Quake3World

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:12 pm**

rgoer wrote: I do not think there is any reason to think that an absolutely accurate representation of the entire universe would be useful or necessary for any type of science whatsoever

well of course if it were possible 'science' proper would disappear. What would be the point?

And remember all you crazy kids, 'hard determinism' (of the Laplacean sort) is a metaphysical doctrine...it could never be established by (terrestrial) empirical science.

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:12 pm**

I just have time to post this latest exchange, have to run to my Abstract Algebra final (yech).

I'm not using it as a strawman argument, it's part and parcel of ID and its proponents. It doesn't address the entire issue, but it's completely relevant in the context of some of the arguments you've posed. To wit: That debate I told you about wherein the ID theorist stated that archangels were to blame for the vestigial vitamin C synthesis pathway in humans.
-strawman argument!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i think you're taking one stupid statement and using that as an excuse for rejecting a whole segment of debate. Similarly, I could reject the scientific method because the Nazis claimed to be scientists while implementing the eugenics movement (which we started).

How would YOU perform an experiment to show complexity by design? By your logic, none of ID theory is provable and must be accepted prima facie.
As to your other questions, define "intelligence" and "information" for the purposes of this debate.
-I can't define them. But in general, you can't prove a theory is true. you can only show it is inconsistent with the data. So how do you disprove the the design argument? Has there been any evolutionist experiment which disproves the design theory? Where has chance ever created anything? Everywhere I look where I see complexity, I see blueprints and algorithms... in other words evidence of intelligence and design. On the other hand, as I've discussed before, I've never seen chance create anything complex. And there are lots of statistical proofs against random forces creating the complexity of even the most trivial things. But then you get in to the discussion of what random forces and processes really are...

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:42 pm**

NS, this is addressing his argument about chance creating something complex:

That argument does not work on a number of levels, but a huge flaw in it is that evolution is NOT random. Mutations are (sometimes) random, but evolution IS driven by outside forces (i.e. selection).

He doesn't see things arrange randomly? What about when he pours oil into water? The two fluids don't mix randomly because atomic forces prevent them from doing so. Things arrange in an ordered state all the time because there are always forces acting on them. Evolution is no different.

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:48 pm**

werldhed wrote:
He doesn't see things arrange randomly? What about when he pours oil into water? The two fluids don't mix randomly because atomic forces prevent them from doing so. Things arrange in an ordered state all the time because there are always forces acting on them. Evolution is no different.

owned.

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:50 pm**

Nightshade wrote:I just have time to post this latest exchange, have to run to my Abstract Algebra final (yech).

I'm not using it as a strawman argument, it's part and parcel of ID and its proponents. It doesn't address the entire issue, but it's completely relevant in the context of some of the arguments you've posed. To wit: That debate I told you about wherein the ID theorist stated that archangels were to blame for the vestigial vitamin C synthesis pathway in humans.
-strawman argument!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i think you're taking one stupid statement and using that as an excuse for rejecting a whole segment of debate. Similarly, I could reject the scientific method because the Nazis claimed to be scientists while implementing the eugenics movement (which we started).

Also, similarly, you could reject the scientific method because the ID proponents claim to be scientists while implementing the religious movement.

I think the most glaring problem in ID debates is that it is approached and accepted as a type of science for the purposes of the debate.

The scientific method defines narrow and precise theories to explain specific behaviors in nature. Then they are tested, if possible, to see if they can be disproven.

ID, on the other hand, is intentionally constructed so that it can explain away any anomaly or behavior without any further investigation. The Archangels argument is just one example of this.

The entire purpose of the debate from the side of ID proponents -- whether they realize it or not -- is to stop using the scientific method altogether. Why would we know anything about our world if, from the beginning, we were all willing to just say "some other man made it that way."

You can believe in a higher intelligent being and still pursue answers to difficult questions. But if, at every sign of complexity, you immediately chalk it up to the great 'hand of intelligence' then you no longer have science at all.

The debate and entire premise of ID (if it were universally accepted) is the inevitable precursor to the end of science. The very heart of their debate (the complexity argument) is for practical purposes nothing more than a dissembling way of asking "Why are we researching this stuff at all?"

Nightshade wrote:How would YOU perform an experiment to show complexity by design? By your logic, none of ID theory is provable and must be accepted prima facie.
As to your other questions, define "intelligence" and "information" for the purposes of this debate.
-I can't define them. But in general, you can't prove a theory is true. you can only show it is inconsistent with the data. So how do you disprove the the design argument? Has there been any evolutionist experiment which disproves the design theory? Where has chance ever created anything? Everywhere I look where I see complexity, I see blueprints and algorithms... in other words evidence of intelligence and design. On the other hand, as I've discussed before, I've never seen chance create anything complex. And there are lots of statistical proofs against random forces creating the complexity of even the most trivial things. But then you get in to the discussion of what random forces and processes really are...

