The basic argument of ID is probability

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Bilbo

designing at least some biological features

Specifically, which biological features and why?

[Bilbo]

One topic at a time, Jonathan.

[GJDS]

I was responding to your royal flush comment - the constants are a strong argument against random/accidental non-reproducible events as fundamental to the Universe. Remove this random/accidental aspect and atheistic arguments of the creation cease to have a scientific basis.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

That is the topic. You drew the analogy, so you must have something in mind. Unless it was a false analogy, in which case you’ll have no examples at all.

[beaglelady]

@Bilbo

And the when condition is usually irrelevant to ID proponents, since the difference in four billion or six thousand rarely makes much difference in their probability calculations.

You can’t brush away the “when component” just to make a cozy big tent for YECs.

[Casper_Hesp]

If probability is indeed the basic argument of ID, that would explain very well why ID does not work in practice. Arguments for God based on statistics are misguided. See especially the highlighted part from the self-quote below:

@Casper_Hesp

There are a number of different aspects of statistics that make it inapplicable to discussions of God’s influence. Many of its limitations render it rather agnostic. (…)

Firstly, one basic requirement for probabilistic statements in statistics is of course some aspect [or model] of repeatability. This does not mean we have to repeat the whole thing. Repeatability can be found in throwing multiple coins, testing multiple patients, drawing multiple samples for carbon dating, comparing multiple gene sequences, measuring multiple time points, [running multiple simulations] et cetera. But we cannot [model or] take multiple samples of the precise circumstances that led to the origin of the first cell(s) or that of the universe, leaving us without a robust basis for making probabilistic statements.

Secondly, a much more fundamental limitation of statistics is that it can only be used to compare the relative merits of multiple specific scenarios. This has to do with Bayesian statistics. Suppose that, given the data, scenario A is found to be extremely improbable, but still much more likely than scenarios B and C. That does not tell us that A is true or false, just that it looks better than C and D. For all we know, there could be another unknown but specifiable scenario D that would look a bit better. Also, showing that scenarios A, B, and C are all extremely unlikely does not make scenario D more likely if it remains unspecified.

A common mistake in many psychology studies is to assume that rejecting the null hypothesis (e.g., scenario A) on the basis of some probability criterion (usually p < 0.05) automatically leads to the acceptance of the alternative hypothesis (e.g., scenario B based on some pet theory). However, that reasoning is false because there could be many other alternative scenarios much more likely than B. I know a professor from my university who built half of his career on demolishing other people’s conclusions just based on Bayesian statistics!

So here’s the connection to Intelligent Design. Assigning an extremely low probability to a certain scenario A (e.g., DNA code arising through specified natural processes) does not automatically make alternative scenarios more probable. If a proposed alternative scenario B (e.g., “design”) is not formulated in terms of specifiable predictions, the calculated probability of A does not have any meaning. Or, applied to fine-tuning, assigning an extremely low probability to the parameter settings of the universe does not mean anything without specifiable predictions to compare it with.

Thirdly, there is something deeply disingenuous about employing probabilities in arguments for God. If the natural explanations turn out to capture all of the data, someone might say “wow, look at those underlying regularities, those patterns point to a Creator!” If the natural explanations appear to be unlikely, the same person might say “wow, that low probability points to design!” I think that’s fundamentally flawed. We can’t have it both ways.

(…) choice and randomness lead to indistinguishable results in formal statistical terms. I wish everyone would acknowledge that and stop using probabilities as pseudo-rational arguments to bolster the case for (or against) God’s existence. I want to be fair here but I can’t think of a softer way to put this clearly.

Casper

[sfmatheson]

@Bilbo

But that overlooks the basic argument of ID. If someone keeps dealing herself royal flushes at poker, we may not understand how it is happening, but somebody is cheating.

I agree with the basic point here: design detection does not require knowledge of a potential designer. In practice, ID is frequently little more than clumsy apologetics or batty natural theology, but in principle, we can and often do identify design without having any idea of who or what did the designing.

But I think the emphasis on probability is much more problematic. Showing that an event is improbable is not evidence for design. Every event that has happened in the last second, everywhere in the cosmos and at every scale of matter (or at least on atomic scales and above), was immensely improbable in some real sense. More clearly, the winner of a single-elimination coin-flipping contest among the entire human population will have accomplished a fantastically improbable feat but will have no credible argument for divine favor on the basis that s/he won. Mere improbability is barely a beginning of showing that an event was rigged.

