[Avodah] intelligent design

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

The following article about the lack of explanation of biogenesis,
something RYGB mentioned, literally *just* reached my facebook
feed
http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/08/10/its-easy-to-be-an-atheist-if-you-ignore-science
"It's Easy to Be an Atheist if You Ignore Science", by R Moshe Averick.
As you'll see below, this kind of thing isn't my mehalekh, but as a
service for those for whom such things "work"...

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 12:52:44PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: from http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
: 
: Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
: 
: No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically
: detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually
: all biologists is genuine design...

The Argument from Design is not new, this is "just" its intersection
with evolution and life.

The problem is that there is no rigorous definition of "design". As long
as design is a subjective "I know it when I see it", there is no way to
objectively prove it is present.

Or even to make an empirical argument (non-proof) for its presence.

One can try to make a riogorous definition of design.
The first attempt was useful form, as per the Rambam, Moseh 2:intro
proposition 25 and 2:1:

    Each compound substance consists of matter and form, and requires an
    agent for its existence, viz., a force which sets the substance in
    motion, and thereby enables it to receive a certain form. The force
    which thus prepares the substance of a certain individual being,
    is called the immediate motor.


But more scientifically, design as something you can measure...

- The inverse of entropy. Problem is, over the full system, entropy
  always increases. Life means that there is more entropy in the air,
  etc... that more than compensates from the entropy being lost in
  evolution and living.

  In thermodynamics, entropy measures the number of microstates --
  patterns of molecules -- that all appear to be the current macrostate.
  There are more ways to evenly mix molecules around the room than to
  arrange all of them in one corner of the room.

- Of Informational (Shannon) Entropy -- the minimum number of bits
  necessary to describe a message, with lossless compression. For example,
  if one in general flipped a coin, but whenever there were two of the
  same in a row one picked the opposite, then a message of "HHT" only
  has two bits of information -- you don't need to send it in order for
  the receiver to put together the whole message.

  Adding compression and the notion that two different "messages"
  can contain the same information and thereby counting them as 1, not
  2 microstates.

- Of Chaitin's Algorithmic entropy / Kolmogorov complexity (lots of names,
  same thing) -- the amount of entropy in the description of an algorithm.
  Now we'll allow for compression that does lose information, as long
  as the resulting description is still enough to describe the same
  algorithm well enough for it to work.

See a more detailed discussion at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/algorithmic.html

And Dr Lee Spetner's (a famous Israeli proponent of Divinely guided
evolution) use of the idea
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/spetner.html

Here's the rub: Thermodynamic entropy always increases. Shannon
information always decreases. But algorithmic complexity doesn't.
Even if all use the word "entropy". E.g. see
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb01.html

Not much different than Behe's mistake of talking about "Irreducible
Complexity" -- all-or-nothing -- instead of talking about the absurdly
low probability of such complexity arising without Divine Guidance.

In a sense, this means that if this is the best we can do to define
"design", ID is an indication of creation, not a proof.

But R' Aqiva's argument appeals directly to experience and, I find,
much more convincing.

Medrash Tanchuma on "Bara E-loqim" (Bereishis 1:1):

    A heretic came to Rabbi Aqiva and asked, "Who made the universe?".
    Rabbi Aqiva answered, "Haqadosh barukh Hu". The heretic said,
    "Prove it to me." Rabbi Aqiva said, "Come to me tomorrow".

    When the heretic returned, Rabbi Aqiva asked, "What is that you
    are wearing?"

    "A garment", the unbeliever replied.

    "Who made it?"

    "A weaver."

    "Prove it to me."

    "What do you mean? How can I prove it to you? Here is the garment,
    how can you not know that a weaver made it?"

    Rabbi Akiva said, "And here is the world; how can you not know that
    HaQadosh barukh Hu made it?"

    After the heretic left, Rabbi Aqiva's students asked him, "But what
    is the proof?" He said, "Even as a house proclaims its builder,
    a garment its weaver or a door its carpenter, so does the world
    proclaim the Holy Blessed One Who created it.

The Chovos haLvavos Shaar haYichud pereq 7:
    The analogy of this: When one sees a letter of uniform handwriting
    and writing style, one will immediately consider that one person
    wrote it because it is not possible that there was not at least one
    person. If it were possible that it could have been written with
    less than one person, we would consider this possibility. And even
    though it is possible that it was written by more than one person,
    it is not proper to consider this, unless there is evidence which
    testifies to this, such as different handwriting style in part of
    the letter or the like.

Once we are talking about artument rather than proof, I find the direct
appeal to experience more compelling than arguing over elaborately
designed arguments, their postulates, and resulting air-tightness.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha at aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507