Below is a post to another listserve that responds to the following list of
steps to identify intelligent design. This "algorithm" was presented by a
leader of the Kansas intelligent design network. I think the critical
analysis of this algorithm presented below is very illuminating.
Keith
>I think that it is important to note that one can do exactly what John
>Calvert (ala Dembski) is saying, and it can have some validity. For example
>consider the SETI research, which is pretty much based on this very idea.
>The 'devil' is in the details, however.
>
>First lets take the steps 1..3 and analyze them.
>
>* 1. Find a pattern of events that is functional, carries a message or has
>some discernable structure - that reflects "specified complexity." *
>
>Since anything that is "functional" or "carries a message" inherently "has
>some discernable structure", the statement can be reduced to simpler
>elements. Also a "pattern of events" is really referring to a pattern in
>physical realization, and isn't specific to "events" in sequence, so we can
>leave out "events" since every pattern is by that broad usage a pattern of
>"events". (They consider a lifeform to be a "pattern", so the "events"
>aspect is superfluous.)
>
>Furthermore "discernable structure" is redundant to pattern -- what is a
>pattern in this context if it is not just a "discernable structure"?
>
>All the other words are intended to mislead by giving truly "designed"
>examples of patterns that are messages and "functional" objects. They are
>going to start with examples of well understood "patterns" that are
>"functional", and things that carry a message, and "inductively" show that
>the 'algorithm' is useful for detecting 'design' for these cases, implying
>that they are also covering the most general "has some discernable
>structure" case. (They have probably mislead themselves into believing this
>is meaningful, except Calvert is a lawyer and lawyers are trained not to
>have to believe their own arguments, just make them convincing.) So just for
>clarity we will stick to the most general case in the sentence structure, so
>as to avoid confusion in the argument.
>
>Now elsewhere 'complexity' is defined as something that is complex, not just
>simple (more or less).
>'Specified' is defined as anything that we can create a mental specification
>for, either before or after seeing its realization. (A position on a wall at
>which an arrow has landed can be considered a "specification", so
>specification is a most general concept, it only requires that one of us be
>able to conceive of it either before or after the "event" in which the
>"discernable structure" is exhibited.)
>
>At this point we are left with:
>
>* 1. Find some discernable structure - that reflects "specified complexity".
>*
>
>Now lets deal with the rest of the sentence. Why do we need new terms,
>"specified complexity" to deal with something that already has a simple
>understood terminology, "discernable structure". If it has structure, surely
>it has some complexity, so we don't need to furthermore identify its degree
>of complexity. Since anything we can conceive of we can have a
>specification, why do we need to refer to the "specified" aspect. Once again
>"specified" in normal day to day terminology only refers to something this
>is written out or conceived of prior to its realization in physical reality
>(e.g. production.) So lets drop the terminology "specified", but remember
>that we dropped it, so any aspects of our concept that required the need for
>specification will still apply.
>
>Thus we are left with:
>
>* 1. Find some discernable structure. *
>
>Now as to steps 2 and 3.
>
>* 2. Second: Rule out Necessity as a cause of the pattern. *
>
>* 3. Third: Rule out Chance as a cause of the pattern. *
>
>* If we can do that, we can infer design.*
>
>First of all in the context of things in nature that we are going to
>examine, we can't separate 'chance' and 'necessity' as independent. They are
>different aspects, just not independent or acting separately. All known
>physical phenomenon have elements of 'chance' or randomness involved. For
>example all measurements have experimental error, and those errors are
>exhibited as various 'chance' aspects (possibly unknown) affect the final
>measurement. Furthermore all known elements of 'chance' in nature depend on
>some aspect of 'necessity' or physical process. Here we are to understand
>that 'necessity' means a physical (or natural) process.
>
>Now this is furthermore in a context of considering all things to be a
>result of either "design", "chance" or "necessity". We will be asked if any
>"event" can fall outside of the conjunction of "design", "chance" or
>"necessity", and I am willing to concede that any physical event
>(discernable structure) cannot occur outside of some combination of those
>aspects. What I am not willing to concede is that multiple aspects cannot be
>simultaneously present. (For example a bowler throws a ball, intending or
>'designing' the knocking down of 10 pins. There is always some randomness in
>how the ball rolls, and the rolling of the ball is clearly a physical
>process or occurring by "necessity" once it is released. Therefore these can
>occur in combination. The real question asked in ID is if they are caused
>'ONLY' by chance and/or necessity.
