Dembski confused: "Dawkins admits that life could be designed — Is ID therefore scientific?"

poachy: It would be awesome to be there in person to see them forced to admit it. I can only imagine how rewarding it would be for you to be part of the team that tighten the screws. Go get ‘em!

A. It's not support for intelligent design because intelligent design presupposes a mechanism that exists outside of nature, can't be tested, can't be subjected to natural examination. If irreducible complexity held up, if we couldn't find subsets that were useful, it might mean that these systems had to be assembled by a pathway that was different from the Darwinian pathway, from the evolutionary pathway, and we might then look for another pathway or other evidence in favor of that. Intelligent design would be a possibility, but intelligent design is always a possibility for everything. It's entirely possible that this universe was intelligently designed ten seconds ago, and each of us was put here with false memories and false childhoods. That's not a testable hypothesis. Is it possible? Yeah, sure. The problem with intelligent design as a scientific explanation is that it can be used to explain in non-scientific terms literally anything, and that's why it is not science.

Design implies a conscious designer and thus contrary to Kenneth Miller is not useful in evolutionary theory and just adds fuel to the creationists for no reason. We see patterns; to see design is merely an example of pareidolia.Causalism implies dysteology and thus conflicts with design, which implies teleology. Natural selection, being its own boss and showing no design,dysteological, needs no superboss to contradict it with design.
Amiel Rossow @ Talk Reason rightly takes Miller to task for casting out ID out the front door, only to bring it in through the back door , just on faith, no reasons given.
Theistic evolution is thus an oxymoron.From the side of religion it can be true; from the side of science , no. See God: the failed Hypothesis" and "Has Science found God."
Thanks William Provine ,Paul Hick and Richard Dawkins for speaking up for us non-accomodationists!

Correction: Paul Kurtz.

I suddenly got this wonderful idea. The rubes really believe that Dembski got the goods and he is gonna destroy "evilution". Most such rubes believe in other nonsense like, "a penniless engineer invented a car that runs on water and the Big Oil suppressed the invention".

So we should advance the theory that, "Dembski could take down evilution any time he wants, but he is not doing so because he is milking the situation by making money. He billed TMLC 200$ a hour in the Dover trial even though he refused to testify on stand". Let him explain whether he could not or why he did not destroy evilution at Dover, PA.

In this aspect it differs from science which admits that design always remains a logical possibility, …

So Dawkins says life could be designed, therefore Mr. Dembski thinks that means ID isn't religion. If Dawkins ever says that there could be a god, that would mean that religion isn't religion! I hope Mr. Dawkins never says there could be a god! Oh boy!!

Ravilyn Sanders: So we should advance the theory that, "Dembski could take down evilution any time he wants, but he is not doing so because he is milking the situation by making money. He billed TMLC 200$ a hour in the Dover trial even though he refused to testify on stand". Let him explain whether he could not or why he did not destroy evilution at Dover, PA.

Design implies a conscious designer and thus contrary to Kenneth Miller is not useful in evolutionary theory and just adds fuel to the creationists for no reason.

I've noticed that a lot more average citizens are echoing what Dembski is saying here. I'm coming across quite a few letters to the editor and blog posts that argue ID is merely the concept that life was created. It seems to me they're basically confusing ID with deism. Is this part of some sort of strategy on the Discovery Institute's part to gain wider acceptance?

science also accepts that if such design is ‘supernatural’ no scientific method can detect such design.

The first two words of the title have a sort of "Pope is Catholic" feel to them.

I wish people wouldn't say "that's possible" about a claim when what they mean is "that can't be absolutely disproven at this point". Inability to disprove something doesn't imply that the thing is possible, only that we can't state with utter certainty that the claim isn't the case.

Henry

Ravilyn Sanders: So we should advance the theory that, "Dembski could take down evilution any time he wants, but he is not doing so because he is milking the situation by making money. He billed TMLC 200$ a hour in the Dover trial even though he refused to testify on stand". Let him explain whether he could not or why he did not destroy evilution at Dover, PA.

Inability to disprove something doesn’t imply that the thing is possible, only that we can’t state with utter certainty that the claim isn’t the case.

