From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Thu Aug 07 2003 - 10:26:52 EDT
Brian asked:
>>So, for IDers let me ask. Is this [Fibonacci] series a specification?
Josh answered.
> Let me first state that I cannot speak for every last nuance of what the
> word specification means to either ID or myself. However it appears to be
> the case as some flowering plants and other biotic creatures display (if
> this is where you are going...)
I have been busy with other matters the last few days, but looking at some
of the recent posts on ID suggests to me that there remains some
misunderstanding about what words like "designed" and "complex" and
"specified" mean when they appear in ID literature. Here is an excerpt from
my essay review of Dembski's book, No Free Lunch. [This is available at
the AAAS website
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/ with a link to "Van Till and Dembski on
Intelligent Design." The first half of my paper focuses on ID's rhetorical
strategy, the second half on some of ID's scientific claims.]
>
> The signs of design
>
> How would we come to know that something was intelligently designed? It¹s
> very straightforward, says Dembski.
>
> "There does in fact exist a rigorous criterion for discriminating
> intelligently caused from unintelligently caused objects. Š I call it the
> complexity-specification criterion. When intelligent agents act, they leave
> behind a characteristic trademark or signature‹what I define as specified
> complexity. The complexity-specification criterion detects design by
> identifying this trademark of designed objects." [see NFL, p. 364]
>
> "Whenever we infer design we must establish three things: contingency,
> complexity, and specification." [see NFL, pp. xvi-xvii]
>
> An object/event is said to be contingent if, while it is fully consistent
> with natural laws, it is not wholly determined by them and represents only
> one outcome among several possible outcomes of natural processes.
> Complexity is related inversely to probability. Highly complex objects have
> a low probability of being actualized naturally. Dembski looks for objects
> whose probability of actualization by natural means is less than what he
> calls the "universal probability bound," which has the value 10 exp150. For
> some event/object to be specified it must exhibit a distinctive pattern
> that is detachable from the particular event/object itself. A detachable
> pattern might, for instance, correspond to some independently derivable
> sequence of numbers or letters that has no necessary connection to the
> object/event being subjected to the complexity-specification criterion. For
> example, if SETI researchers received a radio signal representing the first
> 100 prime numbers they would be justified in concluding that the signal
> exhibited a detachable pattern that had no necessary relationship to the
> electromagnetic waves that carried it.
>
> In Dembski¹s language, if some event/object is contingent (not the outcome
> of any deterministic natural law), sufficiently complex (its probability of
> natural actualization is less than 10 exp150), and specified, then it
exhibits
> specified complexity. The central argument of No Free Lunch is that
> objects/events that exhibit specified complexity cannot be actualized by
> natural processes alone and must, therefore, be the outcome of intelligent
> design, in the sense consistent with the way in which all of the key terms
> have been defined above.
Note: Learning the peculiarities of Dembski vocabulary is absolutely
essential to any evaluation of his arguments. For example, to be (or have
been) intelligently designed means to be (or have been) assembled in such a
way as to require one or more non-natural, form-conferring interventions by
an unidentified, unembodied, choice-making agent.
What about the Fibonacci series? Would a biotic structure displaying this
numerical series be specified? Since the numerical series can be generated
in a way that is independent of any particular biotic system, perhaps it
would be considered to be detachable, and therefore a specification. But if
there is an explanation for how the development of some biotic system
produces a structure displaying this numerical sequence, ID advocates might
argue that the system is not complex. [Remember that complexity -- in ID
speak -- is related inversely to the probability that something could be
assembled by the joint effect of all (known and unknown) natural processes
(sometimes confusingly referred to as "chance."]
However, this business of numerical sequences might also be considered
irrelevant by an ID advocate. For example, when Dembski argues that the
bacterial flagellum is specified he uses an entirely different strategy.
Here is another excerpt from my essay review of No Free Lunch:
>
> Is the flagellum specified?
>
> If the complexity of the bacterial flagellum‹where complexity is defined by
> Dembski¹s own unorthodox criterion‹has not been successfully demonstrated,
> then the matter of its specification could, perhaps, be set aside as no
> longer relevant. Nonetheless, let us look at Dembski¹s development of this
> portion of his argument for the specified complexity of the flagellum
>
> In several places in No Free Lunch, Dembski goes to considerable lengths to
> state the requirements that specification and detachability must satisfy in
> the careful language of logic, set theory and the like. The index of the
> book cites more than 40 pages dealing with the topics of "specification"
> and "detachability," plus approximately 100 page-citations for closely
> related topics such as "specifiability," "specificational resources,"
> "biological specificity," and "specified complexity."
>
> However, when it comes time for Dembski to support his conviction that the
> bacterial flagellum is specified, the procedure becomes considerably more
> casual, almost facile. Speaking on the specification of biological systems
> in general, Dembski simply asserts that, "Biological specification always
> refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many
> functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody
> patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of
> the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the
> sense required by the complexity-specification criterion." [NFL, p. 148] In
these four
> brief sentences the foundation of Dembski¹s entire strategy for certifying
> the specification of biotic systems is laid out.
>
> Addressing the particular question regarding whether the bacterial
> flagellum is specified, Dembski confidently declares that, "Specification
> is never a problem. The irreducibly complex systems we consider,
> particularly in biology, always satisfy independently given functional
> requirementsŠ. For instance, in the case of the bacterial flagellum, humans
> developed outboard rotary motors well before they figured out that the
> flagellum was such a machine." [NFL, p. 289] The flagellum functions like an
outboard
> rotary motor. The rotary outboard motor pattern represents a functional
> requirement independent of biological systems. Therefore, concludes
> Dembski, the flagellum is specified.
So, is a biotic structure that displays the Fibonacci series specified? Hard
to say. It may depend on whether one uses the numerical sequence requirement
or the biotic function requirement.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 10:28:43 EDT