Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 23: Difference between revisions

< Talk:Intelligent design Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:15, 17 November 2005 editKillerChihuahua (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users34,578 editsm →What Le Monde article?: updating link to point to archive← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:39, 17 November 2005 edit undoAntandcharmi (talk \| contribs)102 edits →Pat Robertson lets the cat out of the bag Next edit →
Line 455:		Line 455:

	:::I don't see how Robertson's comments are really relevant to ''this'' article. They don't shed light on the tenets of ID and they don't offer a critism of it, either. True, people could use them to show the apparent hypocrisy of those promoting Intelligent Design as science rather than religion, but I think there is already enough good information of that kind in the article. I think, perhaps, that the Robertson thing should stay at ] under the Dover, PA subsection, where it currently resides. -] ] 10:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)		:::I don't see how Robertson's comments are really relevant to ''this'' article. They don't shed light on the tenets of ID and they don't offer a critism of it, either. True, people could use them to show the apparent hypocrisy of those promoting Intelligent Design as science rather than religion, but I think there is already enough good information of that kind in the article. I think, perhaps, that the Robertson thing should stay at ] under the Dover, PA subsection, where it currently resides. -] ] 10:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

			:Agree. FM, I can see that clearly, but my point is that ID itself is a defined position. An analogy, diamonds can arise from coal. Not saying that ID ''is'' a diamond, but it's not necessarily coal either. ID is its statements, not who made it up or who believes it or who uses it. Imagine that the creationists got it right one day and discovered a theory that was accurate (assuming such a thing were possible) and used it just like they're using this one. Could Pat's statement about God to a town be taken as a reflection of that ''theory's'' position too?
			:I don't think so, and I think it muddies the water to do so. Let ID stand or fall on its own, and let the behaviour and beliefs of ID proponents shed light on what they're up to ''with'' ID, or how they interpret it. The positions stated are two separate things. To my mind, the newspaper article is confusing the posits of ID with that of one of its believers, and the article has no place here. ] 13:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

	==Original research and inaccurrate/inadequate representation of the minority View==		==Original research and inaccurrate/inadequate representation of the minority View==

Revision as of 13:39, 17 November 2005

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed.
For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Intelligent design/Archive 23 received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Please read before starting
Welcome to Misplaced Pages's Intelligent Design article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic.

Newcomers to Misplaced Pages and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here.

A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are NPOV: Pseudoscience and NPOV: Undue weight, and the contributors to the article have done their best to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the POV fork guidelines.

These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE).

Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Misplaced Pages's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON).

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT

Circular reasoning - not

In the section "What (or who) designed the designer?" is the statement "The sort of logic required in sustaining such reasoning is known as circular reasoning, a form of logical fallacy".

Unfortunately the term 'circular reasoning' is not correct here. Circular reasoning is the practice of assuming something, in order to prove the very thing that you assumed. The logic being described is not circular. ID does not assume the existence of a designer in order to arrive at its conclusions on irreducible complexity. Instead the logic results in an infinite regression as it must be held to apply to the designer itself at a higher level, ad infinitum. In the interests of accuracy we need to quote or remove this erroneous statement. ant 17:33, 13 November 2005

An example of circular reasoning from the Misplaced Pages article for Circular reasoning is:

p implies q
suppose p
therefore, q.

From the Intelligent Design article: "a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex"

design(p) implies irreducible complexity (q)
suppose design (p)
therefore, irreducible complexity(q).

It's precisely circular reasoning: If irreducible complexity demands a designer, then any designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex. FeloniousMonk 01:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Felonius, the "example of circular reasoning" is actually just modus ponens; a prime example of a deductively valid argument. Are all deductively valid arguments circular? Additionally, "by Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex" is evidently a distortion of the ID position, as can be confirmed by reading page 249 of Darwin's Black Box (where Behe--the champion of irreducible complexity in the modern ID movement--points to the possibility of the designers being unlike our kind of biological life, not requiring irreducibly complex structures to sustain it). Incidentally, is the criticism of circular reasoning original research (e.g. your own personal argument)? Or can you cite a reference? Wade A. Tisthammer 06:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

What you have described is not modus ponens. Note the subtle difference. If you have P and P -> Q, then you may deduce Q. That is modus ponens. The example you and FM states that you have P -> Q. Supposing P is not the same as having proved P, or knowing P is true. Thus you may not assert Q. You may assert if P then Q. But that is merely reasserting P -> Q. Tez 09:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting interpretation. But if P is not a premise like P -> Q is, then what is it? Deductive arguments usually take the form of "Suppose , therefore ." I suppose it all depends on what it means by "suppose." Perhaps more problematically, Felonious has not shown the premise "a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex" to be true, leaving the argument in doubt (perhaps, ironically, even question-begging) in light of Behe's statements flatly contradicting this matter (since he claims the designer of irreducible complexity need not possess irreducibly complex structures in page 249 of Darwin's Black Box). I have repeatedly asked him to justify the claim “By Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex” but he has refused. Wade A. Tisthammer 18:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

No, no. P is some proposition, which may or may not be true. For example, P might be "The minimum temperature on the surface of the earth is greater than 100 centigrade", and Q could be "The surface of the earth does not have any liquid water." Then P -> Q ("If the minimum temperature on the surface of the earth is greater than 100 centigrade, then it cannot support liquid water") is undeniable. But Q is not true.

As for FM's 'shortcoming', it is hardly difficult to see; if we have some designer which is not IC, then we have a situation whereby IC can arise from non-IC. Surely this is a flat-out contradiction of IC? Well, it is unless you want to posit some mechanism that constitutes 'design', or define 'design' in some distinguishable way. Of course, such a definition has never been put forward. This is all besides the point anyway, since I think in the current state of play, all 'examples' of IC have been shown to be naturally evolvable. Tez 20:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You've missed the point entirely. The supposition of design is what implies irreducible complexity is an example of begging the question of whence the design. Joshuaschroeder 06:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

First, if the position being attacked is not one that ID adherents actually adhere to, it should not be represented as an ID position. Second, please explain how the supposition of design is an example of circular reasoning. Is it because we don't know the identity of the designer? Is it because ID would raise the question of the origins of the designer? None of those seem to be valid reasons. Suppose for instance astronauts go to Pluto and find robots there. These astronauts subsequently conclude that these robots are the product of design. Does the mere fact that we do not know the identity/origins of the designer make a design inference circular, fallacious, or anything of the sort? Obviously not. And remember, ID (at least when applied to life on Earth) doesn't propose to explain the ultimate origin of all complexity, just life on Earth. Wade A. Tisthammer 06:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"That begs the question" is an apt reply when a circular argument is used within one Syllogism. That is, when the deduction contains a proposition that assumes the very thing the argument aims to prove; in essence, the proposition is used to prove itself, a tactic which in its simplest form is not very persuasive." ... "It is important to note that such arguments are logically valid. That is, the conclusion does in fact follow from the premises, since it is in some way identical to the premises. All self-circular arguments have this characteristic: that the proposition to be proved is assumed at some point in the argument. This is why begging the question was classified as a Material fallacy rather than a Logical fallacy by Aristotle." --From the Circular reasoning (Begging the question) article.

Next time please read the article first before firing off a hasty refutation.

No, pointing out it's circular reasoning is not original research.

As far as providing a cite to support the circular reasoning argument, that's easy enough, I'll add it to the article in the morning.