Ravilyn Sanders: So we should advance the theory that, "Dembski could take down evilution any time he wants, but he is not doing so because he is milking the situation by making money. He billed TMLC 200$ a hour in the Dover trial even though he refused to testify on stand". Let him explain whether he could not or why he did not destroy evilution at Dover, PA.

I think you mean that if such a design is supernatural then it is possible that no scientific method could detect it. There is no fundamental reason that a supernatural designer must be cryptic, inscrutable and/or undetectable, nothing prevents them from signing their work plainly and obviously. It’s just that inscrutability and undetectability are the only excuses left to justify continuing to suggest such an entity, therefore any God Designer still being proposed at this point would have to be of the stealth variety.

To me the most amazing part of the film is where Dawkins gives away the store by taking seriously a scenario in which a designer might have brought about life on Earth.

The problem with this is that we have no way of attributing anything we find in Nature to the design or “signature” of a supernatural being. All we can detect are natural phenomena. The supernatural, by definition, is outside the realm of science.

It seems to me they’re basically confusing ID with deism. Is this part of some sort of strategy on the Discovery Institute’s part to gain wider acceptance?

All we can detect are natural phenomena.

Okay, then anytime anybody says anything about anything supernatural, we know they are full of baloney. Thanks!!

however science also accepts that if such design is ‘supernatural’ no scientific method can detect such design.

The supernatural, by definition, is outside the realm of science.

Laws of nature, combined with constraints, and fueled by selection inevitably leads to something we call ‘design’.

Alexandra:

Inability to disprove something doesn’t imply that the thing is possible, only that we can’t state with utter certainty that the claim isn’t the case.

Then how would you define "possible"?

Alexandra:

The problem with this is that we have no way of attributing anything we find in Nature to the design or “signature” of a supernatural being. All we can detect are natural phenomena. The supernatural, by definition, is outside the realm of science.

That is not to say that the actions or effects of all supernatural entities or agents must also be supernatural and undetectable. Should God exist and decide to stop the rotation of the Earth (as we hear he has done in the past) that would certainly be detectable to science. It is in this fashion that religious claims such as those concerning the power of intercessory prayer are open to scientific investigation despite their claimed supernatural origin and/or mechanism. In just this way the fingerprints of design, if such design existed, could very well be clearly detectable regardless of the nature of the designer. Whether science could then detect or determine the specifics of the designer is a separate question.

Always enjoyed Carl Sagan's rather mordant commentary on "religious integrity". He noted that over millennia, with literally trillions of ineffective intercessory prayers on the books, the Official Religious Position was "insufficient data, answer unknown." Then one day a decade or more back, some folks did a poorly-designed study and found what might (or might not, due to the experimental design) be interpreted as systematic effect of prayer.

And overnight, this became "sufficient data" and a thousand websites trumpeted "scientific proof" of God's intercession.

Subsequently, the errors in the methodology were correct, the study was replicated many times (including by the original experimenters), and again no hint of any effect at all. Did the religious folks change their tune, back to "insufficient data"? Are you kidding? In true "religious integrity" fashion, they have simply ignored all subsequent studies, and claimed "scientific proof" to this very day.

A wonderful cautionary tale of the mindset we're always fighting.

I think you misunderstood. Any deity’s stamp or signature in the natural world cannot be linked to a supernatural realm (by definition); otherwise we would have a god detector in the natural world, and the “god” could be construed as an extension of the natural world that was hitherto inaccessible

— Mike Elzinga

Intercessory prayer has been tested ...

I think you misunderstood. Any deity’s stamp or signature in the natural world cannot be linked to a supernatural realm (by definition); otherwise we would have a god detector in the natural world, and the “god” could be construed as an extension of the natural world that was hitherto inaccessible

Alexandra, I have to come down on your side. I love these extreme hypothetical things to clarify matters.

Suppose the Earth stopped rotating for a couple of hours. Throw in the effect of no other effects (earthquakes etc.), so our civilization doesn't collapse. Scientists exhaust every possible explanation for this potentially miraculous event, and after decades of hypotheses, and maybe even new areas of physics explored to investigate it, no one can come up with even a whiff of a natural explanation. The event violates so many laws of physics that it is just plain impossible in our space-time continuum. Yet it happened and was witnessed by the whole population of Earth.

I think it would be perversely nitpicky to refuse to call such an event a miracle, and to allow, at least tentatively, attributing it to a power outside our space-time continuum. Could one object to calling that supernatural?

