Sal Cordova responded to my OP at UD, and I have given his post in full below.
Dr. Liddle recently used my name specifically in a question here:
Chance and 500 coins: a challenge
Barry? Sal? William?
I would always like to stay on good terms with Dr. Liddle. She has shown great hospitality. The reason I don’t visit her website is the acrimony many of the participants have toward me. My absence there has nothing to do with her treatment of me, and in fact, one reason I was ever there in the first place was she was one of the few critics of ID that actually focused on what I said versus assailing me personally.
So, apologies in advance Dr. Liddle if I don’t respond to every question you field. It has nothing to do with you but lots to do with hatred obviously direct toward me by some of the people at your website.
I’ve enjoyed discussion about music and musical instruments.
Dr. Liddle asked I respond to this:
My problem with the IDists’ 500 coins question (if you saw 500 coins lying heads up, would you reject the hypothesis that they were fair coins, and had been fairly tossed?) is not that there is anything wrong with concluding that they were not. Indeed, faced with just 50 coins lying heads up, I’d reject that hypothesis with a great deal of confidence.
It’s the inference from that answer of mine is that if, as a “Darwinist” I am prepared to accept that a pattern can be indicative of something other than “chance” (exemplified by a fairly tossed fair coin) then I must logically also sign on to the idea that an Intelligent Agent (as the alternative to “Chance”) must inferrable from such a pattern.
This, I suggest, is profoundly fallacious.
First of all, it assumes that “Chance” is the “null hypothesis” here
No, I’m afraid it’s not. That is your representation of the ID procedure. That is not the way I’ve ever stated it, nor has any other ID proponent to my knowledge. There is no null (default) hypothesis in the Explantory Filter (EF).
You can reject a hypothesis after examination without ever making it the null hypothesis at the beginning of your inquiry. Just as I have done in my analysis of a system of 500 fair coins heads. In the 10 years I’ve defended ID, I’ve never assumed “chance” is the null hypothesis. The general assumption starting out is the system could be the result of:
1. chance
2. law
3. something not-chance and not-law
That is the EF. If anything, the null hypothesis is “anything is possible” which would be kind of useless null hypothesis. I’ve suggested “not chance” as a null, but that’s not exactly right either.
Further, the EF is not purely a statistical test, but a PHYSICAL test. That is, if we see the coins are two-headed, then we can reject #1 and #3 as causes. Most null hypothesis tests I see in literature are purely statistical as far as I know.
You are trying to frame the EF as purely statistical null hypothesis test, it’s not. It is not, or shall I say, it’s not the way I infer design.
Also, “it is useful to separate design from theories of intelligence and intelligent agency”. That means we can talk about design this in minimal terms of statistics without invoking ID. We can simply talk about systems of objects in terms of whether the configuration is the result of expected physical behaviors due to chance and law. The reasons I’ve adopted using the Law of Large numbers is it is a natural way of expressing physical behaviors in terms of expected or predicted outcomes. The original versions of CSI only implicitly capture this, and in order to appeal to intuitions I’ve framed elementary examples in terms of the Law of Large Numbers and expectation.
Finally, if something passes the EF, given Bill’s advice, it doesn’t necessarily logically imply that a conscious intelligence did it. That is a separate argument (obviously ID proponents will argue for intelligence on circumstantial grounds).
An intelligently designed machine may have created the system (like a coin sorting machine). ID proponents have defined design as “negation of chance and law”.
The principal advantage of characterizing design as the complement of regularity and chance is that it avoids committing itself to a doctrine of intelligent agency…Nevertheless, it is useful to separate design from theories of intelligence and intelligent agency.
Why would Bill do this? This simple definition of design is good enough to form a critique of OOL and evolutionary theories. I did not have to commit to a doctrine of intelligent agency, for example, to critique OOL using coin analogies:
Relevance of coin analogies to homochirality and symbolic organization
I hope you’ll forgive me for not responding to your questions more frequently, and I hope you’ll understand if I miss some of your future querries.