I would ask him for some of these "statistical proofs against random forces creating the complexity of even the most trivial things," because I've never heard of any such thing. A random accidental chemical reaction - like fire or fermentation - obviously creates complexity.
You might also point out to him that he's reverting to the strawman attack himself in this last paragraph.

And also tell him that possibly the reason the ID theory has never been disproven is not because it can't be disproven, but that there is nothing to disprove. They have not created a theory that can be questioned in measurable terms.
As far as I know, they haven't even created a theory that contradicts with evolution or any other scientific theories, so why the need to disprove it, if they aren't attacking evolution?

If they are saying ID has brought us to our current point of complexity, and that evolution is bunk, then I would say that it is possible to disprove it with physical artifacts and fossils. Such as the fossils of tiny 'hobbit' men which were found in the carribean islands recently.

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:51 pm**

werldhed wrote:NS, this is addressing his argument about chance creating something complex:

That argument does not work on a number of levels, but a huge flaw in it is that evolution is NOT random. Mutations are (sometimes) random, but evolution IS driven by outside forces (i.e. selection).

He doesn't see things arrange randomly? What about when he pours oil into water? The two fluids don't mix randomly because atomic forces prevent them from doing so. Things arrange in an ordered state all the time because there are always forces acting on them. Evolution is no different.

Oh. :icon14:

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:38 pm**

NS,

I will take apart his response in detail a bit later, or tomorrow when I get back from my lower back surgery. I'll be good and drugged up too, which means I will be doing my best thinking.

werldheld has already made one good point.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:11 am**

R00k wrote:
I think the most glaring problem in ID debates is that it is approached and accepted as a type of science for the purposes of the debate.

The scientific method defines narrow and precise theories to explain specific behaviors in nature. Then they are tested, if possible, to see if they can be disproven.

ID, on the other hand, is intentionally constructed so that it can explain away any anomaly or behavior without any further investigation. The Archangels argument is just one example of this.

The entire purpose of the debate from the side of ID proponents -- whether they realize it or not -- is to stop using the scientific method altogether. Why would we know anything about our world if, from the beginning, we were all willing to just say "some other man made it that way."

Well said, Rook :thumbs up:

As I am personally done with religious people, their endless trickjumping from faith to fake science and back to "personal view" and "just my will to believe", I personally would hold against them the violation of the very nature of belief - which does not need any rational cause by definition - and then throw them to the lions, if they don't stop trying to give it a rational paint.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:31 pm**

The more I talk with this guy, the more his arguments seem to be about origins, rather than processes. He doesn't argue that selection and environmental factors play a part in things like speciation. Rather, he says that it looks to him as though these events take place because they have the ability to do so already. He cited a researcher, Spetner I believe, that says that there are all these dormant capabilities extant in DNA already that are just waiting for the right triggers to unlock that adaptive process.
I asked him his definition of irreducible complexity, and he said that (roughly) that it's two very complex mechanisms that serve no function apart from one another, but when combined have some useful ability.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:36 pm**

Again, he keeps using the term 'complex' in his argument...

I am going to read through this closely later today/tonight/tomorrow and give you some specifics.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:37 pm**

Did you try calling him a fag?

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 3:57 am**

That always works too.

Followed by a swift kick to the nads.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:04 am**

I like how he threw a little bit of Nazi action into his response to you. Very nice touch.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:27 am**

Ok NS,

So far there is already a lot of good information contained in this thread. Thus far
We have seen your co-worked dodge the issue of complexity. He has also bailed out to using the strawman argument bit. The problem with that is that, as you stated, you aren’t using a strawman argument. When you point out the logical implications of ID theory, those parts of it that require the incorporation of a good vs. evil theology, the theory does become ridiculous. I found it interesting that he said that there has been nothing to ‘disprove’ design theory. One need not look far in nature to see things that are poorly designed – designs that are not logical, but that are effective. But, once again, you can put the burden on him. Ask him what kind of evidence would ‘disprove’ design theory.
As for his ‘not seeing chance create anything complex’ – werldheld made a good point there with oil water. Crystallization, etc., also provide good examples. As for the probability argument – he is ignoring the fact that the timescales involved in the generation of said complexity are HUGE. But ask him this simple probability question: What were the odds of last weeks lotto numbers coming up, in that order? Now, what were the odds of the last two week’s lotto numbers coming up, in that order? You are going to get very small probability. Essentially, it was statistically impossible for that sequence of numbers to arise…but, they did – out of randomness. Now, lets apply this to random molecular interactions, and lets say that one of the sequences (the sequence representing a particular structure) has a structure that allows it to catalyze the creation of more of itself – for example, lets say that it increases the odds of similar molecules forming by just a fraction of a fraction of a percent (ignore the mechanisms for the moment.) As soon as something like this happens, all the probability calculations based on randomness have to go right out the window.

