Strange arguments on Dembski’s blog

I really wonder what goes on in their minds sometimes. Creationists. PaV, writing on Dembski’s Uncommon Descent blog, has a rather strange take on this Physorg.com article – an article that describes how some scientists are studying the bacterial flagellum (you know – the one that’s too “irreducibly complex” to have evolved), to see if they can learn something to help them design nanotechnology. PaV seems to think that if you can study nature and learn some lessons from what nature has built, that proves there is an intelligent designer. I know – it makes no sense. Read this:

I find it almost infuriating that there are labs like Petr Kral’s all over the world that are doing this kind of work every day, and, yet, our Darwinist brothers tell us that, unlike any potential contact with ET’s, in this case we cannot possible know anything about any Intelligent Designer.

[Snip]

How is it possible to examine biological life, AND on the BASIS of what one SEES, then construct a molecular machine of heretofore unknown sophistication, and then, simultaneously maintain that no inference about any so-called Intelligent Designer can be made….”since we don’t know anything about Him–He’s beyond science”?

Well it’s not the evolutionists who say we can make no inference about the “designer. Such statements are made by people such as (er) William Dembski (with my bold):

…intelligent design does not presume to identify the purposes of a designer. Intelligent design focuses not on the designer’s purposes (the thing signified) but on the artifacts resulting from a designer’s purposes (the sign). What a designer intends or purposes is, to be sure, an interesting question, and one may be able to infer something about a designer’s purposes from the designed objects that a designer produces. Nevertheless, the purposes of a designer lie outside the scope of intelligent design. As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such.

Perhaps PaV should have checked with his boss before posting.

Intelligent Design proponents are the ones who claim there is an intelligent designer, so it’s up to them to tell us something about “him”, rather than whine about how scientists haven’t been able to. Furthermore, PaV has the logic 100% backwards. He seems to think that if we understand a design we must know something about the designer. But he is assuming his conclusion here – he is assuming the flagellum is designed and therefore we should be able to learn something about the designer from the flagellum. But we don’t know that the flagellum was designed. The logic works the other way round - if we knew something about the designer we might be able to tell if the flagellum was designed. We don’t and so we can’t.

It gets even more absurd:

Further, if biological systems contain no intelligence, how, then, can you study them? Why doesn’t some Darwinian-Believer answer that one?

Easy. Something doesn’t have to have an intelligence for you to be able to study it. Geologists study rocks – do rocks have intelligence?

How can someone “learn” how to build a nanoscale molecular pump from such a study of extant biological systems and then have that very possibility denied by saying: “There’s no intelligence in what I’m studying.

I’ll assume that was a question, even though it didn’t end in a question mark. The answer is – just because something was not designed by an intelligence, that doesn’t mean we can learn nothing from it. PaV is again assuming his conclusion – complex things like the flagellum must have been designed. We are studying something complex, therefore we’re studying something that was designed.

Philisophically (sic) speaking, how can you “study” that which is, per your own definition, “incomprehensible”? Would Darwinists like to ‘fess up about all of this?

The flagellum is not “incomprehensible” per any evolutionist’s definition. Just because per an IDists definition it is “irreducibly complex”, that doesn’t mean it is, and it certainly doesn’t mean it is “incomprehensible”. Although I can see how it might be to PaV.

Comments

[Lepht]

i'm sitting in a lab, and i just frightened its other occupant with a very, very loud "Pfft!"

who is PaV though? does this guy have at least a degree in a scientific subject?

Lepht

[Big Al]

I think the guy should be taken away and shot just for using the word "purpose" as a verb. "To purpose...." ugh!

You have toi admire the sheer effort these people put in to avoid actually thinking. The "how can you study something that lacks intelligence?" question he seemed to find such a stumper just zoomed straight over my head at 30,000 feet. Say what?

That seemed about as sensible as saying "OK, Mr. Clever Photographer. You just explain how on earth can you photograph a scene that doesn't have a wombat in it? You can't, can you?"

The important thing is that the investigator have intelligence, not the thing being investigated.

The flagellum is an effective low-energy motive unit for bacteria. Until now, our machines have been large and clunky, making bulky, powerful motors a must. However, now we have the possibility of constructing bacterial-sized achines, do we spend millions or billions designing a custom-made unit, or consider a ready-made solution from nature? The provenance of the flagellum is irrelevant.

It's like building a stone house. You have one gap left, and you notice a stone lying around that would fit it perfectly. Do you ignore it and go to work trimming a bigger stone to the size and shape you want? Does this mean the "miracle" stone must have been intelligently produced by some unseen stonemason, or does it just happen to be the right shape?

[Bronze Dog]

It's so stupid and funny, I wish I could laugh. I've gotten too good at restraining myself at work.

[Maronan]

I'm not a scientist, and I don't have access to resources needed for an experiment of any magnitude. For that matter, I haven't even checked to see whether this experiment has already been done. (It's also only tangentially related, so bear with me.)

I have a hypothesis that people who subscribe to this line of argument would be more likely to experience pareidolia-style phenomena, and, if faced with a scene in which something happened, would be more likely to suggest human intervention in creating the scene.

Hold on, let me make that more coherent. My hypothesis is that people who subscribe to that type of argument (for ID) would be more likely to see human activity where it doesn't exist and be more likely to "see" familiar objects in clouds, etc.

This is kinda just a blind guess, based on the fact that they seem unable to comprehend anything except in terms of "design," but it would be an interesting experiment to do.

Is anyone out there able/willling to do it?

Also:

That seemed about as sensible as saying "OK, Mr. Clever Photographer. You just explain how on earth can you photograph a scene that doesn't have a wombat in it? You can't, can you?

Actually, to make it more accurate, it's about as sensible as saying: "OK, Mr. Clever Photographer, can you explain how you can photograph a scene that doesn't have a camera in it?"

[Bronze Dog]

I remember a couple stories:

An actor forgets his lines while on stage and storms back and forth for a while before remember them and picking it back up. A critic watching the play is impressed and writes how the actor poetically captured the character's inner turmoil.

A comedy featured, as a prop, a bottle of champagne on a desk. The heat from the lighting causes the pressure inside the bottle to increase until it pops the cork with perfect comedic timing with the actor catching it as it falls. Lots of people ask the crew after the show how they did the trick and refused to believe dumb luck did it.

[Arren Frank]

It's good to see you're back in full force as of this past week, Skeptico.

All PaV has really done is provide all and sundry with virtually indisputable evidence that everything he makes (especially arguments) could not be the result of Intelligent Design!

Dembski, on the other hand..... I remain unconvinced that his ostensible arguments for ID are anything other than a racket.

[Thursday]

Is PaV licensed to carry that much stupid?

[Big Al]

Dembski? Dumbski, more like.

[PaV]

The insinuation here is that the statement I made is strange, maybe even stupid. But what if the real problem is that you haven't the intelligence necessary to follow the argument?

Has that possibility been entertained?

My basic argument is contra those Darwinists who INSIST that unless we "know" who the Designer actually is, that we are in no position to evaluate the Designer's intelligence, and hence His design.

Now, there are those who say that biological complexity is the product of chance alone; and, there are those who say that it is the result of a directing intelligence--such is the argument. Among the many silly things that those who argue ‘chance’ say, one is the above: without knowing ‘who’ the Designer is, it is impossible to perceive design. The implicit assumption in such a statement is that one has to know how the Designer ‘acts’ and ‘thinks’ before one can possibly perceive any ‘design’ wrought by said Designer.

Well, my argument is that we see, time and time again, instances where scientists, once having studied biological complexity, now able to ‘design’ objects exceeding anything previously engineered. The only logical conclusion from such instances is that something has been learned by the scientists through their study of biological complexity. Now, when Darwinist worshippers say that it is “impossible to perceive design” unless one “knows” the Designer, this is the logical equivalent of saying that any scientist who studies biological complexity, in however great a depth he/she desires, will never perceive ‘design’.” If it is, indeed, true that scientists cannot “perceive” design no matter how much they study (so aver the “great lights” of Darwinism), then how does one explain the fact that BEFORE the scientists studied biological complexity they weren’t able to ‘design’ particular objects, but, NOW, after such study, they ARE able to design them? It is absurd to claim the former in the presence of the latter. Either the scientists “learned” something or they did not. If they did not learn anything by their study, then it would be completely unreasonable to expect them to be able to design something after their study that they could not design prior to it. And, if they did learn something, then they have encountered intelligence/design. You simply can’t have it both ways.

The only way around this logical dilemna is to PRONOUNCE that “all of biological complexity is the result of blind forces”, and therefore any “intelligence” discovered has been generated by these blind forces; hence, the intelligence/design encountered is completely outside any such Designer. But this is just question-begging, since to PRONOUNCE that “all of biological complexity is the result of blind forces” precludes all other possibilities, including that of intelligent design. The argument then becomes not “we cannot perceive design without knowing who the Designer is”, but “there’s no such thing as a Designer”. This becomes, then, no more than scientific dogmatism.

