Dembski’s argument in Chicago

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Dembski’s argument in Chicago

#1  Postby Dolorian » Oct 05, 2014 12:22 am

On August 14, William Dembski spoke at the Computations in Science Seminar at the University of Chicago. Was this a sign that Dembski’s arguments for intelligent design were being taken seriously by computational scientists? Did he present new evidence? There was no new evidence, and the invitation seems to have come from Dembski’s Ph.D. advisor Leo Kadanoff. I wasn’t present, and you probably weren’t either, but fortunately we can all view the seminar, as a video of it has been posted here on Youtube.

It turns out that Dembski’s current argument is based on two of his previous papers with Robert so the arguments are not neThey involve considering a simple model of evolution in which we have all possible genotypes, each of which has a fitness. It’s a simple model of evolution moving uphill on a fitness surface. Dembski and Marks argue that substantial evolutionary progress can only be made if the fitness surface is smooth enough, and that setting up a smooth enough fitness surface requires a Designer.

Briefly, here’s why I find their argument unconvincing:

1. They conside all possible ways that the set of fitnesses can be assugned to the set of genotypes. Almost all of these look like random assigments of fitnesses to genotypes.
2. Given that there is a random association of genotypes and fitnesses, Dembski is right to assert that it is very hard to make much progress in evolution. The fitness surface is a “white noise” surface that has a vast number of very sharp peaks. Evolution will make progress only until it climbs the nearest peak, and then it will stall. But …
3. That is a very bad model for real biology, because in that case one mutation is as bad for you as changing all sites in your genome at the same time!
4. Also, in such a model all parts of the genome interact extremely strongly, much more than they do in real organisms.
5. Dembski and Marks acknowledge that if the fitness surface is smoother than that, progress can be made.
6. They then argue that choosing a smooth enough fitness surface out of all possible ways of associating the fitnesses with the genotypes requires a Designer.
7. But I argue that the ordinary laws of physics actually imply a surface a lot smoother than a random map of sequences to fitnesses. In particular if gene expression is separated in time and space, the genes are much less likely to interact strongly, and the fitness surface will be much smoother than the “white noise” surface.
8. Dembski and Marks implicitly acknowledge, though perhaps just for the sake of argument, that natural selection can create adaptation. Their argument does not require design to occur once the fitness surface is chosen. It is thus a Theistic Evolution argument rather than one that argues for Design Intervention.

User avatar
Posts: 200
Age: 40

Print view this post

Ads by Google

Re: Dembski’s argument in Chicago

#2  Postby Rumraket » Oct 06, 2014 10:17 pm

"Brilliant" argument. Evolution is possible, it's just that the whole universe and the laws of physics had to be set up so that evolution could happen.

Aka the fine tuning argument.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Dembski’s argument in Chicago

#3  Postby Weaver » Oct 06, 2014 10:19 pm

Has anyone considered the overwhelming possibility that W.D.'s name was misspelled during immigration through Ellis Island or something?

Pretty sure his last name must be spelled "Dumbski."
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
RS Donator
Posts: 20125
Age: 52

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Dembski’s argument in Chicago

#4  Postby Shrunk » Oct 07, 2014 1:46 am

Rumraket wrote:"Brilliant" argument. Evolution is possible, it's just that the whole universe and the laws of physics had to be set up so that evolution could happen.

Aka the fine tuning argument.

Yup. Dembski moves the God gap out of biology entirely. I wonder how Behe feels about that? I bet we won't hear a peep out of him, because actually defining what is "true" about the "theory" of intelligent design is entirely beside the point
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Posts: 26170
Age: 56

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest