Intelligent Design

This is a spinoff thread from the current abortion thread.  I didn't want to completely hijack that thread to discuss intelligent design, so here it is.  ID is an interesting topic.

Following are the initial posts by Pmoney and myself on the subject.  Please add your thoughts as well.

This was Pmoney's response:

Pmoney wrote: Alright, thanks to all those who kept this argument on a respectable level, avoiding the personal attacks that often plague the forums. Anywho, this is directed to Clark Kent (whose post can be seen above). Read it first, and this will make a whole lot more sense. 1.) The intelligent design theory doesn't only boil down to those to arguments.  Some argue that our ability to reason, love, and be self-aware point to a creator.  Some claim a revelation or a feeling, which they can't exactly explain, points to a creator. However, the most effective and convincing reason seems to be the unbelievable complexity of the universe in which we live.  It was this (largely the discoveries from DNA) that changed the mind of the famous atheist, Antony Flew (article about it http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ233.HTM).  1.) (A) I know that unlikelihood does not make something impossible, but considering the unbelievably low chances, it is more logical to assume otherwise, which is why the majority of people in the world believe in some god.  The chances of winning the lottery are very small, but compared to the chances of the random generation of life, (to the human degree of complexity nonetheless) winning the lottery looks promising.  Winning the lottery wouldn't be cheating in any case either; it is not cheating, it is just getting lucky with odds that are good in comparison to the random generation of life which has odds that are exponentially smaller.  As to the confusion of inferential/probability statistics, inferential statistics are not void; there exists no alternative for a testing ground - the universe has to be the experimental basis for all information obtained.  What/who exactly dictates that inferential statistics would be void in the case of studying the universe? In addition, the individual parts that factor into the creation of life are testable to a degree, and those parts would have had to occur in steps (i.e. cells couldn't form in the vacuum of space, or an organism couldn't form without the basic amino acids). Thus, inferring, or making some conclusions is not out of the question. Scientists, experimenting to create basic amino acids, were never able to form lasting amino acids under better than ideal conditions that would have existed on earth millions of years ago.  Any that they were able to form fell apart immediately, due to the law of entropy, that without energy put into the system, things fall apart and break down.  "People also forget the power of compound probability."  As you said it, people do often forget this.  Not only is the probability "much less" as you admitted, but multiple steps would have to occur - all with extremely low probabilities into the millions, possibly billions or more zeros.  The multiplicative effect of thousands/millions of steps to create life makes the probability effectively zero (more on this later).  Your example if so oversimplified and weighted to your point that it cannot even begin to illustrate the actual statistic (it seems a little fuzzy too). If there is a 0.0000001 or 1/10,000,000 chance as in your example, the desired result only occurs 1 in 10,000,000 times.  That is not 67% with 1,000,000 trials. It has to be less than 1% because the one desired result may not have even occurred after 1,000,000 trials when there is a 1 in 10,000,000 chance. A movie is hardly an authoritative source to consult for an analogy.  Again, the example cannot begin to illustrate the complexity of the creation of life.  Movies are fiction and the odds are defied to the viewers’ delight – the creation of life is just not an applicable complement to that analogy. To conclude that there is a helping hand in creation is logical because science has shown the astonishing improbability. Let’s look at what is necessary for the creation of the simplest of single-celled organisms.  First of all, I am assuming that you would believe that a “big bang” type theory is responsible for the creation of the universe.  If this is so, a star would have to form with orbiting bodies around it. One of these would have to have the right elements and atmospheric components to support life in addition to being the right distance from the sun to avoid burning or freezing.  The chances of this occurring are not bad, considering the millions and millions of galaxies, but it is still probably at least a few thousand zeros.  Then, the “basic building blocks of life” would need to form. Have you ever seen the formula for an amino acid? Here is a basic overview http://www.johnkyrk.com/aminoacid.html. As you can see, amino acids are not simple structures, all parts to create just one would have had to exist in a common place and something would have had to cause them to bond.  If it stays together, it is practically worthless without many of the other amino acids which form proteins.  If all elements were present, and something such as lightening were to somehow combine the elements to form random structures, some amino acids may form. They would then have to form chains to create proteins.  The proteins would then have to randomly organize to form the structure of a cell, complete will a selectively permeable membrane of proteins, the endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria, the Golgi apparatus, centrioles, lysosomes, vacuoles, possibly chloroplasts (each containing its own membranes (inner and outer) Granum, and stroma), and most importantly, DNA.  All of this would have to randomly form from the random formation of chains of amino acids which create proteins.  All parts would run dependently on the DNA that happen to form a complex string of amino acids in the nuclear envelope which can dictate what is let into and out of the cell, what proteins and amino acids to create, where to move molecules in the cell, and how to self-replicate.  “Food” would then have to be available for it to survive, if the random DNA pattern incorporated in what manner it would obtain “food.”  See http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/animalcell.html  for some additional information.    All of this is dependent on chance.  Now, each one of these steps has a probability of millions of zeros between the decimal point and 1.  This is where the multiplicative properties of probabilities come into play again.  For example, if I were picking marbles out of a bag containing 1 of each red, blue, yellow, and green marbles, the probability that I pick 1 blue is ¼.  If I pick again (assuming I put the marble back so that the events are not dependant), there is again a ¼ chance of picking a blue marble.  Now if I wanted to get these two events to occur in two trials, I multiply ¼ x ¼ which yields 1/16. That means I have a 1 in 16 chance of picking the blue marble twice.  On a larger scale, if the chances of 2 steps in the process to create life were each 1/1,000,000 (it is actually much less), I would multiply 1/1,000,000 by itself giving me a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 that both steps occur.  Yes, people do often forget the power of compound probability.  Now, having more trials does increase the chances of each event occurring, making the overall scenario more likely, but when dealing with such low probabilities multiplied by thousands, it barely makes a difference.   There is still another factor to throw in – time.  There has not been an infinite amount of time for this to occur.  Our universe has only been around for an estimated 10 billion years or so.  Not only that, but stars have an even shorter life span, maybe a billion years (and that’s pushing it for some).  That means that the probability of the random generation of life is substantially cut down by setting a time frame of a billion years or so for life, as complex as humanity to appear.  When the star burns out, all life will cease to exist in that solar system.   Unless time froze for sextillions of years, the random generation of life is highly, highly unlikely.  As a rational, logical being, it is more logical to assume a guiding hand.  The complexity of our universe is incomprehensible; the formation of a cell is just one part, think of all other discovered laws, theories, elements, subatomic properties, ect… which exist.  It is mind-boggling.   (2) Even if ID is accepted, it does imply moral standards because they exist.  Societies have varied in which moral standards apply, and I challenge you to find one that has had absolutely no moral standards.  It is part of the sense of “fairness” we have.  Why do people often strive for fairness, at least for themselves and often for others?It is part of our being, and no one has yet explained why; I guess it just happened by the random gene patterns that just happen to come together…   The sanctity of life is one moral standard that all societies have given some importance.  What society has had complete disregard for life, allowing killing of anyone for any reason?  Even if it is self-preservation, life has had some importance in every society.   Whew…and that’s all for now.

