Intelligent design

Remember, this argument(for which he thinks there is some experimental evidence) reinforces the basic probabilistic argument that RM+NS does not work. Obviously, these arguments need to be worked out carefully because there are some huge numbers involved - the number of copies of microorganisms multiplied by the number of generations that must have existed over geological time - but even those numbers are defeated by the relentless consequences of combinatorial maths.

This is a level of maths that is very high, and even PhDs in other non-math STEM fields are sometimes criticized for not possessing this kind of statistical knowledge.

Here's another set of criticisms from the Christian physicist Howard Van Till ->

The Intelligent Design movement argues that it can point to specific biological systems that exhibit what ID’s chief theorist William A. Dembski calls “specified complexity.” Furthermore, Dembski claims to have demonstrated that natural causation is unable to generate this specified complexity and that the assembling of these biological systems must, therefore, have required the aid of a non-natural action called “intelligent design.” In his book, No Free Lunch, Dembski presents the bacterial flagellum as the premier example of a biological system that, because he judges it to be both complex and specified, must have been actualized by the form-conferring action of an unembodied intelligent agent. However, a critical examination of Dembski’s case reveals that, 1) it is built on unorthodox and inconsistently applied definitions of both “complex” and “specified,” 2) it employs a concept of the flagellum’s assembly that is radically out of touch with contemporary genetics and cell biology, and 3) it fails to demonstrate that the flagellum is either “complex” or “specified” in the manner required to make his case. If the case for Intelligent Design is dependent on the bacterial flagellum, then ID is a failure.

As I've said before it's entirely possible that Van Till and other ID critics - Christian or not - are wrong and the ID advocates have the right of it. But as per my reply to Nbtruthman just above, even Dembski allows that the evidence brought up by ID advocates need not include designers but instead maybe point to, for example, a "Stoic seminal reason" or an "impersonal telic process".

So all this debate may be about the need to add some additional rules to the laws of physics...seems like a lot of spilled ink/pixels into debatable mathematical probabilities to achieve nothing much in terms of challenges to the materialist/physicalist outlook.

@nbtruthman 

This is good speculation, though as I've noted before we can look to Dembski to read that ID maybe doesn't require designers of any kind:

" ID’s metaphysical openness about the nature of nature entails a parallel openness about the nature of the designer. Is the designer an intelligent alien, a computional [sic] simulator (a la THE MATRIX), a Platonic demiurge, a Stoic seminal reason, an impersonal telic process, …, or the infinite personal transcendent creator God of Christianity? The empirical data of nature simply can’t decide. "

The bold are options where AFAICTell no designer is present, just a different set of rules to be added to the laws of physics.

The only source of intricate, complex multi-subsystem machines of any kind known to man by actual observation to actually exist is conscious focused intelligence, namely human. By extension and implication, the source in the case of evolution very most probably and necessarily must be closely related though of a much higher order.

The other various imagined alternate "possibilities" cited by Dembski such as Platonic demiurges, Stoic seminal reason, impersonal telic processes and so on are airy speculations having not much to do with known reality, and also don't for the most part entail the essential components of inventive creative engineering which include focused intelligent agency, intentions, desires, foresight, planning, memory, imagination, and so on. That of course doesn't rule out intelligent aliens (maybe possible) or alien AI systems that somehow became conscious (probably impossible).

The only source of intricate, complex multi-subsystem machines of any kind known to man by actual observation to actually exist is conscious focused intelligence, namely human. By extension and implication, the source in the case of evolution very most probably and necessarily must be closely related though of a much higher order.

The other various imagined alternate "possibilities" cited by Dembski such as Platonic demiurges, Stoic seminal reason, impersonal telic processes and so on are airy speculations having not much to do with known reality, and also don't for the most part entail the essential components of inventive creative engineering which include focused intelligent agency, intentions, desires, foresight, planning, memory, imagination, and so on. That of course doesn't rule out intelligent aliens (maybe possible) or alien AI systems that somehow became conscious (probably impossible).

It's just not very convincing when one of the main ID guys is saying that you don't need a designer to explain his data.

So, the ID movement and its research using this paradigm for its conception of the nature of intelligent design (as being the past engineering design of new and vastly complicated biological mechanisms by some sort of supremely intelligent agent(s)) must be on the right track, since an immensely successful and beneficial enterprise in the expansion of human knowledge is based on this mechanistic paradigm.

I think I'd be cautious to go so far. What the ID community do, is tell us - essentially prove - that evolution does not work by RM+NS and possibly that there is no tree of life.

I don't like the idea of supreme intelligence. First of all, if an intelligence can see as far as it likes, why not set up a planet with all the organisms it wishes, and not let them evolve at all.

Also, there seem to be some interesting points where evolution seems to have gone on a fishing expedition. A large number of animal forms were tried in the Cambrian era and most were then discarded. That suggests to me a finite intelligence using a strategy to find a way forward.