Please don't assume from the above that I believe that anything of that nature has ever happened, or is ever likely to.

Down here if Florida, burnt toast passes muster as a miracle.

we had a crying statue once; it got on the regular news, people came to pray over it, the reports said that "there appeared to be no natural explanation" for the tears of blood. what they meant was; "we can't be bothered to think of a logical explanation when we can just use magical thinking"

I'm personally tired of it. I get more PZ every day down here.

Here it is, my neighborhood:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrfGDRFjBC8

possible --- Capable of happening

http://www.answers.com/topic/possible

provides more alternatives.

In the next court case, it will be interesting put depose the people on the other side who appear in EXPELLED as they try to argue that ID is religion given their huge concessions in this film.

Not as long as religion claims the supernatural is observable, in creations, miracles, or designs.

Maybe poachy's encouragement to Dembski to "Go get ‘em!" should be taken in the same sense that Dr. Peter Venkman said "Go get her, Ray!" in Ghostbusters ; )

Just Bob: Suppose the Earth stopped rotating for a couple of hours. Throw in the effect of no other effects (earthquakes etc.), so our civilization doesn't collapse.

Mike Elzinga:

Alexandra:

The problem with this is that we have no way of attributing anything we find in Nature to the design or “signature” of a supernatural being. All we can detect are natural phenomena. The supernatural, by definition, is outside the realm of science.

That is not to say that the actions or effects of all supernatural entities or agents must also be supernatural and undetectable. Should God exist and decide to stop the rotation of the Earth (as we hear he has done in the past) that would certainly be detectable to science. It is in this fashion that religious claims such as those concerning the power of intercessory prayer are open to scientific investigation despite their claimed supernatural origin and/or mechanism. In just this way the fingerprints of design, if such design existed, could very well be clearly detectable regardless of the nature of the designer. Whether science could then detect or determine the specifics of the designer is a separate question.

I think you misunderstood. Any deity’s stamp or signature in the natural world cannot be linked to a supernatural realm (by definition); otherwise we would have a god detector in the natural world, and the “god” could be construed as an extension of the natural world that was hitherto inaccessible (much like opening up our understandings of the universe by the discovery and technological exploitation of x-rays and other electromagnetic radiation outside the visible spectrum). Thus there is no reason to refer to the newly discovered phenomena as “god”. This has nothing to do with trying to decide whose god it is. There is no evidence that the Earth’s rotation was stopped by a deity in the past. That is religious myth. Intercessory prayer has been tested (this has been reported in a number of places, including Dawkin’s book, The God Delusion). But even there, the effect was to cause people who knew they were being prayed for to do worse because of the psychological effects of worry and fear that they were worse off than they were being told. Strong beliefs and superstitions are known to have dramatic physical effects; these effects don’t have to be assigned to supernatural causes. People who don’t know they have a voodoo curse on them are not affected any more than people who know voodoo to be a superstition. So it was an experiment in the natural world, with natural explanations.

I’m not sure how you would define “supernatural”, but there is nothing that would prohibit a supernatural agent from causing detectable events. There is simply no reason we cannot have, as you say, a “god detector”. Most religions make all sorts of claims which, if true, would be readily detectable. That they are not detected suggests that they are not true, not that gods and their effects are somehow immune to science or even rational perception.

If, as I said, the world suddenly stop rotating we would notice that. If all the Christian amputees in the world started spontaneously regrowing their lost limbs in response to prayer, we could observe that. This would not somehow, as you claim, make such miraculous events nor those agents responsible for them “natural” by any normal definition of that word.

So, are you saying that if the intercessory prayer experiment had shown a small but measurable effect in just the way believers had predicted/hoped, this would constitute the “naturalization” of the phenomenon hitherto known as God?

Some time with a physics textbook and a calculator would convince you that, if its rotation were halted by “natural” means over the course of, say, five seconds, Earth would briefly become the brightest object of its size in this region of the galaxy.

Ah, that's when the inertial dampers kick in : )

Perhaps understanding Kenneth Miller, and Ruse for that matter or Ayala or others who have argued why design in nature is inevitable

or Collins?

phht.

Regarding the natural vs. supernatural issue, how about this:

Forget about "natural" or "supernatural".