>
>Now in the evolutionary context, chance and/or necessity is really just
>another way of saying 'natural process' outside of those which are part of a
>directly observable case of 'design'. (Example to illustrate: Take a
>sequence of letters coming over a teletype. If we see the operator typing
>the letters, we directly observe the 'design' aspect. However if we can't
>directly observe in any way the operator, we can only examine for the
>possibility of other processes. Wires rubbing together could produce random
>teletype signals which would produce random letter sequences, explained by
>physical causes or 'necessity' combined with the random nature of the
>physical process.)
>
>So statements 2 and 3 together reduce to:
>
>* 2/3. Rule out natural processes outside of those by an observable
>'designer'. *
>
>Now back to the evolutionary context, we know we don't have direct knowledge
>or observation of a 'designer' and are working only to find indirect
>knowledge, so we can reduce the sentence to:
>
>* 2/3. Rule out natural processes outside of those of a 'designer'. *
>
>
>SO the algorithm is equivalent to:
>
>* 1. Find some discernable structure. *
>
>* 2/3. Rule out natural processes outside of those of a 'designer'. *
>
>* If we can do that, we can infer design. *
>
>[Now I disagree somewhat with Brian, in that I think "1." is mostly a matter
>of definitions. What is important is not to change the definitions midway
>through argument. His methodology really depends on changing the definitions
>midway, so his case does not rest on the original definitions but on his
>ability to confuse us when he changes the definitions midway through the
>argument. I agree that this is just a case of dressed up argument from
>ignorance, as I will show.]
>
>This 'algorithm' works somewhat in the SETI example. We receive and record
>some RF energy. We try to find some discernable structure. We check to see
>if we can explain the structure using natural processes. If so, it isn't
>designed, even if it has regular structure.
>
>Now the ruling out of natural processes is very difficult, but when we
>detect a known natural process we do rule it 'IN' and cast out the case as
>not a product of 'design'.
>
>However we go a step further in SETI, beyond the above algorithm. We don't
>assume that every pattern received must have an understandable natural
>process behind it, because of the great number of possible natural processes
>that we don't have fully explained, and which could create the energy
>pattern.
>
>So we furthermore use models of physical or natural intelligence which could
>do design of a signal, and transmit that signal. For example someone sending
>us a message who knows we won't know their language, and furthermore may not
>even be looking for a language might send out sequences of prime numbers as
>some sort of simple count. Other characteristics taken from our own examples
>of natural intelligence can be searched for.
>
>So the basic 'algorithm' is useful for SETI, but not without some added
>considerations.
>
>Now how would it be useful for evolution related research?
>
>Well we could use the 'modified' algorithm like SETI uses, and look for
>directly 'designed' aspects. Look for sequences of prime numbers encoded in
>a gene sequence, which could have been placed by genetic engineering for us
>to discover at a later eon. Look for other characteristics of 'design' by
>natural intelligence. Square tomatoes might exhibit such a characteristic,
>because they are apparently 'designed' to fit a packing crate better, rather
>than to fit common effects of nature.
>
>However the modified 'algorithm' appropriate for SETI is not very
>appropriate or applicable to the general question of evolution, so we are
>left with the original 'algorithm'. The only types of intelligence we are
>searching for in the modified 'algorithm' are ones who act in natural
>systems and furthermore act according to ways that we recognize as relating
>to human intelligence, working within the materials of nature.
>
>Now since the evolution question deals with much evidence from before the
>appearance of 'natural intelligence' we know of, the question of a
>'designer' is somewhat extraneous to the statement in a specific way. I am
>really saying that the 'algorithm' can be reduced to the following for
>practical purposes:
>
>* 1. Find some discernable structure. *
>
>* 2/3. Rule out natural processes. *
>
>* If we can do that, we can infer design. *
>
>The aspect of the 'designer' is implicit, and doesn't need to be stated. The
>'algorithm' is still intact in the sense that this is really the way the ID
>folks want to search for the 'intelligent designer'.
>
>So how can we carry out the 2/3 algorithmic step, as stated?
>
>Well here is another statement, which I think we can really understand says
>the same thing:
>
>* 1. Find some discernable structure. *
>
>* 2/3. Do scientific research to understand the natural processes. Do this
>research just like it is presently done, and just like scientific research
>would advance if we were not to consider ID. When and if all reasonable
>human effort at explaining a structure has been exhausted, then give up. If
>future ideas might re-invigorate an area of research, don't consider that we
>have given up for all time, just temporarily until the next good idea or
>project. *
>
>* Remember that to infer design, we first have to have ruled out natural
>processes. To do so required a great deal of research, probably many many
>lifetimes. If we have not ruled out natural processes, we can not yet infer
>design, because this was the statement of the 'algorithm'. We keep
>discovering more and more details of natural process that can explain
>evolution, and to stop this part of the search in order to support an
>argument from ignorance would be foolish. *
>
>Now there is a further wrinkle. Remember my earlier point about the
>combination of chance, necessity, and design all occurring in the same event
>(e.g. the bowling ball hits the pins)?
