at no point you have to know the origin of the object in order to conclude SC.

Except you do. Like with the DNA sequence @tas8831 gave you.

Without the discovery of its natural origins, you acknowledged it would SC.
But WITH the knowledge of its natural origins, you acknowledged it would not longer qualify.

Without the discovery, you are in a situation where you simply don't know how nature produced it. And in that ignorance, you call it designed.

SC is a useless metric because of this exact reason. It doesn't deal with the actual object and its properties. Instead, it deals with knowledge of nature and more specifically, the knowledge of nature that we do not have. ie: argument from ignorance.

And if you disagree then you have to actually justify your objection, at what point am I assuming the origins of the object?

I explained it in every post in the last 6 or 7 or so posts I did in this thread and keep needing to repeat myself.

If new information comes in, then you have to consider this new information and reevaluate the object to see if it still has the attribute of SC

And the "new information", is information concerning its natural origins.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But that is precisely what you are NOT including when you deal with the origin of life. You can't include it because nobody knows the relevant physical mechanisms

And that is when the argument from ignorance takes over....

So his method of "detecting design" concludes design in two instance, and two instances only:

1. when it is already known that it is designed
2. when it isn't known how it can naturally originate, then it switches to an argument from ignorance to call it designed "until proven otherwise".


There is no option that actually includes positive evidence FOR design.

So either it detects design in things already known to be designed, or it engages in an argument from ignorance.

 

[tas8831]

No, specificity is a necessary (but not sufficient) attribute in order to declare SC. And in some contexts function could be an example of specificity.

But sure something can be functional without being SC

I wouldn’t claim, function therefore design

Who knows what you would claim - you never give actual examples of the application of the filter.

 

[tas8831]

That simply is wrong, I have provided multiple specific examples on how this filter should be applied

Yet not a single example via ACTUALLY APPLYING IT.

And no body I asking you to adopt the filter uncritically, you can reed Debskis work, find the flaws of his argument and share them with us in the forum

Have you actually read Dembski, or just web essays about his stuff?

I have read some of his essays, but I will not read his books (which, I have been told by people that have read them, are generally just rehashes of his previous books and essays to make money from rubes).
Others have done that for me:

Critiques and Reviews of the Work of William Dembski

 

[tas8831]

Ok so can I interpret that by your own admission the test successfully predicts human design?

Not really, since the 'tests' were on known human activity, and then never applied to anything else.