I hope you have a Merry Christmas Dr. Liddle and I hope you’ll spend some time with good music. I think when I visit my Mom for Christmas, I should perform lots of piano.
Thanks for your Christmas wishes, Sal, and for responding to my post. I hope you will consider taking part in this thread, despite your concerns.
A merry Christmas to you to!
Well, the problem here Sal, is that you seem still to be confused about what a null hypothesis is, and that’s my very point!
In science, the way “falsification” works is that what you attempt to falsify is the null.
So if the first step in the EF is to reject Chance, then the first step in the EF is to set Chance as the null. Which is exactly what ,Dembski says when he sets up Fisherian null hypothesis testing as his recommended method:
Dembski, to his credit, is smart enough to realise that there is more than one “chance” hypothesis that you could set up as your null, and that you have to pick the “relevant chance hypothesis”. The trouble is, he doesn’t tell you how to do that.
And one problem is that “chance” is not a hypothesis at all – it doesn’t explain anything. What does make sense is to test various stochastic mechanisms. But if yo do that, the filter doesn’t work, because there’s no way of bundling every conceivable stochastic mechanism into one null, or even a good handful. And if you can’t do that, then you can’t conclude “Design” as the remaining alternative.
Not that “Design” is the alternative to “stochastic mechanism” anyway. Some stochastic mechanisms are intentional and some aren’t. Design is completely orthogonal to the question as to whether a process was stochastic or not.
Perhaps Sal would be kind enough to demonstrate the EF in action, step by step, calculation by calculation.
That would certainly clarify what the EF currently is and how it should be used, and indeed if it’s usable at all.
If he does so, he will find himself, as a first step, attempting to falsify the null hypothesis “chance”.
Perhaps you could show step by step how :
1.Life evolved from inanimate object? (No cheating with bits of RNA in stew in labs)
2.Universe begin?
3.Our conscience and intelligence evolved from lumps of cells?
I’m afraid I don’t see how this follows from my modest proposal.
You see, the EF has some quite specific claims made for it:
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm
Further to that, many claims are made at UD regarding the use/utility of the EF.
My request therefore is to have demonstrated something which it is claimed can be demonstrated. I can find many specific examples at UD if you like. Were Sal to use the EF to determine design then I for one would offer a round of applause.
So, your 3 questions have as much relevance as if you had asked me them after I had told you what sort of coffee I would like you to make me. When I start to make strong claims and publish academic papers on those topics you may feel free to call me on those claims at that time.
And, apart from anything else, don’t think you are fooling anybody or achieving anything by attempting to distract with questions you know I can’t answer when I ask you a question that you claim to be able to answer. The two things are hardly the same are they? That you think this tactic is worthwhile to bother with says quite a lot about your belief in the strength of your position.
Heck, I’d be happy if Sal would calculate the “CSI”. er, I mean “SI” of any biological object. Anything beyond coin flips.
Any IDer out there up to the task?
The thing is, coldcoffee, is that nobody claims to be able to show any of theses things “step by step”, although there are plenty of theories, and plenty of empirical support for many of the hypothesised steps.
In contrast, IDists claim to be able to demonstrate that these things are designed, from the features of the phenomena themselves, by rejecting the null hypothesis that they were the result of “chance”.
Or of “chance”, then “design”.
Better, I think.
No Lizzie that it is not true. For point number 2 science has an theory about what happened nothing about why it happenned. For the other two points naturalistic science relay on stochastic process that do not explain nothing as as you said the explanation for stochastic process is unknow variables. So the only answer from science for that three questions it happened caused by unknown factors.
Blas,
What constitutes ‘knowing’,Blas?
Whereas you think they were caused by … one Unknown Factor, doing all the stuff for which we don’t have direct observational data?
Merry Christmas ! May God give you all reasons to believe in Him 🙂
[bemused expression] What—even if it’s Cthulhu?
Wipe away that smug expression. Vaunted scientific method may prove Cthulhu is more real than you !
Any particular god? There was about 3000 at last count, can you be more specific 😛
William@UD
I ask again William, does evolution get a look in on the non-ID “chance” side of things?
As that’s all “Weasel” was about – the fact that when you have something other then pure chance happening outcomes that seem “impossible” can still happen.
I think you are finally beginning to understand….
That change the fact that lizzie´s claim is wrong?
Concentrate on your own claims perhaps? Don’t divert by pointing to others.
Lizzie being wrong does not automatically make you right, as much as you might wish it worked that way. Those are independent variables, you know, much like disproving “Darwinism” does not in any way support ID.
Yes, it make me right to point that Lizzie is wrong.
Well, congratulations.
William@UD
It’s a shame that you think your deity is so incapable that it cannot create a universe where beings like us arise from “law and chance”.
If I were a believer, I’d believe in a deity that could do that. Therefore my deity trumps yours. Your deity is weak-ass.
link
Depends on which of the 10^500 or more universe you live in 🙂
Our deity has finely tuned the universe. No body would be on Earth if that wasn’t the case. Apparently you didn’t look up Naturalness and Hierarchy problem.
Sounds suspiciously like God of the gaps. Never works in the long run.
It is true that the universe we humans live in has all the properties that are necessary in order for humans to exist. The thing is, that would necessarily be true regardless of whether or not a deity was involved anywhere along the way—so “the universe has what it takes for humans to exist”, while true, does not tell us anything about whether or not there actually is or was a deity. Now, if you want to assume that a universe not created by a deity could not possibly possess all the properties that are necessary in order for humans to exist, fine. Feel free to make that assumption, if you like. But if you do make that assumption, what you’re really saying is If we assume God was necessary in order for humans to exist, then God was necessary in order for humans to exist. Circular reasoning in its clearest form, really. Not exactly convincing to anybody who hasn’t already bought into the god-is-necessary presupposition. [shrug]
No, your deity did not.
See, now we’re at an impasse where neither of us can respond to that, yet because I’m on the side of actual reality my reality continues to grow and expand. Yours, of course, will remain static on “god did it, that’s all I need to know”.
So good luck with that, let me know how that all works out for you!
By the way, so are you saying that your “Intelligent Designer” does not intervene after that fine tuning event, rather it just set up the initial conditions and let things go? If so, presumably you fully support “evolution” then? If not, why not?
Why is it not convincing? If one variable had the right value, you could argue it was by chance, but all variables having correct value by random process is improbable, unless you believe in the crazy theory – String or thread or hangman noose whatever theory- which presumes there are 10^500 or more universes and explains that because of the large number of universes fine tuning is just by chance.
Good luck explaining the quadrillion universes’ origin. When you can’t explain just 1 universe beginning I have no idea how you will explain quadrillion universes ! Come to think of it, you have to explain quadrillion universes arising out of SINGLE event!!
Please see reply to cubist above
You mean the natural selection thing? I presume it is some kind of magic because it’s process has not been explained yet. The mutations are mostly deleterious, the predatory environment can’t explain macro evolution, the climatic changes can’t explain it either, so what are the components of ‘Natural selection’? Just saying Natural Selection won’t do.
Time to consult a textbook, coldcoffe. Your questions indicate that you don’t have a slightest idea about fairly well known things.
For example, natural selection is the effect of the differential reproduction success. One of the most famous examples is melanism of the peppered moth.
Mutations are mostly neutral, not deleterious.
In before ““but they’re still moths!!”.
Wait for it. 🙂
No, you misunderstand me.
What I’m saying is, if you don’t think the “natural selection thing” explains anything, then what is your better explanation?
And the follow up question is, if you can’t provide a better (i.e. supported by evidence to a larger extent then “the natural selection thing”) explanation then why don’t you accept the “natural selection thing” until something better comes along? It’s a starting point, right?
As it seems to me objections to “the natural selection thing” are often ideological. If not, that would manifest itself in the form of a better explanation for observed data which you have and I do not. Then the objection is scientific in nature.
Do you have such an objection?
Non-responsive. I’m asking how you know when your deity intervened – only at “fine-tuning” or after and how you know.
