Re: [asa] evidence for design

Don wrote, in part: "What I really mean by "disinterested observers"
is people who would set up criteria for intelligent design based on
what they know of intelligent design and then apply those criteria as
impartially as possible to nature. The best examples of intelligent
design we have, of course, are human, so any evidence of intelligent
design would need to fit with what humans consider to be intelligent.

However, we both know that the designer behind it all is God, so it's
not unreasonable also to inject the idea that the designer, while
possibly thinking with something akin to human intelligence, should
have considerably more power to implement his designs than your
average human. This extra power arguably would lead him to take
certain avenues towards his goals that would be unavailable to humans
or unaided nature.

By human standards it's inconceivable to me (and I believe also to
"disinterested observers" as defined above) that such an intelligent
designer would incorporate catastrophes like the Permian or
Ordovician-Silurian extinctions into his "plan" at the outset."

I've made this point before, so I'll be brief.

(1) I don't particularly agree with the last paragraph above, because:

(2) I can easily speculate that God "played" with His creation for
awhile (OK -- for at least 4 billion years). The pejorative term for
this is "tinker," but that presumes a god who can't quite get it right
to begin with. I don't presume this and so I use the word "play."

One may still assume God's onniscence, -- or not. I don't see that
that particular assumption plays a part. Even so -- an omniscent being
obviously can put knowledge of the future aside so as to be interested
in how things might turn out.

