Probability Arguments for Intelligent Design

[Greg]

[MODERATOR EDIT: This thread was split of from discussion in Are All Christians Who Affirm Evolution Deists?]

@Timothy_Horton

I think it is really sad that Christian scientists choose to side all the way with naturalism for determining truth of our existence.

Please explain how to achieve reliable repeatable scientific results when you have to account for possible unknown and undetectable tinkering in your experiments by an external supernatural entity. Be specific, give examples.

Well thankyou Mr. Horton! You have made my point so perfectly!

Since we are not talking about developing a vaccine but the history of life on this perfectly ordered planet, we cannot repeat what occurred in the past. If im an atheist, representative of less than 5% population (and you probably could convince me that im more likely an agnostic)…but if im an atheist, then i must demand that no intelligence be involved in the scientific inquiry to appeal to my belief. If Im a theist however and im interested to find the truth of the existence , i will never completely trust naturalistic science for determining the TRUTH of how we got here. . Why is this you ask? Because i have to quite logically assume that a Creator exists and could have done anything in any point in the creation and development of life. Naturalism demands natural paths. Creation confuses it.

So for the more logically minded theist, understanding the chess pieces of life and ruling out illogical and ruling in logical options can point to or away from intelligence and is going to get closer to truth than just developing models about how i think nature to made life. That is ID VS evolutionism. ID is NOT trying to define the nature of intelligence. It is interested to give it a stake of possibility to rule it in or out

Lets look at some examples:

Lets say its absolutelty true that God created kinds that via adaptation and Gods intervention speciated the planet. Pretend now that this is the truth that science is trying to discover. Also acknowledge that because atheism is such a far out unreasonable faith, this theistic based option is more rational than one that will be developed on the back of atheism .

Lets now see if ID science or naturalistic science gets closer to a model that describes this truth. ID is incredibly scientific. They are serious about the scientific method. They are serious about statistical analysis. And they take all of the ingredients including the nature of mutations, selection, and time and want to rule out highly statistical improbable events via nature thus point to or away from Intelligence and to or away to nature.
The naturalistic scientist is also serious about the scientific method but they never entertain intelligence. They understand statistics but are disinterested in investing a lot of time here because the DEMAND that intelligence be left out means that stats determining a sensible methodology dont matter as much if at all. In fact, if a highly unlikely event occurs, they will tend to add more time to give nature a chance. They think that nature MUST HAVE caused life via evolution (no other choice) so all they can do is build some models as guesses how nature could do this and call this the proof.

So which option gets closer to the truth? Both wont get it perfectly, but who is closer? ID!

Lets apply the same test to the consideration that God did create via common decent evolution with speckled intervention in the process and ( i feel ridiculous saying this because even this seems so stinking illogical) ID is again very serious about science. They are very serious about statistical analysis that wants to rule in or out intelligence and in or out nature. On the other hand, naturalism is not as interested in statistical analysis as much that wants to rule in or out intelligence so they assume nature did it and go back into the business of making models., Who gets closer to the truth? ID again…if they are honest that is. In other words, if ID cannot rule out an event as statistically improbable, they wont rule it out and build a model more closely resembling the type of evolution over the more arbituary models built by naturalism.

I think even an honest ID proponent gets closer to the truth of methodology about some fully natural micro evolutionary event if the above parameters are in place. I have tried, but cannot in good conscience even propose that it could be possible that life as we know it could have evolved via pure chance selection to see if ID VS naturalism is better. Principle holds that probability can only be determined with what is possible and i believe ID has accuratelty determined that this case is just so nearly impossible in its methodology that we just call it what it is. I cannot even make this a scenario because it is too unlikely and surreal if we take what we know of mutations, selection seriously.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Greg

Since we are not talking about developing a vaccine but the history of life on this perfectly ordered planet, we cannot repeat what occurred in the past

Nice dodge but ineffective. You were whining because science, ALL science not just evolutionary theory, relies 100% on naturalism and doesn’t allow for supernatural intervention. I asked you how as a practical matter you would account for supernatural fiddling. As expected you have no answer, you just like whining the standard religiously motivated complaint.

@Greg

ID is incredibly scientific. They are serious about the scientific method. They are serious about statistical analysis. And they take all of the ingredients including the nature of mutations, selection, and time and want to rule out highly statistical improbable events via nature thus point to or away from Intelligence and to or away to nature.

ID is nowhere near being scientific. ID has nowhere near enough information to calculate actual probabilities of anything concerning the “design” of biological life. It’s one big con game by the charlatans at the DI who are trying to push the Christian God back into public school science classrooms. The DI counts on ignorant rubes like you to be their cannon fodder.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Greg

In the same vein, how can you prove naturalstic “fiddling” to prove that nature made complex life?

There you go with the scientific ignorance again, demanding PROOF instead of dealing with the large amount of positive evidence available. We have empirical demonstrations that processes with selection feedback and carrying forward heritable traits (i.e evolution) can and do produce increased complexity.

@Greg

But it is honest w ststistical analysis of the likelihood that an event ocurs via naturalistic chance or not after understanding of the nature of nature, energy, matter, genetic mutations, selection etc

ID has never produced any sort of accurate reliable statistics concerning biological life. All it has offered are ridiculous calculations of strawman versions of evolution which have been 100% rejected by the actual scientific community.

@Greg

But what is more rational when considering the law of entropy?

Nothing in evolutionary theory or natural evolutionary processes violate the “law of entropy” as you call it. You’re just a regular ID-Creationist PRATT posting machine today.

[Mung]

@Greg

In the same vein, how can you prove naturalstic “fiddling” to prove that nature made complex life?

