Re: [asa] Reference design

Randy wrote: "Burgy, that's why I added "non-animal".

Apologies -- I skipped right by that one. I'll try to be more attentive.
...

Randy continues: "Most schemes for detecting design use the concept of
a reference design. Consider the bird that Burgy mentioned. If we
discover a nest in a tree, we can study the nest and by comparing it
with documented reference designs of nests typical for certain
species, we can identify the species of the bird that built that nest.
It is important to study the nest carefully and to identify all
similarities and differences from all other nests. It could happen,
however, that the characteristics of the newly discovered nest are
similar enough to all those reference designs that we think it was
designed and built by a bird but sufficiently dissimilar from all
reference designs so that we can also say it wasn't done by any known
species of bird. What can we say then? Have we discovered a new
species of bird? No. But we certainly have enough information to
submit a research grant to look for a new species. We can speculate
that such a species must exist but until a member of that species is
identified, we haven't discovered it."

I see I was not precise enough in my analogy. Let me try again. It is
8,000 years ago and you and I have just discovered the decorated nest.
Neither of us sod-busters have ever seen or even thought of a bird --
or any other animal -- doing such thing. It is a new phenomena to
both of us.

But even though new, both of us (I hope) would be interested in
pursuing the scientific programme of an investigation of causation,
with the underlying assumption that such decorations don't happen
"naturally."

Now to the extent one postulates a divinity as causation, that seems
to be possible, but outside what science can investigate. (See -- I am
still a methodological atheist). But my understanding of ID is that
this postulation is not required. A postulation of an advanced (or at
least very different) agent however, is not ruled out.

Back to my anology. It is the present day, but you and I are members
of a remote tribe in S.A. Our reaction to the decorated nest is the
same. Then we stumble onto a dirt road and see a car. We thought we
were the only humans on the earth. What do we see as a research
programme in this case?

Randy again: "In this world, we have a very broad panoply of reference
designs for what we know to be human designed, animal ( broadly
defined to include birds, insects, etc.) designed, or nature designed.
We also have enough information to know that there is a vast spectrum
of possibilities in all these categories that we haven't identified or
documented. Part of the joy of creativity is discovering how to do new
designs."

Yeah -- but you are drawing on 8,000 years of human experience. Our
tribemen in the above don't have that.

Randy again" "So what do we do when we encounter a new system whose
origin we are investigating? We naturally compare it with all known
reference designs. . . . Can we conclude from such a situation that
there was divine (or some supernatural intelligent agent) design? I
would suggest no for the simple reason that we have no reference
design from a divine being. We simply do not know what the defining
characersitics of a divinely designed system would be."

I am still not impressed with the concept of "reference design." But
you knew that.

Randy: "I would suggest that this is indeed enough evidence to look
for a divine designer (yes, Burgy, it is "possible" and even
"probable") but such stimulation can come from many sources and is not
unique. And the looking would be outside the scope of science."

Your last sentence is what the argument (debate/discussion) is all about!

 Randy: "Well, considering that we are talking about a physical
sentient being that had the capability during the past 3.5 billion
years to carry out nanotechnological manipulation of biochemical
molecules, but managed not to leave any trace of its existence, that
search wouldn't take very long before conceding."

Good point. But it does not address the question "is such a search
outside science?"

Randy: "It seems to me that at most our conclusion in such a situation
is "we do not know." Part of our passion for science is to keep
learning and understand more about the design possibilities of this
universe. There's a lot more to be learned."

Have to agree. The older I get the more I realize how little I really know!

Burgy

-- 
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.