intelligence creates intelligence

[CarolAlynn]

Humans no doubt have intelligence, and sometimes we even create little micro worlds in a little dish. If this is possible that we could recreate life in a dish is it not possible that life on earth could have been created by an intelligent form? Im not saying intelligent design is how it is and evolution is wrong, im just saying its a possiblitity!

[iNow]

Sure, it's possible. Now, when can we discuss how likely or probable it is(n't)?

[bascule]

Yes, it's entirely possible we were created by The Moon Dogs of Voltus, or Rael, or that we were brought over here on intergalactic spaceships that look like DC-10s by the evil space overlord Xenu.

 

Lots of things are possible...

[Reaper]

It is possible, but the age of the universe puts a limit on how many times this could have possibly happened; eventually, you run into the same exact problem we have right now, only you have pushed it out elsewhere.

[doG]

Sure it's possible. It also begs the question, "Who designed the designer?" ad infinitum.

[john5746]

Humans no doubt have intelligence, and sometimes we even create little micro worlds in a little dish. If this is possible that we could recreate life in a dish is it not possible that life on earth could have been created by an intelligent form? Im not saying intelligent design is how it is and evolution is wrong, im just saying its a possiblitity!

 

If we create AI, an intelligent, self-aware machine, then you could say intelligence created intelligent life. If we just make some simple chemical life in a dish, I would not say it was intelligent. While this simple life may be designed, it would be far from designing anything even remotely complex like a fly.

[Phi for All]

I actually like this question, since it touches on the part of creationism that I can never get around (besides the murder of science that's usually performed). If we were created by an intelligent god, and designed also to be intelligent, why would we ever come to the conclusion that our God poofed all those fossils into rock strata and made all of it appear to be millions of years old?

 

It took mankind quite a long time and much experimentation and invention to be able to accurately date the physical evidence and the findings seem quite intelligent. The answers fit like puzzle pieces. How is it more intelligent to believe that God put that evidence there just to fool people? How can creationists believe their god would be so deceitful?

 

I realize that every religion has an answer they believe to be THE ONE TRUTH, but if creationists believe in an intelligent designer of intelligent creatures like us, why does the designer want us to spend 2000 years (1/3 of Earth's history??!! lol) crawling up out of our ignorance, only to throw over what He plainly put there for us to find in favor of an answer involving omnipotence and fraudulent pranks?

[mooeypoo]

Humans no doubt have intelligence, and sometimes we even create little micro worlds in a little dish. If this is possible that we could recreate life in a dish is it not possible that life on earth could have been created by an intelligent form? Im not saying intelligent design is how it is and evolution is wrong, im just saying its a possiblitity!

 

Well, the main problem is that if this is possible, anything is possible.

 

For that matter, it is also possible we were created yesterday by the Giant Unicorn Mastah from the 11th Dimension. He created us with memories and cultural-memory of 3000 years, but in fact we were poofed into existence yesterday.

 

It's possible because the Giant Unicorn Mastah is all doing and all possible.

 

I'm not saying I believe it, and I am not saying the GUM theory is how things are done, but it's possible!

 

 

 

 

 

..

 

Same logic, different conclusion. Which is right? We can't ever know, to be honest. Unless, of course, we use an objective (or.. as objective as possible) method of finding out facts about our existence, and that's where the scientific method comes in.

 

In the sceintific method there's no room for such unproven unprov'able (hence, impossible to prove, ever) theses because they are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if we were created yesterday with memories of centuries - we could NEVER know that. We could only know what we analyze from the data around us. And that data gives us the information that we evolved, that life is natural, that physics and geology and historical sciences give us much more answers than religion or faith about our origins.

 

I mean.. what, exactly, would it help us to "know" that we were created by an omnipotent being X years ago with the illusion of natural-process... does it help us find anything new about ourselves, or the natural processes, or phenomena, or more medicine or biological or any other scientific advancements? Nope. So.. why bother?

 

~moo

[Ophiolite]

If this is possible that we could recreate life in a dish is it not possible that life on earth could have been created by an intelligent form?

While many things are possible, not all of those things are equally probable. Science provides a means for distinguishing between the likely and massively unlikely. It does so in a rigorously methodical arrangement of observation, hypothesis formation, testing, re-evaluation, etc.

On different occassions - ans with differing intensities and levels of seriousness - Sir Fred Hoyle and Sir Francis Crick proposed life on Earth was seeded by an intelligence. The difficulties are the minimal amount of evidence for such hypotheses and the problems of falsifying them.

 

Some problems in science cannot be realistically or legitimately tackled until the time is right. That time will not be right for any form of intelligent design until and unless we re-engage with a teleological paradigm.

[Monsters from the ID]

Humans no doubt have intelligence, and sometimes we even create little micro worlds in a little dish. If this is possible that we could recreate life in a dish is it not possible that life on earth could have been created by an intelligent form? Im not saying intelligent design is how it is and evolution is wrong, im just saying its a possiblitity!

 

 

It's a possibility. If humans ever manage to create some kind of thinking machine, then perhaps it might start to conduct scientific research and also think about and question it's origins. It (living as a computer program) would have little direct evidence of the outside world. It might be skeptical that anything else existed if it was not able to measure or investigate such a notional "outside world". But it may also reason that itself and the environment in which it lived don't seem well explained by the "natural processes" that took place in it's environment. That's basically what ID is saying. That certain phenomena, while existing as a part of the natural world and operating according to natural laws, are nevertheless a bit of a mystery in terms of their origins if only mindless (unintelligent) natural processes are available for providing such origins explanations.

 

Imagine the surprise a team of such programmers might experience if their thinking machine at some point inferred their existence indirectly, by reasoning that it was likely that some kind of thinking machine along the lines of itself existed in order to better explain it's origins.

 

The notion of ID is speculative to a certain degree, but so too are many other ideas in science that are quite respectable via the existence of indirect evidences, yet still remain unverified.

[TonyMcC]

I suppose the following is possible. Man has, or will soon have, the intelligence and ability to create a black hole. The black hole could rapidly grow sucking in the earth. This might only be the start because as it grows it may suck in more and more matter and eventually suck in the whole universe. The singularity within the black hole could create a big bang and be the start of creating a new universe. This may already have happened a number of times and our universe could be just the latest in a chain of universes. Thus this and previous universes could have been created by intelligent, if rather stupid, beings. As had been said before - all things are possible!

[pantheory]

Humans no doubt have intelligence, and sometimes we even create little micro worlds in a little dish. If this is possible that we could recreate life in a dish is it not possible that life on earth could have been created by an intelligent form? Im not saying intelligent design is how it is and evolution is wrong, im just saying its a possiblitity!

 

I think it is one of the possible but highly improbable beginnings of life, human life, intelligence, etc .; I think 1 in a million would be giving this possibility to much credence.

[Ringer]

It's a possibility. If humans ever manage to create some kind of thinking machine, then perhaps it might start to conduct scientific research and also think about and question it's origins. It (living as a computer program) would have little direct evidence of the outside world. It might be skeptical that anything else existed if it was not able to measure or investigate such a notional "outside world". But it may also reason that itself and the environment in which it lived don't seem well explained by the "natural processes" that took place in it's environment. That's basically what ID is saying. That certain phenomena, while existing as a part of the natural world and operating according to natural laws, are nevertheless a bit of a mystery in terms of their origins if only mindless (unintelligent) natural processes are available for providing such origins explanations.

 

The difference here is that any intelligent machine will have direct access to its creator. It will also most likely not be able to reproduce naturally, only write code. Now most programmers write notes with their code to say what certain modules do and the like. So all an intelligent machine would have to do is look at its own programming see the side notes and probably think that there was intelligence involved. We have the same thing, but there are no notes.

 

You could also assume if there were intelligent machines different people would write the codes in different languages, thus showing a difference in origin. Again we have this with DNA, but no evidence of separate origin.

 

 

Imagine the surprise a team of such programmers might experience if their thinking machine at some point inferred their existence indirectly, by reasoning that it was likely that some kind of thinking machine along the lines of itself existed in order to better explain it's origins.

 

Presumable if a team of programmers noticed a machine inferred their existence it would be because of the input they were giving, without that or the evidence given above I don't see how a machine would logically assume an intelligent designer because it would go into the whole who designed the designer ad infinitum.

 

 

 

The notion of ID is speculative to a certain degree, but so too are many other ideas in science that are quite respectable via the existence of indirect evidences, yet still remain unverified.

 

ID isn't unverified, it's unverifiable. That is the difference, any speculation made in science must be testable and use natural explanations. ID does neither and is thus useless as a scientific hypothesis. It's not speculative to a certain degree, it is pure speculation.

[rigney]

I really like the way this post was presented. Nothing fancy or all knowing, just questions. Personally I have always been of the advocacy that we really know very little of natures reasoning of why things are as they are. Having seen "machine building" since the 40s I know that only a machine of superior quality is capable of producing one superior to itself. So, respect both the pros and cons, eventually we will find out what's happening?????

[Monsters from the ID]

... most programmers write notes with their code to say what certain modules do and the like. So all an intelligent machine would have to do is look at its own programming see the side notes and probably think that there was intelligence involved.