Instead, I recommend reading smart thinkers on this topic. Del Ratzsch is a friend of mine and is the scholar I most recommend. He’s a Christian, if that matters to anyone, but more notably he’s a thoughtful scholar who wrote very clearly on this topic. His key word for design is not ‘improbability’ but ‘counterflow’. His piece in PSCF from 2003 is very good and, interestingly, makes scant mention of probability.

I have never seen a probability calculated by an ID proponent that was even somewhat convincing as a design argument. The thinking is too simplistic, the scientific understanding almost always shallow and even wrong. (Behe’s Edge of Evolution is an example of a probability argument that is scientifically ridiculous.) The only exception is the “fine tuning” argument re basic facts/constants of physics. We do seem to need an extraordinary explanation of some kind in that area. But in biology, I have yet to see any probabilistic argument with merit.

[GJDS]

@Casper_Hesp

Arguments for God based on statistics are misguided

I am not familiar with any such arguments - the exact nature of the constants precludes arguments from probabilities - but even removing probabilities is not an argument for God.

[Richard_Wright1 (Richard Wright)]

Hello Bilbo,

I’m Richard, nice to meet you.

I have a sincere question, and that is what do you mean by:[quote]
somebody has been designing at least some features of living things.
[/quote]

When you say, “has been designing” something, do you mean that someone magically instantaneously created it into existence? I really don’t know what ID folks mean by that. I used to think they meant that somehow someone (God) had it in mind and somehow it came into existence, but now I’m not sure. Thanks.

[T_aquaticus]

@Bilbo

But that overlooks the basic argument of ID. If someone keeps dealing herself royal flushes at poker, we may not understand how it is happening, but somebody is cheating. Most likely, she is cheating by somehow manipulating the cards as she deals, But perhaps telekinesis is taking place, and somebody else is manipulating the cards. Or perhaps somebody is re-arranging the molecules in the cards, so that what was once a three of hearts, is now an ace of spades. Or perhaps God is creating a whole new deck of cards that are arranged so that she always gets a royal flush.

This ignores the possibility of iterative processes that can result in royal flushes. For example, let’s say you start with 5 random cards. You draw a card, and if it improves your hand you keep it and discard so that you still have 5 cards. If you keep repeating this process you will inevitably end up with either 4 of a kind or a royal flush. This is how evolution works.[quote=“Bilbo, post:1, topic:36976”]
Are ID calculations sound? I wouldn’t know. It looks to me like they are, but I’m no expert. I’ll let those who claim to be experts defend themselves.
[/quote]

Most of these calculations commit the Sharpshooter fallacy. This is where the sharpshooter makes the bold claim that he can hit a target the size of a quarter from 1,000 years. When someone asks him to prove it, he fires into a dense forest that is 1,000 yards away, searches around for the bullet hole, and when he finds it he paints a quarter sized bulls eye around it. This is analogous to what ID proponents do with reference to mutations and adaptations. They claim that the process could only end up where we find it now, and no other route could have been taken. This is wrong, just as the sharpshooter could have hit almost any tree in the forest.

Another good example is the lottery. Let’s say that the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 100 million, each lottery has 100 million tickets sold, and for the last 10 lottery drawings there has been 1 winner. On the face of it, that doesn’t seem that spectacular, right? That is about what we would expect. However, according to ID calculations, what just happened was nearly impossible. The chances of those 10 specific people winning is 100 million to the 10th power, or 1 in 1x10^80. Since the odds of those 10 specific people winning is nearly impossible, does this mean the lottery had to be intelligently designed so that those 10 specific people would win? ID proponents say yes. Most people familiar with probabilities and statistics say no. Those people say that the odds of those 10 specific people winning is 1 in 1, because it happened.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@T_aquaticus

Another good example is the lottery. Let’s say that the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 100 million, each lottery has 100 million tickets sold, and for the last 10 lottery drawings there has been 1 winner. On the face of it, that doesn’t seem that spectacular, right? That is about what we would expect. However, according to ID calculations, what just happened was nearly impossible. The chances of those 10 specific people winning is 100 million to the 10th power, or 1 in 1x10^80. Since the odds of those 10 specific people winning is nearly impossible, does this mean the lottery had to be intelligently designed so that those 10 specific people would win? ID proponents say yes. Most people familiar with probabilities and statistics say no. Those people say that the odds of those 10 specific people winning is 1 in 1, because it happened.

@T_aquaticus

I like your Lottery Example … much easier to contemplate and have confidence in your points based on a Lottery concept. Nicely done.