So you don’t even want to identify what sort of IDist you are?
The once-only type? Or the “body-plan” type where intervention is required to move from A to B type bodyplans?
The funny thing is that of course you can’t say – you can’t possibly know! It’s just a little joke I have with you lot. But it is interesting to what lengths you’ll go to to avoid the answering the question…
To expand on what Olegt said:
Natural selection as used in evolutionary biology simply means the result of differential reproductive success. All individuals in a population aren’t identical and some have traits that give them a better chance than others to survive and reproduce. Even though genetic variations arise at random their long term effects aren’t. The ones that help survival in a particular environment tend to be selected for and tend to accumulate.
Key point: mutations are only beneficial, neutral, or deleterious with respect to their effect in the current environment. That means when the environment changes (i.e. shore dwelling mammals spending more time in the water) a previously beneficial trait may become deleterious and be selected out (i.e. rear limbs on such mammals) while previously deleterious or neutral ones may become beneficial (i.e. front paws evolving to fins on such mammals).
There is no known barrier anywhere that prevents micro-evolutionary changes from accumulating over time into macro-evolutionary ones. Indeed, there is a huge amount of evidence that this is exactly what happened in the history of extant species.
Because you’re not proving that your conclusion is true, you’re assuming that your conclusion is true. In particular, you’re assuming that god exists. You say it’s ludicrously improbable that a godless Universe would have all its variable-values just right for Life to exist—but you have not established that god’s existence is any less improbable than a godless-Universe-conducive-to-Life.
The argument you’re making here, assumes that it’s possible for any of those variables to have different values than the values that actually do have.
If that assumption is not true: There’s no way for those variables to not have the values they actually do, so any probability-based argument (like the one you’re making here) is irrelevant. Because in this case, the probability that those variables have the values they do, is 1.
If that assumption is true: Okay, it’s possible for every last one of those variables to have different values than the values they actually do have. In this case, the first question is, what, exactly, is the probability that those variables would end up with the values they actually do have? I mean, you can’t just say things might be different, therefore things-as-they-are are utterly and totally astronomically improbable, not unless you actually do have some reasonably solid idea of how likely (or how unlikely) it is that things-as-they-are, actually are the way they are.
Also, the fact that the particular set of values we see in the universe we live in is conducive to Life, does not mean that no other set of values would be conducive to Life. So the second question is, what, exactly, is the probably that any of the myriad possible sets of values for those variables would be conducive to Life?
Good luck explaining god’s origin. Sorry, coldcoffee, but you don’t get to just plain assume your favorite ‘explanation’-of-choice out of one side of your mouth, while at the same time demanding that everybody else must prove their particular explanations-of-choice. If you get to assume the existence of a god with all the right bells & whistles for making Life happen, I get to assume the existence of a godless Universe with all the right bells & whistles for making Life happen. Conversely, if I have to prove my case, you have to prove your case, too.
Of course, you can continue to privilege your own ‘explanation’-of-choice over all others, demanding that all other explanations must pass tests which you cannot or will not apply to your own ‘explanation’. But if you do insist on privileging your own ‘explanation’-of-choice in this way… well, it’s just not very convincing, is all.
In addition to what cubist just said, I’d like to add this. How many people have you convinced so far? How many people that started out not sharing your viewpoint now share it because of you?
So if it’s not convincing perhaps it’s you, not me? Ever considered that?
thorton,
Macro evolution requires tertiary proteins to form, which has to have right folding to form new structures. Not just that, you need new body plans for macro evolution. If you think all these happens because the environment changes from land to water or from hot to cold, you are deluding yourself.
Darwin’s delusion can be explained because he had no idea about cellular level and gene complexity, but it is puzzling why Darwinist continue to think macro evolution works by simple environmental changes and differential reproduction and mostly deleterious (ok you can have it as neutral) mutations.
An atheist can’t be convinced with a argument based on God. My purpose for posting here is to raise enough objections to what atheist think is a convincing theory so they are forced to accept (at least in private) that science can’t explain nature.