Describe the entity, object, or phenomena that one wishes to investigate. If it can't be described, then there's nothing that can be done with it or about it.

Then ask: Would the described phenomena, as a logical consequence of its described attributes, cause repeatable consistent detectable patterns in what we can observe?

If so, it can be studied. If not, it can't. (That might change in the future, if relevant discoveries or advances in technology occur.)

Henry

Mike Elzinga,

First of all, I think we're in agreement on everything but tactics and terminology. Granted, no one seems likely to win Randi's million dollars any time soon. Granted, the prayer efficacy experiment showed, not unexpectedly, that there was no measurable effect. Granted, religious definitions are often quite self-serving. What I'm trying to point out is that I think your definitions are also self-serving, and somewhat contradictory. On one hand, you seem to be saying that no experiment has ever measured the supernatural, so belief in the supernatural is not scientifically justifiable. So far so good, but on the other hand, you're saying that, by definition, anything that can be measured is natural, not supernatural, so that one can never prove the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. You're simply defining away the possibility by fiat, and then refusing to deal in speculation, even for purposes of 'reducto ad absurdum.' I largely agree with your conclusions, I just think the way you're going about it is open to criticism, which you don't seem to be too good at taking, either. Let me ask the question another way: if Randi actually lost his million, and you conducted the world's best possible investigation into how he could have been tricked and you found nothing, would you just declare Randi a fool, or change your definition of supernatural?

So far so good, but on the other hand, you’re saying that, by definition, anything that can be measured is natural, not supernatural, so that one can never prove the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. You’re simply defining away the possibility by fiat, and then refusing to deal in speculation, even for purposes of ‘reducto ad absurdum.’

PvM:

Design implies a conscious designer and thus contrary to Kenneth Miller is not useful in evolutionary theory and just adds fuel to the creationists for no reason.

Perhaps understanding Kenneth Miller, and Ruse for that matter or Ayala or others who have argued why design in nature is inevitable is helpful rather than adding fuel to creationists. Laws of nature, combined with constraints, and fueled by selection inevitably leads to something we call 'design'. Rather than ignore this, it seems far more sense to embrace this.

Mike,

I think we are in agreement. Thank you.

One of my favorite toys over the years has been a 2-D Newtonian motion simulator (you can get a copy of your own from www.tesp.com/ballistic.htm). It comes bundled with a number of "pre-created" (and intelligently designed) low-budget universes.

Once any of them is loaded and running, "natural" causes (e.g.
f = G * m₁ * m₂ / d²) take their course.

If I should happen to be displeased with any of the objects' location or velocity or mass, I can halt the simulation, make arbitrary changes to the object in question, and resume the run.

Behold: a supernatural event has occurred. If the simulation platform and starting conditions were sufficiently complex that sentient life were to evolve, they'd be able to observe, but not explain, the event.

Mike, Bill, Alexandra,
excellent discussion! Thanks to your arguments I think I can sum up the Natural/Supernatural conundrum as:
If we can imagine a scenario whereby a singular event is observed which violates all known scientific theories (such as a temporary halt to the Earth's rotation), many would be tempted to attribute the event to the actions of a supernatural agent.
However, the event is occurring in the natural world and is observable and testable in the natural world. If a supernatural agent has to act on natural phenomena in the natural world in order to disclose its existence, then how do we know that any or every natural event isn't caused by a supernatural agent(s)?
It seems to me this renders the whole idea of the supernatural moot.
BTW, Randi's challenge is set to expire in two years. I love his podcasts - wish they were longer...
Chris

Henry J: Regarding the natural vs. supernatural issue, how about this: Forget about "natural" or "supernatural". Describe the entity, object, or phenomena that one wishes to investigate. If it can't be described, then there's nothing that can be done with it or about it. Then ask: Would the described phenomena, as a logical consequence of its described attributes, cause repeatable consistent detectable patterns in what we can observe? If so, it can be studied. If not, it can't. (That might change in the future, if relevant discoveries or advances in technology occur.) Henry

If I should happen to be displeased with any of the objects’ location or velocity or mass, I can halt the simulation, make arbitrary changes to the object in question, and resume the run. Behold: a supernatural event has occurred. If the simulation platform and starting conditions were sufficiently complex that sentient life were to evolve, they’d be able to observe, but not explain, the event.

