Yeah, it’s actually pretty hard to come up with a decent analogy for evolution. This idea certainly captures the concept of gradual change, but it doesn’t do the same service for divergence of character, or for the selection process itself.

I don’t disagree, the analogy is very simplistic. But the point is: if you can understand change over time, then you should be able to accept a basic premise of evolution. And then the nuance is much easier to add on top of it. It’s almost like the creationists balk at any kind of change ever, and don’t even get to the tricky stuff.

But back to evolution…To continue the art theme: evolution is like a blind-folded painter throwing paint onto a canvas.

Hmmm, I’d say it’s even more constrained than that.

To stretch the analogy (to breaking-point?), imagine the same blind painter with a million partly-finished canvasses. He dabs a bit of paint onto each one, then moves onto the next. Meanwhile, some unseen art critic is busy tearing up some of those canvasses and duplicating others, so when the painter gets back to those particular canvasses, they may or may not still be there. And, if they were duplicates, when they get a new dab of paint, they diverge from one another.

Hmmm, I think I may have broken the analogy.

Actually, my favourite way to think about evolution is to imagine a sand dune in the desert. Every gust of wind adds new grains of sand. Over time, the sand builds up into different shapes. (I’m sure this isn’t the best analogy, but for some reason I like it)

Yeah, it’s actually pretty hard to come up with a decent analogy for evolution. This idea certainly captures the concept of gradual change, but it doesn’t do the same service for divergence of character, or for the selection process itself.

I think the definition of design is much like the one for life. A million nuanced answers, all on a scale, none of them necessarily right or wrong (depending on context of course). I think it’s an interesting concept, but I wouldn’t be able to come up with a decent one myself.

But back to evolution…To continue the art theme: evolution is like a blind-folded painter throwing paint onto a canvas.

Actually, my favourite way to think about evolution is to imagine a sand dune in the desert. Every gust of wind adds new grains of sand. Over time, the sand builds up into different shapes. (I’m sure this isn’t the best analogy, but for some reason I like it)

In thinking of this, I always wonder why people can’t understand a simple process as ‘small change over time = large changes’. If one can figure out how a sand dune is created over time, or how a mountain or glacier forms, does it really test one’s imagination to accept evolution?

I guess creationists have never been to a beach

It’s one thing to talk about design in the context of life forms… but once you start trying to apply a definition that covers both art and science… well, it gets even more confusing. But very interesting to discuss and think about.

It is certainly an interesting idea about which to speculate.

Unfortunately, until someone can come up with a reliable way of (a) defining “design” and (b) detecting it without reference to an object’s context, it remains speculation.

One of the (many) ways in which the ID authors have shot themselves in the foot is the one time Dembski attempted a definition of design (paraphrased, the ability to choose between alternatives). Sadly for ID, this definition includes natural selection as a design process. It also allows a sieve to be considered to be a designer.

In fact, biologists have known for many decades that natural selection is a kind of design process, and it generates the illusion of design with intent. But it is purely a contingent process – i.e. it acts on what is, and cannot foresee. It “remembers” by the mechanism of heredity. Thus, each generation is best adapted to survive in the conditions that applied to its parents’ habitat.

For me, it’s particularly difficult because I am an artist. There’s a cliche in the art world: “I don’t know much about art, but I know what I like”. In the context of creationism and defining design itself (and knowing that design is often based on our preconceptions), it highlights the ease at which we can mistake natural forms for art and vice versa. Cubism wasn’t ‘design’ or ‘art’ until someone decided it was. Many installation artists go out of their way to create something that is almost unrecognisable from natural forms.

So I guess the whole creationist idea of the fossil record being a test/lie could be true… if god is an installation artist!

It’s one thing to talk about design in the context of life forms… but once you start trying to apply a definition that covers both art and science… well, it gets even more confusing. But very interesting to discuss and think about.

