Below are some of my thoughts about Dembski's "revolutionary theory",
although I'm not too familiar with it.
I began to ponder what would happen if Dembski really did publish a
clear mathematical way of detecting Intelligent Design. It seems that,
contrary to his very dubious claims (see Appendix below), he hasn't
yet succeeded in this. But, let's assume that he did succeed.
I guess one big problem would be how to formalize things such as a
cell or a molecule to mathematical abstractions. But let's again
assume that Dembski knows how to do that unambiguously. Applying his
ID criteria to biological life isn't even necessary here. We just need
to apply it to any "Intelligently Designed" system which we can easily
represent, preferably with a character string.
Now, the ID criteria is supposed to be a clear mathematical method,
without any subjectivity, so I guess we could easily make a computer
algorithm that applies the method automatically. Right? Ok. Program
it into a computer. Better yet, program it into a Turing Machine,
which we know can compute anything any computer can. Speaking in
technical terms, we would have Turing Machine M that can recognize a
language L(M), which in our case consists of all strings that are or
could be ID. Fine.
The trick is that we know that every TM can be turned into a
recursively enumerable grammar, which GENERATES the language L(G)=L(M)
the TM recognizes. Therefore, this grammar could actually generate all
"designed" strings, but would generate no strings that can't be
designed. Rather interesting grammar, I'd say, since I can't possibly
imagine what a "string that can't be designed" looks like.
Anyhow, Dembski will have given you a way to generate strings that are
Intelligently Designed. So would he really call them ID? Would he even
call the grammar God? By creating the algorithm he might also have
created God.. ;-)
If he answers that no, the generated strings are not designed, he at
the same time says that his method gives false answers, and thus
invalidates it. This would of course happen to *any* method he could
ever present, if we create a grammar out of it.
If he answers that yes, the generated strings are designed, he says
that a dumb computer algorithm can generate "Intelligent
Design". Suits me, because I have nothing against computer programs
such as evolutionary algorithms being defined as capable of
intelligent design. But would he really like that?
So, could we conclude, with good theoretical grounds, that Dembski's
ID can ever be detected as he wants it to be? QED?
There's also an interesting point that the Turing Machine would also
be able to recognize itself, and the grammar would be able to generate
it. That way, if Dembski claims that the generated strings are ID
because human designed the algorithm, we can show that the algorithm
can "design" itself. This does create an interesting infinite
recursion, and I can't really decide if it's ID or not...
I guess the algorithm would be impossible because of many other
reasons too. Not least because of coding - just do Huffman coding on a
string and you'll make it rather random-looking. Would the algorithm
still recognize it? Just ROT-13 the damn string - would the algorithm
still recognize it? ROT-14? ROT-15? ...? I guess not.
This proof may be too far-fetched - I guess the impossibility of
Dembski's idea can be demonstrated in much easier and more obvious
ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix:
' ''There exists a reliable criterion for detecting design. This
criterion detects design strictly from observational features of
the world. Moreover it belongs to probability and complexity
theory, not to metaphysics and theology. And although it cannot
achieve logical demonstration it does achieve statistical
justification so compelling has to demand assent. This criterion
is relevant to biology. When applied to the complex,
information-rich structures of biology, it detects design. In
particular the complexity-specification criterion shows that
Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical systems are
designed.'' -- WA Dembski, "Intelligent Design", pages 149-150.
I hereby request a copy of the data showing the application of the
complexity-specification criterion to "the complex, information-rich
structures of biology" which is referenced in the last quote. ' -
Wesley Elsberry
So far no one has received any answers to this question, to my
knowledge.
--
-- Marko Grönroos, magi AT iki PISTE fi (http://www.iki.fi/magi/)
-- Paradoxes are the source of truth and the end of wisdom
|