[PaV]

Skeptico: [The flagellum is not “incomprehensible” per any evolutionist’s definition. Just because per an IDists definition it is “irreducibly complex”, that doesn’t mean it is, and it certainly doesn’t mean it is “incomprehensible”.]

What evolutionists do, though, is to insinuate that any aspect of the Designer's design is completely beyond them since they don't know who the Designer is. But, of course, this flies right in the face of scientists who, as a result of their study of such biological systems as the flagellum, are able to improve the design of complicated nano-scale propellant systems. This is just as absurd a claim as claiming that a chemist who, having 'studied' a treatise on quantum mechanics written in Russian, and who neither knows a thing about advance mathematics nor a word of Russian, is now able to design 'fusion' reactions in his lab. For the chemist to pull this off two conditions are needed: first, the treatise would have to have some kind of breakthrough theoretical considerations, and, second, the chemist would have to know a fair amount of QM and read Russian as well. Otherwise, all one can say is that the chemist "looked at" the Russian treatise. To assert that he "studied" the treatise implies an intellectual engagement that simply could not have taken place, and is no more than empty rhetoric.
It's simply impossible to study that which we cannot comprehend, and it's just as impossible to credibly declare that "we cannot detect the intelligence behind intelligent design unless we know who the Designer is" and then watch as scientists implement unprecedented designs based on an understanding of how nano-scale propellant systems work in Nature.

[Skeptico]

Skeptico replies to PaV

Re: The insinuation here is that the statement I made is strange, maybe even stupid. But what if the real problem is that you haven't the intelligence necessary to follow the argument?

Has that possibility been entertained?

It was entertained. But then it was discarded since it was plainly absurd.

Re: My basic argument is contra those Darwinists who INSIST that unless we "know" who the Designer actually is, that we are in no position to evaluate the Designer's intelligence, and hence His design.

I understood your argument. You were wrong.

The argument is not that “unless we "know" who the Designer actually is, that we are in no position to” determine design. This is the actual sequence of arguments:

1. IDists make the argument that ID is just like archaeology, SETI and other sciences.
2. Critical thinkers such as myself, will point out where this analogy fails – namely that archaeologists, SETI etc infer design because, inter-alia, they know something about the designer. ID doesn’t do this – it looks for “irreducible complexity” – so it is a false analogy. ie the IDists argument is a logical fallacy – it’s no good.
3. You, misunderstanding everything that went before, say this means we have to “name the Indian”.
4. I say, no. The point is not that archaeologists etc know “who” the designer is – your “name the Indian”. The point is that archaeologists etc know something about the designer – ie that it was an Indian. (Although Native American is the term we usually use these days.) And so in your story, we did “know” enough about the designer to infer design. We did not have to “name” the Indian. This is compared with ID’s knowledge about the Intelligent Designer – which is zero.
5. You claim that all this means that we say “unless we "know" who the Designer actually is, that we are in no position to” determine design.” You will note that (a) the original line of argument was started by the IDists, and (b) nowhere did any evolutionist say anything like what you said we said.

Perhaps you haven't the intelligence necessary to follow that argument? Because you didn’t address it, unlike your argument that I did address.

Re: Now, there are those who say that biological complexity is the product of chance alone;

Really? And who are those people? Not evolutionists for sure. Evolution is a product of chance coupled with the non-chance actions of natural selection, certainly not “chance alone”. Come on – this old chestnut has been debunked more times than I’ve had hot dinners.

Re: and, there are those who say that it is the result of a directing intelligence--such is the argument. Among the many silly things that those who argue ‘chance’ say, one is the above: without knowing ‘who’ the Designer is, it is impossible to perceive design. The implicit assumption in such a statement is that one has to know how the Designer ‘acts’ and ‘thinks’ before one can possibly perceive any ‘design’ wrought by said Designer.

Same straw man. Anyway tell me – how do you determine something was designed?

Re: Well, my argument is that we see, time and time again, instances where scientists, once having studied biological complexity, now able to ‘design’ objects exceeding anything previously engineered. The only logical conclusion from such instances is that something has been learned by the scientists through their study of biological complexity.

Agreed.

But then you go wrong again:

Re: Now, when Darwinist worshippers say that it is “impossible to perceive design” unless one “knows” the Designer,

Straw Man again – but I will accept that I don’t know how you would determine there was a designer unless you know something about that designer. I realize this version of my argument (ie my actual argument) is harder to refute than the straw Man version you constructed. That’s not really my problem though.

Re: this is the logical equivalent of saying that any scientist who studies biological complexity, in however great a depth he/she desires, will never perceive ‘design’.”

This is the logical equivalent of the straw man argument you constructed, so it’s not a valid point.

Re: If it is, indeed, true that scientists cannot “perceive” design no matter how much they study (so aver the “great lights” of Darwinism), then how does one explain the fact that BEFORE the scientists studied biological complexity they weren’t able to ‘design’ particular objects, but, NOW, after such study, they ARE able to design them?

Easy. Because nature built something (over millions of years, guided by natural selection), that the scientist hadn’t though of. Why would that not be possible? And please show your work

Re: It is absurd to claim the former in the presence of the latter. Either the scientists “learned” something or they did not. If they did not learn anything by their study, then it would be completely unreasonable to expect them to be able to design something after their study that they could not design prior to it. And, if they did learn something, then they have encountered intelligence/design. You simply can’t have it both ways.

Your whole argument boils down to this:

If nature contains something humans haven’t thought of yet, it must have been designed.

But why? Please show your evidence for this. Because all you are doing here is asserting.

Re: The only way around this logical dilemna is to PRONOUNCE that “all of biological complexity is the result of blind forces”, and therefore any “intelligence” discovered has been generated by these blind forces; hence, the intelligence/design encountered is completely outside any such Designer. But this is just question-begging, since to PRONOUNCE that “all of biological complexity is the result of blind forces” precludes all other possibilities, including that of intelligent design. The argument then becomes not “we cannot perceive design without knowing who the Designer is”, but “there’s no such thing as a Designer”. This becomes, then, no more than scientific dogmatism.

No. The argument is – you have offered no evidence for a designer. Present some.

Re: But, of course, this flies right in the face of scientists who, as a result of their study of such biological systems as the flagellum, are able to improve the design of complicated nano-scale propellant systems. This is just as absurd a claim as claiming that a chemist who, having 'studied' a treatise on quantum mechanics written in Russian, and who neither knows a thing about advance mathematics nor a word of Russian, is now able to design 'fusion' reactions in his lab. For the chemist to pull this off two conditions are needed: first, the treatise would have to have some kind of breakthrough theoretical considerations, and, second, the chemist would have to know a fair amount of QM and read Russian as well. Otherwise, all one can say is that the chemist "looked at" the Russian treatise. To assert that he "studied" the treatise implies an intellectual engagement that simply could not have taken place, and is no more than empty rhetoric.

But your analogy shows that the scientist would not learn anything from a more intelligent designer (the Russian) unless he already knew something about what the designer was doing – which is the absolute reverse of what you are trying to argue. The analogy’s crap by the way, but as it stands it shows you can’t learn anything from something designed by an intelligent designer.

Did you even read that before you pushed post?

Perhaps you would like to address my actual arguments, above. Because if you can’t, and if you continue to argue by assertion alone, people might think you haven't the intelligence necessary to follow my arguments.

[Tom Foss]

A comedy featured, as a prop, a bottle of champagne on a desk. The heat from the lighting causes the pressure inside the bottle to increase until it pops the cork with perfect comedic timing with the actor catching it as it falls. Lots of people ask the crew after the show how they did the trick and refused to believe dumb luck did it.

Reminds me of when I saw a performance of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat some years back (before I had the critical capacity to notice just how vapid it was). There's a point in one of the songs where our protagonist sings about his "lucky break." A very brief moment after that word, his elaborate amulet fell off his neck and shattered on the stage. I was surprised when I found out later that it wasn't planned, and really thought that it should be.

The insinuation here is that the statement I made is strange, maybe even stupid. But what if the real problem is that you haven't the intelligence necessary to follow the argument?

Has that possibility been entertained?

Ah, the old "maybe I'm wrong, or maybe I'm just so right that it blew your mind" gambit. Sorry pal, somehow I don't think you're beyond our comprehension.

My basic argument is contra those Darwinists who INSIST that unless we "know" who the Designer actually is, that we are in no position to evaluate the Designer's intelligence, and hence His design.

You're putting the cart before the horse there, chachi. Before you can show that there's an "intelligent design," you have to provide some evidence that there was some kind of designer. Until you prove the existence of the designer, of some grand and ancient intelligence with the capacity to create such things, then any subsequent speculations on what creatures were designed by this intelligent agent, and what weren't, are moot.

It's like trying to determine which presents Santa Claus gave you, and which ones were from your parents. You've started by assuming the existence something for which you have no evidence.