It’s like Homer Simpson and the BBQ he was building. Unintentional artwork happens all the time. Knowing the context of the BBQ event, you could say he wasn’t designing anything (artistic that is). But it still remains ‘created’. Is the BBQ artwork an example of intelligent design, just because an intelligent being created it and it is recognisable as art? If you happened along and saw it, you most probably would think the BBQ is what Homer thought it was… a bunch of trash.

As with everything, design is in the eye of the beholder. And quite clearly, this is the only thing the creationists have as their argument.

Heh. Good example.

For me this illustrates the elusiveness of “design” as a concept. How can one define this term with sufficient precision that any object at all – known or unknown – can be easily classified as either “designed” or “not designed”?

No, it’s not. Can you derive – from an object alone without reference to any of the context in which it was made – the intent of a thing’s maker?

This is an interesting point, if only because everyone is assuming that an object can be easily identified across all cultures anyway. I wouldn’t know the difference between a clamp used in surgery and an alien artifact. Many of the tools of our ancestors would be unrecognisable to the ipod generation, and I have no doubt they would not be able to tell you if those objects were man-made or not (except for perhaps, as suggested, those objects which are suggestive of their purpose because of already understood contexts). Even knowing that humans make things doesn’t stop us from not being able to detect the purpose or design of an object. A great example of this is those antique TV shows (we have one in Australia called ‘Collectors’ that does this), where a mystery item is shown and the hosts have a hard time trying to figure out what it is. Despite it being an item designed and manufactured, and even with the context of knowing humans as well as antique objects, experts can struggle figuring out what it’s purpose was. (I see this is somewhat discussed in Nigel’s post of #110 too)

Further to that, an item can be both made with intent, and not be designed. Any actor working with improvisation – and also any artist – can intend to create something, without necessarily designing it beforehand.

It’s like Homer Simpson and the BBQ he was building. Unintentional artwork happens all the time. Knowing the context of the BBQ event, you could say he wasn’t designing anything (artistic that is). But it still remains ‘created’. Is the BBQ artwork an example of intelligent design, just because an intelligent being created it and it is recognisable as art? If you happened along and saw it, you most probably would think the BBQ is what Homer thought it was… a bunch of trash.

As with everything, design is in the eye of the beholder. And quite clearly, this is the only thing the creationists have as their argument.

Human intelligence is quantitatively different from a faculty that chimpanzees or crows or tigers possess, but it is not qualitatively different. Thus, one gets stuck once again in the process of defining one’s terms – something that most of the ID authors refuse to do, or employ obfuscation to hide the fact that they cannot.

“Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?”

Can’t wait to meet the Martians that made that cool humanoid face on their planet. I mean, stuff like that, a recognizable pattern or feature, NEVER happens naturally. Right?

Heh. Nice one.

That’s a good point.

I was trying to consider everything that we might call a supernatural claim and considering specifics within that remit, but that broader point that you make – that “the supernatural” violates natural laws – does kind of supersede the ideas I was developing.

With the Mt Rushmore analogy I proposed a number of ‘tests’ to ascertain whether it was naturally occuring or a designed object and also its difference from the paraedolia photograph.When we look at ojects trans historically or cross culturally we often know nothing of the peoples who designed and made them or what their purpose was

OK, so do you think any of these objects was ever made by an aquatic ape? Or by a humanoid with 4 arms? Or by someone with eyes in the back of their head?

No, of course not. In fact, we know much about the people that made those things – they were humans like us and, although their culture may have differed substantially from ours, they still needed to eat, sleep, excrete and reproduce.

but generally we do not confuse them for naturally occuring objects.

True, but trivial.

A more important question is: have we ever confused a man-made object with (say) a chimpanzee-made object?

The reason we are able to identify these objects is because we already know a great deal of context. In the case of a pottery sherd, we know a great deal about pottery, and how to identify it as different from natural stone (for example by spotting inclusions in the clay matrix, which do not occur in natural rocks but are common in old pots). In the case of anything that was worked with a tool, we know a great deal about the kinds of marks that metal and stone tools (blades and points) leave on materials such as horn, bone, leather and wood, when worked with a pair of hands like our own.