There also seems to be some evidence that the genetic code was originally based on pairs of nucleotides rather than triplets. Again this would suggest a programmer realising that he needed to expand the number of amino acids in his toolbox!

My favourite idea is that as spirits we all have access to the whole time span, and we tinkered in the creation of life collectively, and eventually we succeeded - just as we have made a whole load of other things!

Remember that human technology has advanced by creating tools so that people can be more and more creative. If you take a look at the circuit diagram for a modern CPU chip, it seems inconceivable that anyone could create it, yet over time people obviously did - using computers, but we created the computers!

There are also a range of weird anomalies in the supposed tree of life. For example eyes with lenses appear in a number of different places in the tentative tree of life. One explanation is that whoever was designing the organism simply pulled a standard eye design off the shelf and used it again!

The conventional explanation of this phenomenon - which apparently happens in many places - is that RM+NS efficiently follows the same pathway multiple times!

David

It's just not very convincing when one of the main ID guys is saying that you don't need a designer to explain his data.

As an engineer and inventor myself I just can't conceive of creative innovative complicated new designs coming from something not a conscious focused intelligent entity or agent. To design a complicated irreducibly complex machine of many parts requires many essential elements of conscious mind, including understanding, goal-making, planning, foresight, visualization, creative imagination, and so on. I wonder how Dembski would explain how an impersonal telic process or Platonic demiurge or whatever could have encompassed these elements of consciousness. Or (if focused conscious intelligence was not a factor) how the creation of this mass of new complex integrated functional information was anything but a magical something coming from nothing. I think he overreached himself in these speculations.

I think I'd be cautious to go so far. What the ID community do, is tell us - essentially prove - that evolution does not work by RM+NS and possibly that there is no tree of life.

I don't like the idea of supreme intelligence. First of all, if an intelligence can see as far as it likes, why not set up a planet with all the organisms it wishes, and not let them evolve at all.

Also, there seem to be some interesting points where evolution seems to have gone on a fishing expedition. A large number of animal forms were tried in the Cambrian era and most were then discarded. That suggests to me a finite intelligence using a strategy to find a way forward.

There also seems to be some evidence that the genetic code was originally based on pairs of nucleotides rather than triplets. Again this would suggest a programmer realising that he needed to expand the number of amino acids in his toolbox!

My favourite idea is that as spirits we all have access to the whole time span, and we tinkered in the creation of life collectively, and eventually we succeeded - just as we have made a whole load of other things!

Remember that human technology has advanced by creating tools so that people can be more and more creative. If you take a look at the circuit diagram for a modern CPU chip, it seems inconceivable that anyone could create it, yet over time people obviously did - using computers, but we created the computers!

There are also a range of weird anomalies in the supposed tree of life. For example eyes with lenses appear in a number of different places in the tentative tree of life. One explanation is that whoever was designing the organism simply pulled a standard eye design off the shelf and used it again!

The conventional explanation of this phenomenon - which apparently happens in many places - is that RM+NS efficiently follows the same pathway multiple times!

David

I guess I shouldn't have used the term "supreme" intelligence. What I meant was that evolution, and especially macroevolution (the major jumps in complexity and capability such as the Cambrian Explosion) appear to have been accomplished by a very advanced intelligence or intelligences apparently much greater than human, but not unlimitedly capable. Ultimately fallible and capable of mistakes, with ultimately limited abilities. I don't think human spirits could likely be the agents of macroevolution. This last would appear to be likely because these powerful spiritual beings appear to have been rather dispassionate and unconcerned with the eventual human impact, with regard to the inevitable massive suffering that was predictably the result of some of their designing decisions and choices.

This last would appear to be likely because these powerful spiritual beings appear to have been rather dispassionate and unconcerned with the eventual human impact, with regard to the inevitable massive suffering that was predictably the result of some of their designing decisions and choices.

However, don't forget the admittedly rather strange idea that we reincarnate here repeatedly rather like going to the gym, and even select the suffering we will encounter for the sake of the character building!

People build gyms.

David

However, don't forget the admittedly rather strange idea that we reincarnate here repeatedly rather like going to the gym, and even select the suffering we will encounter for the sake of the character building!

People build gyms.

David

I don't [think] there can be a serious comparison between going to a gym and, say, human trafficking?

Remember a lot of the ideas about reincarnation as a kind of test were perpetuated by those at the top of the evil caste system.

Remember a lot of the ideas about reincarnation as a kind of test were perpetuated by those at the top of the evil caste system.

I know there is a lot of controversy about the reason for reincarnation. Can you give me a link about the caste system you are talking about?

David

I know there is a lot of controversy about the reason for reincarnation. Can you give me a link about the caste system you are talking about?

David

Basically the idea is that you reincarnate into higher or lower castes based on virtuous actions in a previous life. Think of the scam of serfdom in Europe supported by certain religious authorities.

I don't think this ancient prejudice/injustice is directly influencing people who think we plan out our lives before we are born...but it seems to me the same attempt to appeal to the supernatural to explain away the suffering of the world is there...