You really need to start abiding by consensus here; taking additions and reversions against consensus right up to the 3RR threshold for the same content on both November 11th and tonight, November 13th is not good Wiki citizenship and can seen to point to a pattern of disruption and lack of respect for the project and fellow contributors. FeloniousMonk 06:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If the supposition of the astronauts observing the "robots" is arrived at by using the definitions of irreducible complexity, then the inference of design is indeed circular. Joshuaschroeder 07:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Suppose no notions of irreducible complexity are used. Is it circular to infer design? In the case in which irreducible complexity is used, care to explain why it is circular? Wade A. Tisthammer 07:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

How does one infer design without appealing to irreducible or specified complexity? If there is a way, it has to state something about a designer which begs the question of either what is the designer or what is design? The two concepts are inextricably interconnected in a circular definition. A designer is the subject which designs the object which is designed by the subject...

Since irreducible complexity is defined in terms of design it suffers from the above critique. Joshuaschroeder 07:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Making a design inference in the modern ID movement (e.g. the explanatory filter) is done when artificial intervention is viewed as necessary. Take for instance archaeologists. It is agreed upon that natural processes are not reasonably capable of producing the Rosetta Stone, and under the ID position the Rosetta Stone meets the specification criterion (in the explanatory filter; specified complexity is slightly different). A design inference only "begs the question" in the sense that it raises the question of what the designer is; this is not the same thing as circular reasoning (to think otherwise is to make the fallacy of equivocation). Think back to my original scenario and please answer my question: suppose the astronauts find robots on Pluto; is it circular reasoning for them to make a design inference, even if they don't appeal to irreducible complexity?

Now you have introduced new terms: "artificial intervention" and "necessary". These terms are not defined above and so need to have definitions independent of design in order to be noncircular. If robots on Pluto are designed then one has to decide by what criteria the design is determined. If that criteria uses design as a proposition, then the reasoning is circular. Joshuaschroeder 21:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't give any special meaning to the "new terms." I assume you know how to use a dictionary and can look up the words I used? To answer your question, the astonauts would use the same criteria real scientists would use (the explanatory filter would seem to be it, but if you know of other criteria please let me know).Wade A. Tisthammer 21:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You are the one who introduced the terms to try to justify your own claims. The only people who talk about design criteria are IDists (and their associated quotemines and taking things out of context from other scientists). Joshuaschroeder 20:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It is true I "introduced" the terms in the sense that I used them, but the meaning of those terms can be looked up in a dictionary if you don't know what they mean. As I said, I use no special definition. I think that ID adherents are not the only people who talk about this sort of criteria. Forensic scientists also use some sort of procedure to determine e.g. whether the cause of death was natural or murder (the latter implies artificial intervention). Wade A. Tisthammer 01:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

If we are to take these terms on their regular meaning, we can translate "Making a design inference in the modern ID movement is done when artificial intervention is viewed as necessary" to "Making a design inference in the modern ID movement is done when non-natural action is seen as required"; ie. design is inferred when design is seen as required. Hmm. I've even been generous by translating 'artificial' as 'non-natural', and not 'man-made'. The reason Joshuaschroeder says those terms aren't defined is that you don't have a finite test to determine when some intervention is artificial or not, and whether it's necessary or not. Vacuous definitions are the hallmark of circular reasoning. Tez 09:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted also that irreducible complexity does not have "this was artificially created" in its definition (nor does specified complexity) and is thus not circular in that respect. Something irreducibly complex is something that, if any one of the various components were removed, the system does not function at all. Although an irreducibly complex biochemical system is often cited as evidence for ID, it does not contain ID within it's definition; indeed it is not even make evolution logically impossible. There have been some proposed ways to get around it (e.g. each component of an irreducibly complex system provides a selective advantage other than that of the completed system) though ID adherents claim such proposals are not plausible or not rigorously developed enough.

A seeming red herring. We have demonstrated that the argument from design is circular in that it it assumes characteristics of design are due to design. IC is only problematic in that it assumes design. Joshuaschroeder 21:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Except (as I pointed out) neither irreducible complexity nor specified information contain "this was artificially created" in their definition, so there is no circularity in that respect. ID does adhere to the belief that there are certain characteristics to design, but if this is circular, so are all other design inferences. Forensic science would be thrown out of court because an autopsy concluding it was murder is "circular." Also, think back to my robots on Pluto example and please answer my question. Wade A. Tisthammer 21:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that forensic evidence makes a design inferences except IDists. Most others simply say that forensic evidence is used as a causal inference. Dembski tries to claim "design inferences" where they arguably don't occur. Joshuaschroeder 20:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Forensic science obviously requires testing for artificial intervention. A quick example is determining if the cause of death was natural or murder (the latter implies artificial intervention). Wade A. Tisthammer 01:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Specified complexity involves a non-ad-hoc pattern for a large series of units. Contrast two sets of flower configurations on a piece of land; one distribution of flowers is scattered all over the area, the other configuration clearly spells out "I am in love with my wife Rachel." Both are complex in that each particular distribution is unlikely, but the latter meets the specification criterion (by following the non-ad-hoc pattern of a meaningful statement). Technically, specified complexity doesn't prove design (there are no proofs in science) but something with a high degree of specified complexity is often cited as evidence for design (since a naturalistic explanation seems unlikely). In neither case is does a definition assume intelligent design, though an object having those defined characteristics could perhaps be evidently designed. Wade A. Tisthammer 19:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Specification is simply an undefined prior that is inappropriately used by Dembski to obtain whatever probability he cares to. See the criticism on the SC page. Joshuaschroeder 21:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

But I defined specification above, and Dembski gives a more technical description in The Design Inference. How can you say the term is undefined? Wade A. Tisthammer 21:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The terms isn't undefined, it's the Baysean prior that is. Joshuaschroeder 20:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You said, "Specification is simply an undefined prior". What exactly did you mean by that? Wade A. Tisthammer 01:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, it has been shown that Dembski's filter would find design in a fairy ring, a purely naturalistic feature. Guettarda 19:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Not if the filter was used as Dembski described it. Since a fairy ring is a relatively deterministic naturalistic feature, it would stop at the "law" node. Remember how the filter works; first the filter must rule out law and chance before it can select design. Wade A. Tisthammer 20:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No, this is not true. Fairy rings are not deterministic. Following the steps in the Design Inference, fairy rings show evidence of design. Guettarda 22:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

They would not because the filter would stop at the law (HP) node. From the Misplaced Pages article on fairy rings:

Fungi spread their spores in a circular fashion. Since multiple spores from separate fungi overlap in the inner part, fallow soil is only to be found away from the center of the "circle". This is how fairy rings "grow".

Thus, fairy rings have a high probability of occurring and thus the filter would stop at the HP node, because it is relatively deterministic. Think about this. Is it not the case that law or chance adequately describes the phenomenon of fairy rings? If they do adequately describe the phenomenon, then the filter would not select design. Wade A. Tisthammer 22:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

(In response to FeloniousMonk) I see, and consistently violating WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience policy (with your reverts) and distorting the minority view (even when evidence is provided that the distortion is being made) isn't a pattern of disruption and lack of respect for the project? Additionally, you haven't yet shown that the deduction contains a proposition that assumes the very thing the argument aims to prove, in part because you have based the argument on a distortion of the actual ID position. You have ignored the reference I've given that gives strong evidence that this position really is being distorted. And you have refused to cite a credible ID source to the contrary (for both distortions I have talked about). You really need to start abiding by WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience here and provide evidence of consensus regarding the distortion of the ID position. Wade A. Tisthammer 07:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how the minority view is distorted. The text clearly explains that this is the view of critics of ID (although, I agree, it would be useful to provide citations). Behe's assertion that "this is not the case" isn't germane. Behe's assertion does not change the mainstream view and cannot be used to gut the description of the counterargument. Guettarda 17:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

How can you say "I don't see how the minority view is distorted" given my citations to the contrary? You said, "The text clearly explains that this is the view of critics of ID." Are you saying it is the critics who have unintentionally distorted ID, mistaking it for the real thing? Perhaps so, but that is still no excuse for presenting a badly distorted version of intelligent design theory in the Misplaced Pages entry. Regarding the citation, how the heck is Behe's assertion not germane? Let’s not ignore the fact that Behe is the advocate for irreducible complexity in the mainstream modern ID movement, and he flatly contradicts this alleged ID claim in his seminal book (Darwin's Black Box) that introduced the modern irreducible complexity arguments in the first place. With all due respect, what more do you want?

