Bilboe

I posted this topic at ISCID's Brainstorms:

<a href="http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000080" target="_blank">http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000080</a>

But got only one response. Since II has once again become my home away from ARN, I thought I would post it here and see what all you heathen think about it:


"Before I begin, let me emphasize that I am an advocate of ID. However, sometimes I wonder if we overstate our case, and that this may be causing some (but certainly not all) of the backlash in the scientific community. As an example, I wanted to think about one of the IDists' favorite examples: SETI. We frequently cite it, because it offers an example of how non-IDists would identify the existence of intelligence without the aid of independent verification (which we can't do with archaelogy, since usually there's independent evidence of hominids around somewhere). And I wanted to think about this in terms of two different scenarios:

Scenario 1: Radio astronomers discover a radio frequency that has exactly what they were hoping for: a signal that repeats the prime numbers from 2 to 101. Further, they are able to locate the transmission to a certain star, and verify that there is at least one planet revolving around that star.

Scenario 2: Radio astronomers discover a radio frequency that has exactly what they were hoping for: a signal that repeats the prime numbers from 2 to 101. However, they are unable to locate the origin of transmission at all. In fact, like background radiation, it seems to be coming from everywhere.

The question I want to pose is this: Would we be more confident that the radio transmission in Scenario 1 is intelligently designed, than we would be in Scenario 2? If we would be, then I think specified complexity alone may not be able to determine the existence of intelligence. For myself, I think I would be more confident that the transmission in Scenario 1 is intelligently designed, than in Scenario 2.

If others find themselves agreeing with me, we should ask ourselves what this means. I suggest the following: Though specified complexity might be a good indication of intelligence, we need other evidence to confidently conclude intelligence. What form this evidence might take probably depends upon the context. In the context of biology, that evidence might be something like finding pieces of a rocket ship in ancient rock (for directed panspermia), or finding a portion of Genesis 1 coded in the DNA (for theistic ID). This does not mean that ID cannot be a reasonable hypothesis. I think it is a very reasonable hypothesis. But I think it means that without independent evidence of some kind, it may never get beyond the level of hypothesis."

hezekiah jones

I'm sorry, but I have a couple of off-topic questions that don't address the main substance of your post.

What does it mean to be an "advocate of ID"?

An advocate of the fruitful discussion within the philosophical and theological communities involving attempts to reconcile the potentially disparate infererences drawn by so-called philosophical materialists and so-called theistic scientists?

Or are you an advocate of introducing ID into the biology classroom?

Or Discovery Institute-style "teaching the controversy" in biology class?

If so what "controversy" that conflicts with the broadly accepted tenets of evolution is there - within the community of professional biologists? (Mathematicians, philosophers, and theologians don't count.)

There are always "controversies" within the scientific community.

But which current "controversy," among those concerned with newly emerging analytical techniques at the molecular level, and the new insights being gained from evolutionary developmental biology and so forth, are concerned with "intelligent design"?

Do you consider the debate centering around gradualism, punctuated equilibrium, and various combinations of the two concepts to be a "controversy" worthy of the introduction of "intelligent design" explanations?

Personally I think that's exactly what's causing the backlash, and rightly so. ID proponents are appealing to a public by and large ignorant of the strength of evolutionary theory instead of the community of biologists.

Do you really think Phyllis Schlafly has read No Free Lunch?

Don't you think that until ID theorists can draw some concrete biological experiments without appealing to irrelevant analogies, god-of-the-gaps, and exploitation of the things we don't know yet, ID will forever be overstating its case?

These are serious questions, by the way.

0n0w1c

is this an example of id?
a = 6, b = 12, c = 18, ...
add the letters of computer and you get 666?
does this mean design?
i would say not... it is simply 'seeing' order from something people would otherwise think would be random.
id or simply a way (possibly and probably one of many) for it to happen?
to say id is a reasonable hypothesis, yes but no way to expound on it until you can show the 'i' in 'id'.
if you find the 'i', you can begin to see if the 'd' applies.
seti looks for some 'id'. if found, it would simply point to a place in the sky we could maybe try to communicate... to see if 'i' does exist. that is the test, not the fact that we search for 'd'. so i conclude, i am in agreement with you, some other evidence would be required.

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: 0n0w1c ]</p>

Dr.GH

WELL. I am glad that someone in the ID camp realized that archaeology does not
provide a "model" for ID. That puts you far ahead of Dembski.