Now, there are those who say that biological complexity is the product of chance alone;

Name one. Show me one person with any authority in biology who would make such a stupid claim. No, as Dawkins is wont to say, natural selection is the very opposite of a chance process.

Among the many silly things that those who argue ‘chance’ say, one is the above: without knowing ‘who’ the Designer is, it is impossible to perceive design. The implicit assumption in such a statement is that one has to know how the Designer ‘acts’ and ‘thinks’ before one can possibly perceive any ‘design’ wrought by said Designer.

That's not silly at all, and not just for the reason that I stated above (that until we have some evidence of an intelligent designer, it's foolish to posit an intelligent design). When we go to determine whether or not something is designed normally, we evaluate it on two criteria:
1. How it differs from nature.
2. How it corresponds to other things that were designed by known intelligent agents.
If I come across a barn in a field, I know it's the product of intelligent design because it is significantly and fundamentally different from other things in the surrounding nature, and because it looks a lot like other barns I've seen that were built by people. Since I can infer that it was designed, and was designed by humans like me, I can begin to make inferences about the purposes of some of the designs; I can guess that the doorknob is designed for a human hand, which can turn it to gain entry, and so forth.

If it is, indeed, true that scientists cannot “perceive” design no matter how much they study (so aver the “great lights” of Darwinism), then how does one explain the fact that BEFORE the scientists studied biological complexity they weren’t able to ‘design’ particular objects, but, NOW, after such study, they ARE able to design them?

For exactly the same reason that a painter may look at a landscape and see no art, but then paint that landscape and make it into a work of art. I can very easily study something that was not designed, and then design something based on it. The fact that my design is governed by an intelligence doesn't suggest that the object on which my design was based was therefore also designed by an intelligence.

Let's say I look long and hard at a rock from my garden. Then, I gather the necessary supplies and create a model of that rock, identical in every fashion, except that my design includes a place to hold a spare key to my front door. Does my rock-based intelligent design imply that the rock itself was designed?

You're equivocating the later design with the former; just because I design something based on nature doesn't imply that nature itself was also designed.

And, if they did learn something, then they have encountered intelligence/design. You simply can’t have it both ways.

And your premise is faulty. You assume that learning requires an intelligent teacher, which is simply not the case, and is a silly claim besides. Geologists learn things from rocks; is every rock produced in an intelligent tumbler? Nuclear physicists learn things from atoms; is every atom assembled by an intelligent micro-jeweler?

What evolutionists do, though, is to insinuate that any aspect of the Designer's design is completely beyond them since they don't know who the Designer is.

No, they "insinuate" that until you provide some evidence of the designer, then you can't make inferences about design. It's like saying "these twigs were broken by Bigfoot" before demonstrating that such a thing as Bigfoot exists.

Throughout your arguments, you do little more than assume that there is a design, then further posit that learning can only come from studying something that was intelligently designed. Both of these are wholly unsupported by evidence, and contradicted by experience. If I study the motion of the sun and moon, I may learn the cardinal directions; it doesn't therefore imply that the sun and moon are driven by intelligent forces. I can learn something from studying anything, regardless of whether or not there is some guiding intellect.

By the way, Skep, nice takedown.

[TechSkeptic]

hmmmm....
Well, my argument is that we see, time and time again, instances where scientists, once having studied biological complexity, now able to ‘design’ objects exceeding anything previously engineered. The only logical conclusion from such instances is that something has been learned by the scientists through their study of biological complexity.

What are you smoking?

The reason we are able to design nanomachines now and not before has absolutely zero to do with our ability to see and learn some tricks from nature.

Where in nature does a lithography machine live that allows us to build things at that scale? Where are the electron beam emitters that allow true nanoscale MEMS devices to be built? where are the naturally occuring SEM machines that allow us to check if the nanomachine is built correctly. Naturally occuring volt meters? and power supplies? Microprocessors? Vacuum chambers?

We can build nanoscale machines now, not because we understand biological features better, but because we have the science and technology that allows us to make small things and see them, something that we could not do until the last couple of decades.

Your idea that because we have the ability to get ideas from things that occur in nature means that the natural things were designed is so unbelievably obtuse, i cant believe I found the will to respond.

Just because you and Behe like to call living cells 'nanomachines' and DNA 'programming code', doesnt mean that they are. Those are analogies not realities. You are just trying to use linguistic tricks to imply design without having to explain yourself.

If you dont need to know the designer to recognize design, why are there no atheists who believe in this ID nonsense? Find me one.

Its just creationist bullshit.

[TechSkeptic]

BTW PaV

only you creationists say that you have to name the designer. We dont say that.

We would accept proof of a whole race of designers also. They could be greek gods, aliens, triffids, or 50 foot tall grandmothers in Hoverrounds. We dont really care, just show us the designer(s). Then we can talk about what was designed and what wasnt. You guys made up the "name the indian" argument for yourselves, without our help.

Just becuase I know that people are starving in Darfur, doesnt mean I have to know any of their names.

[PaV]

Skeptico:
But your analogy shows that the scientist would not learn anything from a more intelligent designer (the Russian) unless he already knew something about what the designer was doing – which is the absolute reverse of what you are trying to argue.

You've stood the entire logic involved here on its head. This means that it is pointless to argue with you. So I won't. I'll just point out your nonsense, and leave you be.

The "reverse" of what you state is: Unless a scientist understands quantum mechanics and Russian, reading a treatise on quantum mechanics in Russian would be a complete waste of time.

Using this "reverse" of what you state we can go on: Since scientists claim to be unable to recognize the design of a Designer unless they know something about a Designer, studying objects designed by the Designer without such knowledge will prove to be a waste of time.

Now, we now that scientists studying objects designed by a Designer have not wasted their time. In fact, based on what they've studied, they are capable of superior designs than previously.

The conclusion: Since scientists have not wasted their time, then they must understand the design involved in objects designed by a Designer, even without knowing anything about the Designer. Which is a direct refutation of what Darwinists blandly assert, as they walk off to the land of blissful ignorance.

[PaV]

TechSkeptic:
only you creationists say that you have to name the designer. We dont say that.

You have it backwards. You should check things out and get your facts straight. Darwinists make this claim so that they can discount the true presence of intelligence found in biological complexity. In their minds, it's an easy way out---but it's not a logical one.

TechSkeptic:

We can build nanoscale machines now, not because we understand biological features better, but because we have the science and technology that allows us to make small things and see them, something that we could not do until the last couple of decades.

Your logic is backwards. We can now understand biological features better because we have the science and technology that allows us to make small things and see them---something, I agree, we couldn't do until the last couple of decades. That's precisely why ID didn't surface until the last couple of decades!

[PaV]

TomFoss:
For exactly the same reason that a painter may look at a landscape and see no art, but then paint that landscape and make it into a work of art. I can very easily study something that was not designed, and then design something based on it.

And if you took a photograph of the scene, would you call that a "design"? I don't think so. "Copying" is not designing. Your example proves the point I'm trying to make. Scientists do "copy" what they see; but they do so ONLY BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZE that it supercedes their THINKING! IOW, it's a more intelligent way of doing something.

[PaV]

Skeptico:

Critical thinkers such as myself, will point out where this analogy fails – namely that archaeologists, SETI etc infer design because, inter-alia, they know something about the designer.

You state this as part of your "argument".

What is it, may I ask, that you, or any other scientist, knows about an "alien," or an "ET"? SETI: Search for Extra-Terrestial Intelligence. This is a search for "intelligence" being conducted completely independently of knowing anything at all about what an "ET" is. Tell me, what do ET's look like? Do they have six legs and four hands? Are they ten feet tall, or only two? Do they have 3 digits on each hand and foot, or do they not have any hands and feet at all, but instead claws? Are they dark, or light skinned? Or do they have fur? Do they breathe oxygen or use photosynthesis to live? What is it, precisely, that you know about them? And, if you don't know anything about them, then why would you think that you could understand their "intelligence". But, of course, that is just what SETI is predicated upon. So, let's not pretend.

[Tom Foss]

The "reverse" of what you state is: Unless a scientist understands quantum mechanics and Russian, reading a treatise on quantum mechanics in Russian would be a complete waste of time.

Which is precisely the opposite of the point you were trying to make. Here's your idiotic analogy, broken down:

1. A paper is drafted by an intelligent agent.
2. A different intelligent agent, who knows nothing about the design process, tries to study the paper.
3. The second agent can learn nothing about the paper, since he doesn't know the factors that went into its design (namely, Russian and Quantum Mechanics).
4. Therefore, unless you know something about the designer, specifically something related to how the product was designed, you can't gain any information from the product.

Since you were trying to argue that we can infer design and study design without knowing something about the designer, your analogy utterly undermines your point. Not to mention the fact that it's utterly false.