And what about the Misplaced Pages policy on original research? Claims like "by Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex" and "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design" is "that every complex object requires a designer" appear to be original research in light of the evidence and citations to the contrary. If these statements are not original research, please cite a credible ID reference in which an ID adherent makes these claims. (I have provided citations when I was accused of original research, I think it is fair for you to do the same.) Otherwise, in light of the evidence, these claims appear to violate Misplaced Pages policy on NPOV:pseudoscience and original research and therefore these claims should be removed. Wade A. Tisthammer 19:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

We would be distorting the minority view if we said that ID proponents said something they didn't say. To say that ID critics said something cannot be a distortion of the minority view...it could be a distortion of the critics' views, if we said they said something they didn't say.

Behe's assertion is not germane because (i) we are talking about what others have said, not Behe, and (ii), Behe doesn't "own" ID; he presented (one version of) the hypothesis. If you present an hypothesis and someone else points out, "well, if you say X, then Y follows logically from X", you cannot simply say "no, it's not so because this is my hypothesis, not yours".

FM told you just last night that he would find references. Coming back here right after that and saying "this must be deleted because it is unreferenced" is ot of line. These are widespread claims - I wouldn't quite call them "common knowledge", but they're the kind of thing you hear over and over again.

"If these statements are not original research, please cite a credible ID reference in which an ID adherent makes these claims." This sentance makes no sense. Sorry. Why would anyone look for an ID claim to point out a fatal flaw in ID? Guettarda 19:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

First, let's look at how it is worded: "Critics point out that by Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex. " The article gives the impression that the critics are pointing out something that is true, when it clearly is not. Another instance of truth implication is when the article says, "this contradicts the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every complex object" when this "fundamental assumption" does not appear to exist. But suppose we reword it. You said that Behe's assertion was not germane because we are talking about what others (a source that is uncited. BTW) have said. You could say this is not distorting the minority position; it is the critics who distort the minority position and we are only presenting what the critics say. But this is still not an excuse to present a distorted version of the minority view. As an analogy, suppose a news reporter cites a source ("According to...") which she knows is giving false information on the air regarding something and she censors all corrections to the contrary. This would probably be considered an example of terrible and irresponsible journalism; perhaps even a form of dishonesty (confer the idea of a lawyer suborning perjury). Similarly, knowingly distorting a minority view indirectly (e.g. citing a source we know to be wrong and censoring all attempts to correct it) does not appear ethical and does not appear to coincide with the spirit of Misplaced Pages policy on NPOV:pseudoscience and original research.

Another reason you said my Behe citation was not germane was that Behe does not "own" ID. It is true that Behe does not "own" ID but he is the prominent ID proponent on this issue. Furthermore, neither you nor anyone else has cited any prominent ID adherent claiming the positions that are evidently distortions. One could perhaps attack a straw man but I hardly think this is appropriate; at least not without accurately describing the ID position after the distortions are made. "FM told you just last night that he would find references." Perhaps, but not the references I am talking about here (e.g. of a authoritative ID source on the alleged claims). And given my repeated requests of references on this matter, I do not believe I am out of line requesting the removal of these evident distortions. Wade A. Tisthammer 20:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

(Addendum) You said,

Perhaps because an ID opponent wishes to point out a fatal flaw that actually exists in ID? A person wanting to point out a flaw in ID might point to a "fundamental assumption" and attack the assumption's veracity. However, if the assumption or position is not actually held by the ID community, there is little sense in attacking it--assuming we wish to be honest. Wade A. Tisthammer 20:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"Critics point out" - you deleted the entire phrase. We are not discussing the difference between "point out" and "assert" - you are shifting the goalposts again. But, to address your new point - of course "point out" is appropriate - it's a logical conclusion from the assertions made by ID proponents.
You wrote "You could say this is not distorting the minority position; it is the critics who distort the minority position and we are only presenting what the critics say. But this is still not an excuse to present a distorted version of the minority view." You aren't serious, are you? Me: "It isn't distorting the minority view" (and explained why this is so); You: "That's no excuse to distort the minority view". This is getting ridiculous.
"As an analogy, suppose a news reporter cites a source ("According to...") which she knows is giving false information on the air regarding something and she censors all corrections to the contrary. This would probably be considered an example of terrible and irresponsible journalism; perhaps even a form of dishonesty (confer the idea of a lawyer suborning perjury)." How is this relevant? We aren't talking about false information, we are talking about things that are obvious to anyone who bothers to look at the situation honestly.
"Another reason you said my Behe citation was not germane was that Behe does not "own" ID. It is true that Behe does not "own" ID but he is the prominent ID proponent on this issue." You missed my point and focussed on the aside. The point was, if you present a theory, and someone points out an obvious flaw, you can't redefine logic to suit your needs. Behe may be the main proponent of ID, but he can't say "this isn't so because I say so". You can only do that in creative fiction
"Perhaps because an ID opponent wishes to point out a fatal flaw that actually exists in ID? A person wanting to point out a flaw in ID might point to a "fundamental assumption" and attack the assumption's veracity. However, if the assumption or position is not actually held by the ID community, there is little sense in attacking it--assuming we wish to be honest." You still aren't making any sense. In order to show that there is a flaw in ID I am supposed to quote Behe (or one of them) pointing out that the flaw exists? Do you believe that criticisms are not valid until they are admitted by the person being criticised? That is one of the strangest arguments I have ever heard. Guettarda 22:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll address this point by point in order.

Yes, I did delete the phrase, because the phrase evidently distorted the actual ID position (and I gave a citation to support my claim, whereas those who put it back it did not).
Yes I am serious, but also look at my explanation; particularly regarding the analogy of the news reporter who cites a source ("According to...") which she knows is giving false information on the air regarding something and she censors all corrections to the contrary. Even though the distortion is not done directly ("I'm not distorting it...") if no correction is made and all attempts to correct the distortion are removed and censored this hardly seems appropriate.
Yes, we are talking about false information (e.g. "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every complex object" and "by Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex."). These alleged claims evidently do not accurately reflect what the ID position actually is.
You said, "The point was, if you present a theory, and someone points out an obvious flaw, you can't redefine logic to suit your needs." Except I am not redefining logic. I am pointing out what the actual ID position is and justifying my claim that the alleged claim appears to be a distortion. Hence, it isn't clear why my citation of Behe isn't germane to the issue I'm talking about.
You said, "You still aren't making any sense. In order to show that there is a flaw in ID I am supposed to quote Behe (or one of them) pointing out that the flaw exists?" No, please read more carefully. I am saying that if you want to attack an assumption that ID actually contains it's a good idea to provide a verifiable reference to show that ID actually contains this assumption. To reiterate, if the assumption or position is not actually held by the ID community, there is little sense in attacking it--assuming we wish to be honest. Wade A. Tisthammer 23:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Answer to Felonius Monk on his reply:

"An example of circular reasoning from the Misplaced Pages article for Circular reasoning is:

p implies q
suppose p
therefore, q.