 

That's something I hadn't thought of. But it wouldn't be hard to envisage a situation where either such comments were removed ahead of time, or the source code wasn't present, and assuming (or requiring that) comments didn't exist in the machine code.

 

 

... because it would go into the whole who designed the designer ad infinitum.

 

The question of whether such a regress exits or not, is not directly applicable to the question at hand. In such a situation (that of my example) it is valid to ask whether or not the thinking machine was designed or not (because in the example it was) regardless of whether the human designers had a designer who designed them, or not. The question asked (thinking machine: Was I designed or not?) need not demand an answer to all possible issues of potential regress. That would tend to stultify the enquiry before it even began.

 

 

ID isn't unverified, it's unverifiable. That is the difference, any speculation made in science must be testable and use natural explanations. ID does neither and is thus useless as a scientific hypothesis. It's not speculative to a certain degree, it is pure speculation.

 

It depends on your perspective.

 

But first, what are the alternatives to ID? One can't assume that the "intelligent" in ID must be infinite, only that at least some intelligence is there to do at least some designing. We wouldn't speak of "less intelligent design" as being an alternative to "intelligent design" for that reason. What about "unintelligent design"? To describe design (a process involving at least some intelligence) as having been carried out by zero intelligence (as in unintelligent) doesn't make sense. But perhaps unintelligent design refers to what could be called "apparent design", in the sense that Dawkins says that nature is full of sytems that appear designed, but aren't really. I'd think that the alternative to ID is any process that does not involve any conscious action, and so also lacks intelligence. We cannot even assume that the intelligence in ID isn't natural. All we can do is to claim that any explanation for a phenomena that involves at least some intelligence, has an alternative explanation that involves zero intelligence. Mindless natural laws fit that bill. So the alternative to the ID class of explanations, are those explanations that make use of mindless natural laws. (I wanted to remove some uncertainties as to what I'm referring to.)

 

So you said that ID cannot ever be verified. Well, to a certain extent that is true. Science could not at the moment verify whether some kind of designer that we don't currently observe really exists or not. On the other hand, such a designer could make their appearance known at some point, after which time we'd have direct verification of it. But right now, we don't have any such direct verification.

 

On the other hand, sometimes such questions are treated as a matter of scientific enquiry. The SETI program seeks to determine whether or not certain signals from space show evidence of beig intelligently designed. Such signals may not have a label on them. In addition, even if the evidence were highly persuasive that they were designed, we couldn't actually verify that for certain until we met the space alines or whatever it was that originated those signals. And what about the who designed the designer issue? I don't see that to SETI that is considered to be an objection that has managed to shut down such enquiries. Limited budgets are a more vexing problem for SETI (as they tend to be for everything else).

 

Also, we have an interesting siutation here with the ID hypothesis and it's alternatives. You mentioned that ID cannot be directly verified. In the short term to longer term (and perhaps forever) that is a legitimate observation. On the other hand, it is also stated of scientific enquires, that they are at least capable of being falsified. We can falsify ID to the extent that we can show that the intelligent design in ID isn't neccessary to originate the phenomena in question. SETI signals likewise can be falsified (as happenned in the case of the initial observations of pulsars). That's also what Darwin and many others since have set about to demonstrate in regards to life. To falsify ID (for all intents and purposes - ie. scientifically) we therefoe attempt to show that phenomena such as life CAN be explained via mindless natural processes that require no intelligent designing. So I claim that ID is capable of being falsified, except in the religious belief sense - but what issue is that to science? It isn't an issue! But still, ID has a much much harder time being 100% verified. In fact it will never be able to be 100% verified as long as the designer never shows up. But that problem also applies to SETI signals as well. Despite near unaminous opinion that a certain received signal is likely an artificially designed signal, we'll never be able to prove 100% that they are designed, that is - until we met the designers.

 

How do the alternatives to ID fare in this regard? Concerning life, the alternatives to ID are abiogenesis and evolution. I won't use the terms micro and macro since there's no need to really. The same point can be made more clearly by referring to observed evolution and inferred evolution. Mainly the kinds of inferred evolution that seem to have some currently unsolved issues.

 

In any case, can mindles natural processes ever be 100% verified? Of course they are capable of being verified (as long as they are actually taking place, or can feasibly take place). It should at least be possible via scientific enquiries to one day get down to the specifics of exactly how they work, and how they have achieved what we observe. Whether that ever happens or not doesn't affect the fact that it is at least a possibility. Some would say a good possibility. So OK, abiogenesis and "inferred evolution" are capable of being fully verified scientifically in the future.

 

But can either one be falsified? That's a tricky one to answer. We can falsify each specific hypothesis as we go along, but as we do that, we'd then be proposing another mindless natural process to replace the falsified one. But that's the way science works. But as a class of explanations (that can only involve mindless natural processes), can the set of all such potential hypotheses ever be falsified? Could we ever actually be certain that at some point we would be capable of ruling out every possible mindless natural process that could ever be hypothesized? I'd think not. It would also depend on whether there are in reality a finite or infinite set of possible natural processes.

 

That aside, in practice, we couldn't ever consider that at some point we'd have ruled out all of the possible natural processes. In that case, the overall hypothesis that claims that mindles natural processes do explain life, isn't really falsifiable, because one would require unlimited knowledge to be able to make such a clam. The uncertainty would always exist that we'd not yet discovered the mindless natural process capable of getting the job done.

 

So ID has a hard time being verified, and mindless natural processes have a hard time being falsified!

 

I claim this matters, despite the possibility of falsifying individual mindless process hypotheses, since a claim is often made that ID must always be ruled out and that only mindless natural processes are worthy of consideration. This leads to a refusal to discuss the validity of ID as a competitor to mindless natural processes. It also leads to the more serious problem of considering that the actual explanation (the truth) must lie within the set of mindless natural processes. This belief can take hold despite the fact that a mindless natural explanation for that particular phenomena may not yet be known. And even if it seem that we are not even close to it being known. It is just assumed that such a mindless natural explanation truly does exist. But that is an assumption that goes beyond the evidence. It's justifiable as an opinion or a belief or a worldview, but it's not scientifically justifiable. What I just said is supported by the observation that most scientists do not assume that SETI is pseudoscience. Yet to be consistent in their dealings with ID and SETI, one would think that SETI and ID would both be ruled out as being pseudoscience. Remember also that a positive SETI observation (as happenned in the film CONTACT) would likely also give some support to some irrational (and potentially dangerous) UFO cults. Yet I'm under the impression that few among scientists would be in favour of covering up or denying such a discovery due to the possible unwelcome effects on the thinking of the population.

 

Instead of trying to rule out one class of explanations (or ruling out both) from being considered as valid science, I'd think that a better approach in the meantime, is to consider the origins question unsolved from a scientific point of view, continue doing research (ID may be falsified bit by bit), and believe what you want to believe about origins, basing your opinions on which class of processes you judge to be more likely to be true. That approach should (in the meantime) please anyone who isn't out to demand that everybody must subscribe to what they subscribe to. At least until we have the verification of some specific mindless natural process to explain a specific phenomena (which would also bring about the scientific falsification of the ID claim for each specific phenomena). In fact that kind of falsification (of some primitive ID claims) has already taken place for such things as storms, thunder, lightning, etc.

[Ophiolite]

The difficulty, Monsters from the ID, is that science adopted a methodology of naturalism as a convenience, but most scientists adhere to it as dogma. I have long made the distinction between ID, a cynical attempt to dress the rabid chihuahua of creationism in a wooly jumper with pretty patterns, and intelligent design (lower case), an unlikely possibility that there are hitherto unidentified teleological elements in the universe that we shall not readily see if we deny them in advance.

[Ringer]

That's something I hadn't thought of. But it wouldn't be hard to envisage a situation where either such comments were removed ahead of time, or the source code wasn't present, and assuming (or requiring that) comments didn't exist in the machine code.

 

Then that would assume that the designer either removed the code to hide itself or it was just a crappy/hateful designer that didn't want its code understood. That is just putting to many assumptions for any sort of meaningful hypothesis. You want the least amount of presuppositions for a good hypothesis. Why would the source code not be present? It was compiled then removed? If that were so how would it propagate?

 

The question of whether such a regress exits or not, is not directly applicable to the question at hand. In such a situation (that of my example) it is valid to ask whether or not the thinking machine was designed or not (because in the example it was) regardless of whether the human designers had a designer who designed them, or not. The question asked (thinking machine: Was I designed or not?) need not demand an answer to all possible issues of potential regress. That would tend to stultify the enquiry before it even began.

 

That is the regression that logically follows assumption of a designer. Computer programs are built on logic, if there was intelligence needed to create intelligence, something needed to create that intelligence. It's like writing a program with an infinite loop, it'll just get stuck.

 

 

 

 

It depends on your perspective.

