Turns out Random is Better (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, February 21, 2010, 17:06 (5387 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: Those that would assert life is designed now have to mathematically justify how they would tell the difference between a random transmission and an intelligent one.-DHW: If I argue (playing God's advocate) that life was designed in such a way that all the necessary information could be effectively transmitted by random procedures, would I have to mathematically justify how to tell the difference between a random transmission and an intelligent one? [...] If my doubts are justified, how would you rephrase your original statement?-You have once again launched an attack on Dembski, prefaced by the honest acknowledgement that my objection to your argument is the same as your own to Dembski's ... namely, that both arguments begin at Chapter 2 of life. But Dembski is not my point of focus. I'm trying to find out if your own thesis stands up to analysis-Although I know you're not committed to either side, your attack is specifically on the design argument, and from my neutral perspective it's based on an unnecessary presupposition: "You have to prove that the underlying system has a distinct goal in mind." Why? If we begin at the beginning, which is where one should always begin, is it not conceivable that a designer created a mechanism simply with a view to seeing where it would lead? You like analogies, and so mine would be the writer or artist beginning with an idea, and then allowing it to develop its own impetus. Like the writer/artist, a designer might occasionally step in to direct the flow, but it would nevertheless be a constant process of discovery. No distinct goal. Just see where it leads. This removes the need for your second and third points (degrees of freedom to reach the goal, the exclusion of randomness). -It seems to me that you're attacking one particular concept of design ... namely, that the designer knew from the start what he was aiming at. Personally, I much prefer the idea that God learns as he goes along. If I were a believer, this would be the sort of design I would envisage, partly because God would be bored stiff knowing the outcome of his experiment, and partly because it would explain the enormous variety of life that preceded our own form. If we were the "goal", why did he bother with all those now extinct species?-You complain that "ID advocates are bitching about the problem without actually providing a solution", whereas at least materialists "are actually working to tease out these mechanisms". Scientific research into the origin of life should not have anything to do with materialism v. religion, and no matter what scientists eventually discover, it will still be open to interpretation: theists will say they have uncovered how God did it, and atheists will say they've discovered how chance did it. Only if scientists were able to prove through experiments that the components really could assemble themselves spontaneously (though "experiments" and "spontaneity" sound like a contradiction in terms), would materialists have a positive case. Otherwise, it's one faith versus another. -It seems to me that my proposal removes the obligation asserted by your original statement. I had asked you how you would rephrase it, but you didn't quite get round to that! For my scenario I would suggest: "Those who would assert that life was designed with a particular goal right from the outset now have to mathematically justify how they would tell the difference between a random transmission and an intelligent one." However, David has offered you a different scenario which allows for an initial goal as well as a degree of randomness. That's a lot more complicated than my suggestion, and at least for the time being I'll leave you two to slug it out!