On 2/23/09, Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com> wrote:
> Of course I'm aware that "disinterested observers" don't exist, but the
> expression--I thought--conveyed the meaning I wanted, and I didn't want to
> waste words being more precise. Your response tells me the extra words
> wouldn't have been wasted. What I really mean by "disinterested observers"
> is people who would set up criteria for intelligent design based on what
> they know of intelligent design and then apply those criteria as impartially
> as possible to nature. The best examples of intelligent design we have, of
> course, are human, so any evidence of intelligent design would need to fit
> with what humans consider to be intelligent.
>
> However, we both know that the designer behind it all is God, so it's not
> unreasonable also to inject the idea that the designer, while possibly
> thinking with something akin to human intelligence, should have considerably
> more power to implement his designs than your average human. This extra
> power arguably would lead him to take certain avenues towards his goals that
> would be unavailable to humans or unaided nature.
>
> By human standards it's inconceivable to me (and I believe also to
> "disinterested observers" as defined above) that such an intelligent
> designer would incorporate catastrophes like the Permian or
> Ordovician-Silurian extinctions into his "plan" at the outset. Such
> extinctions are examples of what I meant by "blind alleys." Mass
> extinctions would suggest that the development of life forms was going in
> wrong directions and needed massive correction. Would an intelligent
> designer intentionally allow development to come to such a state that it had
> to be largely undone and started over? I can imagine how you might approach
> a justification for this, but isn't it far more reasonable on the face of it
> to say, by human standards, that it all happened by accident?
>
> Some of my other comments were partially to "yank your chain" to get you to
> state clearly where you were coming from, since it seems so obvious to me
> that the evolution of organisms down through time appears unguided by
> anything like human intelligence. I understand that, given hindsight, we
> can come up with arguments in retrospect to justify what happened.
> And--because of what we think of as the end result--I have little doubt that
> some such arguments are in fact valid. But I don't think they'll carry any
> weight with paleontologists or with anyone else who isn't already convinced
> that God was squarely behind it all.
>
> In sum, I'd put your work of this kind into a category like that of St.
> Anselm's logic, that it's not for the purpose of generating faith, "but that
> [readers] may be gladdened by understanding and meditating on those things
> which they believe...." Is this fair?
>
> Don
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nucacids<mailto:nucacids@wowway.com>
> To: Don Winterstein<mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com> ;
> asa<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 8:43 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] evidence for design
>
>
> Hi Don,
>
>
>
> It is not my intention to thwart your specific intent of this thread, as
> it would be interesting to see you develop your argument. I am simply
> responding to "no evidence" and "evidence of bad design" arguments. So I'll
> just offer one last word on this issue.
>
>
>
> Your argument seems to be premised on what "disinterested observers" see
> and on what "humans ordinarily think." Yet both assumptions are very shaky.
>
>
>
> When it comes to the issue of design and life, I am not convinced any
> "disinterested observers" exist. Vulcans only exist in sci-fi. Psychology
> has shown that the human brain does not passively observe. It actively
> perceives. There is a nice series of recent essays on Steve Martin's blog
> written by Marlowe C. Embree. For example:
>
>
>
> "In the first of these, assimilation, pre-existing schemata are "imposed"
> upon the data of experience. In simple terms, we see what we expect to see,
> paying attention to relevant information (that which confirms or supports an
> existing schema) and discount (or fail even to notice) irrelevant or
> disconfirming evidence (particularly that which calls a prior schema into
> question)."
>
>
>
>
> http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/09/origins-debate-through-lens-of.html<http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/09/origins-debate-through-lens-of.html>
>
>
>
> The human brain imposes on the world more so than absorbs the world. It's
> the difference between perception and observation.
>
>
>
> I myself have used the internet to discuss/argue with scores of people who
> would likely classify themselves as 'disinterested observers.' Not only is
> it clear that they impose their pre-existing schemata upon data, but they
> impose it upon me as a person, interpreting my words and arguments in the
> light of their preconceptions and stereotypes. What's more, when I ask them
> what type of data they would count as evidence for design, the answers I get
> (when I actually get them) fall into two classes: 1) Find something that
> evolution cannot possibly explain (the god-of-the-gaps approach) or 2) Show
> them the designer. These are the type of data people need to be shocked out
> of their pre-existing schematas.
>
>
>
> As for what humans ordinarily think, such ordinary thinking often reflects
> convention more so than contemplative thought. For example, humans DO
> ordinarily think that design and evolution are incompatible. That's what
> the creationists tell us. That's what the New Atheists tell us. But the
> perception of incompatibility is just a perception. There is no law of
> nature that walls off evolution from design. Designed things can evolve and
> life could be designed to shape and influence its subsequent evolution.
> Humans don't ordinarily think about this because most humans, because of
> their pre-existing schemata, and cultural forces, are invested in rejecting
> one of the two.
>
>
>
> Now, you write:
>
>
>
> "You as a believer in God, in contrast, come to God's defense by picking
> out amazing features of organic evolution and explaining how such phenomena
> witness to God's activity as designer. The question your work of this sort
> begs, however, is how or whether things would have been different if God had
> not been involved at all--as most paleontologists believe. Ultimately,
> because your evidences for design have little in common with what humans
> ordinarily think of as evidences for intelligent design, you parachute out
> of normal human intellectual intercourse by claiming that God is so
> different from humans that one cannot judge his designing by anything
> approaching normal human standards. What this means is that you can claim
> anything at all as evidence of divine design simply by saying God's design
> is unlike human design."
>
>
>
> Here you are relying on your pre-existing schemata to interpret my words.