now i am a catholic and believe the whole catholic deal ( well the world was neccescarily made in 7 day but was created by God). anyway. one has to ask if there was intellegent design of life, who is the  intellegent designer of the intellegent designer of life on Earth. something had to create the something that created life on earth

i don't know if what im saying exactly fits in but its does kind of go along with the issue.

This is a partial response to Pmoney's post above.

First – some basics of probability calculations.  Those of you who find this a bit pedantic, just bear with me.

The chance of hitting a six on any roll of a regular die is 1/6.  The chance of hitting two sixes in a row is 1/6 * 1/6, or (1/6)^2, which is 1/36.  The chance of hitting a six n times in a row is (1/6)^n.  You can see that the probability decreases fast as the number of independent events increases.  The chances of hitting 100 sixes in a row are very small.

Conversely, the chance of NOT hitting a six is 5/6.   The chance of not hitting a six twice in a row is (5/6)^2, which is 25/36.  The chance of rolling the die n times without hitting a six is (5/6)^n.

For easier numbers, the next few calculations will assume a 100-sided die.  The chance of hitting a 1 n times in a row is (1/100)^n, and the chance of NOT hitting a 1 n times in a row is (99/100)^n.

So how many times do you have to roll the 100-sided die before you should expect to see a 1 pop up?  When (99/100)^n drops below 0.50, you would have had a greater than 50% chance of seeing a 1.  That gives us (99/100)^x = 0.50 – solve for x and we get something between 68 and 69.  By the time we have rolled 69 times we would have a better than even chance of hitting our 1-in-100 shot.  As you can see, the chances of your unlikely event occurring increase with the number of attempts.