See, back when I was in high school, I didn't know anything about Quantum Mechanics. Then, I read some books written about QM by people who knew QM, and I learned some things about Quantum Mechanics. Similarly, two years ago, I didn't know any Latin. Yet, when I picked up books written in Latin, I was able to figure some things out from the text, using existing knowledge about other languages.

Now, granted, I didn't learn Quantum Mechanics from the Latin texts, and my QM books were written in English. Highly technical, jargon-filled English, but English nonetheless. But scientists do this same kind of thing all the time; how do you think we've decoded dead languages written on ancient tablets and whatnot? By studying them. And when we figure out features of a language, we can learn things from what has been written in that language.
Honestly, have you never played with Cryptograms before? It's the same principle; you study patterns in the language until you can decode it, then you figure out what it says. If our Chemist friend has any skill linguistically, chances are that given time and interest, he could eventually read the Russian Quantum Mechanics paper to a decent degree of accuracy.

The conclusion: Since scientists have not wasted their time, then they must understand the design involved in objects designed by a Designer, even without knowing anything about the Designer. Which is a direct refutation of what Darwinists blandly assert, as they walk off to the land of blissful ignorance.

You're assuming your conclusion again, and misunderstanding why it's a waste of time. Without knowing something about the Designer, the waste of time is not in studying the design, but in positing the existence of a designer in the first place. Until you can demonstrate that there is such a thing as the Designer, then it's useless to talk about "design." Instead, we'll just talk about form and function, independent of some intentional agent.

Darwinists make this claim so that they can discount the true presence of intelligence found in biological complexity. In their minds, it's an easy way out---but it's not a logical one.

No, evolutionists claim that you have to show that a designer exists before you can base claims on that designer. Demonstrate that there is a "presence of intelligence" in biological complexity, then we'll talk. The burden of proof is on those who claim the Designer exists; until then, you're just violating Occam's Razor.

And if you took a photograph of the scene, would you call that a "design"?

To a degree, sure. The photographer has to choose the right lens, the right angle and lighting, the right time of day. They're designing their shot as much as the painter is designing their landscape painting.

I don't think so. "Copying" is not designing. Your example proves the point I'm trying to make. Scientists do "copy" what they see; but they do so ONLY BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZE that it supercedes their THINKING!

By that logic, we could never improve on nature. And we do. Often. My eyeglasses are a perfect example of just that. There are some things that nature does well, more efficiently than humans currently do them. That doesn't necessarily mean there was any intelligence behind the development of those natural mechanisms. The fact that we can look at those natural features and then improve upon them would seem to undermine your point that these features exceed our intelligence.

But, once again, you're getting away from the point you were initially arguing, which is that we can't learn from something unless there was a guiding intelligence behind it. Which is patently false, and the fact that you failed to address the rest of my post demonstrates that you recognize that fact.

IOW, it's a more intelligent way of doing something.

Way to equivocate on terms there, boyo. No, "efficient" and "intelligent" are not synonyms.

What is it, may I ask, that you, or any other scientist, knows about an "alien," or an "ET"? SETI: Search for Extra-Terrestial Intelligence. This is a search for "intelligence" being conducted completely independently of knowing anything at all about what an "ET" is. Tell me, what do ET's look like? Do they have six legs and four hands? [etc.]

Actually, SETI conducts its search with quite a few assumptions about the nature of the ETs that we would be likely to contact. SETI would only, for instance, find extraterrestrials who:

1. Are intelligent and technologically-advanced.
2. Have technology sufficiently advanced to broadcast and receive transmissions via radio or other similar means.
3. Are able to recognize and replicate patterns that would be almost universally meaningful (prime number sequences, other mathematical patterns).

And so on. Life forms that aren't intelligent, that aren't sufficiently advanced enough to have radio broadcast and receiver technology, that can't distinguish between intentional signals and interstellar noise, aren't going to be making contact via the SETI model.

Your requests for shape, size, and composition are utterly unnecessary for the scope of SETI's search. We don't need to know the nature of a species' morphology in order to communicate with them; if you call tech support, it makes no difference whether the guy on the other end has a club foot or lost an arm in the war or has a third nipple or back hair. What matters is that you have certain features in common which allow you the capacity to communicate with one another. In order for SETI to make contact with an alien species, they would similarly have to have some factors in common with us which would allow communication to take place, such as the traits I listed above.

Similarly, it doesn't matter whether the Designer is big or tall, fat or thin, blonde or redhead, Thor or Hercules. What matters is the nature of its abilities, the purpose of its designing, the reason for its actions, the method by which it designs, and most importantly, the features which clearly distinguish between "something designed" and "something that was not designed." Those are the kind of things we'd have to know about the Designer before it would become a scientific hypothesis. Then, you have to demonstrate some evidence that such a designer exists. Your circular argumentation so far just doesn't cut it.

[TechSkeptic]

"only you creationists say that you have to name the designer. We dont say that.

You have it backwards. You should check things out and get your facts straight. Darwinists make this claim so that they can discount the true presence of intelligence found in biological complexity. In their minds, it's an easy way out---but it's not a logical one."

No I'm afraid I do not have it backwards, you do. Read Tom Foss' last paragraph, if you couldn't understand the point I was making, perhaps you will when he says it (he's far more eloquent than I). Please find me a reference where a skeptical thinker asked for a name of the designer (or color, or number of arms). We don't. All we ask is that you show evidence of any designer or designers. We do not care what name they are or if they are purple. Its your camp that accuses us of that silliness. You just believe whatever rhetoric comes out of the ID camps collective mouths.

Your logic is backwards. We can now understand biological features better because we have the science and technology that allows us to make small things and see them---something, I agree, we couldn't do until the last couple of decades. That's precisely why ID didn't surface until the last couple of decades!

No, ID surfaced in the last couple of decades because your camp couldn't get creationism into schools through brute force. So you decided to call cells "nanofactories" and DNA "programming code" because these terms each imply design. You think you know a designer and so you see design, it cant be the other way. I agree it is a pretty slick attempt, but it is creationism all the same. We were able to 'see' microscopic features long before we were able to make them, why didnt ID come about way back then? It did, it was called creationism. you can try to convince yourself that its different, its not, its just new words for old, tired, worn out concepts.

Here read this
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/leeuwenhoek.html
We were able to see cell structure, flagellum and other cell features in the 1600's. THe first TEM machine was built in the 1930s. Its total nonsense to say that ID came about because of some new ability to see what nature has provided. It just had a different name back then and no convenient words that imply design (perhaps they could have called them machines, but they did not AFAIK)

I ask you again, if ID is truly a compelling theory, and you can truly find design without having any evidence for a designer first, then there should be folks who do NOT know a designer and still see design, right?

Could you point me to any atheist who believes in ID?

[TechSkeptic]

And of course as is traditional with my posts, i forget something.

with reference to "time and time again, instances where scientists, once having studied biological complexity, now able to ‘design’ objects exceeding anything previously engineered."

You still didnt bother to point out where the lithography machine occurs in nature. Or the microprocessor. Or the volt meters. LCDs? Internal combustion engines? Books? Doorknobs? Shoes? none of these things occur in nature and yet we figured them out all by our little selves.

We are fully capable of designing things without getting ideas from nature. just because we also are able to get some neat ideas from nature (like velcro) doesnt mean that the natural feature was designed.

I know, that because you are a God Zombie (yes, now i'm letting out the insults), you will never say to yourself "holy crap! What an idiot I am, what a stupid concept when you actually think about it". I dont know if you are just a theist or an actual bible thumper who invents weird justifications about why God thinks Pi=3. But regardless, since you have spent your life throwing away all your critical thinking skills, and have chosen to spend the short time you have on this planet wasting time and spreading ignorance, you dont need to respond to this. Its rather pointless.

[Skeptico]

Skeptico replies to PaV

Re: You've stood the entire logic involved here on its head. This means that it is pointless to argue with you. So I won't. I'll just point out your nonsense, and leave you be.

It was fallacious logic, so what do you expect? Although to be honest it was no better, even on its head.

Re: The "reverse" of what you state is: Unless a scientist understands quantum mechanics and Russian, reading a treatise on quantum mechanics in Russian would be a complete waste of time.

Oh boy – we still have the same Argument By Analogy - a fallacious method or argument. In this case it fails because the scientists are just copying something in nature – they don’t have to read anything in a foreign language or understand quantum mechanics. And there is no evidence they are looking at something designed by anyone. They are just observing and copying. Your analogy is absurd. And argument by analogy is fallacious.

Re: Using this "reverse" of what you state we can go on: Since scientists claim to be unable to recognize the design of a Designer unless they know something about a Designer,

Stop right there. If by “unable to recognize the design of a Designer” you mean “unable to recognize there is a designer” – you may be right. That doesn’t mean they can’t recognize what the object (built by nature) is doing, and it certainly doesn’t mean they can’t copy it.

Re: studying objects designed by the Designer without such knowledge will prove to be a waste of time.

Why? You just assert this without a shred of evidence whatsoever. And you assume there is a designer.