From the Intelligent Design article: "a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex"

design(p) implies irreducible complexity (q)
suppose design (p)
therefore, irreducible complexity(q).

Felonius, is this alleged ID claim original research? Please cite a reference of a prominent ID adherent claiming "a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex". I can cite a reference to the contrary: page 249 of Darwin's Black Box. The author (Michael Behe, who is the prominent ID proponent regarding the issue of irreducible complexity) flatly contradicts this alleged ID claim, so the alleged ID claim appears to be original research of a rather nasty kind (a straw man). Wade A. Tisthammer 19:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You just posted the same question in response to me, and I answered it. Don't post questions if you don't intend to answer them, and don't spam the talk page with the same question over and over. Guettarda 20:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You may have answered it Guettarda, but Felonius has not. And Felonious has been the one who has often reverted my corrections and has often avoided the issue of distortion the minority view. He has yet to answer me regarding a reference of an authoritative ID source claiming the positions that are evidently distorted. (Incidentally Guettarda, your “answer” did not really answer my challange; that is you did not cite a reference of a prominent ID adherent claiming "a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex".) Wade A. Tisthammer 22:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

That "by Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating complexity must also be complex" is not original research, it is a readily apparent matter of simple, basic logic. It is logic that is used by Dawkins

and Pigliucci . The infinite regression issue is common to objections to all variations of the argument from design , including ID; this is common knowledge.

What's troubling here is your demanding a supporting cite for common knowledge, trivial matters, and simple logic. It appears merely a way of disrupting and tying up others. You'll find that there's not much support for that here, Wade, if that's your strategy.

So before you waste anymore time of others here, you need to answer this: What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong? I simply will no longer take seriously or reply to your challenges that do not address this question. I have found this to be a great general-purpose cut-through-the-crap question to determine whether somebody is interested in seriously contributing to a factual and complete article or just advancing a particular POV. Note, by the way, that I am assuming the burden of proof here - all you have to do is commit to a criterion for substantiating what you claim. It's easy to criticize long-term contributors here for being "closed-minded" and unwilling to compromise. Are you open-minded enough to consider whether your ideas might be wrong? FeloniousMonk 20:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

First Felonius, note that you have misquoted the article and me. Both the article and I have been using the quote, "by Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex." The issue of irreducible complexity may be a part of intelligent design, but this particular ID claim appears to be distorted as does the "fundamental assumption" that "a designer is needed for every complex object." You have not cited an authoritative ID source describing this fundamental assumption despite my requests. Is this original research?

Many of your sources are those regarding the existence of God, not that of intelligent design theory in biology. Also, these sources are not authoritative ID proponents. Dawkins is an atheist, as is Pigliucci. Additionally, the "who designed the designer" may be a question that is "common knowledge" (I am not disputing that) but the distorted ID positions added to such arguments cannot be justified as such, especially when given evidence to the contrary. These evidently distorted positions are not trivial matters, nor are they matters of "simple logic."

You asked "What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?" (I am assuming this is in regards to the evidently distorted ID positions.) As I have said before, an authoritative citation. To give an example, if Behe said that "designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex" in Darwin's Black Box then you would be justified in claiming that the position is neither original research nor a distortion. If in Dembski's Design Inference he wrote "a fundamental assumption of intelligent design is that every complex object must also be designed" you would be justified in claiming that it this position neither original research nor a distortion. (Incidentally, Dembski himself claims that not every complex entity is designed; the added criterion of specification must be used before a design inference can be rationally made; hence the term complex specified information. See this web page where he admits that chance can generate complex (albeit unspecified) information.) However, you have done no such thing. If you cannot defend your assertions in the face of the evidence I proffered, it seems that these evidently distorted views should be corrected. Wade A. Tisthammer 21:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

My paraphrase of the passage does not change its meaning materially; complexity is still complexity, irreducible or otherwise. Irreducible complexity being argot; an ID-only concept, and one that does not change the underlying concept of complexity as it is commonly understood.

There is an unbroken thread of logic and reason from the earliest arguments from design to the current iteration, ID. The only material difference is whether design is ascribed to God or an unidentified designer. The problem of infinite regression is a traditional criticism of all design arguments, ID is no different. It is not original research.

So you only will accept evidence drawn from ID proponent's work. Further, the evidence you claim you'd accept is a complete non sequitur to the subtopic being discussed, which is "What (or who) designed the designer?" not irreducible complexity or specified complexity. Behe's Darwin's Black Box and Dembski's Design Inference (both of which I've read) are both books aimed at disproving Darwinism and proving design, not arguing the metaphysical fine points of the argument from design, which is what the |"What (or who) designed the designer?" subsection does.

Because you effectively rule out being convinced by anything other than evidence that arising from ID proponents and that isn't relevant to the issue, in other words, ruling out being convinced that your wrong, you're quickly earning yourself a place on my Crank list. FeloniousMonk 22:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You said, "My paraphrase of the passage does not change its meaning materially." On the contrary, it is not even a paraphrase. Irreducible complexity is a specific form of complexity that the designer does not necessarily have to have; and the original quote is flatly contradicted by the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity whereas your "paraphrase" might even be true. I suggest you remove the "irreducible complexity" version and replace it with your "paraphrase." Even if your "paraphrase" is not entirely accurate and given without a citation, it at least seems better than the apparent distortion I have been trying to remove.

You said, "So you only will accept evidence drawn from ID proponent's work." When it comes to what the ID position actually is yes. I do not believe hearsay is acceptable here; and I've seen enough misconstruals of the opposition in debates like to know that it's best to get it straight from the horse's mouth. I don't understand why you think this standard is unreasonable or why it rules out the possibility of me being convinced. If you find, for instance, the "fundamental assumption" in authoritative ID literature as in the example I described, I would be convinced that I am wrong. Of course, you have not done so, nor have you attempted to appeal to any other ID reference regarding "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every complex object" nor have you done that for "by Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex." You haven't done anything to show that these statements are something else other than original research (of the straw man kind), nor have you adequately addressed the reasonably strong evidence regarding these apparent distortions of the ID view. (Particularly regarding Behe, the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity; with all due respect what more do you want?) Wade A. Tisthammer 23:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, it is a matter of simple logic that by ID's own reasoning a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity would also be irreducibly complex, and that this opens the door for the question of infinite regression. We don't need a quote from an ID proponent to tell us that.

Please read WP:RS. You may choose to rely only on support from ID propoents, we, on the other hand, need not to.

Considering your fractious and adversarial methods and closed-mindedness toward evidence and the reasonings of others, I see little benefit in continuing to respond to each of your objections here or elsewhere. Please do not infer that my silence implies support. I will respond when I see a change in attitude or a point that has merit. FeloniousMonk 23:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Please explain your "simple logic" to me that by ID's own reasoning a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity would also be irreducibly complex, particularly when the belief that the designer must be irreducibly complex is flatly contradicted by the ID community itself. How can you say I am closed minded towards the evidence, particularly when I am the one who actually gave any? You did not cite any sources regarding e.g. "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every complex object" nor have you ever explained your "simple logic" regarding "by Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex." You didn't even specify what ID arguments allegedly show this. You just claimed it, without any citation and without any explanation and despite evidence to the contrary.

Additionally, how are my standards unreasonable? My belief: if you want to say that ID has a "fundamental assumption" get this "assumption" straight from the horse's mouth. Don't make it up, and don't rely on hearsay. How is this unreasonable? You have not explained why. Do you honestly think that ID adherents are not a reliable source regarding what their own claims are? Wade A. Tisthammer 23:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that your application (of the Wiki definition of circular reasoning to ID) is incorrect, esp your first point which is back to front ie is the religious creationist statement, the reverse of ID. This is the correct application:

irreducible complexity (p) implies designer (q)
analysis of nature and natural laws shows irreducible complexity (p)
therefore, designer (q).

