@Brad: Yes, I don’t think there is anything intrinsically unreasonable …

Comment on Elliot Sober: Just Don’t Call the Designer “God” by Sean Pitman.

@Brad:

Yes, I don’t think there is anything intrinsically unreasonable unscientific about invoking design hypotheses. The details depend on the context, as I have tried to show. However, I do disagree with SETI if that project is understood as founded on the belief that finding the signals they are looking for would in itself provide sufficient evidence to prefer the design hypothesis over the hypothesis that the signal was due to some unknown natural process.

That is exactly what SETI scientists propose. Seth Shostak, for example, as I’ve already noted for you, claims that if the narrow band radio signal were prefaced with mathematical tags like the first 50 terms in Pi or the Fibonacci series, that such tags would clearly bespeak an intelligent source. To quote him directly:

Perhaps the extraterrestrials will preface their message with a string of prime numbers, or maybe the first fifty terms of the ever-popular Fibonacci series. Well, there’s no doubt that such tags would convey intelligence. – Seth Shostak

http://www.seti.org/Page.aspx?pid=683

Is not Shostak claiming that such features discovered within radio signals would clearly support the ID hypothesis? without further “ado”?

Obviously he is making this claim, but why? upon what basis? Because of all the past experience we’ve already had with the medium of radio signals. The hypothesis proposed by Shostak has already been subjected to a great many tests which could have falsified the ID-only hypothesis and has passed by a huge margin. The science has already been long underway. This is why Shostak can be so confident in such claims.

Are you saying it is possible to have a reasonable belief in a particular hypothesis without evidence?
Isn’t that what science is all about? – appropriate background information?

No, the reverse—it is possible to have evidence for a hypothesis without that hypothesis being reasonable to believe. We all have beliefs for which there is evidence both for and against, and we all have evidence too flimsy to found beliefs on. For example, if I buy a ticket in the lottery, my having the ticket provides some evidence that I will win. But not enough to believe that I will.

There is always evidence for and against almost all reasonable beliefs. That is why science is based on the perceived “weight of evidence”. Having a lottery ticket does indeed support a belief that you will win, but only with a weight of the odds of the lottery ticket actually winning. Useful beliefs, in my opinion, are based on the odds, the weight of evidence. That’s science. Without at least some idea as to the odds of success behind a belief, it’s pretty much a worthless belief.

So to be clear, you are claiming that scientists in general believe that discovery of the signals SETI is looking for would in itself provide sufficient evidence to prefer the design hypothesis over the hypothesis that the signal was due to some unknown natural process? If so, do you have any evidence for this claim? Notice that I agree with you that we would all be very surprised and excited to find those signals, but merely disagree that this is because design would be obviously better supported that an unknown natural hypothesis (rather, I claim it is because design is thought to be obviously better supported than chance).

You’d all be very surprised and excited for one simple reason – the implications for design would be so instantly obvious to all (even the vast majority of scientists). After all, just the fine tuning of the universe needed to support life has convinced the majority of physicists that there must be some sort of deliberate intelligence behind it. For example, Australian astrophysicist Paul Davies makes the following argument along these lines:

The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgment, is overwhelming. The belief that there is “something behind it all” is one that I personally share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists…
The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe… – Paul Davies

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2006/1572643.htm

If the majority of physicists are suspicious given just the fined tuned features of the universe that there must be some sort of intelligence behind it all, just imagine what they would do with a Mars rover discovery of a highly symmetrical polished granite cube, 1.0 meters in size, with centrally placed geometric etchings on each side. They’d go nuts! You know it, and I know it. Don’t give me this line that they’d sit back and say, “Wait just one minute! Are we sure that this cube wasn’t produce by some as yet unknown non-deliberate force of nature?” Come on…

This brings in quite different and complex considerations, as I am sure you are aware. One thing I have liked about your argument so far is that it hasn’t depended on relying on this sort of information transmission. I would prefer to leave discussion of the case where there is information until we have sorted out where we stand on the narrow-band case, if you do not mind.

I’m sorry, but I consider the narrow-band radio signal, as with the highly symmetrical polished granite cube, to be a form of mathematical information transmission. Arguing otherwise is like arguing that a work of art transmits no information. A highly symmetrical finely polished granite cube transmits very precise mathematical information that is difficult to explain from some mindless natural source acting specifically on the material of granite. That’s what would make it so interesting.

To illustrate my point further or more precisely, we could talk about a very precisely carved granite block that has been carved according to Fibonacci dimensions – as in the “Golden Rectangle”, or as some sort of mathematically derived fractal shape that does not appear to be a natural fractal; as in the Menger Sponge carved in granite (see link):

http://www.fractus.com/images_fract/fractal.gif

Such structures would transmit mathematical information just as readily as would the same mathematical terms embedded within a radio signal.

You are still using the language of detection, as if there is some automatic inference that takes us from a certain kind of evidence straight to outright belief, without the interference of background knowledge.