 

But first, what are the alternatives to ID? One can't assume that the "intelligent" in ID must be infinite, only that at least some intelligence is there to do at least some designing. We wouldn't speak of "less intelligent design" as being an alternative to "intelligent design" for that reason. What about "unintelligent design"? To describe design (a process involving at least some intelligence) as having been carried out by zero intelligence (as in unintelligent) doesn't make sense. But perhaps unintelligent design refers to what could be called "apparent design", in the sense that Dawkins says that nature is full of sytems that appear designed, but aren't really. I'd think that the alternative to ID is any process that does not involve any conscious action, and so also lacks intelligence. We cannot even assume that the intelligence in ID isn't natural. All we can do is to claim that any explanation for a phenomena that involves at least some intelligence, has an alternative explanation that involves zero intelligence. Mindless natural laws fit that bill. So the alternative to the ID class of explanations, are those explanations that make use of mindless natural laws. (I wanted to remove some uncertainties as to what I'm referring to.)

 

In science it is essential that the intelligence is natural. If it is not natural it is not science. That is way ID is said to not be science, and the reason people don't have "less ID", whatever that may mean. You say there is no alternative to ID is ridiculous, that would mean ID is the only answer. The only way that could be said is in the fact that ID, unless being brought into the natural processes needed to be science, is not a scientific theory so no alternative is needed.

 

So you said that ID cannot ever be verified. Well, to a certain extent that is true. Science could not at the moment verify whether some kind of designer that we don't currently observe really exists or not. On the other hand, such a designer could make their appearance known at some point, after which time we'd have direct verification of it. But right now, we don't have any such direct verification.

etc.

 

Because I don't feel like taking the time to do this paragraph by paragraph I'll shorten the whole thing. I never said ID can't be directly verified, I said it can't be verified at all; at least in its current form. If you accept ID in a natural form you go back to the infinite regression where time is a factor that wouldn't allow for infinite intelligent beings.

 

Also, saying that design ideas haven't been able to be carried out is strange. If that were true, why would we be discussing it when there has been no evidence for it. It would be like me saying I have an alternative to relativity; I have no evidence and have carried out no experiments for its verification but it should be given equal weight because there are some people who think it's true. Now if there has been verified evidence for it then that argument doesn't apply.

 

You indirect evidence also doesn't apply because, simply, there hasn't been anything I have ever read that has not been equally, or better, explained by natural processes. This has also been verified by experiments using natural processes. Until it explains more or something better than the current theory it is useless.

 

 

[edit]

I want to point out, because it always seems to come up when talking about ID, that evidence against natural evolution is not evidence for ID. It is a problem many IDers run into that even if natural selection were proven wrong doesn't mean ID is the only other logical answer.[/edit]

Edited June 16, 2011 by Ringer

[Ophiolite]

Then that would assume that the designer either removed the code to hide itself or it was just a crappy/hateful designer that didn't want its code understood.

Or the Universe was designed by a committee and an incompetent one at that. There really is no a priori reason to presume an omnipotent, omniscient designer.

That is the regression that logically follows assumption of a designer. Computer programs are built on logic, if there was intelligence needed to create intelligence, something needed to create that intelligence.

This is illogical. Our intelligence has emerged, one supposes, naturally - with no intelligent intervention. So we accept the possibility that intelligence can arise in this way. This does not, however, establish that this is the only way it can arise. Therefore, it is possible that an earlier intelligence arose 'naturally' and then had a hand in creating subsequent intelligences. Your argument does not eliminate this possibility.

 

In science it is essential that the intelligence is natural. If it is not natural it is not science.

No. Incorrect. As I have previously noted we have elected, at present, to go down the route of methodological naturalism. It is not a requirement of science, it is a convenience of science.

 

 

You indirect evidence also doesn't apply because, simply, there hasn't been anything I have ever read that has not been equally, or better, explained by natural processes. This has also been verified by experiments using natural processes. Until it explains more or something better than the current theory it is useless.

Useless? Many current explanations for phenomena were ignored because the scientists of that time could not, or would not see the data. If we deliberately close off certain possibilities we impose unnecessary and unhelpfull restrictions.

[Ringer]

Or the Universe was designed by a committee and an incompetent one at that. There really is no a priori reason to presume an omnipotent, omniscient designer.

 

I agree, but ID is about the intelligence of the design. If it were to be incompetent then it would just be design not ID. I doubt many of the ID people would say that life was designed by an incompetent thing or group of things.

 

 

This is illogical. Our intelligence has emerged, one supposes, naturally - with no intelligent intervention. So we accept the possibility that intelligence can arise in this way. This does not, however, establish that this is the only way it can arise. Therefore, it is possible that an earlier intelligence arose 'naturally' and then had a hand in creating subsequent intelligences. Your argument does not eliminate this possibility.

 

From what I understood his argument was that intelligent beings must have been designed by some sort of intelligence. I am not at all saying that intelligent beings cannot develop intelligent beings, but what I am saying is that when you assume that intelligence must be designed is when you fall into the loop.

 

No. Incorrect. As I have previously noted we have elected, at present, to go down the route of methodological naturalism. It is not a requirement of science, it is a convenience of science.

 

If it is a convention we have elected to use how would we explain super natural phenomena? As I see it science is the method used to explore and explain the natural world. If we were to start studying the super natural and explain it it would cease to be super natural as I know the word.

 

Useless? Many current explanations for phenomena were ignored because the scientists of that time could not, or would not see the data. If we deliberately close off certain possibilities we impose unnecessary and unhelpfull restrictions.

 

 

I say it's useless not because we cannot see the data, but because as of now it doesn't explain anything better, or as well, as the current theories. If it were to explain what we observe better than our current theory then we should by all means start to use it. I agree that some explanations were dismissed out of hand and later turned out to be right, and that's wonderful that some people can see that sort of thing. Indeed it is what science thrives on, but on the same hand many explanations that were thought to be bunk turned out to be bunk. Again, if it does turn out ID is true I will gladly apologize to all I have argued with against its ideas, but as of now that is not the case. Those who believe ID are more than welcome to test their hypothesis and prove me wrong; I would never, even if I had the power to, force anyone not to test and verify their ideas.

 

 

[Monsters from the ID]

Then that would assume that the designer either removed the code to hide itself or it was just a crappy/hateful designer that didn't want its code understood. ... Why would the source code not be present? It was compiled then removed? If that were so how would it propagate?

 

 

Unfortunately, scientists in the designing of some animal experiments (and human experimentation in the case of the Nazi's) have often been crappy and hateful! At least it would have seemed that way from the animals point of view. Nevertheless, such experiments have been carriedout and they are science. (Hopefully, not so much nowadays). When such work is done, it is often explained as having been done for "the greater good" which is some cases (unfortunately) is likely the correct assesment.

 

As to the hypothetical case here, well I didn't initially think of this business about the source code being read by the machine (which is an interesting possibility), and I've generally assumed that source code isn't loaded in at execution time if we're talking about compiled type languages. I mean, it's in the editors and in storage, but it normally wouldn't load into the executing part of the program (I assumed). But say the source code would normally be present as you'd suggest. In some versions of the experiment the designers might be interested to see what the machine intelligence made of it. In other versions of the experiment, they'd remove it to see if the machine intellignece ever came to the "I'm likely designed" inference regardless. I see nothing unreasonable about that. (That all assumes that the "genuine enough artificial machine intelligence to be able to conduct scientific research" in the example isn't itself an unreasonable expectation! But I'd still reckon there'd be quite a deal of support for that idea (one day) in the science community.

)

 

 

That is the regression that logically follows assumption of a designer. Computer programs are built on logic, if there was intelligence needed to create intelligence, something needed to create that intelligence. It's like writing a program with an infinite loop, it'll just get stuck.

 

 

I don't see any need to bring that up when the inquiry being sought goes to one level of design only. And I haven't seen that objection used as a reason to discontinue SETI research. I've frequently heard the objection that ID would have the effect of stopping science, yet the "who designed the designer" problem seems to be stopping more science than people perhaps realized. There's nothing wrong with asking one question at a time. We know after all that some things get designed (by humans) and whether or not humans were themselves designed or not, isn't an issue in regards to whether humans designed this or that. And since we know that humans design things (in most cases, things that couldn't otherwise come to exist were it not for the ID humans use) we can reasonably extrapolate to the possibility that SOME KIND of intelligence may have designed us. The relevant issue is whether a certain phenomena is better explained by mindless natural processes (many phenomena are) or instead by intelligent processes (some select group of phenomena seem to require ID - and often for rather obvious reasons).

 

 

 

In science it is essential that the intelligence is natural. If it is not natural it is not science.

 

 

I don't know if that has to be the case or not. Can you give a more precise definition (or just tell me what you mean) by intelligence that is not natural? Think about the thinking machine. To him (thinking machines must always be "him's" dammit!! (Hang on, there was a "mother" computer in Alien - I stand corrected!)) anything outside of his world wouldn't perhaps be natural. But perhaps it is.

 

But we're jumping the gun, because all we need to do, in order to evaluate an origins claim, is to investigate OUR WORLD of natural laws, not some hypothesized higher level world that some designer might inhabit. The question of interest is - do OUR WORLDS mindless natural laws sufficiently explain a certain phenomena? If they do, then no design inference is warranted. If they don't, then perhaps a design inference is warranted. We can provisionally infer that until some mindless natural laws explanation is discovered to demonstrate otherwise.