Your gedanken experiment is also interestin' and I'll try to think on it.

From my chair on the porch, ID is strongly opposed because:

A) It is not science, it is anti-science. To teach it in our (U.S.)public schools is the same
as telling our students that we can not understand the difference between science and folk
stories.

B) ID is creationism lite. It is creationism without the Young Earth, and Noah's flood. It
is creationism that tries to hide who is really the "designer."

C) ID is not even substantial in its logic, to wit; the distorted presentations in J. Wells'
Icons of Evolution, and Johnson's Darwin on Trial. {Both of which I bought
remaindered, for obvious reasons.} Also I encourage people to read :

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/#irred" target="_blank">Richard Wein's critique of No Free Lunch</a>

hezekiah jones

Don't forget Dembski's irascible reply:

<a href="http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=000022" target="_blank">A Response to Richard Wein</a>

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." - Graham Chapman as Oscar Wilde.

[My mistake. Fixed now.]

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>

Dr.GH

Yeah. I just finished my first quick scan of Wild Bill's reply. I felt like having cheese on a bed of roses. How long do you think it will take to demolish WD's latest? At least he didn't mention archaeology or forensic science. Maybe he'll stop all together.

daemon

hezekiah, I get a 404 on that URL. Can you check it again?

Bilboe

HJ: "What does it mean to be an "advocate of ID"?

Me: By "an advocate of ID," I mean that I believe that there is evidence of intelligent design in biological organisms. Is there enough to demand that it be taught in public schools? Maybe not. I certainly don't recommend doing so until the scientific community at large gives its approval.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes I wonder if we overstate our case, and that this may be causing some (but certainly not all) of the backlash in the scientific community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HJ:
"Personally I think that's exactly what's causing the backlash, and rightly so. ID proponents are appealing to a public by and large ignorant of the strength of evolutionary theory instead of the community of biologists."

Me: Well, we at least partially agree. I think if ID advocates were more cautious about there claims, it might help restore civility to the debate.

HJ:
"Do you really think Phyllis Schlafly has read No Free Lunch?"

ME: Who? I don't keep up much on what's going on in the political arena, I'm afraid. Didn't she oppose school busing in the 60s and 70s?

HJ:
"Don't you think that until ID theorists can draw some concrete biological experiments without appealing to irrelevant analogies, god-of-the-gaps, and exploitation of the things we don't know yet, ID will forever be overstating its case?"

Me: I had a great thread about this in ARN. Since we've been told that they only have records up to March 25th, I'm afraid it's lost in oblivion. Maybe I should start a thread here on the same topic. But one thread at a time.


OW: "is this an example of id?
a = 6, b = 12, c = 18, ...
add the letters of computer and you get 666?
does this mean design?
i would say not... it is simply 'seeing' order from something people would otherwise think would be random.
id or simply a way (possibly and probably one of many) for it to happen?"

Me: You mean that if I add up all the numerical values of the letters on my keyboard, I'll get 666? Wow! I knew computers were from the Devil! But seriously, do you think that if radio astronomers found a radio signal like the one in "Contact" (prime numbers from 2 to 101), that they would have good reason for thinking the signal was intelligently designed?

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: Bilboe ]</p>

Bilboe

Dr.GH: "WELL. I am glad that someone in the ID camp realized that archaeology does not
provide a "model" for ID. That puts you far ahead of Dembski.
Your gedanken experiment is also interestin' and I'll try to think on it."

Me: I don't completely agree with Dembski, but I don't completely agree with you, either, I'm afraid. You once talked about finding a hearth and fearing that it was in a layer that would make it too old. I asked you what you would have done if it had been too old. Would you have ceased referring to it as a hearth, or would you have tried to find evidence of humans being around longer than what was previously thought?

And which Gedanken experiment are we talking about?

0n0w1c

Me: You mean that if I add up all the numerical values of the letters on my keyboard, I'll get 666? Wow! I knew computers were from the Devil! But seriously, do you think that if radio astronomers found a radio signal like the one in "Contact" (prime numbers from 2 to 101), that they would have good reason for thinking the signal was intelligently designed?

well, only add the letters that spell computer... in english... in spanish it would total something else. thus, the fact that in english it totals 666 means nothing!
so, i do state that if we receive a signal with all of the prime numbers or any other 'intelligible' pattern, we investigate, not conclude.
'id' concludes then investigates, it is not a credible method of science.