And we see a lot of molecules that demonstrate the ‘ability’ to organize themselves.

I think you hit a big part of the debate on the head with the caveman story. How is ID fundamentally different from this? It really amounts to nothing more than intellectual surrender. What happens when something that the ID theorists describe as irreducibly complex is explained away? Does the whole theory go down the shitter, or do they just move on to their next ‘irreducible icon’?

Now, for some real ammo – read the following link. It is a literal smashing of the ‘Bible’ of the ID’ers…Michael Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box.”

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

Check through that, and let me know if you have any questions regarding the biology behind the arguments.

You’ll find some more stuff on that site that will be helpful. I’d post it here, but there is no point in re-inventing the wheel. To be honest, though, based on his responses thus far, there is really nothing that is going to change his mind. But I would like you to ask him why nature is riddled with so many examples of ‘bad’ design.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:28 am**

Also, his Nazi response is not comparable to your point. Not even close.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 9:59 am**

Very Smart Opponent of Nightshade (VSON) wrote:-How would you conduct an experiment to prove that complexity is by design, or that it wasn't? How do you get intelligence from a non-intelligent source? Where does "information" come from?

To address his core questions directly:

The question of whether complexity is, or isn't, able to emerge "by itself" requires a definition of complexity. I view complexity as something of a continuum, where a rudimentary chemical reaction is fundamentally no different from higher biological life, differing only in the level of complexity each expresses.

So, if we can agree that a simple chemical reaction can occur without any intelligent intervention or design, then we can agree that complexity can emerge "naturally".

If one is not satisfied with this, they would have to invoke some other distinction between different types of complexity, where a simple chemical reaction is one form of complexity, and higher life is a different form.

In order to invoke this distinction, one would have to define some criteria that separate out these two phenomena. My challenge is to do this - I think that there is no distinction. Any line that is drawn is arbitrary.

If you want to talk about irreducible complexity, then that can be discussed. My main criticism of this distinction is that there is, in principle, no objective test that something is irreducibly complex. Whether something is irreducibly complex or not, can be a function of imagination. If, for example, we had some really daft people who had little imagination studying a human lifeform, they might contend that the human organism is irreducibly complex. They cannot fathom how anything simpler than a human organism could have any advantage. Thus they conclude (incorrectly) that the human being is irreducibly complex.

Similarly, we may be too daft or unimaginative to be able to imagine some use for certain structures, such as the components that constitute the flagellum. We therefore (possibly incorrectly) conclude that the structure is irreducibly complex.

A smart person would realize the limitations of this sort of knowledge, and qualify any judgements as such. But to conclude that something is irreducibly complex is simply arrogant. It presumes that one can fathom all possible scenarios involving the partial structures interacting with all possible environments that may have plausibly existed, and deduce that these partial structures had no useful function.

It presumes that we are gods.

As for intelligence, there is a whole field of research and thought, within the fields of AI, philosophy, and psychology, centered around understanding whatever we could mean by the term intelligence. It is a broad term that describes a broad range of phenomena, similar to how "Art" is a broad term. So the question of how you can get intelligence from a non-intelligence source is somewhat ill defined.

What do we mean by a "source". A state of affairs temporally prior to another state of affairs?

I'd like to think that as I grow, I learn new things, and in some ways build my intelligence. Does that mean that I've manifested a paradox, since I've gone from a lesser, to a greater, value of intelligence? Is there some law of conservation of intelligence, as there is for energy? Why should we have reason to believe this?

You could argue around this by saying that once you have a little bit of intelligence, you can nurture it and grow it, but you can't get that initial spark from nothing.

Why not? What reason is there to believe this?

What would that initial spark of intelligence be? Could it be a simple machine that does some rudimentary information processing? What about a simple organic computer - a single membrane that "calculates" the energy potentials on either of its sides, and undergoes structural changes in response? This could be seen as a rudimentary form of information processing. Is this not yet a spark of intelligence? If not, then what exactly is this spark. Again, criteria must be defined if these statements are to be used with any force.

Information - again, a wonderfully ripe term that has a lot of history and thought behind its meaning. Where does information come from - that's a very obscure question - a question whose nature is suited to inspire discussion and thought around the very meaning of information, rather than to defend ID. In other words, criteria of what is meant by "information" are needed, if this term is to be used with any purpose in the discussion.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:30 am**

Thanks guys, this is some good stuff. I should point out that I'm pretty good friends with this guy, he's the same one that opened my eyes to a lot of what's missing in the media, and we have a lot of great, in-depth political discussions. He's really helped me see a lot of my own biases and the arguments we have really force me to evaluate why I believe as I do on many issues.
One thing that I've noticed is that I was rejecting ID primarily on the basis of its Christian proponents and not for purely scientific reasons.