Re: Now, we now that scientists studying objects designed by a Designer have not wasted their time. In fact, based on what they've studied, they are capable of superior designs than previously.

The conclusion: Since scientists have not wasted their time, then they must understand the design involved in objects designed by a Designer, even without knowing anything about the Designer.

But you are assuming there is a designer. If the object was created by nature through evolution, it has no designer. So no design to understand. Just a process that can be understood and copied. You are assuming your conclusion.

Re: Which is a direct refutation of what Darwinists blandly assert, as they walk off to the land of blissful ignorance.

But all you have done is blandly assert. In blissful ignorance.

Re: What is it, may I ask, that you, or any other scientist, knows about an "alien," or an "ET"?

[Snipped]

I covered this in detail on my post last October - SETI, archeology and other sciences. Read the full post but in summary they know that aliens would transmit with an artificial signal (ie something simple) and that that they might well broadcast near the 1,420 MHz frequency.

If you want to reply to this point then I do insist you read the entire post and understand the actual arguments I make and respond to them and not a misunderstood or straw man version of what I wrote.

Some questions you didn’t answer:

1. Do you know that evolution is a product of chance coupled with the non-chance actions of natural selection, not “chance alone”?
2. Do you still think your argument about the arrow and the Indian is valid? If so, please explain how archaeologists knowing the designer was human is the same as your requirement to actually “name” the human involved?
3. How do you determine something was designed?
4. Why would it not be possible for nature to build something (over millions of years, guided by natural selection), that the scientist hadn’t though of, and/or why wouldn’t a scientist be able to copy what was thus built? And please show your work
5. Do you realize you have assumed your conclusion in your argument – namely that nature was designed? Please present your arguments again without the assumption that there is a designer.

[PaV]

Skeptico:

By that logic, we could never improve on nature. And we do. Often. My eyeglasses are a perfect example of just that.

And by this same logic, you would say, " My "new" Ford Fiesta is beter 'car' than your old, beat up Ferrari." I don't think so.

Skeptico:
But you are assuming there is a designer. If the object was created by nature through evolution, it has no designer. So no design to understand. Just a process that can be understood and copied. You are assuming your conclusion.

But, according to Darwinists, you can't "understand" it unless you know who the Designer is. So, which way is it?

Do you see how you contradict yourselves? First, you say you can't infer design unless you know who the Designer is, and then you admit to "understanding" what's there before your eyes. And what is it that you understand: the design of a better nanoscale pumping mechanism. How do we know that? Because this newfound 'understanding' has actually led to a 'proposed design' of a newer, and better nanoscale pump mechanism. Nevertheless, all of this is then followed by the protestation: "We can't infer design unless we know who the Designer is".

So, please, either tell us that when you look at Nature, you can't figure a blessed thing out. Or, drop the nonsense about needing to "know" who the Designer is. You can't have it both ways.

[And, to those who would question, I have three degrees----and study QM and GR on the side. TaTa.]

[Skeptico]

Skeptico replies to PaV

Re: But, according to Darwinists, you can't "understand" it unless you know who the Designer is.

And who says that, exactly. Who says you must know who the designer is to understand what we see in nature? With a link, please.

Re: Do you see how you contradict yourselves? First, you say you can't infer design unless you know who the Designer is, and then you admit to "understanding" what's there before your eyes.

You are still assuming there is a designer. Do you know what it means to assume your conclusion? Oh, that’s another question. I’ll add it to the others you won’t answer:

1. Do you know that evolution is a product of chance coupled with the non-chance actions of natural selection, not “chance alone”?
2. Do you still think your argument about the arrow and the Indian is valid? If so, please explain how archaeologists knowing the designer was human is the same as your requirement to actually “name” the human involved?
3. How do you determine something was designed?
4. What would it not be possible for nature to build something (over millions of years, guided by natural selection), that the scientist hadn’t though of, and/or why wouldn’t a scientist be able to copy what was thus built? And please show your work
5. Do you realize you have assumed your conclusion in your argument – namely that nature was designed? Please present your arguments again without the assumption that there is a designer.
6. Who said, “according to Darwinists, you can't "understand" it unless you know who the Designer is”? Who says you must know who the designer is to understand what we see in nature? Don’t forget the link
7. Do you know what it means to assume your conclusion?
8. Do you now understand how SETI are using knowledge of a putative designer to look for one, and how this is different from ID? If not, please explain how ID has knowledge of the designer, the way SETI does.

Come on. ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. Your evasions are getting tiresome.

[Tom Foss]

Skeptico:

By that logic, we could never improve on nature. And we do. Often. My eyeglasses are a perfect example of just that.

And by this same logic, you would say, " My "new" Ford Fiesta is beter 'car' than your old, beat up Ferrari." I don't think so.

First, I said that, not Skeptico.
Second, how is that the same logic at all? Your analogy doesn't even make sense. You argued first that the reason scientists are able to create (or "copy") new, more efficient designs based on nature is because nature was itself designed by a greater intelligence than human scientists, and that the "designs" of nature "supercede their thinking." You seem to think that scientists are only capable of copying and approximating the achievements of nature (or its "Designer"), which simply isn't the case. The telephoto lens and the human eye function according to similar mechanisms, but the telephoto lens is better in every conceivable fashion. If the "Designer's" work is so far beyond human intellect, why are we able to do the same work better?
And your Ferrari/Fiesta thing is just nonsensical. Are Italian car manufacturers God--er, "the Designer"? Is the Ferrari a product of nature? Was the Ford Fiesta an attempt to copy or improve upon the Ferrari?

But, according to Darwinists, you can't "understand" it unless you know who the Designer is. So, which way is it?

You really need to learn how to define your pronouns, PaV. Let me lay it out for you, one more time, in big bold letters:
Until you can provide evidence that there is a "Designer," you cannot claim that there is a "Design," inasmuch as "design" means "form or schematic drawn and built by an intelligent agent." You can't just say "X was designed," you need to support that with some evidence. Evidence, in this case, should give us some idea of who or what the Designer is and how you would distinguish between "design" and "non-design."

Nevertheless, all of this is then followed by the protestation: "We can't infer design unless we know who the Designer is".

And despite your nonsensical protestations, this is exactly true. Until you can provide some evidence that there is a designer, and some criteria by which to judge whether or not something was designed, then there's quite literally no sense in claiming that "X was designed." Scientists didn't study "the design of a better nanoscale pumping mechanism," they studied a nanoscale pumping mechanism. Then, they worked to design better ones. Until you can provide some evidence for the capital-D Designer, then the only "design" in that whole process is the one that the scientists drafted at the end of the study.

So, please, either tell us that when you look at Nature, you can't figure a blessed thing out. Or, drop the nonsense about needing to "know" who the Designer is. You can't have it both ways.

How about you go look up "equivocation" in the dictionary. There's a very big difference between "not inferring design" and "not understanding." No one (excepting you) has said that "we can't understand anything unless we know who the Designer is." What we've said, and what you fail to comprehend, is that you can't make the claim "X was designed," for any X, without knowing something about the Designer, and without having some criteria to distinguish between design and non-design. Without those factors, you cannot reasonably posit the existence of intelligent design. You can still study the products, you can learn all sorts of things about them, but you do so without invoking some unproven, unnecessary original intelligence.

What this seems to boil down to is that we're saying "the burden is on you to prove that there's a Designer, and then prove that X was designed," and you're saying "but if you don't know who the designer is, then you can't learn anything from the design" as though it addresses anything remotely related to the point. You're arguing in circles, assuming the existence of the very thing we're requiring that you prove.

[And, to those who would question, I have three degrees----and study QM and GR on the side. TaTa.]

I've got two, working on a third, and I studied Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity as a main course. Strangely enough, with all that schooling you never quite managed to learn the basics of science (such as where the burden of proof lies, what the scientific method is, and how to construct a valid hypothesis) or the basics of rhetoric (such as how not to use logical fallacies and how to form valid arguments). Of course, this has nothing to do with the topic; we could play dueling degrees all night and it would have no bearing on whether or not your arguments are sound, which they aren't, or whether or not you've addressed any of our points, which you haven't. So, instead of whipping out your diplomas to play "mine's bigger," why don't you provide something of substance to the discussion?

[TechSkeptic]

And by this same logic, you would say, " My "new" Ford Fiesta is beter 'car' than your old, beat up Ferrari." I don't think so

Wow. When I said that you threw out your critical thinking skills, I meant it as an exaggeration originally. I no longer do.

There is so much wrong with those two sentences alone, i cant believe it made it out of your own self censorship rules.

You used an analogy to try to back up some claim no one made. Why are analogies bad? well, lets just look at your sentence:

What do you mean by better? if the fiesta runs and the ferrari doesn't, then yes its better. If the fiesta hold 4s people and the ferrari only two, it is better again. If the ferrari is a matchbox car and the fiesta is a real car, then again, the fiesta is better.

