Hello Iain,
“I maintain that a Designer (of sufficient intelligence, with
unspecified limits on that intelligence) is a universal explainer of
phenomena. The proposal of a Designer can "explain" just about
anything away.”
I don’t infer design to “explain things away.” I score things in accord
with criteria that either point toward or away from design. For example, I
do not score a pseudogene as something that was designed. Of course, a
design proponent might come up with a way to explain away such junk DNA. As
an design investigator, one must be on guard against both confirmation and
disconfirmation bias, meaning that our scoring system must be open-ended.
“If the Designer is God, then He has infinite
intelligence and capability, by definition.”
Which is why I write in my book, “Since we have no independent experience
with a designer that is both omniscient and omnipotent, the effects from
such a cause are not easily investigated. To more effectively infer design,
in an empirical, investigative sense, we will restrain our hypothesis to
invoking a human-like intelligence.”
“If however, the proposed
designer is an ETI, then one still has not specified a limit on the
intelligence - the ETI is assumed to be sufficiently intelligent to
design us.”
I already provided one such limit in my previous reply – ETI are limited to
one act of intelligent intervention (seeding). I also assume only a level of
intelligence capable of designing a cell, not a human being. Given that
human beings may be able to do this in the next century, it does not appear
to be an unreasonable assumption/limit.
“But I would suggest that evolution is also a Universal Explainer (if
the "explanation" is just given that "it evolved").”
Yet evolution only kicks in once you have a replicating system up and
running.
“But there is a further Universal Explainer that could be appealed to -
science we haven't yet discovered. Maybe we shall uncover different
mechanisms of whereby evolution occurs that are more powerful than
straight random mutation”
Indeed. This highlights the folly of inferring design solely on the basis
of perceived limitations of natural processes as they are currently
understood. For some time now, I have been advocating that evolution is a
smarter and more sophisticated process than people think. This is because
evolution is a function of life. I expect those hunches to come through
(hopefullt in my life time).
“Now, here is the crux of my argument. As you say the identity of the
Designer should not be specified, as a matter of intellectual honesty.
But should it not be the case that any other UEM likewise should not
be excluded either? “
It depends on what you mean by excluded. I would agree we should not
exclude alternatives by insisting they don’t exist. But because of the
limitations of the human mind, we often have to exclude some explanations
while focusing on others. As I write in my book, “We are not engaging in a
Duck Hunt; we are going to chase the Rabbit.”
“How do you tell the difference, for example,
between a Multiverse and Design? In particular the Everettian
Many-Worlds multiverse explanation allows for ANYTHING to happen. Or
how do we know that one of the fascinating mechanisms discussed in
"Darwin and the genome - strategies for molecular evolution" is not
the true designer?”
I’m not smart enough to tell the difference. It’s Rabbit/Duck to me. I am
focused on design and how it might shed light on biotic reality/history. If
someone wants to use the Multiverse to shed light on biotic reality, then I
say, go for it. Perhaps we can compare notes down the road.
“I would have said that if one is to be completely intellectually
honest then one has to include all of these different UEM's (
Designer, Coincidence, Multiverse, Evolution - with some new
mechanisms we haven't yet discovered) into the potential set of final
explanations. What do you think?”
Sounds good to me, as I have been doing this for years. My
writings/hypotheses have long incorporated a designer, coincidence (the
intelligent use of chance), noise, evolution, and new mechanisms
(front-loading, homeostatic evolution). The only thing missing is the
Multiverse, but I don’t know how to incorporate that.
- Mike Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "Iain Strachan" <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
To: "ASA List" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 2:12 PM
Subject: Fwd: Identity of the Designer: was:Re: [asa] Responding to
Atheists, Agnostics & Apatheist
> oops , meant to send this to the list and not just to Mike Gene.
>
> Iain
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 6:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Identity of the Designer: was:Re: [asa] Responding to
> Atheists, Agnostics & Apatheist
> To: Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:
>> Hi Iain,
>>
>>
>>
>> You wrote, "Although I agree with you that it is intellectually honest
>> not
>> to
>>
>> plump for an identity of the Designer, nonetheless …"
>>
>>
>>
>> But I'd like to stop here for a moment, as this *was* my point. The same
>> goes with David, who writes, "I have two problems with ID's inability to
>> identify a particular designer. I firmly agree that ID-type evidence
>> would
>> not indicate a particular designer. However…"
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd be happy to take a shot at the nonethelesses and howevers in a bit,
>> but
>> I was merely objecting to the notion that IDers will not identify the
>> designer because it's just a sneaky political tactic. That's a talking
>> point. It may indeed be a political tactic for many in the ID movement,
>> but
>> it is also an intellectually honest and responsible thing to do. I'm
>> glad
>> we all seem to see this.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, we're agreed on that point, Mike. But I have further problems,
> which I tried to explore (without much success) in my postings to
> Timaeus, concerning the UEM (Universal Explanatory Mechanism).
>
> I maintain that a Designer (of sufficient intelligence, with
> unspecified limits on that intelligence) is a universal explainer of
> phenomena. The proposal of a Designer can "explain" just about
> anything away. If the Designer is God, then He has infinite
> intelligence and capability, by definition. If however, the proposed
> designer is an ETI, then one still has not specified a limit on the
> intelligence - the ETI is assumed to be sufficiently intelligent to
> design us.
>
> But I would suggest that evolution is also a Universal Explainer (if
> the "explanation" is just given that "it evolved"). Dawkins et al
> usually get round the improbability by invoking the massive timescales
> involved - and here the analog of "sufficiently intelligent" would be
> "sufficiently long" and it is assumed that the billions of years
> timescale is sufficiently long. Of course there is much debate about
> this, and whether irreducible complexity and so forth means the
> billions of years are sufficiently long or not.
>
> But there is a further Universal Explainer that could be appealed to -
> science we haven't yet discovered. Maybe we shall uncover different
> mechanisms of whereby evolution occurs that are more powerful than
> straight random mutation (many of these are discussed in "Darwin in
> the Genome" by Lynn Caporale).
>
> There again, the multiverse has been invoked as a Universal Explainer
> (Multiversal explainer?) - many universes in which our one, though
> exceedingly unlikely, is one of the ones that got lucky.
>
> And again, there is just plain old coincidence.
>
> Now, here is the crux of my argument. As you say the identity of the
> Designer should not be specified, as a matter of intellectual honesty.
> But should it not be the case that any other UEM likewise should not
> be excluded either? How do you tell the difference, for example,
> between a Multiverse and Design? In particular the Everettian
> Many-Worlds multiverse explanation allows for ANYTHING to happen. Or
> how do we know that one of the fascinating mechanisms discussed in
> "Darwin and the genome - strategies for molecular evolution" is not
> the true designer?
>
> I would have said that if one is to be completely intellectually
> honest then one has to include all of these different UEM's (
> Designer, Coincidence, Multiverse, Evolution - with some new
> mechanisms we haven't yet discovered) into the potential set of final
> explanations. What do you think?
>
> Iain
>
>
>
> --
> -----------
> Non timeo sed caveo
>
> -----------
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1760 - Release Date: 11/1/2008
> 9:36 AM
>
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 1 16:38:46 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Nov 01 2008 - 16:38:46 EDT