We look at a sum of their characteristics and make a judgement on how they differ from nature.

And how could we apply such a judgement in the absence of pre-existing contextual knowledge?

As for the shard of pottery I guess you could study it to see whether it was made from processed materials (eg there may be additions to the clay body or overly uniform particle size)and then compare those to naturally occuring local clays, you could analyse the remnant forms to extrapolate a final shape,look for other associated shards and reconstruct,are there fingerprints or incised designs in the surface.

This does not sound like the process an archaeologist goes through when they find a worn fragment of pottery, look at it for 30 seconds and decide “that’s a lovely piece of pot, look.” In fact, without knowledge of human fingerprints, how can you identify that the presence of such an imprint indicates that the object was made?

Is there evidence of manipulation of the materials that does not seem to occur in nature (etc) Archeologistists are expert at picking the differnce between ceramic fragments due to their inherent characteristics and natuarally occuring detrius.

Mainly through possessing an understanding of how pottery has been made in different times and different places by different people.

In the UK there is a TV programme about archaeology called Time Team, and it is common enough for one of the students to take an object they’ve found to one of the older archaeologists and say “what do you think of this piece of pottery?” only to be answered “it’s a stone”. If one could distinguish pottery from stone by a purely deductive process, you would not need decades of experience to be able to take a mere handful of seconds to identify pottery as pottery and stone as stone. Knowledge of the context is what supplies the identification.

. Again I am baffled or quite possibly misunderstand that you do not accept that a shard of pottery (and hence the pot)is not some evidence of design.

You seem to be too embedded in your knowledge of the context.

Try to imagine knowing nothing of pottery, knowing nothing of people or what motivates them, and knowing nothing about human intelligence. Then tell us how you can deduce “design” from a fragment of pottery.

Maybe we are talking at cross purposes, I am not defending the creationist/religious concept of intelligent design that tries to disprove evolution and be a proxy proof of god. I am simply stating that manufactured or man made objects do indeed show evidence of design (and greater or lesser intelligence)which i thought some posters were challenging.

Yes, I challenge it, because it does not follow.

Dembski is preying upon the contextual knowledge of his audience. To him and to us it is obvious that Mt Rushmore was designed and carved by people. But what makes it obvious is not any intrinsic property imparted to the rock during the carving – instead it is our knowledge of the context. The dead giveaway to us is the precision of the likeness to human faces. But what would it mean to a being who has no knowledge of humans?

This is one of the wonderous aspects of the man made world- design solutions from everything from a pin, a computer, the Hubble telescope to Mt Rushmore– cheers james

I agree with this, but I still maintain that it is not possible with our present knowledge to deduce “intelligent design” merely by examining an object that is a product of that process.

Hi CB yes I understand that but some of the posters seem to imply that our hypothetical Aliens may not be able to discern intelligent design in Mt Rushmore

Yes, they should certainly be able to deduce that it has been modified (assuming that the tool marks remain when they arrive and that the tool marks are sufficiently similar to tools the aliens use that they would recognise them) but the design cannot be inferred without additional context. To us, the design is obvious, but we are swimming in context. The context required to arrive at the conclusion of design for Mt Rushmore is such a fundamental part of our everyday lives that we no longer notice it.

And this is exactly what Dembski is counting on.

(no23)and that the ‘manufacture’ of Rushmore is not evidence of intelligence( such as post no 22- and by the way who says spiders arent intelligent and intelligent compared to what?)

Well, if you go back and look, answer my implied question:

Would you argue that a spider’s web is evidence of intelligence?

By extension, can you argue that identifying a thing as “made” is evidence that the maker was intelligent?

Dembski more or less takes it as read that you can, but that is a mere assumption.