Mike Elzinga: What really gets interesting in a program like this is how to deal with the “memories” of creatures that evolve in this “universe”. A lot of science fiction stories get this really screwed up, but it is fun anyway.

Mike Elzinga: If you stopped the “universe”, then backed it up and re-ran it with changes, would the creatures in that “universe” have the same “memories” of what had occurred before the run was stopped, backed up, changes made, and then restarted?

I responded to this over on UD a short while ago. The response actually concerns a different entry from UD, linking to another review of Expelled, but the discussion is from Dembski's. The two reviews are so similar in content that it doesn't really matter, though on purely stylistic grounds, Cashill's the better writer. The other UD entry is here, for any who care:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/jack-cashill-reviews-expelled/

It's just the excerpted first part of the full review, found here:

http://www.cashill.com/intellig_design/expelled_review.htm

I don't know if I'll be artificially selected out of the game by moderation, but I found the whole thing so annoying I figure it was worth a shot. Anyway, I reproduce my response on Dembski's entry here:

-------------------

OK, nevermind. Found it myself. Umm, that's rather misleading to attribute that quote directly to Dawkins. Rather the review actually says:

"To Stein’s astonishment, Dawkins concedes that life might indeed have a designer but that designer almost assuredly was a more highly evolved being from another planet, not “God.”"

I'd like to see the footage of Dawkin's response in his own words, preferably unedited. It may very well be an unedited response in the film, but there's no way to know that from a secondhand account written by an unapologetic advocate of ID on whose site one can find prominent promotion of the movie.

I tend to doubt that Cahill's interpretation of Dawkins' response is accurate, because Dawkins has discussed this notion of "Extraterrestrial Design" before in "The Ancestor's Tale". It was hardly a ringing endorsement of the concept, and was in fact a critique of ID in general and IC in particular:

"It is perfectly legitimate to propose the argument from irreducible complexity as a possible explanation for the lack of something that doesn't exist...[t]hat is very different from evading the scientist's responsibility to explain something that does exist, such as wheeled bacteria. Nevertheless, to be fair, it is possible to imagine validly using some version of the argument from design, or the argument from irreducible complexity. Future visitors from outer space...will surely find ways to distinguish designed machines such as planes and microphones, from evolved machines such as bats wings and ears. ...They may face some tricky judgments in the messy overlap between natural evolution and human design. If the alien scientists can study living specimens...what will they make of fragile, highly-strung racehorses and greyhounds, of snuffling bulldogs who can scarcely breathe and can't be born without Caesarian assistance....[m]olecular machines -- nanotechnology -- crafted on the same scale as the bacterial flagellar motor, may pose the alien scientists even harder problems.

Francis Crick, no less, has speculated semi-seriously in 'Life Itself' that bacteria may not have originated on this planet but been seeded from elsewhere. In Crick's fantasy, they were sent in the nose-cone of a rocket by alien beings, who wanted to propogate their form of life... Crick and...Orgel, who originally suggested the idea with him, supposed that the bacteria had originally evolved by natural processes...but they could equally, while in the mood for science fiction, have added a touch of nanotechnological artifice...perhaps a molecular gearwheel like the flagellar motor...

Crick himself -- whether with regret or relief it is hard to say -- finds little good evidence of his own theory... But the hinterland between science and science fiction constitutes a useful mental gymnasium in which to wrestle with a genuinely important question...how do we, in practice, distinguish [evolution's] products from deliberately designed artefacts? ... Could there be genuinely persuasive examples of irreducible complexity in nature...? If so, might this suggest design by a superior intelligence, say from an older and more highly evolved civilisation on another planet?" [549-50, Trade Paperback]

So, clearly, this is not some shocking, new admission on Dawkins' part, considering that he put it in print almost four years ago. Neither is it so outlandish as Cahill's review suggests because just as clearly, Dawkins views the whole notion as intellectual play --- a thought experiment like Schrodinger's proverbial Cat, as evidenced by language such as "while in the mood for science fiction", "fantasy", and "mental gymnasium". He is certainly not putting any of it forward as a serious, fully-formulated hypothesis. So, yes, the possibility of design is conceded, but it always has been. Absence of evidence is not, well, you know the rest. As to the assertion that Dawkins considers ID-via-ET more likely than ID-via-Deity, I buy it. What else would you expect from a man who identifies himself as an atheist? Of course he considers intelligent alien life more likely to be responsible for some hypothetical example of ID. That doesn't mean he considers either scenario all that likely in absolute terms. And, in fact, it's pretty obvious he doesn't take the whole alien idea very seriously at all.