You need constants to explain various forces of Nature. You can’t explain why the constants are constants. Where did those constants come from?
Just like you believe in constants to explain a force, you need to believe in God’s existence to be convinced that the universe arising out of His existence is indeed right, so unless you believe in God, you will not be convinced. If you are able to believe in constants which have no explanation, you shouldn’t be dismissive about supernatural being.
The takeaway from this post is : ‘How constants came into existence. Why are constants constants?’
How do you know the “constants” are constant? Who told you that?
Why don’t you take us through each one and tell us why they are constant’
And while you are at it, explain why ensembles of these “constants” cannot produce universes in which matter condenses into complex enough forms that some could be referred to as living.
Huh? Why do you think there is so much debate and wild theories being proposed by scientists to explain Naturalness and Hierarchy problem if the probability is 1?
My reason for posting is to point out holes in theories which are being bandied as ‘scientific’ and which are being promoted as truth. If enough people are convinced (or start having doubts) that not all scientific theories are not based on facts and are just wild conjectures, I think that would suffice.
While I may not be able to convince you, just the fact that now you have to explain to yourself how quadrillion universes as explanation for finely tuned universe is NOT absurd is good enough for now
Reference please. I say you’re making it up.
You’re making up stuff again. What new body plan differences are there between a dog and a bear? Or a lion and a jaguar?
Science defines macro-evolution as evolution at or above the species level. Do you have your own custom definition?
The feedback loop of evolution (variation filtered by selection with heritable traits) tracks the environmental changes and drives populations towards fitness local maxima. That’s Biology 101 you can learn about in any freshman biology book.
It’s accepted because those evolutionary processes have been empirically observed to work both in the lab and in the field. The same processes also work when modeled as genetic algorithms. What reason can you give that they would not work? What is the magic barrier that stops micro-evolutionary changes from accumulating over time into macro-evolutionary ones?
Try reading for comprehension, as opposed to reading for isolated keywords on which you think you can hang a ‘gotcha’ argument. I didn’t say the probability actually was 1. Instead, I said that if the relevant variables could only have the values that they actually do, then it followed that the probability of the relevant variables having the values they do would, in fact, be 1. And if that were the case, then it would make no sense to argue that the existing values of the relevant variables were “too improbable” to have occurred “by chance”.
I was making a hypothetical argument, an argument in which I temporarily accepted a hypothetical proposition for the sake of the argument, and explored the consequences of that hypotheticalproposition. If you are incapable of comprehending a hypothetical argument when you read one, coldcoffee… well, that’s your problem, not mine.
That’s nice. You do realize that haven’t actually done the pointing-out-holes thing yet, don’t you? You’ve made the bald, unsupported assertion that the relevant variables’ values are just so gosh-darn improbable that they just have to have been the product of a god’s meddling… but you have not actually established the validity of your assertion. Just how “improbable” is it that the relevant variables have the values that they do, coldcoffee? You need to show your work. Not just baldly assert, without supportive evidence, that you’ve done the work, but actually show the work which you really and truly have done.
In other words, you’re not the tiniest bit concerned with science, but, rather, with propaganda. You’re not trying to establish the validity of your position; you’re trying to use rhetorical gambits to sway the masses’ opinion.
That, again, is nice. It’s also another (implicit, this time) admission that you don’t actually give a shit about the truth of your position, on account of you’re all about the propaganda. You ever going to get around to supporting your position, coldcoffee? You ever going to apply to your position the tests which, according to you, mean that your opponents’ position is a failure? Care to explain what makes the “multiverse” concept any more “absurd” than the “god” concept which you happen to favor, coldcoffee?
[shrug] Beats the hell outta me, coldcoffee. But if you get to pull the bald, unsupported assumption of a “god” out of your lower GI tract, and call that bald, unsupported assumption an “explanation” for “where did those constants come from”, I, in turn, get to pull from whatever orifice I like, whatever bald, unsupported assertion I happen to favor. Feel free to explain how come your “god” concept gets the free pass which you refuse to grant anybody else’s concept—or, more likely if you follow the pattern you’ve already established, feel free to ignore and/or evade the question of how come your “god” concept gets the free pass that nobody else’s concept gets.