Not true. There can be no reasonable belief without background knowledge. I thought I had been quite clear already on this point. There is also no automatic inference, that is useful anyway, without background knowledge. The basis of SETI is built on extensive background knowledge that is already in place. It is only because of this pre-existing background knowledge that the recognition of a true artifact can be so instantly realized when it is actually seen. Without the background knowledge, such an instant recognition of a true artifact would be impossible.

I have been emphasising that this is not the case, and that the way in which scientists justify SETI in part depends on their belief that life could arise elsewhere, which in turn reflects their belief that it arose evolutionarily. There is a reason they aim their detection equipment at planetary systems rather than at random. Do you think this is arbitrary?

It doesn’t matter when it comes to actually finding an artificial signal. Knowledge of the true origin of the ETI simply isn’t needed. This is why a narrow band signal with mathematical tags, as described by Shostak, coming from a black hole instead of a planetary system would still bespeak the need for ID.

No, Sober agrees with me that design wouldn’t be supported even if we weren’t aware of the evolutionary hypothesis.

Sober agrees with me that SETI is based on valid science where ID would be well supported if the phenomena in question were ever discovered. His own argument for this is the very same as mine – that ID can reasonably be hypothesized given that the phenomenon in question is within at least human level production while being, at the same time, beyond the currently known limits of non-deliberate natural production.

This legendary textbook does of course describe natural selection, along other mechanisms of evolutionary change. You have been misunderstanding my remark on natural selection, however. What I said was: “Regarding the relative importance of natural selection, I remain neutral”. I said this to try to sideline the peripheral issue of the extent to which the biological world consists of adaptations, like I have tried to sideline the peripheral issue of whether punctuated equilibrium is correct or not in my exchanges with our friend Roger.

You do agree, however, that appealing to a known natural mechanism is a completely different argument? You must also understand the reason by challenging this particular mechanism as being remotely tenable when it comes to explaining certain biological features? The point is that without this mechanism “intellectually fulfilled atheism” as Dawkins puts it, would be out the window. It is the mechanism of RM/NS that put Darwin on the map. Without this mechanism, presented in what many considered to be a very convincing manner, he would have remained completely unknown…

Would such a message, written in English as well as many of the other main languages of the peoples of the Earth, be enough to convince you of deliberate intelligent non-human activity? – Sean Pitman

Yes—because in this case I think we can have independent evidence to believe that all natural processes, even presently unconceived ones, would confer a low probability on this event.

Oh really? Upon what basis given that you do not have all knowledge? It is, after all, physically possible to mindlessly produce such a situation. It is just very very unlikely – – as far as we know right now…

See the point?

Do you know some biological facts I don’t? Take me to the Bible verses etched in DNA!

That would do it for you eh? Yet, the odds of mindlessly producing certain features within biosystems are just as remote as producing a coded Bible verse, the size of the entire Bible, in DNA.

So tell me, what are the grounds for believing that p(O | D) > p (O | N) in this case? You’ve said a number of times that it is obvious. It is far from obvious to me.

Because, as I’ve pointed out many times before, the phenomenon in question is within at least human level creativity while being way way outside of currently known methods of non-deliberate natural production. This is the entire basis of SETI – and of all other forms of scientific invocation of ID to explain any phenomena.

Every time a design hypothesis has been proposed in biology or physics for a phenomenon outside the then-current scope of explanation, which has later been subject to independent confirmation, it has been false. See for example Kepler on lunar craters, Newton on planetary orbits, Arbuthnot on male to female birth ratios, Paley on the eye, Behe on everything, and (coming to a science journal near you) EducateTruthers on protein handedness.

It is only to be expected that most scientific theories are eventually falsified, since most are. This is not a basis to discount all scientific invocations of ID or to discard science itself.

By the way, Paley has not been falsified. It is only claimed, quite commonly, that he has been falsified. This claim, however, is not backed up by observation or by statistical odds analysis with regard to the viability of any mindless natural mechanism.

Without any idea as to the probable limits of what non-deliberate natural forces are likely able to achieve you would not be able to determine that the watch is or is not a likely artifact vs. the amorphous stones scattered round about it. In order to make any rational judgment regarding the artificial nature of the watch you must have prior experience with both the potential and limits of at least human-level ID as well as with non-deliberate natural processes. – Sean Pitman

This is a good point. That is, for outright belief in the watch case we need background evidence that the overall probability of natural processes producing these things is low. But we have such evidence for watches produced on earth. I claim we do not have this evidence for the SETI case, since we are dealing with remote and exotic physical situations.