See why arguing by analogy is stupid? The analogy never works because it never includes all the relevant information.

Then, there is the fact, that this isn't even using the same logic as Tom was using. His point was, that by your logic we could not improve on nature. Which of course we do all the time. We do better than that, we think of things that aren't even in nature. You read that and then started thinking that a ford fiesta is never better than a broken down ferrari? What the heck? Besides being a ridiculous analogy, what does that have to do with anything?

Do you actually write these things and then think to yourself "yeah! I really got them there!"

[Skeptico]

PaV

I have a little more time today, and I’m going to try to explain to you where you’re logic is going wrong.

First I must apologize – I was confusing your post with another one at Dembski’s blog, that I also wrote about recently - Identify the Indian or Shut Up. They were both recent posts about identifying design, which is why I got them mixed up. Anyway, I apologize. My references to “name the Indian” didn’t really make any sense in relation to your post.

That said, let’s get back to your argument.

Evolutionists say that IDists can’t define how they identify design. We point to archaeologists etc, and note that they can infer design because they know something about the designer. We point to IDists and state that they have no equivalent assumptions about their designer that they can use to infer design. The conclusion is that IDists can’t infer design the way archaeologists do. That’s not the same as saying this is the only way to infer design. There may be another way. But that is the way archaeologists do it, and so if IDists are going to compare themselves to archaeologists they will need to explain what they know about the designer that enables them to infer design like archaeologists do.

To infer design the way archaeologists do, you need to know something about the designer.

You wrote above:

My basic argument is contra those Darwinists who INSIST that unless we "know" who the Designer actually is, that we are in no position to evaluate the Designer's intelligence, and hence His design.

and

without knowing ‘who’ the Designer is, it is impossible to perceive design. The implicit assumption in such a statement is that one has to know how the Designer ‘acts’ and ‘thinks’ before one can possibly perceive any ‘design’ wrought by said Designer.

These are the ways your argument is wrong:

1. (a)”Inferring design” – ie determining that there is a designer – is not the same as (b)“evaluat[ing] the Designer's intelligence, and hence His design”. (a) is the act of determining if there is a designer or if the item arose by natural means with no designer; (b) is looking at what is built and determining how it works. You must see that these are different?
2. In your second quote above, you talk about how we need to know about the designer before we could “perceive design.” If by “perceive design” you mean “determine if there is a designer or not", then this is probably correct. But you are equivocating – you also use the phrase “perceive design” to mean “understand the design”. But determining if there is a designer and understanding what has been built are two different things.
3. The fatal flaw in your argument is that you assume there is a designer. Look at your quotes above – in both cases you just assume there is a designer. But the original point that archaeologists know something about the putative designer, while IDists don’t, is that this is the way archaeologists determine if an item was designed or not. If the archaeologist’s question is, “is this object designed,” they can’t assume the item was designed before they answer the question. Assuming your conclusion is circular reasoning.

   When you use phrases like “we are in no position to evaluate the Designer's intelligence, and hence His design”, you have assumed there is a designer and that the nanotubes or whatever were designed. If you don’t assume this to start you’re your argument can’t even be stated.

   In fact, what you are actually saying is that (a) we can’t understand the designs of a designer we know nothing about, and yet (b) scientists are actually learning something from items they find in nature. The only logical conclusion from this argument you have constructed is that the nanotubes were not designed by any designer – because if they had been designed, by your definition we wouldn’t be able to understand them. I don’t think this is what you meant.

Please think about this and try to understand that inferring design is not the same as copying something (that may or may not have been designed), and that if you use the phrase “perceiving design” to mean both “determining IF there is a designer or not” and to mean “understanding” the workings of something we have found (which may or may not have been designed), you are employing the logical fallacy of Equivocation.

Also, try to construct your argument without the assumption that there IS a designer. If you try to do that I think you will see that your argument can’t even be stated.

[PaV]

Skeptico:

I've quickly looked at just the first part of your latest post. I find its civil tone refreshing. But, I have absolutely no time today to respond. My best guess would be Sunday afternoon sometime is the first that I could respond.

[Tom Foss]

You realize, don't you, that that post was itself a response?

I don't really understand how people think responding to blog comments takes so much time, or how you can justify posting about how you can't post right now but will post in the future. Seems a little off to me. It's not as though there's an established schedule for this sort of thing; if you don't have time to post, don't post.

[PaV]

Skeptico:

We point to archaeologists etc, and note that they can infer design because they know something about the designer. We point to IDists and state that they have no equivalent assumptions about their designer that they can use to infer design. . . .
But that is the way archaeologists do it, and so if IDists are going to compare themselves to archaeologists they will need to explain what they know about the designer that enables them to infer design like archaeologists do.

I disagree with you here. But, if we get into a discussion about this, it will only muddy the waters.

The more salient comparison is between SETI and the Designer. So, I’ll restrict my remarks to this comparison only.

Skeptico:

These are the ways your argument is wrong:
(a)”Inferring design” – ie determining that there is a designer – is not the same as (b)“evaluat[ing] the Designer's intelligence, and hence His design”. (a) is the act of determining if there is a designer or if the item arose by natural means with no designer; (b) is looking at what is built and determining how it works. You must see that these are different?

I do, indeed, see the difference, and accept the fact that (a) and (b) should be distinguished one from the other.

Skeptico:

In your second quote above, you talk about how we need to know about the designer before we could “perceive design.” If by “perceive design” you mean “determine if there is a designer or not", then this is probably correct. But you are equivocating – you also use the phrase “perceive design” to mean “understand the design”. But determining if there is a designer and understanding what has been built are two different things.

Well, in the quotes you were referring to, I was trying to explain what Darwinists are saying. The equivocation is the result of two related concepts becoming intertwined because we fail to distinguish them properly. These two concepts are ‘intelligibility’ and ‘design.’ Now I suppose that what Darwinists mean when they say that they “cannot perceive design without knowing who the Designer is” is something along the lines of what you mean when you describe archeologists and the arrowheads they examine. (Although I imagine that archeologists begin with stones that look like they've been shaped and then conclude from that the presence of Indians, and not the other way around. I'll just guess that's what was being argued about in that other thread you referenced. But let's put that argument to the one side.)

What about SETI, however? As I pointed out in a previous post, we don’t know anything about ‘extra-terrestrials,’ yet no one seems to object to what is being attempted. Why not? What I mean is that SETI is in fact looking for signals from outer space that show some kind of intelligible pattern. But they understand that this alone is not sufficient to justify a conclusion that the signal was caused by an intelligent agent. Rather, to justify such a conclusion of whether or not a signal is ‘non-random’ and, in fact, the ‘product’ of ‘intelligence’ (hence, the inclusion of ‘intelligence’ in SETI) SETI researchers employ a process that is really the same thing as what an IDist would call an “inference of design”. The ‘proof’ that a pattern (as in the movie, Contact) is a reflection of ‘intelligence’ (not 'intelligibility) is that it has the characteristics of 'design'. After all, only ‘intelligent agents’ are capable of design. And the SETI investigators know this. So they look for this, although they know nothing about "who" the ET’s are. (I discuss this more fully below.)

Anyway, it’s this interpenetration of the two notions, ‘intelligbiility’ and ‘design’, that causes equivocation if we're not careful.

Skeptico:

The fatal flaw in your argument is that you assume there is a designer. Look at your quotes above – in both cases you just assume there is a designer.

I did it for effect.

Skeptico:
“When you use phrases like “we are in no position to evaluate the Designer's intelligence, and hence His design”, you have assumed there is a designer and that the nanotubes or whatever were designed. If you don’t assume this to start [with,] your argument can’t even be stated.”

My aim in saying what you quote was to identify what Darwinists themselves were saying. Isn't this what they say? Well, maybe they actually say, "how can we detect design in nature if we don't know who the Designer is?" But, in any event, it's their statement, not mine.

Right now, however, might be the best moment to draw out the point I’ve been trying to make; namely, that the question that’s at stake here is not really one of ‘intelligibility’, but one of ‘design’. To make the statement that “we are in no position to evaluate the Designer’s intelligence and hence His design” is to more or less ASSERT that if we can, indeed, “understand” what we see in nature, then it certainly couldn’t have come from a Designer, since “we don’t know anything about Him and, thus, can't know the ways in which He acts.” But this is to confuse the two concepts of 'intelligibility' and 'design'.

Let's face it, if there weren’t any ‘intelligibility’ (equivalent to a QM treatise written in Russian) to be found in nature, then what further questions would there be to ask? IOW, 'intelligibility/understanding' is the starting point for determining ‘design’, not the end-point. Again, to say that something is 'designed' is not to assert mere 'intelligibility', but rather the appearance of 'intelligent AGENCY'!