Perhaps it will help to point out in passing that neither concept is assumed or supposed in ID.

Additionally, assuming for the moment that ID logically implies an irreducibly complex designer:

designer (r) implies irreducible complexity of the designer (not the designed, in this argument) (s)
irreducible complexity of the designer (s) implies designer of the designer (not the designed, in this argument) (t) - ie, a higher designer.

This is not circular reasoning either. Another way of looking at it is that you can't have your cake and eat it - it canot be both circular reasoning of complexity=>designer=>complexity=>designer and indicate a spiralling infinity of designers. ant 12:54, 14 November (UTC)

Joshuaschroeder: Just a gentle reminder to please not interleave your comments with someone else's. thanks much for trying to keep this little courtesy in mind - KillerChihuahua 22:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm starting a new topic for circular argument as this one's final refutation of its respondents' criticisms has not been refuted but overlooked. ant 22:36, 15 November (UTC)

Question

Are there any adherents of non-Semitic religions who feel that the argument is not circular? Would it be logically possible for a non-created (non-designed) simplistic intelligence to create a universe of irreducible complexity? Is "simplistic intelligence" not an oxymoron? Essentially, the argument that ID is not circular reasoning is a modern-day restatement of Anselm's ontological "proof" that "God exists because he exists and if he didn't exist nothing would exist". Such "proofs" are utter nonsense.

Jim62sch 00:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC) ~~

I suspect there might be some deists who believe the argument to be non-circular, since deists believe that God created the universe and yet they are not adherents of any Semitic religion. Wade A. Tisthammer 01:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

And if we run across one of the five Deists still extant we can ask them, although I have a feeling you would probably be correct. Nonetheless, Deism was essentially an attempt to develop a philosophical answer to Abrahamic theology. Thus while it exists outside of Judaism, Christianity and Islam it cannot exist without them as it is a direct response to them.

However, as Deism's argument is essentially that a deity must have created the universe because the universe could not exist had it not been so created, it is still a circular argument and a logical fallacy. Additionally, as the genesis (no pun intended) of Deism is rooted in theology it is non-scientific and thus falls prey to the same non-confirmability that plagues ID. Both are, as I noted earlier, restatements of Anselm.

Finally, it seems to me that the initial purpose of creationism was merely to provide some answer (any answer, really) to questions that man (specifically Semitic tribes) hadn't the wherewithal to answer rationally (the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc., all had their own answers to such questions). This propensity carries forward in ID. There is are both tacit and implicit assumptions that that which cannot yet be explained is outside our current wherewithal and is thus inherently unexplainable without the injection of a supernatural designer. If we followed this type of logic throughout all scientific thought we would still believe that the sun went around the earth, that malaria (as its name suggests) is caused by "bad air", that tossing suspected witches in a river would prove their guilt or innocence, etc.

In any case, what I have always found rather ironical about creationist arguments is that while many people simply cannot fathom a universe arising out of nothing, they have no trouble imagining a deity arising out of nothing.

Jim62sch 10:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Jim, the 'circular reasoning' in question is quoted as being that "circular reasoning which is a logical fallacy". (This is also the common understanding of what the term means.) It has a very precise definition. It does not mean that the same reasoning re-occurs in an argument, and it does not include recursive arguments (arguments which apply to the subject addressed by their conclusion). It is an argument whose conclusion is taken as a premise in order to arrive at that conclusion.

For example, this is a circular argument:

Nature shows Irreducable Complexity (premise)

Irreducable Complexity is evidence of Nature

Therefore, Nature must show Irreducable Complexity (conclusion same as premise)

ID argues thus:

Nature shows Irreducable Complexity

Irreducable Complexity is evidence of Design

Therefore, Nature is Designed

And in the suggested case of infinite regression, the counter-ID argument goes on to state:

Design has a Designer

A Designer must be Irreducably more Complex than the Designed

Therefore, the Designer of Nature is Designed (not the same as conclusion or premise of 1. or 2.)

Design has a Designer

A Designer must be Irreducably more Complex than the Designed

Therefore, the Designer of the 1st Designer is Designed (not the same as preceding conclusions/premises)

4. etc.

This is not using a circular argument. The Designer of the conclusion is not the Designer of the premise.

And BTW, we live in infinity. The 1st designer could be infinite - no regression.

PS. I'm starting a new topic for circular argument as my previous one's final refutation of its respondents' criticisms has not been refuted but overlooked.

ant 14:24, November 2005 (UTC)

In your examples given above, I will admit that you have found a way around the circular reasoning that is used by many proponents of ID. Therefore, I will cede the point that your specific arguments are not circular (to reiterate: they are not, however, the same arguments used by many ID enthusiasts).

However, neither are these arguments scientific, as there are too many presumptions based on belief and none based on absolute empirical knowledge. The argument that nature is irreducibly complex tends to avoid the question, "at what point is it irreducible?" Do we stop at the cellular level? DNA? Quarks? The farther back we go -- which is something we must do as the complex is made up of a collection of the simple -- the greater the uncertainty factor and thus the higher the level of randomness.

In addition, even were one to say that nature is irreducibly complex, there is nothing that inherently implies any sort of designer, in fact such an argument is essentially argumentum ad ignorantiam. The belief in a designer is essentially a rejection of random permutations -- permutations scientists see throughout nature. In fact, most of these permutations are unsuccessful, further casting doubt on the likelihood of an "intelligent" designer (unless one imagines a crazed white-haired man in a lab coat trying experiment after experiment until he finally gets one right).

Your second argument, aside from the presumptions noted above, and aside from the fact that "Design has a Designer" is a simple tautology, merely pushes the argument regarding how the universe was formed farther and farther into the past. At some point, there had to be a first (sorry, but I reject as spurious the argument that we live in infinity as a means of allowing for infinite designers with no starting point).

This brings us to the third statement: you note later that we live in infinity, and you specify a first designer (see above), and yet that first designer was designed by a designer who wasn't the first designer. Huh? Obviously, there are some significant logic problems with such a statement.

The bottom line is this: no matter how hard one tries to apply logic or philosophy to what is merely a product of an illogical belief system, one is doomed to fail. Even the great Aquinas was forced to abandon his work as the deeper he got into the process the more his arguments began to tie themselves up in knots.

Jim62sch 11:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hang on, Jim, to your 1st para, these aren't my arguments, I don't think. I became interested in ID as a result of the current debate and started reading up on it on the web, both pro and anti pages, most of which were very fair as far as I could tell, and as a result as far as I can see para 1. above is the ID argument.

I can't comment much on your paras 2 or 3 as I don't know enough yet, but I think they are related debate.

Regarding infinity, I think I've been misunderstood. All I'm saying is, that if there were a designer (#1) and that designer had infinite existence (eg God) then the designer (#1) could not have been designed.

As mentioned above, FM et al may have overlooked my reply to him in the previous topic so I'm going to re-submit the suggestion, hopefully clarified and better supported, in a new topic. ant 13:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ant, The first argument is actually stated more clearly than most that I've read, so I assumed it to be your take on ID (hence my reason for ceding the point that argument 1 was not circular).

The designer of infinitive duration argument is problematic on a variety of levels, not least of which is that it is neither confirmable nor disconfirmable; i.e., it is just a matter of belief. Additionally, and not to belabor the point, but complexity contains no inherent requirement for a designer.

More later.