Not ID, therefore evolution. That’s how. If ID can’t calculate the probabilities involved, and evolutionary theory can’t tell us the probabilities involved, then evolution wins. Now it should be obvious that evolution wins not because it is more probable, but rather for other reasons, which probably have nothing to do with science.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Mung

If ID can’t calculate the probabilities involved, and evolutionary theory can’t tell us the probabilities involved, then evolution wins

What an incredibly stupid misrepresentation. Evolutionary theory is based on the body of consilient positive scientific evidence amassed over centuries from dozens of different scientific disciplines. ID is based on easily refuted bogus probability calculations. But thanks for more of the anti-science trolling BS which seems to be your only contribution here.

[Mung]

@Timothy_Horton

Evolutionary theory is based on the body of consilient positive scientific evidence amassed over centuries from dozens of different scientific disciplines.

And that evidence relies on probabilistic thinking, as I tried to point out to you earlier. Have you ever read Elliott Sober’s Evidence and Evolution or Reconstructing the Past? Do you understand that random genetic drift is statistical and that population genetics is likewise probabilistic?

Please stop misrepresenting the science.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Mung

And that evidence relies on probabilistic thinking, as I tried to point out to you earlier

Well no, it doesn’t. Just because some areas of evolutionary theory utilize statistics doesn’t mean all evolution evidence is based on probabilities. But thanks for more of the anti-science trolling BS which seems to be your only contribution here.

[Mung]

@Timothy_Horton

Well no, it doesn’t.

You cited the talk origins 29+ evidences article earlier did you not? Have you even read that?

For example:

In fact, if universal common descent were not accurrate, it is highly probable that these predictions would fail.

See also:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Phylogenetics

ETA:

Can hardly even count the number of references to statistics in their Phylogenetics Primer.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Mung

You cited the talk origins 29+ evidences article earlier did you not? Have you even read that?

LOL! Search for the word “probable” and declare all of evolution is based on probability theory. What a maroon.

Sorry Mung I promised the mods I’d ignore your anti-science BS trolling. Go back to UD and troll the ID-Creation geniuses there.

[Mung]

@Timothy_Horton

Sorry Mung I promised the mods I’d ignore your anti-science BS trolling.

I’d be more than happy to discuss the actual science with you. I don’t think the mods would have any problem with that.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Mung

I’d be more than happy to discuss the actual science with you.

You mean you’d be happy to post more anti-science BS trolling. Sorry but I promised the mods I’d ignore your anti-science BS trolling. Go back to UD and troll the ID-Creation geniuses there.

[Dan_Eastwood]

[quote=“Greg, post:86, topic:2109”]
And ID is not interested to prove naturalism. But it is honest w ststistical analysis of the likelihood that an event ocurs via naturalistic chance or not after understanding of the nature of nature, energy, matter, genetic mutations, selection etc.[/quote]

Speaking from my professional opinion as a statistician:
No, ID is not any sort of honest statistical analysis.

If ID were honest there would be a likelihood of design to compare to the likelihood of evolution, both based on the same evidence, forming a likelihood ratio test or Bayes Factor. This never happens*.

* except for a few examples of phylogenetic analysis with very specific hypotheses - tests that ID advocates have denounced.

[Mung]

@Dan_Eastwood

If ID were honest there would be a likelihood of design to compare to the likelihood of evolution , both based on the same evidence, forming a likelihood ratio test or Bayes Factor.

This frames the debate as either design or evolution. Is that how you see things?

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Mung

This frames the debate as either design or evolution. Is that how you see things?

You raise a good point, there could be other possibilities. However, that was beyond the point I was making, which is that methods of statistical inference compare one likelihood against another - two at a time - for an honest comparison.

Technically I think there are Bayesian methods that allow for more than two possibilities at a time, but I do not see them used in the Biomedical sciences. Practically speaking, it’s much easier to consider one new hypothesis at a time, rather than many.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Mung

… design or evolution. Is that how you see things?

I see that we can test relatively simple statistical hypotheses about evolution (or anything really). Statistical inference considers very specific (mathematically defined) hypotheses, one comparison at a time. Statistical Inference does not consider the whole of the evidence for an entire field all at once.

I do not see that we can test ID at all, due it’s lack of definition for anything testable. (Phylogenetic methods aside)

That should be the first clue that ID methods are incorrect, because they attempt to overthrow an entire field of science in one fell swoop, rather than building up the necessary evidence one step at a time.

I seem to have derailed this thread. I will split out these comments to start a new one - 5 minutes!

[Mung]

@Timothy_Horton

Search for the word “probable” and declare all of evolution is based on probability theory. What a maroon.

I don’t recall ever searching for the word “probable” and then declaring that all of evolution is based on probability theory. Do you have me confused with someone else?

[Mung]

@Timothy_Horton

Just because some areas of evolutionary theory utilize statistics doesn’t mean all evolution evidence is based on probabilities.

I agree. But I also think it is useful to understand where and when probabilistic thinking is used and why.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Mung

I agree.

So when you were arguing above all of evolutionary theory is based based on probability estimates you were just trolling. Got it.

[Mung]

@Timothy_Horton

So when you were arguing above all of evolutionary theory is based based on probability estimates you were just trolling. Got it.

Is it too much to ask from you that you show where I actually made the claim that “all of evolutionary theory is based based on probability estimates”? Who knows, I may wish to retract it.

[Mung]

@Dan_Eastwood

That should be the first clue that ID methods are incorrect, because they attempt to overthrow an entire field of science in one fell swoop, rather than building up the necessary evidence one step at a time.

As someone who associates himself with intelligent design I am surprised to find out that ID is attempting to overthrow an entire field of science. I know I am not trying to do that! Is this hyperbole or do you seriously believe this to be true?