It did make for one of the better stories from Star Trek: TNG though, but maybe that's just nostalgia -- I haven't watched it in years. I think it may even have been a two-parter.

-----------------------

I have to admit to a bit of rhetorical trickery of my own: it was a two-parter, and I've known it all along. Sorry about that. Anyway, for the convenience of the interested, here's Cashill's home URL:

http://www.cashill.com/index.htm

The review itself is problematic in other ways, not just because it served as the source for an unusual form of quote-mining: attributing someone else's summary of Dawkins' interview to Dawkins' himself, that someone else being an ID advocate with a giant ad for Expelled plastered on their homepage. Well turnabout is emphatically not fair-play, but I can't resist quote-mining Cashill myself:

"This isn’t film making. This is fraud."

While my quote-mine is just as illegitmate, dishonest and unfair, it has the considerable advantage of being amusing.

Oh, yeah. And the actual Dembski thread containing the link the the other review:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/dawkins-admits-that-life-could-be-designed-is-id-therefore-scientific/

Actually, it just occurred to me that there really was fraud involved -- at least insofar as securing PZ Meyer's cooperation with the film is concerned. Does this mean I've discovered a new form of quote-mining? Sure, it's still out of context and completely ignores the author's intended meaning, but it also happens to be pretty accurate. It really needs some ridiculously jargon-y pseudo-technical name, but nothing comes to mind at the moment.

otherwise we would have a god detector in the natural world, and the “god” could be construed as an extension of the natural world that was hitherto inaccessible

Why is there nothing that would prevent a supernatural agent from causing detectable events? How do you know that? By definition?

It does not require an interpretation as a pronouncement on the supernatural.

In return of customers' long-term support, GMLVL.com now offer a 20%-50% discount for all pacakge on www.gmlvl.com.
The bonus of 12 hours' free power leveling for any custom orders is here.
You will get 10% commission generated from your Referrals' power leveling orders and 5% commission for gold order.

enjoy in www.gmlvl.com

That spammer could have used a spell checker... :p

"On the other hand, only a few hundred years of natural science has produced a convergence of deep understanding agreement about the natural world."

Let's not forget to add these. Meth, cocaine, crack, heroine, HIGH GAS PRICES, oh yeah and my personal favorite,
a future nuclear holocaust.

Gmest are the safe and cheap wow level site.Here are our promise of our wow leveling service:
1. level up by our two hands, no bots for ever.
2. keep all drops for you during the level process.
3. banned rate can be controled with 2%.
4. we will buy new CDkey for you and re-level for you for free if your account banned.
5. best protection of your account.
6. Email notification when start and done your order.
7. powerleveling report update every 24 hours.
If you have any questions， plz feel free to contact with us by livechat or give us e-mail to support@gmest.com. Tks

Welcome to : www.Gmest.com
Add new game :Warhammer Online Gold and Powerleveling
MSN/Email：support@gmest.com

You claim that although intelligent design is a logical possibility, the scientific method cannot detect it. If that's true, then science in general cannot answer any questions for which intelligent design is a logically possible explanation. The reason is that if design is a real possibility, it is therefore possible that science will never come up with the answer, and furthermore, you would never know it.

So, if intelligent design is a possible explanation for biological complexity, then by your own standards, science cannot address the question of how biological complexity arose, and Darwinian theory is therefore not scientific.

Actually, you only said that "supernatural" design couldn't be detected. But does that mean that "natural" design can be detected? If so, what's the difference? And what if biology involves "natural" design? Or do you claim all design must be "supernatural" (and if so, what is the basis of that claim)?

Of course, you are indeed wrong. There are mathematical methods for detecting design. The design hypothesis is not simply stating that because something exists, it must have been designed, no evidence needed. The design hypothesis is evaluated by determining whether purely material processes could have generated the observed pattern -- if not, design is inferred.