Jim62sch 17:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

A new issue to deal with: systemic bias

You do realise that Australia is currently beginning to debate this issue also? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm still hoping for someone with better French than I to do the Le Monde translations and see if we can get anything useable about that. *sigh* We're working on it, thanks. KillerChihuahua 23:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

What Le Monde article?

If you supply the link, I'll supply the translation.

Jim62sch 00:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! Lots of discussion and a tentative (but too long) entry from another translator is on this page at Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive_19#Intelligent_Design_in_France_at_any_rate. IMHO pick here or there - your choice - and we'll stick with it. There keeps the old discussion, suggestions, etc, so that's a point in favor of there. We don't need a full translation, I'm thinkiing we just need a (brief) entry about what is going on to add to the article, perhaps as a new Section 5, something like Intelligent design in other countries, and moving the current 5, "See also" down to 6 and so on. We need something pithy, substantive and well documented. KillerChihuahua 00:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

PSA

as it seems a some people on this page are arguing the issue, rather than making relevent suggestions for improving the article, I provide the following links as a public service announcement. Please take your debate thoughts to these sites, and keep your article improvement thoughts here:

I hope this helps! KillerChihuahua 13:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

...and in case anyone feels the need to point out that I am sometimes guilty of this, I will save you the time - I know I have been. The puppy is trying to do better. KillerChihuahua 13:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. I've tried to raise some concerns over accuracy and instead of staying on target the resultant discussions have digressed in many ways and wandered into debate with joiners-in.

May I suggest also that it'd help if when someone creates a topic and receives a disagreeing reply, that a 3rd party not counter immediately on their behalf, but give them a chance to take the lead on their view in the discussion, as it makes for clarity. Of course supplementary comments and own points are welcome, I'm just hoping that we can retain better focus and continuity, and avoid exploding a thread into multiple strands, let alone related debates. Complexity clouds any decision, and if we can raise and discuss closely one point at a time it'd help to make some progress.

ant 19:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ant, re your suggestion "if when someone creates a topic and receives a disagreeing reply, that a 3rd party not counter immediately on their behalf" is unworkable. Everyone can contribute to any discussion which is relevent (and even not relvent) to the page. If you wish to have a one-on-one discussion or debate, it might not be a good idea to try to use an article talk page for that purpose. Try messenger, user talk page, other solutions.

As regards your "3 concerns", this section (PSA) is about taking non-article improvement related debates to an outside forum. Set a good example about not cluttering the page with discussion posted under an inappropriate header. Instead post, or prefereably move (especially the "let me know here" part), your suggestions into the relevent sections of the talk page or start a new section. And fyi, I don't support any of your suggestions. KillerChihuahua 19:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Listen to KillerChihuahua, ant. ~~He's~~She's a smart puppy. FeloniousMonk 21:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes she is ;) Dunc|] 21:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, Dunc, you read the bio on my user page! I'm impressed. This is the first time I've been referred to as "she" on WP ever. KillerChihuahua 22:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. FeloniousMonk 22:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No worries, FM. Observe that the puppy has never shown any concern about that. Small soapbox of mine is that the English language is deficient for not having a third person non gender specific form. KillerChihuahua 22:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've been all over your user page and find no evidence of your alleged gender. Do you have an authoritative cite for that? WP:CITE. FeloniousMonk 23:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

FM, try User:KillerChihuahua#About_KillerChihuahua. That's a bio. See how it uses She, her? and if you have issues with the POV of self-citing, there is a picture of me here (I won't load on WP it because its copyright to the puppy.) KillerChihuahua 23:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not authoritative. I'll only accept evidence from true Chihuahuas. FeloniousMonk 00:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

My secret is out. I'm not really Mexican, and I'm not really a dog. FM, I hope you realize this is devastating to me. And now I think we've really wasted enough of this page on this nonsense. KillerChihuahua 00:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I meant contributions are welcome, as stated in the sentence after that. The key words are counter and "immediately". I suggest it is polite to give the one being replied to a short window period to counter what has just been said to them before stepping in to do it oneself, whereas of course if one wants to add something immediately that is not impolite.

ant 19:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I was just saying the KC is right on the points, that's all. FeloniousMonk 22:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey antandcharmi, why don't setup a user account? It would be a lot easier then to just type four tildes after your posts. FeloniousMonk 22:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I registered - is there something more? Anyway I forget to login!

BTW I did not mean to reply to you but to KC. ant 22:52, November 2005 (UTC)

Well, you have to be logged in for the 4 tildes to work with your username. Try checking the "Keep me logged in" box on the login page next time you log in. FeloniousMonk 23:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the content. ant! KillerChihuahua 22:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem - I apologise - new here and was trying not to create too many topics. ant 22:52, November 2005 (UTC)

No need to apolgise, we were all newbies once! KillerChihuahua 23:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The Vatican issues a statement

Interesting news story here. Headline: THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally. Seems relevant. Should qualify as notable. someone want to find a place to put it in the article? (forgot to sign FuelWagon 23:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC))

A different take can be found at the [Catholic News Service. An article on Catholic.net is subtitled: "John Paul II reflects on creation and evolution - and the mass media distort his meaning"

Also see Christoph Cardinal Schönborn's First Catechetical Lecture

KillerChihuahua 13:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

moved to correct location KillerChihuahua 16:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Pat Robertson lets the cat out of the bag

Clarence Page comments on Pat Robertson's recent comments:

Clarence Page's and Leonard Pitts' enthusiasm for the election outcome is matched only by their astonishment over the Rev. Pat Robertson's subsequent warning to Dover: "If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God -- you just rejected him from your city."

In the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Page seizes on the irony that "Mr. Robertson's outburst actually refutes the claims that leading advocates of intelligent design, or ID, have been presenting. To get around constitutional concerns, they have insisted that the intelligent designer is absolutely not necessarily God." Obviously, the columnist writes, Mr. Robertson "sees ID as precisely what its concerned critics say it is, a thin camouflage for creationism."

Bill Jefferys 12:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I had heard Robertson's fire and brimstone warning, but I had failed to realize the implication that said warning indicates that the "designer" is actually the christian god. Good catch. That the Chicago Tribune reports this gives a notable source to put it in the article. FuelWagon 17:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It means nothing beyond Robertson's opinion of ID. — goethean ॐ 17:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Robertson's opinion of ID happens to be what almost everyone thinks about it. So it means a lot more than Robertson's opinion. Bill Jefferys 17:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't every religious person consider the designer implied by ID to be 'their' God? Did Pat say that ID states that the designer is God? Or is it just that Pat's (and all the Christians, Jews and Moslems's) God would be their only intellectually honest option for the designer? I think the Religious Creationists love ID because it lends credibility to their views, but does it dictate their views, or do they colour it with their views? ant 18:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Evolutionists accuse the Christian Right of using ID as a cover for creationism. Pat's warning fits this view. Fundamentalist christians support ID because it supports their view of creationism, and if you oppose ID then you are turning your back on their Christian God, and that god will rain fire and brimstone down on you. FuelWagon 18:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ant, the original strategy of those promoting ID was to present it as a "Big Tent" under which people of faith of all stripes could unite against their common foe, materialism and secularism. FeloniousMonk 19:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm... read it, and am inclined to think it is quite open and direct, not a cover. They like ID because it offers a scientific field in which theistic views have a say. Nevertheless in all this, surely the point is that ID itself is a defined position. How it is used by creationists is not a reflection of ID's statements itself but of the creationist and/or ID movement(s). ant 23:13, 16 November, 2005