 

There are another two issues here. One is the OPERATION of the phenomena in question. That can be directly investigated because it is happening in realtime. That's definately science, because it is a piece of nature we can study. The other issue is not the operation, but the ORIGIN of the phenomena. That is where many difficulties have appeared in terms of mindless natural processes. That is where the interesting (or to some perhaps - annoying) origins issues lie.

 

 

 

That is way ID is said to not be science, and the reason people don't have "less ID", whatever that may mean. You say there is no alternative to ID is ridiculous, that would mean ID is the only answer. The only way that could be said is in the fact that ID, unless being brought into the natural processes needed to be science, is not a scientific theory so no alternative is needed.

 

 

Could you elaborate on that? I don't get your gist. I never meant to say that there were no alternatives to ID. I thought I was pointing out the nature of the possible alternatives to ID, which I said were mindless natural laws. Whatever ID is, it is not contained within mindless natural laws. ID and mindless natural laws form the totality of all possible explanations for any phenomena.

 

Man! Too much typing. I'm going to abbreviate "Mindless Natural Laws" to MNL. Then we can contrast MNL & ID.

 

 

 

You indirect evidence also doesn't apply because, simply, there hasn't been anything I have ever read that has not been equally, or better, explained by natural processes. This has also been verified by experiments using natural processes. Until it explains more or something better than the current theory it is useless.

 

 

We could have a very long and never ending discussion on that! But make sure you're not confusing the operations of a phenomena with it's origins. After all, any piece of technology that humans build always operates according to MNL. But it doesn't originate via MNL, but via ID. (Think of ID as engineering.)

 

Note also that very simple functional systems sometimes do originate via MNL. For example a simple stone arch, or a dam (caused by accumulated twigs and debris) in a stream. MNL can originate simple systems, but MNL has it's limitations. . Human ID can far more rapidly develop complicated functioal systems than MNL is capable of doing. But we know that human ID has it's limitations too (that are perhaps being expanded in capability as our knowledge and engineering expertise increases). So if human ID which is far more capable of originating functional systems than MNL is, then MNL must correspondingly have far more severe limitations than human ID has. What MNL does have in it's favour is brute force and time. But consciousness makes a huge difference becaue it can set goals, design according to a requirement and know ahead of time what the interface requirements are etc. MNL has no such advantages. For example, we now see that the perceived sophistication seen in biological cells is increasing all the time the more we learn about it. It's looking a lot like nanorobotics now, and though many biologists continue to attribute all this to MNL, that case is getting weaker by the year. Why? Because the advantages ID has, makes an explanation for all of this sophistciated machinery a lot more feasible. If MNL could feasibly originate such systems, then it wouldn't really matter what advantages ID had over MNL, but it's looking more like MNL cannot feasibly originate such systems. The essence of the problem for MNL is that there are always going to be many many many more ways not to carry out some specific function, than there are ways to carry out a specific function. How can MNL find such rare functional systems? Explanations involving random mutations and natural selection are arguably insufficent in such cases because natural selection cannot go to work until after the functional system that needs to evolve in the first place, already exists. This leads into direct versus indirect Darwinian pathways. But I can't get into that right now.

 

 

 

I want to point out, because it always seems to come up when talking about ID, that evidence against natural evolution is not evidence for ID. It is a problem many IDers run into that even if natural selection were proven wrong doesn't mean ID is the only other logical answer.

 

 

I'd suggest you may be wrong on that. But I'm interested in being shown to be wrong with my take on that too. Perhaps I'm a shortsighted idiot. "IDiot" - get it? Ha ha!

 

I propose that ID & MNL together form the exhaustive set of all possible explanations for any phenomena.

 

That means: If some phenomena isn't caused by an ID explanation, then it must have been caused by an MNL explanation (and vica versa).

 

Heck I could be very wrong, but humour me. I claim that MNL (lacking any consciousness) forms one part of the whole set of origins explanations. ID processes form the other part of the set of all origins explanations for any phenomena. I claim that there are no other classes of explanations! Don't agree? Then can anyone think of a class of explanations that could contribute to the origin of some phenomena that is not either pure MNL (mindless natural processes) or ID (which can consist of some part MNL + some part ID)?

 

Note that if we class an explanation as MNL then it means it is pure MNL, with no ID part to it. But if we class an explanation as ID, it would usually include MNL as some part of it. For example, while building some component, an engineer depends on the laws of nature MNL in his environment. ie. the component rests on the workbench because of physics and chemical laws, which are the MNL part. The ID part is the planningand design contribution to originating the component.

 

Is there such a thing as pure ID? I don't know. Possibly. Not in our experience though.

 

Anyhow the point is, that if I'm correct and all explanations are either MNL & ID - then whenever the list of known MNL explanations are all discounted for some phenomena, then since the phenomena does exist (assuming we know the phenomena actually did originate, and thus it's origin must be explained)) then we also know that something must have caused the phenomena. If I'm correct, then it was either caused by MNL, or by ID. And by nothing else. What else is there?

 

Therefore, in the case where we have no currently known MNL explanations, then how wouldn't that count as evidence for an ID explanation? It must be one or the other. And we do know that ID (human and animal ID) exists. So if we can't find any MNL explanations, that is sciences way of hinting to us (in can only hint or suggest) that an ID process may be responsible.

Also, if we cannot find an MNL explanation (at the moment) then that implies two further possibilities. Either an unknown MNL process explains the phenomena, or else the phenomena is attributed (provisionally) to ID. It must be attributed provisionally since there is always the potential for some as yet unknown MNL to be discovered. On the other hand, is it logical to assume that ID must always be discounted as an explanation, and that an explanation will be found (or one exists even if it is never found) in terms of MNL? No, because that is an assumption, based on a belief or on a convenience of science. It also highlights the issue with MNL, because as long as one always defers any inference to ID and instead looks only to a never ending list of potential MNL hypotheses, then in a sense, you've got yourself into "having faith" that an MNL explanation must be found. I'm not talking about the reality that science will always be on the lookout for MNL hypotheses. I'm talking about the attitude that never will attribute (even provisionally) any phenomena to ID. You can't do that because we know that ID exists (in humans and a little in animals) and what it is capable of doing. Since ID exists here, it may exist elsewhere. It's not something we know absolutely nothing about. We have extensive experience with what conscious intelligentt design (ID) can do in comparison to what MNL can do.

 

In the case where no MNL explanation currently exists, we should accept at least the possibility of an ID explanation, but we must realize that it is a provisional acceptance since it is an indirect inference based on an extrapolation of what we know about what ID is capable of versus what MNL is capable of. Some people will be doubtful, perhaps scornful of certain ID inferences. But likewise, some are doubful and scornful of certain MNL inferences too. That's the way things are. Some people like the notion of ID, others don't. Those who do will likely attribute the phenomena to ID. Those who don't will merely say that we don't knbow what caused the phenomena. And the very dogmatic will still claim that it must have been MNL that caused the phenomena. As Doris Day would sing: "Que Sera, Sera."

 

The difficulty, Monsters from the ID, is that science adopted a methodology of naturalism as a convenience, but most scientists adhere to it as dogma. I have long made the distinction between ID, a cynical attempt to dress the rabid chihuahua of creationism in a wooly jumper with pretty patterns, and intelligent design (lower case), an unlikely possibility that there are hitherto unidentified teleological elements in the universe that we shall not readily see if we deny them in advance.

 

 

I agree, though I see your distinction between the two kinds of ID more along the lines of a personal opinion. I think I see your point, though I wouldn't call all creationists rabid. But there certainly are some (maybe more than some) "rabid" people on both sides, right?

 

As rabid chihuahua's ourselves we think that your dogopomorphisms of creationists as chihuahua's is a hoot!

 

We should think up some more animals to describe the other groups that exist sometime. For ID/creationism, I've heard of ID described as lipstick on the creationist pig, jumpers on chihuahua's, and Tuxedo on the creationist-(I forget what).

 

How about atheists? Just as we rabid chihuahua creationists can appropriate ID to look more sciency-like, so too them thar' rabid atheists, can appropriate methodological naturalism to seem more scientific too. How about a labcoat on the atheist hyena?

What animal would suit theistic evolutionists? A zebra?

[Ringer]

Unfortunately, scientists in the designing of some animal experiments (and human experimentation in the case of the Nazi's) have often been crappy and hateful! At least it would have seemed that way from the animals point of view. Nevertheless, such experiments have been carriedout and they are science. (Hopefully, not so much nowadays). When such work is done, it is often explained as having been done for "the greater good" which is some cases (unfortunately) is likely the correct assesment.

 

As to the hypothetical case here, well I didn't initially think of this business about the source code being read by the machine (which is an interesting possibility), and I've generally assumed that source code isn't loaded in at execution time if we're talking about compiled type languages. I mean, it's in the editors and in storage, but it normally wouldn't load into the executing part of the program (I assumed). But say the source code would normally be present as you'd suggest. In some versions of the experiment the designers might be interested to see what the machine intelligence made of it. In other versions of the experiment, they'd remove it to see if the machine intellignece ever came to the "I'm likely designed" inference regardless. I see nothing unreasonable about that. (That all assumes that the "genuine enough artificial machine intelligence to be able to conduct scientific research" in the example isn't itself an unreasonable expectation! But I'd still reckon there'd be quite a deal of support for that idea (one day) in the science community.

