Looks can be deceiving (when it comes to design)

[TheLurch]

As regular readers in Natural Science know, i've often used the argument that intelligent design proponents have to come up with a quantitative way of recognizing design, because it's easy to fool ourselves if the only standard is "looks designed to me!". Today, i happened across a spectacular image of something that, to me, looks like it had to be a designed piece of art, pasted in below.

Doing a bit of searching brought me to this page, which not only confirms that they're natural and are actually common when the conditions are right, but actually shows some embedded in the environment they came from. (Again, it would have taken work to convince me that the top photo on that page isn't a piece of art.)

This is why i go on about this. This thing looks completely unnatural: geometric shapes, smooth surfaces, a seemingly ordered set of sizes, etc. If all we've got to judge designedness is a personal impression, then this would impress me as designed. But we understand chemistry well enough to understand how it could have formed. Just as we know biology well enough to understand how proteins can evolve.

EqVaFKTW8AA-dHJ?format=jpg&name=900x900.jpg

[rogue06]

Makes me think of the Giant's Causeway, the basalt cliffs along the sea coast in Northern Ireland which consist of (mostly) hexagonal columnar basalt formations which formed between 50 and 60 million years ago as the result of volcanic activity. The roughly 40,000 columns sure do look artificially constructed.

giants-causeway.jpg

northern-ireland-hexagonal-stones.jpg

[lee_merrill]

Well, yes, but the possibility of being mistaken doesn't mean we cannot detect design. And the design argument is a probabilistic one, not a 100% conclusion. Just like the conclusion that something occurred naturally is a probabilistic conclusion, someone might have carved a stone in a particular shape for a particular purpose, but we cannot detect that in all such cases.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

Well, yes, but the possibility of being mistaken doesn't mean we cannot detect design. And the design argument is a probabilistic one, not a 100% conclusion. Just like the conclusion that something occurred naturally is a probabilistic conclusion, someone might have carved a stone in a particular shape for a particular purpose, but we cannot detect that in all such cases.

So, we have an error-prone probability (design) vs. a process that we know actually happens (evolution). Ockham would like a word with you.

[lee_merrill]

So, we have an error-prone probability (design) vs. a process that we know actually happens (evolution). Ockham would like a word with you.

But we know design actually happens too! And most important decisions are estimates, very probable estimates, but estimates nonetheless.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

But we know design actually happens too! And most important decisions are estimates, very probable estimates, but estimates nonetheless.

You've just admitted we can't measure design objectively. But yet you're trying to claim we can measure it well enough to generate specific probabilities. Which is it? How do we objectively generate a probability?

Separately, we know design happens because we know who's doing the designing. We have no evidence of anything doing designing of living systems prior to the 1970s.

[TheLurch]

You've just admitted we can't measure design objectively. But yet you're trying to claim we can measure it well enough to generate specific probabilities. Which is it? How do we objectively generate a probability?

Separately, we know design happens because we know who's doing the designing. We have no evidence of anything doing designing of living systems prior to the 1970s, so that argument has an extremely short relevance.

[mikewhitney]

We do not get away from design on the OP. Maybe on one hand we can see that the cube-like "pieces" were united (or formed) without human intervention. However, the cube-like structures form due to the design of crystalline behaviors -- the designs of chemistry or physics that make crystalline structures possible.

[TheLurch]

Sorry, quoted myself when i'd meant to be editing. Ooops.

[lee_merrill]

You've just admitted we can't measure design objectively. But yet you're trying to claim we can measure it well enough to generate specific probabilities. Which is it? How do we objectively generate a probability?

In some instances we can estimate if nature did something, objectively. The probability that nature didn't do it would also then be objective.

Separately, we know design happens because we know who's doing the designing. We have no evidence of anything doing designing of living systems prior to the 1970s.

But SETI sets out to detect design where we don't know the designer. And surely a structure as complex as a single cell or even just DNA, is evidence of a designer.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

In some instances we can estimate if nature did something, objectively. The probability that nature didn't do it would also then be objective.