Did you two see where I stated what his definition of irreducible complexity is? I think I've got him on the point of our lack of understanding of ALL the processes and scenarios involved, something that he readily admits. I've reached a bit of an impasse, as we both sort of agree that this debate will be extremely difficult to prove one way or the other.
He asked me what it would take for me to accept ID as the real deal, I said: "Nothing less than proof of the existence of God." Because to me, that's what all of ID implies. He doesn't label the "designer" in ID as "God" per se, but that's basically what it comes down to at the heart of it. Some Supreme Being of whatever name is responsible for all the blueprints that govern "natural" structure and function.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 3:49 pm**

Its a Christian movement. It's a wedge designed to get creationism a voice in scientific discourse.

NS - make sure to check out that link I gave. The guy gives a very plausible explanation based on observed phenomena for the development (through evolution) of an 'irreducibly complex' biochemical cascade.

If you can get this guy on the topic of Behe's arguments, we can really destroy him.

As for the issue of him being your friend, I know the feeling. I am close to some old-school creationists, and it always makes the discussion odd. I try to stay away from it entirely, because all I will succeed in doing by making my case with them is reaffirming their idea that something is inherently wrong with my belief system...so I stay away from it. But when they visit, and see books like "Scientists Confront Creationism" or "The Blind Watchmaker" on my bookshelf, there is still that moment of awkwardness.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 6:35 pm**

AH! That reminds me, he keeps referring to the Watchmaker argument. The one wherein you've never seen a watch before and you find one lying on the ground someplace, for those not familiar with it. I respond with the caveman and the eclipse analogy, and he says that that says nothing about the origins of the watch. We're sort of going in circles here, and I am reading that link. I can guarantee that if I send it to him, he'll latch on to a few of Behe's arguments.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 6:38 pm**

Nightshade wrote:AH! That reminds me, he keeps referring to the Watchmaker argument. The one wherein you've never seen a watch before and you find one lying on the ground someplace, for those not familiar with it.

So what qualifies as a watch, versus a complex structure that could have evolved successively through selection?

Again, see my previous post about how you'd have to be a god in order to determine what is irreducibly complex.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 6:40 pm**

Right, but he pretty much defined irreducible complexity for the terms of our argument. See my post regarding that, it's a definition we can work with.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 7:05 pm**

Nightshade wrote:Right, but he pretty much defined irreducible complexity for the terms of our argument. See my post regarding that, it's a definition we can work with.

where is this definition? I can't seem to find it.

bbl gotta go.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 8:37 pm**

I asked him his definition of irreducible complexity, and he said that (roughly) that it's two very complex mechanisms that serve no function apart from one another, but when combined have some useful ability.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 8:42 pm**

Nightshade wrote:
I asked him his definition of irreducible complexity, and he said that (roughly) that it's two very complex mechanisms that serve no function apart from one another, but when combined have some useful ability.

This sounds like Kracus and his self-worth.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:05 pm**

Nightshade wrote:
I asked him his definition of irreducible complexity, and he said that (roughly) that it's two very complex mechanisms that serve no function apart from one another, but when combined have some useful ability.

but to assert that they serve no function presumes that you are a god. How arrogant of someone to assert that they are so intelligent that they are sure that the constituent mechanisms have no possible function. Perhaps they have no function that their imagination can conceive of, but one has to realize the limits of imagination and intelligence.

[xeno]Julios wrote:
If you want to talk about irreducible complexity, then that can be discussed. My main criticism of this distinction is that there is, in principle, no objective test that something is irreducibly complex. Whether something is irreducibly complex or not, can be a function of imagination. If, for example, we had some really daft people who had little imagination studying a human lifeform, they might contend that the human organism is irreducibly complex. They cannot fathom how anything simpler than a human organism could have any advantage. Thus they conclude (incorrectly) that the human being is irreducibly complex.

Similarly, we may be too daft or unimaginative to be able to imagine some use for certain structures, such as the components that constitute the flagellum. We therefore (possibly incorrectly) conclude that the structure is irreducibly complex.

A smart person would realize the limitations of this sort of knowledge, and qualify any judgements as such. But to conclude that something is irreducibly complex is simply arrogant. It presumes that one can fathom all possible scenarios involving the partial structures interacting with all possible environments that may have plausibly existed, and deduce that these partial structures had no useful function.

It presumes that we are gods.

Quake3World

tnf, you have a mission