 

Alright so the source was compiled and is now only binary. You are then arguing that the intelligence that designed us is intentionally hiding from us. Since most proponents of ID are believers that the designer is their preferred deity I don't know if they would agree. How would you reconcile this with the religious ideals of those proponents?

 

I also would think that any such program that gained intelligence had some sort of input/output to communicate with its programmers, otherwise why would it be built in the first place? It could then assume that since something else is interacting with it intelligently that there is another intelligence. It may then assume since it interacts with this other intelligence that one of them was built for the others convenience, etc. But the difference is that these would be testable hypothesis with naturally interacting phenomena.

 

 

 

 

I don't see any need to bring that up when the inquiry being sought goes to one level of design only. And I haven't seen that objection used as a reason to discontinue SETI research. I've frequently heard the objection that ID would have the effect of stopping science, yet the "who designed the designer" problem seems to be stopping more science than people perhaps realized. There's nothing wrong with asking one question at a time. We know after all that some things get designed (by humans) and whether or not humans were themselves designed or not, isn't an issue in regards to whether humans designed this or that. And since we know that humans design things (in most cases, things that couldn't otherwise come to exist were it not for the ID humans use) we can reasonably extrapolate to the possibility that SOME KIND of intelligence may have designed us. The relevant issue is whether a certain phenomena is better explained by mindless natural processes (many phenomena are) or instead by intelligent processes (some select group of phenomena seem to require ID - and often for rather obvious reasons).

 

Why would it stop at one level. I am saying that it is the logical step that if intelligence is necessary to build intelligence then you run into the loop. Give me a logical reason to stop at a single level.

 

By all means they can keep researching whatever they wish, it is not my place to tell people what they may research. But when you use the analogy that some things are designed by humans so why wouldn't we be designed you are being slightly shortsighted. Take a watch, the common example, we have never seen a watch be created without intervention of ourselves nor do we have any indication that it would happen naturally. The difference is we do have natural explanations for pretty much all the things that ID tries to explain. What, exactly, are some examples of things that need this designer for an explanation since they are so obvious?

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know if that has to be the case or not. Can you give a more precise definition (or just tell me what you mean) by intelligence that is not natural? Think about the thinking machine. To him (thinking machines must always be "him's" dammit!! (Hang on, there was a "mother" computer in Alien - I stand corrected!)) anything outside of his world wouldn't perhaps be natural. But perhaps it is.

 

But we're jumping the gun, because all we need to do, in order to evaluate an origins claim, is to investigate OUR WORLD of natural laws, not some hypothesized higher level world that some designer might inhabit. The question of interest is - do OUR WORLDS mindless natural laws sufficiently explain a certain phenomena? If they do, then no design inference is warranted. If they don't, then perhaps a design inference is warranted. We can provisionally infer that until some mindless natural laws explanation is discovered to demonstrate otherwise.

 

There are another two issues here. One is the OPERATION of the phenomena in question. That can be directly investigated because it is happening in realtime. That's definately science, because it is a piece of nature we can study. The other issue is not the operation, but the ORIGIN of the phenomena. That is where many difficulties have appeared in terms of mindless natural processes. That is where the interesting (or to some perhaps - annoying) origins issues lie.

 

What would be his world? He is part of the natural world and, as I said before, can easily interact with the natural world. It experiences the same world and laws as we do. A intelligence that is not natural is something that doesn't need to obey the laws of the natural or somehow lies outside of them.

 

I don't think I follow the rest of what you're saying. What needs ID to be explained properly? The origins of life or just intelligence? What are the difficulties that arise?

 

 

 

 

 

Could you elaborate on that? I don't get your gist. I never meant to say that there were no alternatives to ID. I thought I was pointing out the nature of the possible alternatives to ID, which I said were mindless natural laws. Whatever ID is, it is not contained within mindless natural laws. ID and mindless natural laws form the totality of all possible explanations for any phenomena.

 

Man! Too much typing. I'm going to abbreviate "Mindless Natural Laws" to MNL. Then we can contrast MNL & ID.

 

Why would it not be contained within natural laws? How would you test this, because for something to be scientifically valid it must be able to be validated and reproducible. It would be like saying only believers can hear the voice of god and the reason you can't hear is because you are skeptical. How would this be testable, let alone be able say that this is actually happening.

 

 

 

 

We could have a very long and never ending discussion on that! But make sure you're not confusing the operations of a phenomena with it's origins. After all, any piece of technology that humans build always operates according to MNL. But it doesn't originate via MNL, but via ID. (Think of ID as engineering.)

 

Note also that very simple functional systems sometimes do originate via MNL. For example a simple stone arch, or a dam (caused by accumulated twigs and debris) in a stream. MNL can originate simple systems, but MNL has it's limitations. . Human ID can far more rapidly develop complicated functioal systems than MNL is capable of doing. But we know that human ID has it's limitations too (that are perhaps being expanded in capability as our knowledge and engineering expertise increases). So if human ID which is far more capable of originating functional systems than MNL is, then MNL must correspondingly have far more severe limitations than human ID has. What MNL does have in it's favour is brute force and time. But consciousness makes a huge difference becaue it can set goals, design according to a requirement and know ahead of time what the interface requirements are etc. MNL has no such advantages. For example, we now see that the perceived sophistication seen in biological cells is increasing all the time the more we learn about it. It's looking a lot like nanorobotics now, and though many biologists continue to attribute all this to MNL, that case is getting weaker by the year. Why? Because the advantages ID has, makes an explanation for all of this sophistciated machinery a lot more feasible. If MNL could feasibly originate such systems, then it wouldn't really matter what advantages ID had over MNL, but it's looking more like MNL cannot feasibly originate such systems. The essence of the problem for MNL is that there are always going to be many many many more ways not to carry out some specific function, than there are ways to carry out a specific function. How can MNL find such rare functional systems? Explanations involving random mutations and natural selection are arguably insufficent in such cases because natural selection cannot go to work until after the functional system that needs to evolve in the first place, already exists. This leads into direct versus indirect Darwinian pathways. But I can't get into that right now.

 

So you are saying that natural laws are not enough to explain the origins of life? Have you read any papers on abiogenesis?

 

If ID is like engineering why are so many animals, including ourselves, so badly engineered? Any human engineer could design a better spine so we don't have the back problems associated with a single column spine. Why do we have remains of a post anal tail, like all good chordates, yet have no use for a tail? I could go on but I assume you get the idea. Our, and other animals, engineering flaws are easily explained if they were inherited from an ancestor the was not developing in a pre-planned fashion. We also go back to the problem of all the evidence pointing towards single ancestry and why the engineer so limited itself. I think you are making an argument from incredulity. When in doubt remember Orgel's second rule.

 

 

 

I'd suggest you may be wrong on that. But I'm interested in being shown to be wrong with my take on that too. Perhaps I'm a shortsighted idiot. "IDiot" - get it? Ha ha!

 

I propose that ID & MNL together form the exhaustive set of all possible explanations for any phenomena.

 

That means: If some phenomena isn't caused by an ID explanation, then it must have been caused by an MNL explanation (and vica versa).

 

Heck I could be very wrong, but humour me. I claim that MNL (lacking any consciousness) forms one part of the whole set of origins explanations. ID processes form the other part of the set of all origins explanations for any phenomena. I claim that there are no other classes of explanations! Don't agree? Then can anyone think of a class of explanations that could contribute to the origin of some phenomena that is not either pure MNL (mindless natural processes) or ID (which can consist of some part MNL + some part ID)?

 

Note that if we class an explanation as MNL then it means it is pure MNL, with no ID part to it. But if we class an explanation as ID, it would usually include MNL as some part of it. For example, while building some component, an engineer depends on the laws of nature MNL in his environment. ie. the component rests on the workbench because of physics and chemical laws, which are the MNL part. The ID part is the planningand design contribution to originating the component.

 

Is there such a thing as pure ID? I don't know. Possibly. Not in our experience though.

 

Anyhow the point is, that if I'm correct and all explanations are either MNL & ID - then whenever the list of known MNL explanations are all discounted for some phenomena, then since the phenomena does exist (assuming we know the phenomena actually did originate, and thus it's origin must be explained)) then we also know that something must have caused the phenomena. If I'm correct, then it was either caused by MNL, or by ID. And by nothing else. What else is there?

 

Therefore, in the case where we have no currently known MNL explanations, then how wouldn't that count as evidence for an ID explanation? It must be one or the other. And we do know that ID (human and animal ID) exists. So if we can't find any MNL explanations, that is sciences way of hinting to us (in can only hint or suggest) that an ID process may be responsible.