That might well be your purpose but it appears that you don’t actually understand the theory that you are talking about.
When you understand it then you’ll see that these “objections” are just artifacts of your incomplete understanding.
If it seems that I am being condescending, well that’s because I’m trying very hard to be.
The takeaway for me is that you believe in a deity who created the universe but could not get it good enough the first time, so has to tweak further to get bodyplans to appear.
Your deity is weak-ass compared to the one I’ve invented. Mine can create a universe, fine tune it then step back never having to intervene again.
Your’s can’t!
It’ simply because nobody here has yet read your paper explaining your position!
If you could simply provide a link or citation to your paper where you show how macro evolution actually works (presumably where you examine the designers fingerprints on the DNA?) then this confusion will quickly be cleared up!
It really is as simple as that!
Your concept doesn’t get free pass because your concept is being peddled as truth, your conjecture is being published in textbooks, scientists are being expelled for raising doubts about your conjecture, administrators are being terrorized if they support ID seminars and lectures, you are even vandalizing sign boards having the word ‘God’. Your concept is being projected as THE ONLY TRUTH.
Extra ordinary theory needs extraordinary proof, so you have to show proof. Admit that evolution and Birth of universe theories are just unproven concept.
While scientists in all field work hard to prove what they conceptualize, Darwinist and Cosmologists just spin yarns, which is definitely unacceptable, so your concept should not get free pass.
First allow the numerous scientists who are against Evolution to publish their work. 🙂 Darwinist are always there to force publishers from stopping anti evolution papers and force scientists supporting ID out from seminars and conferences.
Even if I decide to write a paper, I wouldn’t break my head over opposing Darwin – his theory is turning out to be nothing more than his flight of fantasy.
Why ask a hypothetical question for something every body knows can’t have a probability of 1?
You are saying all fine tuned variables can have any value? There is no hierarchy and naturalness problem? Even believe Higgs Boson and Higgs field which pervades our universe has right value because of random process?
Apparently you haven’t seen my post in TSZ where I stated Atheist will not believe in God even if He stands in front of them, so no I have no hidden agenda!
Nobody is stopping them. Of course, if you have evidence for this you can simply provide it.
For example, a paper supporting ID that was not published solely because it supports ID. Please provide evidence to back up your claim, e.g. a rejection letter.
What does anti-evolution have to do with making the case for ID? If evolution was never thought up then what would you do then?
And in any case, there are plenty of ID seminars and conferences already. Would you like a list?
Why should ID supporters be able to make their case at “Darwinist” conferences anyway? ID says “Darwinism” is wrong, so why even bother? Just make a positive case for ID and there will be no more conferences about “Darwinism”.
If you write a paper providing positive evidence for ID it’ll be the first one ever and your name will live long in ID circles. Up till now it’s just been “Darwinism can’t do X” rather then “ID explains X better then any other explanation”.
So, your fantasy that ID supporters are prevented from publishing is just that, fantasy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_Complexity,_Information,_and_Design
http://evoinfo.org/publications/
So if you were to write a paper (yeah, right) you won’t be stuck for somewhere to publish it. It seems they are desperate for content.
So that’s that excuse gone, what will your next one be I wonder? You see, you are just playing a role in a play that has played out many times already. I know my lines, you know yours. Soon your amateur hour “darwinism is just wrong!” histrionics will result in much frustration for you as reasoned objections to your points are made which you cannot refute (and you know it) and you’ll disappear into the night.
Incorrect. At that point it’s hardly “belief” is it – you don’t need to believe in something that you can see with your own eyes.
But were there incontrovertible evidence other then “fine tuning therefore ID” then I’d be a theist. Why not? What would be the logic in denying the obvious at that point? So on that, like so much else, you are also wrong.
By the way, I asked you this before, but any particular God you had in mind?