This also gives us the general formula:  The probability x of an event occurring randomly, where p is the probability of that event occurring on any single attempt (where 0<p<1), and n is the number of attempts, is:  x = 1-[(1-p)^n]

Here is the central point of this:  The limit of f(n), as n approaches infinity, is 1 – no matter what the value of p.  A monkey with a typewriter could reproduce the collected works of Shakespeare, given enough monkeys and enough time.

Conclusion 1:  ANY random event, no matter how unlikely individually, is mathematically certain to occur given enough attempts.

Pmoney suggests that we haven’t had an infinite number of attempts at life, or at least not a big enough number to make it a meaningful likelihood – I say we don’t know that.  We have a pretty good idea at the age of the universe, but not a very good idea as to the number of potential planets.  We also don’t have a good guess at how many “tries per minute” nature has at life.

But more importantly – we don’t know what “life” means.  We know what life as we know it means, but we have no understanding of other potential bases of life.  For all we know, each time nature rolls the die on carbon-based life, it is also rolling the die on nitrogen-based life, helium-based life, and uranium-based life.  We just don’t know.

Conclusion 2:  We do not know the probability of random creation of life.

In addition, we don’t know how many universes there have been.  Seriously.  We know more or less when the universe began – we do not know what happened “before” then.  For all we know, this is universe #532,533,642.  We just don’t know.  So we really don’t know how many tries nature had.  And, of course, all nature really needed was one try – sometimes you win the lottery with your first ticket.

Conclusion 3:  We do not know how many attempts at life have been made.

Corollary:  We do not have any way to meaningfully quantify the likelihood of life occurring randomly.

Further – it is incorrect to apply straight compounding of probabilities in this case, because that does not consider all available information.

What are the chances of rolling three 6’s in a row?  1/216.  What are the chances of rolling three sixes in a row, IF I ALREADY ROLLED TWO SIXES?  Now it is 1/6.  The compound probability essentially gets un-compounded by the additional information.  Having already accomplished two unlikely events, the larger unlikely event is suddenly much less unlikely.

Put it this way:  What are the chances that green one-eyed monsters evolved in the Amazon?  Let’s say 1/1,000,000,000.  What if the person asking you the question happens to be a green one-eyed monster?  Looking at the evidence that green one-eyed monsters exist, that should significantly change your answer.

This is what I was trying to get to with my poorly conceived movie analogy.  Asking “what are the chances of life happening randomly” is the WRONG question – because it fails to acknowledge the obvious:  LIFE EXISTS.  When evaluating probabilities, it is absolutely essential to consider all available information.  It is mathematically incorrect to do otherwise.

With a 52-card deck, deal me two cards.  The chances of those two cards being two aces are about one-half percent.  But if I flash you my cards, and they are both Aces, now what are the chances of having dealt me two aces?  It is an entirely different question – the pre-deal theoretical probability of dealing the aces is now completely irrelevant.

Conclusion 4:  It is incorrect to ask “what are the chances of life evolving randomly”.  The correct question is “given that the conditions required for life to evolve randomly exist, and given that life does exist, what are the chances that life did in fact evolve randomly”.

Moving on – let us assume that we had enough information to correctly calculate the exact probability of life’s random creation.  Let us assume that this probability is astonishingly small.

What does the scientist do with this information?  The scientist first notes that there is no apparent reason to disbelieve random evolution, other than the sheer improbability of it.  Random evolution, while certainly far from proven, is otherwise generally consistent with the accumulated mass of scientific data.  The scientist then considers alternative solutions and causes. 

Perhaps the scientist considers the possibility of a helping hand – some form of divine intervention or intelligent design.

The scientist then evaluates the probability of intelligent design occurring.  In order for ID to have occurred, the following (at least) must be the case:

1.  There must be a “superior” being

2.  This superior being must itself have come into being by some means other than random evolution, or must have “always” existed

3.  This superior being must have the power to create life

4.  This superior being must have actually decided to create life as we know it

5.  This superior being must have gone undetected by modern science

6.  This superior being must be either unable or unwilling to communicate meaningfully with the majority of people

We then assign a probability to each of these cases, and compound that probability.  Of course, we cannot meaningfully do so.