Also, if we cannot find an MNL explanation (at the moment) then that implies two further possibilities. Either an unknown MNL process explains the phenomena, or else the phenomena is attributed (provisionally) to ID. It must be attributed provisionally since there is always the potential for some as yet unknown MNL to be discovered. On the other hand, is it logical to assume that ID must always be discounted as an explanation, and that an explanation will be found (or one exists even if it is never found) in terms of MNL? No, because that is an assumption, based on a belief or on a convenience of science. It also highlights the issue with MNL, because as long as one always defers any inference to ID and instead looks only to a never ending list of potential MNL hypotheses, then in a sense, you've got yourself into "having faith" that an MNL explanation must be found. I'm not talking about the reality that science will always be on the lookout for MNL hypotheses. I'm talking about the attitude that never will attribute (even provisionally) any phenomena to ID. You can't do that because we know that ID exists (in humans and a little in animals) and what it is capable of doing. Since ID exists here, it may exist elsewhere. It's not something we know absolutely nothing about. We have extensive experience with what conscious intelligentt design (ID) can do in comparison to what MNL can do.

 

In the case where no MNL explanation currently exists, we should accept at least the possibility of an ID explanation, but we must realize that it is a provisional acceptance since it is an indirect inference based on an extrapolation of what we know about what ID is capable of versus what MNL is capable of. Some people will be doubtful, perhaps scornful of certain ID inferences. But likewise, some are doubful and scornful of certain MNL inferences too. That's the way things are. Some people like the notion of ID, others don't. Those who do will likely attribute the phenomena to ID. Those who don't will merely say that we don't knbow what caused the phenomena. And the very dogmatic will still claim that it must have been MNL that caused the phenomena. As Doris Day would sing: "Que Sera, Sera."

 

You are mistaken, are assume the only explanations are ID and evolution. What about spontaneous generation? If evolution were proven to be wrong why would we not assume that animals spontaneously arise from inorganic material? Just because you personally enjoy thinking that if evolution is wrong you are right doesn't mean it's true. You have to be able to test and verify your hypothesis is true. If I were to prove relativity was false and went into a conference and said, "relativity is wrong so my pet theory is correct." I would be laughed out if I had no evidence to back up my hypothesis other than other people being wrong about theirs.

 

As I said before, when IDers come up with ways to test and verify their hypothesis and the tests are then verified and reproduced I will admit that it is possible. When those tests start to explain things better than the current theories I will apologize and admit I was wrong all along (after the shock wears off of course). But until then you are just arguing that I am wrong, without evidence, and that has very little to do with your theory being right.

 

 

[Monsters from the ID]

Alright so the source was compiled and is now only binary. You are then arguing that the intelligence that designed us is intentionally hiding from us. Since most proponents of ID are believers that the designer is their preferred deity I don't know if they would agree. How would you reconcile this with the religious ideals of those proponents?

 

 

I'm going to reply to this in smaller pieces, because on Sunday evening I spent some hours answering everything at once, and just as I hit "preview post" I realized too late that my internet connection had gone down, and I lost the lot. (Serves me right for posting too much in the first place!) Last night I couldn't be bothered getting back to it. I watched the seven year itch instead. I'm used to youtube where you can't post more than 500 characters at once. So if your connection went down that's all you'd have to worry about. Oh well!

 

 

 

Your suggestion that the designer may be hiding from us, does actually make more sense in the light of what is said in religious texts though I'm talking about the Bible in particular. I know this particular part of the discussion isn't science, but since you asked I'll give you my point of view on it as a Christian.

 

To The Moderators: Is that OK? I don't think I'm soapboxing here as I was asked a question about a religious or theistic viewpoint on something. I have disclaimed it as not being part of my scientific reasoning. If that is not OK, please give me a warning about it. I don't know how to otherwise answer the question, unless I go into some theological details. I don't want to give the impression that I'm just avoiding a question by saying something like "science doesn't deal with religion". I know it doesn't, but the question seems to require a religious viewpoint - and I am qualifying it as that.

 

I wouldn't say (let's call the designer God since we're discussing religious viewpoints) God is intentionally hiding - in the total sense of covering up all the evidence of design. If that were the case then things would be as Dr. Ken Miller believes they are. That though God created the universe initially, everything (including perhaps the orign of life, and certainly all of evolution) is unfolding according to mindless natural laws. According to what I have read about him and Dr. Francis Collins (both theistic evolutionists) there isn't really much (if any) scientific evidence in nature that we were designed. They believe instead that God is great (even greater than IDists claim) because God built into mindless natual laws the capability to "self create and self organize". But IDists and creationists disagree and claim that such an action really would justify a complete lack of a belief in God. If there just wasn't any evidence for a creator at all, then it would be the same situation as we have with fairies and Santa Claus. I wouldn't claim there was zero evidence for fairies and Santa Claus (as we may have the odd eye witness claim) but such tend to be ignored as heresay. The evidence if it exists is very very weak for fairies and Santa Claus.

 

The Bible position is different though. It maintains that because of the Creation (it's saying that the creation demonstrates the power of God) mankind is without excuse. Now clearly God is to a certain extent hiding himself from mankind. Not completely (or there'd be no Bible accounts of miracles, etc.) but most of the time. There is some kind of test going on about what humans decide to believe about God. God has basically said that enough evidence exists to draw the right conclusion. If God Got in our faces then we'd be compelled to believe. There would be no test. Everyone would be a theist, whether they wanted to be one or not. Actually it's not just about atheism versus theism, since atheism was much les prevalent in earlier times. The Bible says the test or evaluation ofeach life is about our attitude towards God. In any case, it's not God's plan at this time to prove to us the reality of God in a scientifically airtight case. I didn't say that there wasn't a good case, but it's not airtight. If it were airtight (100% scientifically verified) then there would be no place for any kind of faith. Yet the Bible says that God places a premium on faith. Especially when the faith flies in the face of some (but certainly not total) contradictory evidence. I believe the Bible teches that this is because it is a test of whether we love God or not. If you love some one, you want to believe the best about them. If you don't love them, you will tend to become exasperated in short order if they cause one any inconvenience.

 

Anyhow I have presented just a simple view of what I perceive the Biblical position to be on why God does not make His presence known in an obvious 100% verified scientific manner. This is apparently one of Richard Dawkin's main objections to believing in God as well, as he is reported to have once said that if God turns out to be real, and if he ever meets God, then he will ask God "Sir, why did you hide yourself so convincingly?" or something to that effect.

 

 

 

I also would think that any such program that gained intelligence had some sort of input/output to communicate with its programmers, otherwise why would it be built in the first place? It could then assume that since something else is interacting with it intelligently that there is another intelligence. It may then assume since it interacts with this other intelligence that one of them was built for the others convenience, etc. But the difference is that these would be testable hypothesis with naturally interacting phenomena.

 

 

Again it depends if the programmers were running a "self awareness / self motivation / self discovery" kind of an experiment. They could for instance (so they wouldn't have to wait around too long) program the thinking machine with a "desire" or motivation to find out about it's origins, without telling the machine about it.

 

On the other hand, the programmers could take a diiferent approach, and leave clues such as essays and texts that were not verifiable scientific evidence (though perhaps pieces of them could be verified), but something like general messages. Think about that possibility. A text telling the program that it was created for the glory of IBM. The program could choose to listen to this and other messages, or to ignore them. Something along the lines of how we are free to investigate and then accept or reject various religious texts.

 

These more informal messages from the programmers wouldn't have to be testable natural hypotheses either. That's what we'd like to have, and what the program might like to have, but that isn't neccessarily what the programmers might decide to give it.

 

We cannot assume that if we are under some kind of an experiment (of our thoughts and actions) that we ought to find such a thing pleasant or obvious. That's what we'd like, but it may not be the actual situation. Wouldn't that mean that the designer was "fooling around with us"? Perhaps that is correct. But scientists often "fool around with" the subjects of their experiments. One can either choose to accept or reject the messages said to come from God that promise a very good outcome of this current situation.

 

I gave you my opinion and the ideas that at least a reasonable numer of theists would perhaps agree with, though some wouldn't. But remember that what I have just said isn't a scientific argument. It contains too much that cannot be verified. I was just speaking my mind.

 

To Moderators: That is the end of my excursion into religious thought for the purposes of answering some questions. If I have broken rules then I should be punished and told exactly where I went wrong and if I wish to continue posting on these forums, then I will not do it again.

[Ringer]

Since you said you're breaking your post into smaller bits I'll assume you will answer the rest of my post later.

Your suggestion that the designer may be hiding from us, does actually make more sense in the light of what is said in religious texts though I'm talking about the Bible in particular. I know this particular part of the discussion isn't science, but since you asked I'll give you my point of view on it as a Christian.

 

To The Moderators: Is that OK? I don't think I'm soapboxing here as I was asked a question about a religious or theistic viewpoint on something. I have disclaimed it as not being part of my scientific reasoning. If that is not OK, please give me a warning about it. I don't know how to otherwise answer the question, unless I go into some theological details. I don't want to give the impression that I'm just avoiding a question by saying something like "science doesn't deal with religion". I know it doesn't, but the question seems to require a religious viewpoint - and I am qualifying it as that.