Two flaws here. Read the Dover decision - that's called a "false dichotomy". The scientific alternative to evolution is "we don't know", not "design".

Second flaw is that we generally can't assign a precise probability to natural causes, so again you're flunking on the math here.

But SETI sets out to detect design where we don't know the designer.

No, it doesn't, and the people behind SETI have explained what they do - search for signals without know natural causes. And the first thing that scientists would do if they discovered one is try to identify a natural cause.

Both of these - SETI, the flash dichotomy - are really prominent arguments. It's like you've come into this discussion without doing any background reading.

And surely a structure as complex as a single cell or even just DNA, is evidence of a designer.

Surely not, because we we largely understand how they can come about through natural processes.

[lee_merrill]

Two flaws here. Read the Dover decision - that's called a "false dichotomy". The scientific alternative to evolution is "we don't know", not "design".

No, if the probability that nature did it (not just evolution) is x, then the probability that nature didn't do it (not "design" here) is 1-x.

Second flaw is that we generally can't assign a precise probability to natural causes, so again you're flunking on the math here.

But we can calculate probability bounds, as Koonin did, and still derive a lower bound on the probability that nature didn't do it.

No, it doesn't, and the people behind SETI have explained what they do - search for signals without know natural causes. And the first thing that scientists would do if they discovered one is try to identify a natural cause.

Well, the first step to detecting design would be to detect something without a known natural cause. And that is not all they're after! They want to detect signs of alien life, signs of design.

Surely not, because we we largely understand how they can come about through natural processes.

I'm going to have to send James Tour your way again, we do not understand at all how the cell comes about through natural processes, nor do we understand the origins of DNA, and the codon code (see Koonin and his calculation).

Blessings,
Lee

[rogue06]

Two flaws here. Read the Dover decision - that's called a "false dichotomy". The scientific alternative to evolution is "we don't know", not "design".

Much of the Intelligent design argument relies very heavily on God-of-the gaps arguments. They assume that whenever scientists don't have the answer to something then it automatically means design. No. It is not an either/or proposition. As you correctly note, it simply means they don't know.

Worse, when scientists eventually do discover the answers (bacterial flagellum being just one example) they simply ignore that and continue repeating their initial now debunked assertions and still insist that it "proves" design.

[TheLurch]

But we can calculate probability bounds, as Koonin did, and still derive a lower bound on the probability that nature didn't do it.

Koonin (which i still haven't read, so i cannot go into details yet) was calculating origin of life issues based on a set of extremely speculative estimates. Not evolution. Yet you keep bringing up his calculations in the context of evolution, where they're irrelevant. Please stop, as it's badly misleading.

Second, i'm not sure you can call something that's a speculative estimate a probability. They're not really equivalent. There's a large functional difference between "this is the likelihood of x happening" and "if we assume a, and if b is correct, then the likelihood would be x".

Well, the first step to detecting design would be to detect something without a known natural cause. And that is not all they're after! They want to detect signs of alien life, signs of design.

Yes, ultimately. But the key thing is the difference in the approach. ID people want to take phenomena where we do have natural explanations and go from there to design. SETI wants to identify signals that don't have natural explanations, in order to consider all potential causes. The two approaches are not equivalent and, by portraying them as equivalent, you are once again being misleading.

I'm going to have to send James Tour your way again.

Please don't. He has no idea what he's talking about.

[lee_merrill]

Koonin (which i still haven't read, so i cannot go into details yet) was calculating origin of life issues based on a set of extremely speculative estimates. Not evolution.

Here again is Koonin's book, and the estimate is in an appendix. And I would characterize his estimate as conservative, and certainly about evolution, evolution of the genetic code.

ID people want to take phenomena where we do have natural explanations and go from there to design.

No, the ID argument is partly, about areas where natural explanations fail. Such as the origin of the genetic code. Such as the origin of life.

Please don't. He has no idea what he's talking about.

But this is not a refutation of James Tour.

Blessings,
Lee