That would be plausible were it not for the fact that ID arose out efforts of a particular creationist group, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, to skirt Edwards v. Aguillard, and has since been driven almost single-handedly by the Discovery Institute, a Christian think tank, and the entire ID effort funded almost wholly by wealthy Christian fundamentalist conservatives as Howard Ahmanson Jr., who once said his goal is "the total integration of biblical law into our lives," Philip F. Anschutz, Richard Mellon Scaife, and the MacLellan Foundation, which commits itself to "the infallibility of the Scripture." FeloniousMonk 23:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how Robertson's comments are really relevant to this article. They don't shed light on the tenets of ID and they don't offer a critism of it, either. True, people could use them to show the apparent hypocrisy of those promoting Intelligent Design as science rather than religion, but I think there is already enough good information of that kind in the article. I think, perhaps, that the Robertson thing should stay at Intelligent design movement under the Dover, PA subsection, where it currently resides. -Parallel or Together? 10:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree. FM, I can see that clearly, but my point is that ID itself is a defined position. An analogy, diamonds can arise from coal. Not saying that ID is a diamond, but it's not necessarily coal either. ID is its statements, not who made it up or who believes it or who uses it. Imagine that the creationists got it right one day and discovered a theory that was accurate (assuming such a thing were possible) and used it just like they're using this one. Could Pat's statement about God to a town be taken as a reflection of that theory's position too?

I don't think so, and I think it muddies the water to do so. Let ID stand or fall on its own, and let the behaviour and beliefs of ID proponents shed light on what they're up to with ID, or how they interpret it. The positions stated are two separate things. To my mind, the newspaper article is confusing the posits of ID with that of one of its believers, and the article has no place here. ant 13:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Original research and inaccurrate/inadequate representation of the minority View

In some cases this Misplaced Pages article seems to distort the minority view and in some cases (I suspect) there may be original research going on in light of the refusal to cite certain sources. One of the first things I discussed regarding this was the following segment of the entry:

By Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex

When I first read this, I took it to mean that “ID argues that the designer of irreducible complexity must itself be irreducibly complex.” This is flatly contradicted by the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity himself (i.e. Michael Behe; see page 249 of Darwin’s Black Box) and thus this seemed to be an instance of distorting the minority view. I asked FeloniousMonk to provide citations, and for days FeloniousMonk refused. Recently, references were added to the sentence, “By Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex.” The first one quotes William Dembski:

The implications of the complexity-specification criterion are profound, not just for science, but also for philosophy and theology. The power of this criterion resides in its generality. It would be one thing if the criterion only detected human agency. But as we've seen, it detects animal and extra-terrestrial agency as well. Nor is it limited to intelligent agents that belong to the physical world. The fine-tuning of the universe, about which cosmologists make such a to-do, is both complex and specified and readily yields design. So too, Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical systems readily yield design. The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life.

Okay, so Dembski says that the designer of the universe and life (because e.g. it requires fine-tuned physical constants of the universe) cannot be a purely physical entity. How does that (or anything else in the quote) show that “By Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex”? The first reference does not appear to be relevant. What about the second reference? In this one, an ID website is quoted:

You can justifiably infer intelligent design without having to explain or know how the designer arose. The implication of this objection, however, is that somehow option (c) (i.e. that the designer existed eternally and has no cause) is not a viable option because many people cannot explain the origin of God, who many believe to be the Designer. This is a religious / theological objection to intelligent design because it deals with philosophical statements about the designer that have nothing to do with the empirical study of detecting design.

Okay, so an ID adherent claims that one can rationally infer design without explaining the origins of the designer. But how does that (or anything else in the quote) show that “By Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex”? This reference does not appear relevant either.

Before this, and after much discussion on this issue FeloniousMonk eventually (on November 14, 2005) said, “it is a matter of simple logic that by ID's own reasoning a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity would also be irreducibly complex.” It seems I have perhaps misunderstood the statement. It is not that “ID argues that the designer of irreducible complexity must itself be irreducibly complex.” The claim now seems to be that there exists ID arguments unbeknownst to the ID adherents that imply the designer is irreducibly complex. I’d be interested to know what these alleged ID arguments are and how they imply this through the supposed “simple logic.” More importantly however, I’d like to see a citation of a leading ID opponent who makes this argument to ensure that this is not in violation of Misplaced Pages’s policy on original research (among other things, one is not allowed to put forth original arguments against a theory you don’t like in a Misplaced Pages entry on the subject, though one is allowed to add links).

Until a reference is added, perhaps it should be replaced with another. The claim, “A designer capable of creating complexity must also be complex” is however a common belief among ID proponents and is acceptable here. I will wait a week for a relevant citation before I begin my edits.

The “fundamental assumption of ID”

On another matter, the Misplaced Pages article has claimed, "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every complex object." I suspect this is original research of the straw man kind. I have never seen this assumption in any ID literature, and the article provides no references (and despite my requests here, no references have been given to me). I have however seen ID statements that seem to point in the opposite direction.

Dembski himself claims that not every complex entity is designed; the added criterion of specification must be used before a design inference can be rationally made; hence the term complex specified information. See this web page where he admits that chance can generate complex (albeit unspecified) information.

I have found a creationist source that comes at least close to contradicting claim. Gary Parker's section in What is Creation Science? describes creation science applied to biology--which is apparently just intelligent design theory (as he describes it). In it he notes that creation does not argue from design per se, but the kind of design we observe. He notes that some things (e.g. a snowflake) can be brought about naturally (page 46), but other things (as airplanes) cannot. Snowflakes have some complexity, so this seems to be a counterexample this alleged ID claim. Another one might be this web page which also cites snowflakes for an example. So it seems, according to ID, that some kinds of complexity can be made naturally but others cannot. If so, the claim that the fundamental assumption of ID is that “every complex object requires a designer” is false. Unless an authoritative citation is made of an ID adherent saying or implying this “fundamental assumption” it seems prudent to remove it.

Fine-tuned universe

A rebuttal is offered saying, "a different sort of life might exist in its place." It should be recognized however, that the ID argument isn't just that our kind life would not exist, but that fine-tuned physical constants are necessary for any kind of physical life to be possible (see Mere Creation page 372 and and this ID article), not just life as we know it. For instance, it is argued that if the electron to proton mass ratio were different, there could not even exist sufficient chemical bonding. Now I agree that rebuttals to the ID argument should be given, but the ID views should at least be accurately represented before they are criticized.

Complex Specified Information

The article does not really explain what is meant by the term, which unfortunately allows for some misrepresentation in the criticisms (more later). Allow me to provide an explanation of complex specified information:

The definition of information being referred to here is Merriam-Webster's dictionary 2b. Information is an inherent attribute communicated by sequences of units (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in computers) with each unit consisting of two or more variants. Complex information is simply a high information content. For instance, the following sequence PLMGQEIXZVITQAGUSAQPECNZA is more complex than ZP. For a complex set of information, it is unlikely that any particular sequence is chosen. For instance, the odds of getting the sequence of 143 characters exactly right via random chance (once we take into account spaces, commas and periods) is 29^158 or approximately 1 in 10^231. But to make a design inference Dembski says, it is not enough for information to be complex, it must also be specified. Specification, in short, implies the existence of a non-ad-hoc pattern that can be used to eliminate chance and be grounds to rationally make a design inference. Suppose the complex sequence was this:

THERE WAS ONCE A MAN WHO HAD A DAUGHTER WHO WAS CALLED CLEVER ELSIE. AND WHEN SHE HAD GROWN UP HER FATHER SAID, WE WILL GET HER MARRIED. YES, SAID THE MOTHER, IF ONLY SOMEONE WOULD COME WHO WOULD HAVE HER. AT LENGTH A MAN CAME FROM A DISTANCE AND WOOED HER, WHO WAS CALLED HANS, BUT HE STIPULATED THAT CLEVER ELSIE SHOULD BE REALLY SMART. OH, SAID THE FATHER, SHE HAS PLENTY OF GOOD SENSE. AND THE MOTHER SAID, OH, SHE CAN SEE THE WIND COMING UP THE STREET, AND HEAR THE FLIES COUGHING. WELL, SAID HANS, IF SHE IS NOT REALLY SMART, I WON'T HAVE HER. WHEN THEY WERE SITTING AT DINNER AND HAD EATEN, THE MOTHER SAID, ELSIE, GO INTO THE CELLAR AND FETCH SOME BEER. THEN CLEVER ELSIE TOOK THE PITCHER FROM THE WALL, WENT INTO THE CELLAR, AND TAPPED THE LID BRISKLY AS SHE WENT, SO THAT THE TIME MIGHT NOT APPEAR LONG.