 

I wouldn't say (let's call the designer God since we're discussing religious viewpoints) God is intentionally hiding - in the total sense of covering up all the evidence of design. If that were the case then things would be as Dr. Ken Miller believes they are. That though God created the universe initially, everything (including perhaps the orign of life, and certainly all of evolution) is unfolding according to mindless natural laws. According to what I have read about him and Dr. Francis Collins (both theistic evolutionists) there isn't really much (if any) scientific evidence in nature that we were designed. They believe instead that God is great (even greater than IDists claim) because God built into mindless natual laws the capability to "self create and self organize". But IDists and creationists disagree and claim that such an action really would justify a complete lack of a belief in God. If there just wasn't any evidence for a creator at all, then it would be the same situation as we have with fairies and Santa Claus. I wouldn't claim there was zero evidence for fairies and Santa Claus (as we may have the odd eye witness claim) but such tend to be ignored as heresay. The evidence if it exists is very very weak for fairies and Santa Claus.

 

The Bible position is different though. It maintains that because of the Creation (it's saying that the creation demonstrates the power of God) mankind is without excuse. Now clearly God is to a certain extent hiding himself from mankind. Not completely (or there'd be no Bible accounts of miracles, etc.) but most of the time. There is some kind of test going on about what humans decide to believe about God. God has basically said that enough evidence exists to draw the right conclusion. If God Got in our faces then we'd be compelled to believe. There would be no test. Everyone would be a theist, whether they wanted to be one or not. Actually it's not just about atheism versus theism, since atheism was much les prevalent in earlier times. The Bible says the test or evaluation ofeach life is about our attitude towards God. In any case, it's not God's plan at this time to prove to us the reality of God in a scientifically airtight case. I didn't say that there wasn't a good case, but it's not airtight. If it were airtight (100% scientifically verified) then there would be no place for any kind of faith. Yet the Bible says that God places a premium on faith. Especially when the faith flies in the face of some (but certainly not total) contradictory evidence. I believe the Bible teches that this is because it is a test of whether we love God or not. If you love some one, you want to believe the best about them. If you don't love them, you will tend to become exasperated in short order if they cause one any inconvenience.

 

Anyhow I have presented just a simple view of what I perceive the Biblical position to be on why God does not make His presence known in an obvious 100% verified scientific manner. This is apparently one of Richard Dawkin's main objections to believing in God as well, as he is reported to have once said that if God turns out to be real, and if he ever meets God, then he will ask God "Sir, why did you hide yourself so convincingly?" or something to that effect.

 

Then how do you scientifically test this for it to be a scientific theory? If you accept that the designer is hiding itself what possible help could assuming it exists be when developing a hypothesis?

 

I think a part of Bill Hicks stand-up summarizes my feeling on this somewhat nicely (it has strong language).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qmglGWMsdk&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qmglGWMsdk&feature=related

 

 

Also how would you reconcile this hiding with the other religious doctrine that says the gods aren't 'testing' faith. Actually I'm just going to say right now that all this is leading to me getting you to admit that ID isn't scientific but religious doctrine and shouldn't be thought of as science.

 

Again it depends if the programmers were running a "self awareness / self motivation / self discovery" kind of an experiment. They could for instance (so they wouldn't have to wait around too long) program the thinking machine with a "desire" or motivation to find out about it's origins, without telling the machine about it.

 

On the other hand, the programmers could take a diiferent approach, and leave clues such as essays and texts that were not verifiable scientific evidence (though perhaps pieces of them could be verified), but something like general messages. Think about that possibility. A text telling the program that it was created for the glory of IBM. The program could choose to listen to this and other messages, or to ignore them. Something along the lines of how we are free to investigate and then accept or reject various religious texts.

 

These more informal messages from the programmers wouldn't have to be testable natural hypotheses either. That's what we'd like to have, and what the program might like to have, but that isn't neccessarily what the programmers might decide to give it.

 

We cannot assume that if we are under some kind of an experiment (of our thoughts and actions) that we ought to find such a thing pleasant or obvious. That's what we'd like, but it may not be the actual situation. Wouldn't that mean that the designer was "fooling around with us"? Perhaps that is correct. But scientists often "fool around with" the subjects of their experiments. One can either choose to accept or reject the messages said to come from God that promise a very good outcome of this current situation.

 

I gave you my opinion and the ideas that at least a reasonable numer of theists would perhaps agree with, though some wouldn't. But remember that what I have just said isn't a scientific argument. It contains too much that cannot be verified. I was just speaking my mind.

 

To Moderators: That is the end of my excursion into religious thought for the purposes of answering some questions. If I have broken rules then I should be punished and told exactly where I went wrong and if I wish to continue posting on these forums, then I will not do it again.

 

But even if all this were true we are still part of the world and experience the same fundamental laws. If it were self aware and something was wrong with it, say part of its memory was corrupt and couldn't be fixed, the programmers would replace this memory chip. Now the computer has tested itself for any sort of self replicating parts and decided it has none. How does it logically deduce that the memory was replaced (for the nit-picky memory has different tags for identification just like a motherboard would)? It would probably assume something that is not itself did it. There are a million different ways a computer program can interact with its designer and logically deduce it was created by something scientifically, but that still doesn't help at all with the idea we were created.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Ringer

[Monsters from the ID]

Since you said you're breaking your post into smaller bits I'll assume you will answer the rest of my post later.

 

 

Then how do you scientifically test this for it to be a scientific theory? If you accept that the designer is hiding itself what possible help could assuming it exists be when developing a hypothesis?

 

 

Remember that ID (the science side of this argument) doesn't even consider if the designer is hiding. It would excuse itself from such a question because there is no scientific way to determine the motivations of a sentient being without interviewing them (and perhaps they'd be lying if interviewed!) Don't mix up ID and my stated religious opinions, that I specifically said were outside of science. What I was giving was my personal opinions, which I thought you might be interested in knowing, but as for a scientific hypothesis, well, they don't count as anything like that. I took my ID hat off and put on my creationist / Christian hat on (and warned the moderators that I was doing that) - because I didn't want to dodge your question as many IDists tend to do. But in that opinion of mine (if you're still interested in hearing my religious viewpoint) I think I made it clear enough (but perhaps not) that the Creator wasn't hiding in the sense that he left no evidence at all. There is a diference between someone purposefully not being observed, versus not leaving any evidence he is there at all.

 

I am saying that there is a lot of evidence that such a designer is likely there, but that the designer is purposefully making it non-obvious. And by that I mean that sufficient scientific evidence exists (which I will get into more later in response to your latest post (other than this one)) to infer there is a pretty good scientific case (though it's not proven without a direct designer observation) that an intelligent designer(s) of some kind exists, and achieved what the natural world seems incapable of doing (based on what we understand of it at the moment).

 

 

I think a part of Bill Hicks stand-up summarizes my feeling on this somewhat nicely (it has strong language).

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qmglGWMsdk&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qmglGWMsdk&feature=related

 

 

Indeed it does have strong language! You might like Bill Hicks' comedy on this subject, but one can't really treat such a standup routine as a scientific commentary that's relevant to this kind of a discussion. I think I can say that with some justification, because he wouldn't have had to have searched too far to find a much better creationist accounting for dinosaurs. I can go over that with you later on. He even made a big deal out of pretending to insert a (missing according to him) account of dinosaurs into Christianity for a laugh. But it seems he missed (on purpose?) the two distinct creatures in the Bible that most creationists (if not all creationists) believe are in fact dinosaurs that got a mention in the Bible. They don't fit too plausibly with animals such as the hippopotamus, crocodile or the elephant, as many commentators assume these creatures must be a description of. They're in the book of Job, named as the Behemoth, and Leviathan. But Bill is a standup comedy man who needs to go around in search of material for his show, so what else should we expect of him in regards to creationism? He sees it as an easy target for a laugh (not how he also mentions GW, another easy target). He'll be choosing to present the funniest creationist opinions he can come across in regards to things like dinosaurs etc. He's not going to be trying to engage in some serious probing of the subject of creationism. Hmmm?

 

 

Also how would you reconcile this hiding with the other religious doctrine that says the gods aren't 'testing' faith.

 

 

I prefer not to bother reconciling in detail other beliefs that are not my own. I guess you'd have to find someone who thinks that way and ask them for what they think about it. That's a question I have no qualms about ducking!!

 

 

Actually I'm just going to say right now that all this is leading to me getting you to admit that ID isn't scientific but religious doctrine and shouldn't be thought of as science.

 

 

I don't reconcile most of my previous comments as being scientific, or as being ID! I believe you'll recall that I specifially made reference to the fact that I was going outside of the scope of science, in order to answer your question about religious thinking / opinions. Most of what I said in the previous post (and some of what I said in this one too) goes outside the scope of what ID would claim. I made it clear I was saying something religious, because the ID take on your question would be to simply state that such a question is beyond the scope of ID to answer. As I made clear, I was giving you my Christian opinion on why it may be that the designer may be (partially) hiding himself, yet still leaving sufficient evidence in place for us to come to the correct conclusion.

 

I don't however defend that particulr opinion as being science, because my Christian beliefs are not within the scope of science.

 

Because of that you cannot really claim that you're "... getting me to admit that ID isn't scientific but religious doctrine and shouldn't be thought of as science." because you'd be setting up ID as a strawman (against my specific disclaimers) in this case. What I gave you was personal religious opinions, in order to answer one of your questions that was outside the scope of what ID deals with.

 

You can believe that ID isn't science if you want to of course (that's what much of our discussion will likely centre around) but you can't think that about ID based on what was a religious opinion. I think I made it clear earlier that creationism isn't science (though parts of it are scientific) because it takes a religious commitment to be axiomatic. ID doesn't do that.