> I can say this with confidence because I, of all people, should be in the
> best position to know what I am doing and claiming. And I am not trying to
> come to God's defense (as if God needed me to do this); I was pointing out
> the neglected perspectives when you insisted on something being a bad design
> because of inefficiency. Nor did I do any parachuting by claiming that God
> is so different from humans that one cannot judge his designing by anything
> approaching normal human standards. You are the one who equates the
> designer with God, while I am the one who has consistently argued that this
> is a mistake and that any design inference should be constrained to a
> human-like intelligence (and I have explained why this is before).
>
>
>
> It is from this position that I responded to your claims. You would need
> to make the case that if a human-like intelligence were to design evolution,
> there would be no "dead ends." Yet to make the case that there would be no
> "dead-ends", you change the rules and appeal to an all-knowing and
> all-powerful designer. You would need to make the case that a human-like
> intelligence could come up with a better way to seed a planet with air,
> food, shelter, and even fire, all in one step. Yet to make the case that
> there is a better way (without offering a single candidate for this better
> way), you change the rules and appeal to an all-knowing and all-powerful
> designer.
>
>
>
> Do I pick out "amazing features of organic evolution and explaining how
> such phenomena witness to God's activity as designer?" No. I point out
> ways in which evolution is more rational than commonly assumed, as all this
> fits nicely into the hypothesis that evolution was front-loaded by life's
> design. Is this a witness to God's activity as designer? Not that I know
> of, as I view God more as Creator than designer, as a designer, by
> definition, works with all kinds of constraints. I am not the one trying to
> establish or defend God's existence by discussing life and design. I am
> exploring a genuine hunch and curiosity, a road less travelled.
>
>
>
> How does this fit in with my theism? While you have a theology that
> requires God make the biotic world in a certain way, my theology places no
> such requirements on God. My theology tells me something very simple about
> the mechanism by which God brought us into existence - it doesn't matter. I
> can explain this theology if someone is interested, but what it does is to
> free my hands when exploring the biotic world. The biotic world does not
> have to be free of evidence of design nor does it have to have evidence of
> design. And any evidence of design doesn't have to look like divine
> activity. I am free (relatively speaking) to extrapolate from the only base
> of knowledge we have - our subjective and objective experience with our own
> designs matched up against what science uncovers about life.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Mike Gene
>
>
>
>
> [This topic is important to me, so now that my DSL service is back, I'll
> try to wring out another ounce or so of clarification:]
>
> Disinterested observers (e.g., scientists) as a rule see no evidence for
> intelligent design in the way organisms have emerged over time, where
> analysis of the fossil record is taken to give the history of life. Their
> imaginations evidently are so parochial that they cannot believe an
> intelligent and powerful being would have caused life forms to come into
> existence in the manner deduced from the fossil record.
>
> You as a believer in God, in contrast, come to God's defense by picking
> out amazing features of organic evolution and explaining how such phenomena
> witness to God's activity as designer. The question your work of this sort
> begs, however, is how or whether things would have been different if God had
> not been involved at all--as most paleontologists believe. Ultimately,
> because your evidences for design have little in common with what humans
> ordinarily think of as evidences for intelligent design, you parachute out
> of normal human intellectual intercourse by claiming that God is so
> different from humans that one cannot judge his designing by anything
> approaching normal human standards. What this means is that you can claim
> anything at all as evidence of divine design simply by saying God's design
> is unlike human design.
>
> You quote Charles Babbage:
>
>
> "Many excellent and religious persons...have represented the Deity as
> perpetually interfering, to alter for a time the laws he had previously
> ordained; thus by implication denying to him the possession of that
> foresight which is the highest attribute of omnipotence."
>
>
>
> Foresight is "the highest attribute of omnipotence"? Our disinterested
> observers would likely consider an ability of God to create a fully
> functional universe in a millisecond to be much more persuasive evidence of
> omnipotence than oodles of foresight. And what about all the genetic
> defects in the final products? Do these mean God is maybe a few watts short
> of being truly omnipotent? And yes, creating a functional world in a few
> days 10 000 years ago is the same miracle as creating it in a millisecond
> 1000 years ago. It's just that scriptures lend more support to the first
> option than to the second.
>
>
>
> My theology requires that God make the biotic world in such a way that
> disinterested observers would not be able to distinguish it from a biotic
> world that emerged in complete absence of an intelligent designer. My
> understanding of the fossil record is that it supports this theological
> requirement. I believe as much as you that God was involved all the way,
> but the only way we can perceive such involvement is by way of spiritually
> enlightened sight. And we're unlikely to get disinterested observers to
> perceive in this way.
>
>
>
> My specific intent with this thread was to point out that the emergence
> of modern humanity with its impressive collective abilities constitutes
> "proof" of divine design in a manner similar to but even more compelling
> than "proofs" from fine tuning arguments. I believe disinterested observers
> will be able to see this if they can emotionally and intellectually step
> outside our world and view it as it were from a distance.
>
>
>
> Don
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Don,
>
>
>
> "Why should intervention by the designer be undesirable?"
>
>
>
> Because the criticism of inefficiency is a 'bad design' argument and I
> am attempting to get folks to understand that determining whether or not
> design is good or bad will involve several parameters. If we were to
> extrapolate the trends in good human design - autonomy, robustness,
> miniaturization, and multifunctionality - they would converge on something
> like cyanobacteria.
>
>
>
> "Among humans, if a designer has a goal, he usually wants to attain it
> expeditiously. If a bit of intervention would cut a few billion years off
> the elapsed time, why would that be so bad?"
>
>
>