>
>Well lets consider "theistic evolution", an idea held by many scientists. In
>this possibility an "event" can simultaneously be a product of God's design,
>and a result of chance and necessity.
>
>Before considering this, however, lets break the analysis up into two cases:
>The first case is design occurs because of purely naturalistic processes
>(e.g. the designer is an extra terrestrial or a natural being present on
>Earth). The second case is a 'designer' beyond natural processes (e.g. God).
>
>In the first case we modify the algorithm to only search for natural
>designers, and this would be the 'modified algorithm' useful in SETI,
>mentioned above. They have used case analysis to describe this process, so
>there certainly is no problem breaking this algorithm up into cases. Now to
>find a natural designer we must be able to find mechanisms of design
>transfer. If design occurs at many different points along the evolutionary
>time line by a natural designer, then we should be able to find at least a
>small amount of direct evidence of this designer, or how the designer
>effects the transfer of the design to the evolved species. This completely
>changes the process, and I don't believe that the ID people would be
>satisfied with this version, so I won't even present it further.
>
>Therefore we are only left with the second case, that the possibility of a
>'designer' outside of natural processes.
>
>Lets not do 'science' for a moment, but rather consider a larger endeavor of
>human activity including science and philosophy and religion, all under one
>heading. We shall furthermore not limit ourselves to naturalistic processes
>in this endeavor. In this context the people doing this activity believe in
>God and in God's creation, but also simultaneously practice the methods of
>scientific research.
>
>I'm just bringing in God because we are told we are to allow for God as one
>of the possibilities for the Intelligent Designer, and I think this specific
>case using God is instructive -- we would not always have to limit ourselves
>to God as the explanation for non-naturalistic processes. Since we are
>allowing the 'God' possibility for the designer, I believe that that is the
>most extreme case in terms of its effect on our understanding of the
>definitions we are using. It definitely has consequences and effects on our
>definitions of terms, so I want to consider that one case within the general
>second case of a designer beyond natural processes. Now we will have a new
>algorithm, specific to this larger endeavor with an explicit statement of
>the aspect of God as well. We will use some added terminology to reflect the
>religious aspect in every step.
>
>* 1. Find some discernable structure. Now any such structure was caused by
>God and continues to be upheld by God's present will, because all of
>creation is God's creation. *
>
>* 2/3. Do scientific research to understand the natural processes.
>Understand that all natural processes are the result of God's will, and
>continue to be upheld by God's present will. God may have chosen for His
>creation not to be understandable by human beings. But if we do find
>understandings, then God apparently intended us to be able to understand
>nature. Do this research just like it is presently done, and just like
>scientific research would advance if we were not to consider ID. When and if
>all reasonable human effort at explaining a structure has been exhausted,
>then give up. If future ideas might re-invigorate an area of research, don't
>consider that we have given up for all time, just temporarily until the next
>good idea or project. *
>
>* If we can do that (have to give up for all time on finding an
>explanation), we can infer design. We have identified cases of God's design.
>*
>
>* (Alternately when we do find explanations for a discernable structure
>based on natural processes, we have also found examples of God's design,
>because all of creation is God's design.) *
>
>Note that we can eliminate these last two statements, because in either case
>we identify design. The algorithm doesn't identify God's design, but it may
>have other valuable uses as a human endeavor.
>
>Now let's carry this one step further. When we carry out this larger human
>endeavor, we will keep separate logs, (mental or physical) of all the
>aspects that mention religion or God. We do this for the following reason:
>Others want to work with us who have different views of God and religion
>than ours, and we have problems communicating when we use our particular
>view in all of our correspondence. So we leave this aspect out of one
>account, and just focus on the natural processes. We don't change the larger
>result, including the religious aspect, we just document that religious part
>separately if we do document it.
>
>So do this larger human endeavor, with a final modification of the
>methodology, but which includes a religious aspect that some scientists
>believe, and others differ with. Report the religious aspects as philosophy
>and religion, not as science.
>
>* 1. Find some discernable structure. *
>
>* 2/3. Do scientific research to understand the natural processes. Do this
>research just like it is presently done, and just like scientific research
>would advance if we were not to consider ID. When and if all reasonable
>human effort at explaining a structure has been exhausted, then give up. If
>future ideas might re-invigorate an area of research, don't consider that we
>have given up for all time, just temporarily until the next good idea or
>project. *
>
>Call this final 'algorithm' or methodology "science", and teach its results
>to our children.
>
>Sincerely
>Gordon Elliott
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
kbmill@ksu.ksu.edu
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 11 2000 - 15:23:01 EDT