To address one of the earlier comments, no self-respecting ID theorist would claim "the universe was intelligently designed 10 seconds ago" to be a reasonable design hypothesis, and would certainly not accept it as true without any evidence. Just because that particular hypothesis cannot be tested does not mean that no design hypothesis can be tested. I could just as easily say that all non-design hypotheses are non-scientific because the hypothesis that "the universe was created by purely natural, material processes 10 seconds ago" is also not testable. Obviously that's absurd. There are testable and non-testable hypotheses of all sorts.

Also, note that in the interview, Dawkins did not merely suggest that design was some undetectable possibility. He actually admitted that there could be some "signature" (his word), which presumably is a detectable indicator. So, he did leave open the possibility not only of design, but that design could be detected (which would indeed make the design hypothesis scientific).

It seems Dawkins' chief objection has to do with the nature of the designer, not whether design is possible or even scientific.

atan wrote:

"There are mathematical methods for detecting design."

Please provide the mathematical method to which you refer, a referenence from the peer reviewed scientific literature would be nice. Please also demonstrate how this method can be used to detect design, even if the designer, methods and purpose of the design are unknown. Please give an example of how this method has been used to detect design in nature and what confidence level is associated with this conclusion. Please also demonstrate how this method avoids false positives and false negatives and how the statistical significance of this method can be evaluated. Also please note the fundamental differences between this method and the methods of archaeology.

It is indeed possible that some types of "supernatural" "intelligent design" are indeed outside the realm of scientific investigation. However, that does not mean that the theory of evolution is not scientific. It only means that you will have a very difficult time demonstrating that such events have actually occurred. Therre are indeed testable and untestable ideas of all sorts, it's just that the untestable ones aren't science.

So, if intelligent design is a possible explanation for biological complexity, then by your own standards, science cannot address the question of how biological complexity arose, and Darwinian theory is therefore not scientific.

“There are mathematical methods for detecting design.”

I suspect - and feel free to correct me if I am wrong - that he is making the "pattern recognition" argument that I have seen every once in a while from IDers.

In abstract mathematics pattern recognition is a legitimate topic of discussion. The idea here is that the formulas and devices used to recognize abstract patterns in mathematical expressions can also be applied to physical matter and/or biological specimens. Of course in reality abstract mathematical objects are generally understood by their users as are all the variables affecting them; whereas we still have a LOT to learn about the composition of matter and all the variables in the universe that have effects on its substance and behavior.

Generally this argument isn't made too often because the vast majority of ID missionaries have no knowledge of higher mathematics and the few that do realize the absurdity of the argument immediately. Nevertheless, it does have a certain appeal to those who lump all "science" together into one grand "evil conspiracy against God," because if a formula or process works in one "science" then it must be equally applicable to all "science." Presumably this how a myriad of medical doctors, dentists, and theologians believe they're qualified to debunk evolutionary biology. :)

And, of course, there is the little problem that even if this argument could be made and various patterns were identified that span all existence, it still wouldn't prove - or even infer - the existence of a "intelligent designer." All it would do is add yet another dimension to the mystery of existence and provide fuel for whole new generations of scientists.

And, of course, there is the little problem that even if this argument could be made and various patterns were identified that span all existence, it still wouldn’t prove - or even infer - the existence of a “intelligent designer.”

One problem is that the term "design" is ambiguous in this context. It might mean deliberate engineering by somebody or something, or it might just mean the way the parts of something are arranged and how they interact with each other.

If biological life, or some aspects of it, were deliberately engineered, that would most likely have left observable patterns in the data that could in fact be studied, and which would differ significantly from the patterns expected from evolution. In that case current evolution theory would not have worked as a way of understanding biology.

Pretty much the only way deliberately engineered life could avoid producing observable patterns distinct from those expected from evolution as currently understood, would be if it was deliberately made to look as if evolution were the cause. If that were actually the case, then evolution as presently understood would still be a way of understanding what we see in nature, and therefore would still be science.

Henry

two sets of very specific amino acids arranged in long data strings?!?