Some question whether design is a property of objects at all(no 26) which i would see simply as a semantic argument.

No, it’s not. Can you derive – from an object alone without reference to any of the context in which it was made – the intent of a thing’s maker?

A made object is the physical expression of the ‘abstract’ design concept and hence the abstract design concept is ‘embedded’ within the physical object

Yes, it may well be “embedded” in the object, but can you ever get it out without knowing the context of the manufacture?

-an example might be golden section ratios in some greek architecture or the love of the 90 degree angle in western architecture as opposed to the love of the curve in african village architecture.

Or the near-perfect hexagonal structure of a honeycomb, perhaps?

Are you arguing that bees are intelligent?

Anyway I guess i was trying to say that a logical and testable premise ( and one used in certain scientific fields) was being misrepresented to bash the IDers ( who misrepresent it in another way)

Not so. Methinks you have misunderstood the point.

Every example that Dembski comes up with to “illustrate” the “detction” of design (of which Mt Rushmore is but one) relies on the viewer knowing the contextual background before they start the deductive process.

Let’s assume that the tool marks have weathered away, but that Mt Rushmore still looks reasonably like four human heads. Assume also that no other record of the shape of a human exists on Earth. Assume also that no other animals survive that bear even a passing resemblance to humanity (I don’t know, let’s assume that the insects have taken over). So, all context of the manufacture is removed.

How, in this scenario, would the putative aliens arrive at the conclusion that Mt Rushmore had been sculpted with intent?

To eliminate all non-natural formation processes, the aliens would need to know absolutely everything that possibly can be known about the interactions between atmosphere, rocks and water. Furthermore, they would need to be sufficiently advanced in their geochemistry that they would also know that they really do know everything there is to know about the subject. In this case, they may be able to deduce that the mountain was sculpted by something. But that still does not give them any insight into the intent of the design.

How can they possibly know what was intended in the sculpting, or that it was sculpted by an intelligent agent?

It’s also rather telling in light of all this that Dembski and his ilk attempt to make their case to the general public. . .
[snip]
. . . he pitches his notions to people who (a) in the main, can’t put any of the claims into context, and (b) are generally predisposed to want claims like his to be true anyway.

Quite correct.

He knows that his text will not stand up to scientific scrutiny. And, when actual scientists who really do know about this stuff tear his word-salad to shreds, he either ignores their criticism, attempts to dismiss it or cries “conspiracy”.

An analogous situation is the execrable “film” (Expelled, although I think Excreted would have been more appropriate) that was made to support ID, after the end of the Dover trial. At the trial, the ID proponents had claimed repeatedly that ID was not religion (they claimed it was “science”), and yet Expelled made a big deal out of the fact that supernatural explanations are excluded a priori in a huge scientific conspiracy.

In fact, supernatural explanations are excluded in science for several reasons:
1. If evidence were to come to light supporting some aspect of supernatural claims, those claims would cease to be supernatural, and become just some newly-understood part of nature.
2. Pretty much all supernatural claims are irreproducible.
3. All supernatural claims violate the principle of parsimony.
4. All supernatural claims to date can be plausibly explained using known phenomena / mechanisms (including simple misapprehension of what was being witnessed).
5. Supernatural “explanations” close down further investigation (“God did it” is never going to open up a new avenue of research anywhere) and thus form an artificial barrier to deeper understanding.
6. There’s no evidence to support claims of the supernatural.

Behe’s argumentation is probably the most difficult to understand (in terms of trying to understand why he feels the way he does about it), since he accepts about two-thirds of evolutionary theory. His every example of “irreducible complexity” as evidence for ID rests on an argument from personal incredulity (because, for many of his examples, it is trivially easy for a biochemist to come up with a plausible evolutionary path that would give rise to that arrangement).

And…
20. Argument by analogy.

Someone quick, go sell him a pet moon rock!

(I haven’t read the comments yet; I really hope no one has posted that joke yet)