[SuperBigV (Vlad K. I'm an Agnostic Atheist)]

I don’t think persistent royal flushes is a good analogy. A better analogy would be shooting arrows at trees and then drawing bulls eye around each hit. It will look like you are perfect marksman after the fact. Especially if you ignore all of the arrows lying around and not hitting anything.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@SuperBigV

I don’t think persistent royal flushes is a good analogy. A better analogy would be shooting arrows at trees and then drawing bulls eye around each hit. It will look like you are perfect marksman after the fact. Especially if you ignore all of the arrows lying around and not hitting anything.

Well, @SuperBigV, you may appreciate the mathematics of it … but frankly, after hearing the Bulls Eye analogy described 5 times, I still don’t “feel” it… I don’t even get it. Is it Pro-Evolutionary probability? Is it Against Evolutionary probability?

The Lottery Example is quick and to the point… even more than the royal flushes analogy:

In many states, there is a winner in most drawings. But the odds of that specific person being the winner are prohibitively ridiculous … which is how ID critics do their calculations.

[SuperBigV (Vlad K. I'm an Agnostic Atheist)]

Ok, I’ll give you another analogy. My grandparents had to survive the war to give birth to my parents. Before that, they had to survive all kinds of ailments. In retrospect, my birth appears very fine tuned. Lots of things had to fall in line before I could be born. If any of those things would not happen, I would not be here typing this. This is the fallacy of ID. It would tell me that based on the past experiences of myself, my parents, grandparents, etc… that my birth was guided by supreme intelligence.

[T_aquaticus]

@gbrooks9

I don’t even get it. Is it Pro-Evolutionary probability? Is it Against Evolutionary probability?

It is acknowledging the fact that evolution has a nearly infinite number of possible pathways that it could have taken just as the arrow could have landed nearly anywhere.

[sfmatheson]

@gbrooks9

but frankly, after hearing the Bulls Eye analogy described 5 times, I still don’t “feel” it… I don’t even get it. Is it Pro-Evolutionary probability? Is it Against Evolutionary probability?

Others have done a good job responding, but I want to add to the conversation by noting that this topic is pointing to one of the biggest and most consequential errors of ID and its associated “calculations” of probability. The bullseye analogy is the best metaphor for this error, which can be restated in this way:

When you choose an outcome, any outcome, in history, and calculate the probability of its occurrence, you will get an astronomically low number. This will be completely meaningless by itself. The only way to make that probability informative is to also show that the outcome was special in some way. In essentially every conversation about ID and probability, there is an unstated assumption that the outcome (a gene sequence, a bacterial structure, a particular species) was The Outcome. And this is not obviously true, indeed it is often clearly false. So, to claim that the existence of a particular enzyme (and its particular structure) is a Unique Outcome is to commit the bullseye fallacy. That person is looking at where the arrows landed and painting targets around them.

It’s extremely common in ID conversations, and once it is corrected, a large number of pro-ID “arguments” fall to pieces.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@T_aquaticus

It is acknowledging the fact that evolution has a nearly infinite number of possible pathways that it could have taken just as the arrow could have landed nearly anywhere.

So… the person going into the woods, drawing a circle, is a YEC critic, right?

If not … it’s hopelessly obtuse…

[sfmatheson]

@gbrooks9

So… the person going into the woods, drawing a circle, is a YEC critic, right?

Nope. Read and think.

@gbrooks9

If not … it’s hopelessly obtuse…

“Hopelessly obtuse” is an apt description of one aspect of this conversation, but not of the metaphor.

[T_aquaticus]

@gbrooks9

So… the person going into the woods, drawing a circle, is a YEC critic, right?

It is the ID/YEC supporter who is drawing the circle. They are painting the target after the evolutionary pathway has already been taken. They are implying that evolution was aiming at that target the entire time and that it is the only possible outcome that could have occurred, ignoring all of the other places that evolution could have landed. Just to break it down . . .

Archer drawing back the arrow = ancient ancestor

arrow flying through the air = evolutionary pathway taken by descendants of the ancient ancestor in the past

arrow hitting tree in forest = the modern descendants of that ancient ancestor at the end of the evolutionary pathway

painting target around arrow = pretending that the modern descendants we see were the only possible descendants that could occur

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@SuperBigV

I don’t think persistent royal flushes is a good analogy. A better analogy would be shooting arrows at trees and then drawing bulls eye around each hit. It will look like you are perfect marksman after the fact. Especially if you ignore all of the arrows lying around and not hitting anything.

That’s why someone else already identified the “Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy” earlier in this thread.