You might argue that we have such evidence to a greater extent, by by no means a complete extent here on Earth. And, you yourself noted that even when it comes to remote and exotic physical situations there are certain phenomena which would clearly invoke ID regardless. It all depends upon the nature of the phenomena in question and just how far away from currently known mindless natural production they are…

So, where do we disagree? You think SETI signal detection would license outright belief, I disagree. You think SETI signal detection would differentially support design over unknown natural hypotheses in advance of further investigation, I disagree. You think that if we didn’t know anything about evolution then the biology case would obviously be exactly analogous to the SETI case, I disagree. And the most important disagreement: you think in our current situation, knowing all of modern evolutionary theory, the design hypothesis stands to biology as it stands to SETI signals. I couldn’t disagree more, and it is astounding to me that you are willing to believe this based on one argument you have formulated in a field on which you are no expert, without having it vetted by experts. By the way, did I tell you about the time I squared the circle?

Ah yes, the square circle non-thing comeback. That’ll get em every time! 😉

I have one key argument regarding the concept of ID in biosystems, to be sure, which I have been thinking about and working on very intently for over 14 years. I may not be an “expert” in anything, but I can only believe what makes sense in my own mind. I’m not going to simply believe because this or that “expert” says so. I’m not so infatuated by titles and peer review opinion as you seem to be. And, frankly, I don’t care if you or anyone else understands the problem as I think I understand it. My ideas are my own. If you like them, great. If you don’t, oh well. To each his own…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Elliot Sober: Just Don’t Call the Designer “God”
@Professor Kent:

My understanding is that, historically, Adventist fundamental beliefs have shifted in ways that individuals holding one particular position, including Ellen White herself at times, could have been expelled from the Church by those holding another particular position. There was a time when those of the Church held different views on what 24-hour period of the day should be kept as Sabbath (it wasn’t always sunset to sunset); the Godhead (we once rejected the trinity); and righteousness by faith (we once believed in righteousness by works).

These disagreements occurred before certain agreed positions were so settled in the minds of the founding fathers and mothers of the SDA Church that they became “fundamental” pillars of the SDA faith. The current list of fundamentals was not always as it currently stands. It grew and developed over time. It is only expected that as more information comes clearly to light that the list of important “fundamental” beliefs would also expand over time.

And, as the early Church founders soon discovered, without the maintenance of internal order, discipline, and government within the Church, as based on the concept of “present truth”, as understood by the organized body of believers, the organization soon begins to fragment towards chaos and irrelevance…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Elliot Sober: Just Don’t Call the Designer “God”
@Professor Kent:

Sean, while I could agree with your statement on a prima facie basis, I think one needs to dig a bit deeper here. This statement basically says that we don’t need the Bible or any type of falsifiable evidence or even beliefs to gain admission to heaven, which seems to contradict what you often state (not to mention the purpose of this website). I could be wrong, but I believe that God is able to claim souls who lack knowledge in Him because he can judge whether they would accept Him and Christ’s sacrifice if they had representative knowledge of Him.

Exactly…

It just goes to show that it is motive, not current knowledge or beliefs, that is important when it comes to judging if a person is or is not savable.

This idea does not contradict my efforts to uphold truth as I see it. Just because knowledge is not the basis of salvation does not mean that it isn’t important. Knowledge is the basis of the solid conscious hope of the Gospel message. While one can be saved without ever having a conscious knowledge of this future glory while here on Earth, it sure would be nice to have known while here – right?

I’m not convinced that God saves them because they have “love;” after all, many animals give well-documented evidence of having love, which is an instinct written in the genes of many life forms, including most humans (I’ve met a few who could be exceptions). I suspect that He who knows us in the womb can discern much more than our love, and recognizes what our choice would be given an opportunity to know Him and serve Him.

Our moral choices are based on motive, not knowledge. While animals do express love and devotion to their masters, they cannot appreciate moral freedom as we humans can. They have not been given moral responsibility or choice as we have been given it. Free moral choices are based on the motive of love – of doing unto others as you would like to be treated because of your love for your neighbor.

Remember, it was Jesus who pointed out that all the Law and the Prophets were built on the single “Royal Law”, and James put it, of Love – love to both God and toward our neighbors. Matthew 22:39-40 NIV.

And, as Paul points out, those who love their neighbors as themselves fulfill the Law and are therefore savable – regardless of their knowledge or lack thereof regarding the particulars of God’s existence, the life and death of Jesus, His true character, or any other doctrinal truths while in this life. Romans 13:8-10 NIV.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Elliot Sober: Just Don’t Call the Designer “God”
@Professor Kent:

Like the vast majority of readers here, I don’t need a scientific basis for my faith, and I believe I can be saved by it however “blind” it may be.

Salvation is based on love, not blind faith – or faith of any kind for that matter. It is for this reason that even those who have never heard the name of Jesus or had any real concept of God can be saved according to how they expressed the Royal Law of Love toward their neighbors – a law which has been written on the hearts of all. This is why I believe that there will be a number of very surprised atheists in Heaven someday…

Faith or belief is the basis of conscious hope, but not of salvation. If you have faith that can move mountains, but have not love, you have gained nothing… 1 Corinthians 13:2 NIV.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.