So, by way of illustration, in the case of the movie, Contact, a signal is received. It is series of beats and pauses. This is intelligible. From their own experience, they recognize this as a possible binary message. They convert the message into a series of 0’s and 1’s, i.e., binary code. All of this is intelligible. Then, in looking at the overall pattern formed by the 0’s and 1’s, they figure out that it is a pattern involving all of the prime numbers between 2 and 101. Now they know this pattern represents a “design”; i.e., the odds of such a pattern emerging through sheer chance processes (or natural processes) is so small that they can conclude that they’re dealing with an “intelligent agent”.

Just this past week, with those miners in the caved-in mine, hope arose when “noises” were heard coming from the well. What did the mine-owner say? “The noise went on for fifteen minutes and then it stopped. That’s good. We’re encouraged. But it would have been better if we had heard some noise, then a pause, then some more noise, then another pause.” (I’m paraphrasing here). To distinguish between “chance” noises and “noise caused by intelligent agency” they looked for a pattern to emerge.

So, I’m not saying that just because some scientists looked at some biological structure and were able to design a better nanoscale pumping mechanism that this alone is PROOF of “design”. (The “design inference” a la Wm Dembski, is quite involved, and ultimately becomes a mathematical argument.) But what I am saying is that it is completely disingenuous to look at nature, obviously understand it, be better off intellectually for the effort, and then to say, “Well, unless I know who the Designer is, I can’t possibly recognize His design.” Why? Because obviously “intelligibility” has been observed, and “design” (‘intelligent agency’) is expressed through “intelligibility”. Again, only ‘intelligent agents’ can design. So, to make the above pronouncements is to simply preclude the possibility of “design” in an a priori manner.

Here’s another way of looking at all of this: we know who the Egyptians were; but we don’t know how the Great Pyramids were built. Does anyone want to question whether they were designed or not? I bet not. So, in a similar fashion, if an intelligence that you’re not directly aware of has designed something, why would your not knowing who they are affect your determination of whether something is designed or not? This, it seems obvious to me, is exactly the starting point of the SETI researchers. So, why all the rhetorical nonsense? In fact, it only succeeds in missing the point entirely.

Skeptico:
Also, try to construct your argument without the assumption that there IS a designer. If you try to do that I think you will see that your argument can’t even be stated.

But, of course, if we assume that there is no Designer, then there can only be ONE explanation for both “intelligibility” and design; namely, it is the result of material forces. So, if I find “intelligibility” in nature, why should that surprise me (=why should I be surprised if scientists find in nature instances of better design for the things they want to build?)? There can be no alternative.

Instead, what we need to do is to ask: “Is the intelligibility we find in nature the result of chance or intelligent agency?” That’s why IDists are annoyed when asked about “who the Designer is” since it is an irrelevant question. It is the equivalent of asking “what planet is the Extra-Terrestrial from?” How, or why, does such information enter into our decisions about whether or not a received signal is 'designed'?

[PaV]

TechSkeptic:

Yes, you're right. I should have included the word "engineered" right after 'better'. But I didn't have the time, nor inclination, to repost, hoping that you would make an effort at trying to actually understand what was written. It seems your reaction is one of trying not to understand it, as is evidenced by this statement of yours:

"If the fiesta hold 4s people and the ferrari only two, it is better again. If the ferrari is a matchbox car and the fiesta is a real car, then again, the fiesta is better."

When I was 18 years old--which is going sometime back--I learned very quickly that when dealing with the liberal mind it was very common to have a strong argument on my part met with the protestation of ignorance on their part. That is, when they didn't want to understand something, there was no power in the world, let alone the power of logic, to get them to acknowledge the force of your argument. Something along the lines of: "Well, that depends of what the defintion of 'is' is."

Tom Foss, sorry about getting you and Skeptico mixed up.

Tom Foss: By that logic, we could never improve on nature. And we do. Often. My eyeglasses are a perfect example of just that.

PaV: And by this same logic, you would say, " My "new" Ford Fiesta is beter 'car' than your old, beat up Ferrari." I don't think so.

Then, Tom Foss:
[H]ow is that the same logic at all? Your analogy doesn't even make sense.

It doesn't make sense? Really?

You're trying to use an example of 'nature gone bad' as an example of 'nature' period. Normally, people are born with excellent eyesight. Why use an 'exception' then to prove the 'rule'? Now, it is true that with age, nature does break down--people eventually die. But the fact that we correct for loss of kidney function with a machine, or eyesight with glasses, doesn't in any way suggest that "man" is doing better than "nature". That's simply silly---as my analogy points out.

Tom Foss:

The telephoto lens and the human eye function according to similar mechanisms, but the telephoto lens is better in every conceivable fashion. If the "Designer's" work is so far beyond human intellect, why are we able to do the same work better?

Now, I hope I don't have to explain this comment as well. I hope you can figure it out: Are you suggesting that humans should have been designed with "bulging eyeballs"? (Hint to understanding this statement: there are physical limitations on anything you design. Because of these limits, what is needed--not what is possible--is sufficient.)

Tom Foss:

And your Ferrari/Fiesta thing is just nonsensical. Are Italian car manufacturers God--er, "the Designer"? Is the Ferrari a product of nature? Was the Ford Fiesta an attempt to copy or improve upon the Ferrari?

The key words of the analogy were "new" and "old". I left it as an exercise for the reader to figure it out. But I should have included the word "engineered" after "beter"(="better") So, I apologize for that. As they say, haste makes waste.

[TechSkeptic]

PaV:
When I was 18 years old--which is going sometime back--I learned very quickly that when dealing with the liberal mind it was very common to have a strong argument on my part met with the protestation of ignorance on their part.

When I was 18 years old--which is going sometime back--I learned very quickly that when dealing with a God Zombie it was very common to have a strong argument on my part met with the protestation of ignorance on their part. (BTW, I'm not sure what definition of 'liberal' you were using. politcally? you missed the mark by a lot)

So you think saying "Goddidit" (basically the whole ID paradigm mushed into a single word) is a powerful argument? So, basically you say this, and dont address a single thing I asked?

If you don't need to know who the designer is to understand or believe ID, where are the atheists who believe in ID?

Where is a doorknob found in nature that we supposedly improved upon?

And yes, are you truly saying that if we are designed that this is the best god (face it, that's your designer) can do? Apparently god can control every single electron in the universe, and he cant make our eyesight stay good? He cant design a prostrate that doesn't swell in 50% of all men, he made the default embodiment of a penis subject to intense infection? He made moths commit suicide when they see a flame?

If we had bulging eyes, you wouldn't know it as any different than you do now. You only think its strange because they dont bulge now. If we had them, you would think it was weird to think that the designer would think to unbuldge them in favor of reduced vision capabilities. you presume that what we have is a best design, because your designer is all powerful.

The fiesta/ferrari analogy is still ridiculous (it doesnt matter how much you work at it, analogies are almost always doomed to fail as a method for making a case). The fiesta is far better engineered for what it was designed for. The Ferrari is a ridiculous engineering design for a small, economical, four seat, car. I still don't get where you get the idea where one is engineered better than the other (especially when considering how often Ferraris fail).

Well, in the quotes you were referring to, I was trying to explain what Darwinists are saying.

Perhaps instead, you should listen to what scientists are saying. You'd have less of a tendency to beat at straw men if you did so.

What about SETI, however? As I pointed out in a previous post, we don’t know anything about ‘extra-terrestrials,’ yet no one seems to object to what is being attempted.

Actually, there is quite a lot of debate as to the scientific validity of SETI. And, once again, we know quite a lot about the sort of aliens we would be likely to find through SETI, namely the traits they would necessarily possess to be able to receive our transmissions and/or send out transmissions that we could receive and perceive as having an intelligent source. I've listed a number of these traits above, so I'd prefer not to do so again.

What I mean is that SETI is in fact looking for signals from outer space that show some kind of intelligible pattern. But they understand that this alone is not sufficient to justify a conclusion that the signal was caused by an intelligent agent. Rather, to justify such a conclusion of whether or not a signal is ‘non-random’ and, in fact, the ‘product’ of ‘intelligence’ (hence, the inclusion of ‘intelligence’ in SETI) SETI researchers employ a process that is really the same thing as what an IDist would call an “inference of design”. The ‘proof’ that a pattern (as in the movie, Contact) is a reflection of ‘intelligence’ (not 'intelligibility) is that it has the characteristics of 'design'.

You make a fatal error here, in not defining all your terms. It's true that SETI looks for patterns that are likely to have an intelligent source, which "have the characteristics of design." What you fail to realize here is precisely what is meant by "design," which to SETI means roughly "a pattern which would not occur in natural transmissions." For instance, one of the first major SETI-type discoveries was a radio signal, originating in deep space, which transmitted on a short wavelength at very specific time intervals. The researchers thought this might be a transmission from an intelligent extraterrestrial, and accordingly named the source "LGM-1" for "Little Green Men." Further examination, not the least of which the discovery that the radio signal itself was random noise, determined that the 'transmissions' were the natural occurrence of a pulsar, a rapidly rotating star which emits a narrow beam of radio waves.