Conclusion 5:  We do not know the probability of the existence of a superior being.

But clearly, if we were to take a stab at some numbers, the objective odds of each of these six conditions are pretty staggering for each of them individually, and when compounded we get staggering^6.  This is particularly true since we would have to suspend several of our laws of physics to accommodate this superior being.

Conclusion 6:  The objective probability of the existence of a non-evolved superior being capable of creating life is staggeringly small.

Having reached this conclusion, we now look at our three options to explain life:  (a) random evolution, (b) ID, and (c) other.  We have no data on (c), and must discard it until we get more information.  (a) and (b) are both staggeringly unlikely, but certainly both possible.  Not enough data exists to determine which is “less” unlikely.  This leads to:

Conclusion 7:  Given a choice between two very improbable conclusions, it is incorrect to conclusively determine that one is correct over the other.

Read that one carefully.  I am saying that it is scientifically incorrect to conclude that ID is the case based simply the improbability of random evolution.  It is equally incorrect to conclude that ID is NOT the case based on the improbability of ID.

Now, there is some cause for preferring random evolution over ID – primarily the fact that random evolution is consistent with our current scientific understanding, whereas ID completely contradicts many of our laws of science.  But we do not now, nor will we ever, have enough data to conclusively dismiss ID.  We may in the future have data that conclusively disproves random evolution, but we do not have that data now.

Conclusion 8:  It is incorrect to conclusively dismiss or accept intelligent design.

One last story on the subject:  I am sitting at my computer typing this up.  Yet, had you stood at my birth, tried to determine the probability of me sitting here today typing this on my computer, you would have had to conclude that the probability was staggeringly small.  The number of random and unlikely events that happened between now that then, that were necessary for this moment to exist, is, well, staggering.  Yet here I am. 

Conclusion 9:  ANY event is staggeringly unlikely.

A quick side note on inferential statistics.  I noted that it is incorrect to employ inferential statistics to this particular field of study, and Pmoney challenged this conclusion.

Inferential statistics (t-tests, z-tests, F-tests, and their various cousins) are based in certain mathematical assumptions about data sampling and the underlying data population.  They exist to show that a sample did or not come from a particular population, or that two samples did or did not come from the same population, and so forth.  Applying them without meeting these sampling criteria renders them mathematically void.  This results in the basic scientific research method, which requires random sampling, confound variable control (by any number of means), independent variable manipulation, and dependant variable measurement.  None of these conditions apply to a probability evaluation of the origins of life.  It is therefore theoretically improper to apply inferential statistics, not to mention practically unfeasible.  Probability and statistics are usually taught in the same class, but they are in fact entirely different concepts. 

I was not implying that inferential statistics have no place in this discussion - inferential statistics may certainly be properly applied to experiments applicable to the origins of life, but it would be wildly incorrect (and I do not believe that Rmoney was suggesting this) to simply use a z-score table (for instance) to conclude whether or not life evolved randomly.

Another quick side note on entropy.  Rmoney notes that amino acids were unable to form without additional energy put into the system.  This is version of a popular creationist argument, applying the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  The Second Law, however, only applies to closed systems, and life is certainly not a closed system.  The Second Law does not apply.

I will follow up with another post regarding the moral imperative resulting from ID.

goodsmitty wrote: Clark: Okay, after a 1:1 trillion chance of happening, an amino acid pops up from a mix of the right elements. Now, what are the odds of that amino acid continuing through each consecutive 1: 1 trillion chance and becoming a protein? Then each 1: 1 trillion chance and becoming a protein that actually conducts a function, such as a Na+/K+ ATP pump in your heart that makes your heartbeat happen?

The answer is 1: 1 trillion.  Compounding would be incorrect.  Once you have rolled a six, the chance of rolling another six is 1/6.  Compounding is only correct when viewing the process as a whole.  Since we KNOW that some parts of the evolutionary process happened, we have to un-compound those.

But more importantly - if you find it unfathomable that a possible-yet-unlikely event occurred, despite looking at the results, how do you find the existence of a "superior being" any less unfathomable, when the existence of that being goes contrary to our very well established laws of science?

I am not saying the random life was, at the beginning of time, anything short of incredibly unlikely.  What I am saying is that this is not the correct question.