> But why would it be so good? You'd have to demonstrate the importance
> of a deadline for this argument to have any teeth.
>
>
>
> "If you allow an all-powerful, all-knowing designer to intervene,
> there are a great many ways he could generate atmospheric oxygen--and food."
>
>
>
> Then again, one might argue that an all-knowing designer would be able
> to design in ways that would not call for later interventions. Charles
> Babbage pointed this out:
>
>
>
> "Many excellent and religious persons not deeply versed in what they
> mistakenly call "human knowledge" but which is in truth the interpretation
> of those laws that God himself has impressed on his creation, have
> endeavoured to discover proofs of design in a multitude of apparent
> adaptations of means to ends, and have represented the Deity as perpetually
> interfering, to alter for a time the laws he had previously ordained; thus
> by implication denying to him the possession of that foresight which is the
> highest attribute of omnipotence."
>
>
>
>
>
> "I'm speaking in a framework where it is assumed that (1) God is
> all-powerful, (2) he knows everything, (3) he has a goal. The problem is,
> given these three--which most Christians accept, why didn't he make the
> world in just a few 24 h days say, 10 000 years ago, as Genesis 1 seems to
> say?"
>
>
>
> Why didn't he make the world in just a few millseconds say, 1000 years
> ago?
>
>
>
> I think it is a mistake to employ this framework to detect design. To
> detect design, we all rely on our subjective experience as human designers
> and our objective experience with other human designs. We do not have such
> experience with an all-powerful, all-knowing designer, thus we are on very
> shaky ground in relying on your framework.
>
>
>
> "Instead, we see the biotic world coming into existence very slowly,
> haphazardly, inefficiently."
>
>
>
> Slow is not a problem. Inefficiency is a matter of perspective. As
> for haphazard, the new science of evo-devo is making evolution look much
> less haphazard as it was once believed to be. I touch on this here:
>
>
>
>
> http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/evo-devo-fits-comfortably-with-front-loading/
>
>
>
> "What you mean by evidence for design seems to be that the biotic
> world doesn't fail but continues plugging along. You can cite all kinds of
> details to highlight the wonders of its development and claim they show
> intelligent design, but in the end it is "designed" simply because it
> doesn't fail. If the development processes of the biotic world were
> designed, then we can say that the designer designed them in such a way
> that, by human standards, they don't apppear to have been designed at all."
>
>
>
> No, I am not arguing that lack of failure is evidence of design. I am
> simply responding to the claim that inefficiency is evidence against design.
> Yes, inefficiency counts against design, but there are also other factors
> to weigh if we are to make a judgment of bad design. The inefficiency of
> using cyanobacteria as judged by the metric of time should be balanced with
> the efficiency of using cyanobacteria in that they a) accomplish multiple
> crucial objectives b) without the need for continual redesign by the
> designer.
>
>
>
> "That is, humans expect a competent person to progress
> straightforwardly and efficiently towards his goal and not, for example, to
> go down multitudes of blind alleys that he should have been able to
> foresee."
>
>
>
> But what are the blind alleys? Can we be sure they are really blind
> alleys? If one of those blind alleys was removed, can we be sure this would
> not have a serious consequential effect on the other alleys?
>
>
>
> I think this gets to a larger misconception about design. We tend to
> think of distinct objects when thinking of design, like flagella or humans.
> But what if the design objective is larger - a biosphere? For example,
> humans could never exist on a sterile planet. Humans exist because they are
> deeply plugged in to the rest of the living world. To design humans, you'd
> have to make sure many other life forms were in place - life forms that led
> to humans and life forms that maintain the existence of humans.
>
>
>
> "So your definition of design (as I understand it) is indeed
> unconventional by normal human standards."
>
>
>
> Well, I am not claiming that humans designed the first life forms.
>
>
>
> Mike Gene
>
>
>
> "Cyanobacteria are incredibly efficient in the sense that they don't
> require constant intervention by the designer."
>
> Why should intervention by the designer be undesirable? Among
> humans, if a designer has a goal, he usually wants to attain it
> expeditiously. If a bit of intervention would cut a few billion years off
> the elapsed time, why would that be so bad? If you allow an all-powerful,
> all-knowing designer to intervene, there are a great many ways he could
> generate atmospheric oxygen--and food.
>
> I'm speaking in a framework where it is assumed that (1) God is
> all-powerful, (2) he knows everything, (3) he has a goal. The problem is,
> given these three--which most Christians accept, why didn't he make the
> world in just a few 24 h days say, 10 000 years ago, as Genesis 1 seems to
> say?
>
> Instead, we see the biotic world coming into existence very slowly,
> haphazardly, inefficiently. To all appearances it's as if the world for
> unknown reasons happens to be suited for life at the start, but the biotic
> part of it develops on its own, without outside guidance.
>
> What you mean by evidence for design seems to be that the biotic
> world doesn't fail but continues plugging along. You can cite all kinds of
> details to highlight the wonders of its development and claim they show
> intelligent design, but in the end it is "designed" simply because it
> doesn't fail. If the development processes of the biotic world were
> designed, then we can say that the designer designed them in such a way
> that, by human standards, they don't apppear to have been designed at all.
>
> That is, humans expect a competent person to progress
> straightforwardly and efficiently towards his goal and not, for example, to
> go down multitudes of blind alleys that he should have been able to foresee.
>
>
> So your definition of design (as I understand it) is indeed
> unconventional by normal human standards.
>
> Actually, in the end I don't think we're very far apart, because I
> believe the outcome observable in our day proves the biotic world was
> designed. That means the development processes were also in some sense
> designed--although this design could have been supplemented multiple times
> along the way by divine intervention.
>
> I believe God in some way gave life forms freedom to develop largely
> on their own. By "on their own" I mean in accord with laws built into
> matter itself. I see this freedom as essential to the kinds of creatures
> God ultimately desired, and we ourselves now possess this freedom.
>
> Don
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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.