The point of this is that scientists determine "design" by comparing the apparent pattern to what is likely to occur in nature. They discovered early on that "radio pulses released at regular intervals" wasn't enough to denote something as "intelligently designed," which is why SETI looks for signals that contain information, of a sort which would not be likely to occur naturally, such as (and I think this was the example in Contact) the prime number series, or other mathematical algorithms which would be comprehensible to any similar species advanced enough to broadcast radio signals into deep space.

I did it for effect.

Congratulations. The effect was that you looked like someone who couldn't form a cogent argument.

Well, maybe they actually say, "how can we detect design in nature if we don't know who the Designer is?" But, in any event, it's their statement, not mine.

What you seem unable to recognize is that this statement by scientists is a response to the claims of ID advocates. Namely, their assertion that a Designer exists when they cannot describe any features of the Designer, cannot demonstrate its existence through evidence, and cannot explain how one distinguishes between "design" and "non-design." The point is that ID folks baselessly assert the existence of a designer, then work from there. The scientific response (one of many, I might add) is that until you can tell us something about the Designer, specifically something that would allow us to distinguish between "design" and "non-design," then it is ridiculous to even postulate the existence of such an entity. It is a clear, unjustified violation of Occam's Razor.

To make the statement that “we are in no position to evaluate the Designer’s intelligence and hence His design” is to more or less ASSERT that if we can, indeed, “understand” what we see in nature, then it certainly couldn’t have come from a Designer, since “we don’t know anything about Him and, thus, can't know the ways in which He acts.” But this is to confuse the two concepts of 'intelligibility' and 'design'.

No, no, no. To make that statement is to assert that until we know something about "the ways in which he acts," we have no way of distinguishing between "natural things that are designed" and "natural things that are the result of natural processes."

Let's face it, if there weren’t any ‘intelligibility’ (equivalent to a QM treatise written in Russian) to be found in nature, then what further questions would there be to ask?

How are "unintelligible" and "a QM treatise written in Russian" equivalent? Certainly the treatise may appear unintelligible at first, but with time and study, it could eventually be read, if not entirely understood. Once again, were this not the case, archaeologists and linguists would be unable to read ancient writings in dead languages; we can do precisely that because we can recognize patterns in the unknown text, compare it to other texts in the same and other languages, examine context clues about the content, and so on. Our imaginary chemist wouldn't be able to curl up by the fireplace and read his Russian QM manual on the night he receives it, but with enough time and effort, and particularly with resources and collaboration, he should at least be able to decipher the language, if not the concepts.

Again, to say that something is 'designed' is not to assert mere 'intelligibility', but rather the appearance of 'intelligent AGENCY'!

And in science we determine the presence of intelligent agency by comparing the allegedly-designed object to its natural surroundings, and by using what we know about the potential designer. If we are trying to determine whether a rock in the backyard is triangular, or an arrowhead, we look to see how it compares with other features in the yard, how it compares with arrowheads, and what we know about the society which would likely produce arrowheads (i.e., do we know if Native Americans once inhabited your backyard?). If we are trying to determine whether a pile of sticks in a stream are windblown debris or the result of nearby beavers, we may examine the erstwhile dam for signs of regularity and rigidity, or for the impressions of beaver teeth, we may compare it to other beaver dams, and we would use our knowledge of beavers (can beaver fur or droppings be found in and around the dam? Are beavers indigenous to the region?).

What ID purports to do is look at nature, and determine that there is design in it. Right off the bat, this eliminates the first scientific method of determining design, which is comparison with nature. If you're trying to argue that some natural feature has been designed, it's difficult to compare it to other natural features in order to determine that, unless you have some criteria which would determine design from non-design in natural objects.
And that's where ID kicks out the second method by which scientists determine the presence of Design, which is through some knowledge of the likely designer. Because we know something about Native American arrowhead-making, we have criteria to judge "arrowheads" from "triangular rocks." Since we don't know anything about the Designer, and since ID proponents are generally adamant that we can't or shouldn't examine the Designer, we have no criteria by which to judge whether or not a natural object has been designed.

But what I am saying is that it is completely disingenuous to look at nature, obviously understand it, be better off intellectually for the effort, and then to say, “Well, unless I know who the Designer is, I can’t possibly recognize His design.” Why? Because obviously “intelligibility” has been observed, and “design” (‘intelligent agency’) is expressed through “intelligibility”.

Why has intelligibility "obviously" been observed? What features make intelligibility "obvious"? Looks like you're equivocating again; you were using the term "intelligible" to mean "able to be understood through study," and now you're citing that as a component of Design? Design doesn't necessarily require intelligibility; although the more you know about the purported designer, the more likely it is that the designed object will be intelligible. What a design inference requires is some knowledge of the Designer and some deviation from nature. As you said yourself, the pattern in Contact was recognized to be very, very different from the radio signals we'd find in nature, and expressed a pattern which would be highly unlikely in nature. Your problem is that you don't recognize that you can't use that same criterion, then, to determine design within nature.

Again, only ‘intelligent agents’ can design.

Yet unintelligent agents can produce the illusion of design, as that UK observatory discovered in 1967, when they found LGM-1. Unless you have something to compare the alleged design to, usually nature, or know something about the designer, you have no way to distinguish between "actual design" and "apparent design."

So, to make the above pronouncements is to simply preclude the possibility of “design” in an a priori manner.

Or, put more correctly, to make the above pronouncements is to follow basic scientific principles like Occam's Razor, and assume that there is no magical Designer until some evidence can be shown to justify the Designer-hypothesis.

The burden of proof is on the ID proponents, PaV. This is why we keep telling you that you need to give us some information about the Designer; until you can justify the "Designer hypothesis" with evidence, or at least specific information, then it remains a clear violation of Occam's Razor, and thus wholly unscientific.

Here’s another way of looking at all of this: we know who the Egyptians were; but we don’t know how the Great Pyramids were built. Does anyone want to question whether they were designed or not? I bet not.

Do you see where this diverges from the Intelligent Design hypothesis? We know who the Egyptians were. And, furthermore, we can compare the Pyramids to their natural surroundings and see a clear contrast.

So, in a similar fashion, if an intelligence that you’re not directly aware of has designed something, why would your not knowing who they are affect your determination of whether something is designed or not?

It wouldn't, as long as we had something to compare the alleged design to, such as nature. The problem is that you're trying to claim that nature itself was designed, by an unknown designer, which removes both our vectors for judging whether or not something was intelligently designed.

Instead, what we need to do is to ask: “Is the intelligibility we find in nature the result of chance or intelligent agency?”

Why would we need to ask that? Until there is some evidence of an intelligent agent with the capability to design nature, such a question is ridiculous. It's like asking "is the fire on my stove the result of gas lines or an invisible dragon who lives in the oven?"

When I was 18 years old--which is going sometime back--I learned very quickly that when dealing with the liberal mind it was very common to have a strong argument on my part met with the protestation of ignorance on their part.

Except that's not a strong argument, it's an argument by analogy. Also, you're committing the genetic fallacy (the "liberal mind"), and not recognizing the importance of defining your terms. The word "better," as Techskeptic rightly pointed out, is very vague and differs based on the criteria being judged. If I am an American Union worker, the Fiesta will clearly be the "better" car, since it's produced in America. If I am a college student on a limited budget, the Fiesta will clearly be the "better" car, because it's in my price range. If I have high insurance due to multiple speeding tickets or accidents, the Fiesta will clearly be the "better" car, at least in the eyes of my insurance company. Even "better engineered" is a slippery phrase: engineered for what? For looking pretty, or for seating multiple passengers? For gas mileage?

It seems more likely that when you approached people with your weak arguments, based around circular logic and equivocations (and other fallacies), and were met with genuine requests to define your terms more explicitly, you became frustrated and decided that it was because you and your opponents shared different political views.

It doesn't make sense? Really?

Really. Because I was comparing something natural (the human eye) with the scientific improvement upon it (in this case, eyeglasses, but it could easily have been any number of camera lenses or telescopes). On the other hand, you provided a comparison between two objects which do not occur in nature, and in which one is not designed to improve the function of the other. I fail to see the connection.

You're trying to use an example of 'nature gone bad' as an example of 'nature' period.

Not at all. I'm using an example of nature, period, and an example of how science can improve on nature. My eyesight, at least in one eye, is actually quite good; my glasses improve it still.

I could easily have chosen a hawk's eye (nature doing well enough for itself that it deserves a hearty pat on the back) to a long-range wide-spectrum camera (science doing yet better).

But the fact that we correct for loss of kidney function with a machine, or eyesight with glasses, doesn't in any way suggest that "man" is doing better than "nature". That's simply silly---as my analogy points out.

No, your analogy doesn't point that out at all. And, furthermore, what I described was humans learning from nature and improving upon the "designs" they gleaned from nature, not merely copying them, as you'd suggested. Do you really deny that humans have the ability to improve on na