That's rediculous...haha. Someone actually said that "if design is supernatural then it is undetectible." Question: How can that conclusion be confirmed? Answer: It cannot be confirmed because it is simply an assertion based on a biased opinion and not scientific experimentation. You can’t test whether or not design is detectible or not. It s simply an assertion. That’s Funny stuff. That’s taking it just a bit (when I say a bit I mean a whole heck of a lot) too far.
Mathematical laws…Mathematical Laws limit what can happen and mathematical laws are supernatural aren’t they? We detect mathematical laws don’t we? Mathematical laws exist simply because existence is the way it is. Mathematical laws pre-date our universe otherwise our universe would not exist as it does. We cannot experiment on whether or not mathematical laws “evolved” from some less advanced form of laws (I hope you can sense my sarcastic humor) because every experiment we conduct uses those mathematical laws in order to arrive at a conclusion of whether or not the findings are statistically significant. That’s just basic logic fellas, give me a break! This is one of those ridiculous comments that make me chuckle at the current “scientific” community.
Scientists and philosophy…Alright everyone, let’s just go ahead and say it: Being a “scientist” obviously does not qualify you as philosopher. I know everyone was thinking it, but no one said it. Your philosophy will determine your final outcomes. I’ll give you an example. Naturalism is assumed in what people today call “science”. If a “scientist” assumes naturalism, then all their findings will magically detect that all causes are “naturalistic” because that is their only option. That is the problem with the current “scientific” powers that be. Free inquiry is not allowed. It is only allowed if naturalism is assumed. No wonder everyone appears to “prove” naturalism. It is silliness! It’s simply Nietzche’s power philosophy at work, just like his admirer Saul Alinsky wrote about in Rules for Radicals. The problem is that the average Joe doesn’t do his own research.
I thought it would help just to clear the air with that one.

God Bless Everyone! Love ya!

You can’t test whether or not design is detectable or not.

So... our solar system could be, like, an atom in a giant's fingernail...

(head > desk)

Yes, Kris, mathematical laws are supernatural. Therefore Jesus.

Kris Jones said: That's rediculous...haha .... Your philosophy will determine your final outcomes. ...

fnxtr, I love the humor! Especially the "Jesus" left jab.

This is why I have now fallen in love with the people on this website. All of you have great, witty comebacks and senses of humor! No counter-arguments, but great witty comebacks!

This is what I was commenting on earlier:
“...however science also accepts that if such design is ‘supernatural’ no scientific method can detect such design.”
How can science make that acknowledgement? If the presupposition denies the possibility of detection, then any detection of design is thrown out “a priori”. That would not be “true” science. True science must acknowledge any possibility; otherwise the results will be skewed.

stevearoni (I still love that name by the way); you ask how we can detect design. I hope you really are curious, though I somehow doubt it. Here is the answer: acknowledge the obvious.

Here is one way to detect design: Everything in the universe actually operates under certain laws, which are not a product of naturalistic evolution. If you acknowledge that the laws did not come about by natural selection then you must acknowledge some type of supernatural cause (also known as a designer) because the laws fall outside of nature. The proof is “in the pudding”.

It is silly if someone asserts that everything came about by natural processes. What about the systems that drive the natural processes? Obviously natural processes cannot design their own systems in which to operate. If that were the case, then the natural processes would be the “designer” and we would all have to acknowledge ID. Either way, the existence of supernatural laws is one proof of design.

Talk to you later, friends!

Kris said: This is what I was commenting on earlier: “...however science also accepts that if such design is ‘supernatural’ no scientific method can detect such design.” How can science make that acknowledgement? If the presupposition denies the possibility of detection, then any detection of design is thrown out “a priori”. That would not be “true” science. True science must acknowledge any possibility; otherwise the results will be skewed.

stevearoni (I still love that name by the way); you ask how we can detect design. I hope you really are curious, though I somehow doubt it. Here is the answer: acknowledge the obvious.

Here is one way to detect design: Everything in the universe actually operates under certain laws, which are not a product of naturalistic evolution.

If you acknowledge that the laws did not come about by natural selection then you must acknowledge some type of supernatural cause (also known as a designer) because the laws fall outside of nature. The proof is “in the pudding”.

It is silly if someone asserts that everything came about by natural processes. What about the systems that drive the natural processes? Obviously natural processes cannot design their own systems in which to operate. If that were the case, then the natural processes would be the “designer” and we would all have to acknowledge ID. Either way, the existence of supernatural laws is one proof of design.

If you acknowledge that the laws did not come about by natural selection then you must acknowledge some type of supernatural cause (also known as a designer) because the laws fall outside of nature.