 

And I'm not saying that ID is "better" than creationism. I'm just pointing out that ID limits itself to science, and takes no religious positions. Don't forget that science is just a tool for thinking that is useful in homing in on the truth. But as you know, something can be true, yet not scientific since it may be difficult to verify. When a tree falls in the forest and no one is watching, such a tree fall is true, but it is not scientific to distant inquirers that were unable to detect the tree falling over.

 

 

But even if all this were true we are still part of the world and experience the same fundamental laws. If it were self aware and something was wrong with it, say part of its memory was corrupt and couldn't be fixed, the programmers would replace this memory chip. Now the computer has tested itself for any sort of self replicating parts and decided it has none. How does it logically deduce that the memory was replaced (for the nit-picky memory has different tags for identification just like a motherboard would)? It would probably assume something that is not itself did it. There are a million different ways a computer program can interact with its designer and logically deduce it was created by something scientifically, but that still doesn't help at all with the idea we were created.

 

 

I think I agree with your thinking. If the computer had a sense of humour akin to Bill Hicks (oh I hope not!!) then such a memory swap would be brushed off with a joke, and perhaps a decision to treat such an unexplained memory swap event as "just one of those things" that are unexplained. After all, the unexplained happens!" Or else, the computer might realize that the memory chip alteration which doesn't have any natural explanation, is some kind of evidence of higher order tampering. Possibly indicating that something has intelligently manipulated the natural system.

 

Remember that regardless of what I said about why the designer might be hiding, ID doesn't even consider such questions because they are beyond the capability of science to answer. A designer can leave evidence of it's designs, without also being present and observeable by other entities. We know that intelligent entities can travel, right? So all that might mean is that the designer has travelled away from it's (intelligent) designs. Nothing particularly strange about that state of affairs. But as long as some evidence of the designs exist, then we can infer (depending on how good that evidence is) that intelligent design took place. But such questions as that (is the designer hiding) are merely speculation as far as science is concerned. I gave you my Christian opinion on that earlier, but don't consider that to be the ID position on that question. ID doesn't have a position on such a question.

[Ringer]

Remember that ID (the science side of this argument) doesn't even consider if the designer is hiding. It would excuse itself from such a question because there is no scientific way to determine the motivations of a sentient being without interviewing them (and perhaps they'd be lying if interviewed!) Don't mix up ID and my stated religious opinions, that I specifically said were outside of science. What I was giving was my personal opinions, which I thought you might be interested in knowing, but as for a scientific hypothesis, well, they don't count as anything like that. I took my ID hat off and put on my creationist / Christian hat on (and warned the moderators that I was doing that) - because I didn't want to dodge your question as many IDists tend to do. But in that opinion of mine (if you're still interested in hearing my religious viewpoint) I think I made it clear enough (but perhaps not) that the Creator wasn't hiding in the sense that he left no evidence at all. There is a diference between someone purposefully not being observed, versus not leaving any evidence he is there at all.

 

I am saying that there is a lot of evidence that such a designer is likely there, but that the designer is purposefully making it non-obvious. And by that I mean that sufficient scientific evidence exists (which I will get into more later in response to your latest post (other than this one)) to infer there is a pretty good scientific case (though it's not proven without a direct designer observation) that an intelligent designer(s) of some kind exists, and achieved what the natural world seems incapable of doing (based on what we understand of it at the moment).

 

Alright, I will wait for your later posts then.

 

 

Indeed it does have strong language! You might like Bill Hicks' comedy on this subject, but one can't really treat such a standup routine as a scientific commentary that's relevant to this kind of a discussion. I think I can say that with some justification, because he wouldn't have had to have searched too far to find a much better creationist accounting for dinosaurs. I can go over that with you later on. He even made a big deal out of pretending to insert a (missing according to him) account of dinosaurs into Christianity for a laugh. But it seems he missed (on purpose?) the two distinct creatures in the Bible that most creationists (if not all creationists) believe are in fact dinosaurs that got a mention in the Bible. They don't fit too plausibly with animals such as the hippopotamus, crocodile or the elephant, as many commentators assume these creatures must be a description of. They're in the book of Job, named as the Behemoth, and Leviathan. But Bill is a standup comedy man who needs to go around in search of material for his show, so what else should we expect of him in regards to creationism? He sees it as an easy target for a laugh (not how he also mentions GW, another easy target). He'll be choosing to present the funniest creationist opinions he can come across in regards to things like dinosaurs etc. He's not going to be trying to engage in some serious probing of the subject of creationism. Hmmm?

 

I didn't mean it as any scientific commentary, with any sort of satire there is an amount of straw-manning being done. But what I was implying, I probably should have said it, is that there is a lot of dodging in those aspects such as the age of the world, dinosaurs, etc. Perhaps there are many who say "well this might be a mentioning of that type of animal" but how I could do that with literally any story. I could read H.P. Lovecraft and say Cthulhu was probably a giant squid and his 'wings' were just the fins on top of the head seen from afar. Just like the argument that in the Noah Ark story the 'giants' people were breeding with that angered God could have been Neanderthals and the flood is just talking about their extinction. Well it could make sense but that doesn't mean it's true.

 

 

 

 

 

I prefer not to bother reconciling in detail other beliefs that are not my own. I guess you'd have to find someone who thinks that way and ask them for what they think about it. That's a question I have no qualms about ducking!!

 

 

I don't reconcile most of my previous comments as being scientific, or as being ID! I believe you'll recall that I specifially made reference to the fact that I was going outside of the scope of science, in order to answer your question about religious thinking / opinions. Most of what I said in the previous post (and some of what I said in this one too) goes outside the scope of what ID would claim. I made it clear I was saying something religious, because the ID take on your question would be to simply state that such a question is beyond the scope of ID to answer. As I made clear, I was giving you my Christian opinion on why it may be that the designer may be (partially) hiding himself, yet still leaving sufficient evidence in place for us to come to the correct conclusion.

 

I don't however defend that particulr opinion as being science, because my Christian beliefs are not within the scope of science.

 

Because of that you cannot really claim that you're "... getting me to admit that ID isn't scientific but religious doctrine and shouldn't be thought of as science." because you'd be setting up ID as a strawman (against my specific disclaimers) in this case. What I gave you was personal religious opinions, in order to answer one of your questions that was outside the scope of what ID deals with.

 

You can believe that ID isn't science if you want to of course (that's what much of our discussion will likely centre around) but you can't think that about ID based on what was a religious opinion. I think I made it clear earlier that creationism isn't science (though parts of it are scientific) because it takes a religious commitment to be axiomatic. ID doesn't do that.

 

And I'm not saying that ID is "better" than creationism. I'm just pointing out that ID limits itself to science, and takes no religious positions. Don't forget that science is just a tool for thinking that is useful in homing in on the truth. But as you know, something can be true, yet not scientific since it may be difficult to verify. When a tree falls in the forest and no one is watching, such a tree fall is true, but it is not scientific to distant inquirers that were unable to detect the tree falling over.

 

Well I will not argue with your personal religious belief because I honestly don't care what it is (not trying to be insulting or anything but it's just not my business). My 'belief' that ID isn't science is not based on any sort of disdain toward religion or anything like that, it's that I don't know of any strictly controlled study that has been done, verified, and the results duplicated. As I have said before anyone who is willing to strictly test the hypotheses brought about is more than welcome to do so, but to be scientific they must publish results including negative ones. If their results are positive and attempts to replicate repeatedly fail they need to stop saying it is because people they are being 'silenced' by the scientific community. If they fail to verify their hypothesis they must be willing to change their ideas. In my experience none of these have been done.

 

 

 

I think I agree with your thinking. If the computer had a sense of humour akin to Bill Hicks (oh I hope not!!) then such a memory swap would be brushed off with a joke, and perhaps a decision to treat such an unexplained memory swap event as "just one of those things" that are unexplained. After all, the unexplained happens!" Or else, the computer might realize that the memory chip alteration which doesn't have any natural explanation, is some kind of evidence of higher order tampering. Possibly indicating that something has intelligently manipulated the natural system.

 

And that tampering was done naturally following natural laws and can be tested and verified. My whole point is all tampering and interaction between the computer and its designer follows natural testable laws, the designer in ID does not so the analogy is flawed.

 

 

Remember that regardless of what I said about why the designer might be hiding, ID doesn't even consider such questions because they are beyond the capability of science to answer. A designer can leave evidence of it's designs, without also being present and observeable by other entities. We know that intelligent entities can travel, right? So all that might mean is that the designer has travelled away from it's (intelligent) designs. Nothing particularly strange about that state of affairs. But as long as some evidence of the designs exist, then we can infer (depending on how good that evidence is) that intelligent design took place. But such questions as that (is the designer hiding) are merely speculation as far as science is concerned. I gave you my Christian opinion on that earlier, but don't consider that to be the ID position on that question. ID doesn't have a position on such a question.

 

 

And as I said I have no problem with testing these ideas and falsifying/verifying them. But I haven't seen any sort of quality experiment that has been done, verified and replicated doing this.