The sequence of letters above (taken from "Clever Elsie", one of Grimm's fairy tales) has 143 units, with each unit having 29 varieties (29^143 possibilities for a sequence of this size). Under Dembski's definition, if the information has a 1 in 10^150 chance plus the specification criterion it can be considered CSI (because anything less than 1 in 10^150 goes past the "universal probability bound"--so called because 10^150 is an upper limit on the total number of possible physical events since the big bang). Thus, we would have rational grounds for making a design inference here because the sequence above is both complex and specified (following a non-ad-hoc pattern; in this case a meaningful set of words).

In light of this accurate description, some of the criticisms seem to misrepresent the concept. For instance, "CSI cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus" does not quite accurately represent the ID position. Dembski argues from probability considerations (e.g. it would probably not be rational to infer the above CSI the result of chance considering the total number of physical events in the universe since the big bang). It is not through mere definition that Dembski argues his case. Additionally, the "arbitrary but specific outcomes" criticism seems to ignore the existence/nature of the specification criterion (when referring to the example of the lottery); not surprising since specification is not really described in the Misplaced Pages article.

Regarding this segment of the Misplaced Pages article:

The theory also ignores the actual relative chance in terms of the universe, for example there is an estimated 125 billion or more galaxies in the universe with roughly 100 billion stars in each. Stars then have a chance for the presence of terrestrial planets and given the scope of a planet and the various elements existent in the universe, multiplied by the previous statement concerning the amount of stars, it is easy to assume that, the chance of a set of circumstances leading to life is perceivable. One must also take into account all the possible and by-chance chemical reactions that have occurred over the history of the universe.

The claim that Dembski's theory ignores this is false due to Dembski's universal probability bound, which explicitly takes into account all the possible number of physical events in the universe. Perhaps Dembski's bound is wrong somehow, but to claim that Dembski ignores the issue is a false representation.

Additionally, the article says, "Dembski does not attempt to demonstrate this " but he and other ID adherents do attempt this (e.g. this web page). Perhaps such attempts do not quite work, but claiming they do not exist is simply a false representation.

This is not to say that criticisms should not be included, only that the actual ID position not be distorted. Other criticisms do not misrepresent the concept (or at least not as badly) and so it is still perhaps fitting that they be included (particularly the one with a citation, as it proves it is not original research).

Irreducible complexity

It's unclear if Ludwig von Bertalanffy actually came up with the term irreducible complexity (at least, the term as Behe uses it). No reference is given regarding this, and the Misplaced Pages article does not mention it (though it does mention general systems theory). A citation may be appropriate to verify the claim's accuracy.

The claim, "Michael Behe, in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, does not recount the history of his irreducible complexity argument, but rather gives the impression that there is something new" seems questionable. No reference or quote is given. The idea that he "gives the impression" of something "new" is not justified, and almost seems like an attempt to insinuate deception on Behe's part. Moreover, it is demonstrably false. On page 212 Behe credits Paley for using the concept of irreducible complexity.

Behe's position could be briefly described as follows:

Irreducibly complex refers to a system composed of various interconnecting parts that contribute to some basic function, whereby the removal of any of these components causes the system to stop functioning. Behe claims that, for irreducibly complex biochemical systems that are highly intricate, this poses a serious obstacle for Darwinian evolution, since the system cannot evolve via a direct route (i.e. by continual improving the initial function, since all parts are needed for that to occur). Behe admits the possibility of an indirect route, but claims that for biochemical systems that possess a high degree of complex interaction this is unlikely (pp. 39-40 of Darwin's Black Box). Nonetheless, most scientists disagree with Behe's claim that indirect routes are unlikely.

On the criticisms section some questions arise. It was mentioned, "of the clotting factors that Behe listed as a part of the IC clotting cascade was later found to be absent in whales." What is this clotting factor? It would perhaps be good to mention (at least in the endnote) what this component is. The abstract mentions "Hageman factor" was not produced, but that component is not listed in the clotting system Behe refers to (see p. 82 in Darwin's Black Box). And is it the case that the whale could clot normally without the factor? It is not mentioned in the abstract. Also, weren't some of these references in the criticisms section refuted earlier? I seem to recall it being claimed that the reference for "it has been claimed that computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally" is invalid because the computer simulation does not refer to irreducible complexity (as the abstract seems to confirm). The claim, "potentially viable evolutionary pathways have been proposed for allegedly irreducibly complex systems" might be a bit misleading, since these proposed pathways ignore critical details. That is, it is not the case that there exists (yet) a rigorously developed explanation of how these systems could have evolved. Should this fact be added so as to not give readers a false impression?

Bottom line, some clean-up work needs to be done to accurately represent intelligent design theory and (in some cases) certain facts surrounding it. Wade A. Tisthammer 01:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, you've offered quite a bit of original research. Your unique "understandings" of ID and it's proponents is not definitive nor is it justification for rewriting the article or even taking up half the talk with your objections. We've been over these issues with you many times, and each and every time you were shown to be mistaken. There's been zero support and even less consensus for each of your constant, specious, War and Peace-length objections. How about trying to not be disruptive for once? FeloniousMonk 02:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I did a very cursory scan of these objections, the following stood out:

"Nonetheless, most scientists disagree with Behe's claim that indirect routes are unlikely."

It's my understanding most scientists (who discuss these issues) can demonstrate with specific examples how indirect routes are likely. - Roy Boy 03:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Darwin's Black Box (Touchstone, New York, 1996) by Michael Behe, ISBN 0-684-83493-6 (Pbk). p39.

BEGIN QUOTE

What type of biological system could not be formed by "numerous successive, slight modifications?"

Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.

END QUOTE

Behe uses this concept as a plank in his argument for conscious design in nature.

It should be evident from the above that:

(1) Behe states that an irreducibly complex system cannot be created by "numerous successive, slight modifications".

(2) Behe then tries to hedge his statement by playing with the definition of the word functional (functional as what? evolution is rife with examples of systems developed for one purpose and coopted for another).

(3) Behe's statement is incorrect. The Krebs Cycle (*) is a system that developed largely by opportunism, without a hint of design--Behe may technically be correct that it didn't evolve by small enough steps, but it's a rather thin complaint since the steps were evidently small enough to form biochemical systems. The essential parts were already available in the cell, and were simply coopted for the purposes of aerobic respiration. But it fits Behe's definition of an irreducibly complex system, though he may wish to deny it. It's "a single system compose of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning", using Behe's own definition of the term "functioning".

(*) See Melendez (1996) for a detailed description of the role of opportunism in the evolution of the Krebs Cycle.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/dec99.html

- Roy Boy 03:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Categories:

Misplaced Pages