In recent days, objector ES has been twisting the concept of Wickensian functionally specific information-bearing complex organisation into post-modernist deconstructionist subjectivist pretzels, in order to obfuscate the plain inductive argument at the heart of the design inference and/or explanatory filter.
For example, consider these excerpts from the merry go round thread:
ES, 41: . . . If a conscious observer connects some observed object to some possible desired result which can be obtained using the object in a context, then we say that the conscious observer conceives of a function for that object . . . . In science, properties of the material just are, without purpose, because everybody knows purpose is subjective. Functionality comes in when you get engineerial, and then it’s more up to the “objective functionality” of the engineer than of the material . . .
KF, 42: When one puts together a complex composite such as a program or an electronic amplifier ckt or a watch or an auto engine or many other things, function is not projected to it by an observer. I wuk, or i nuh wuk, mon. Was that a bad starter motor, a run down battery, out of gas, dirty injector points and more. Was that a bug in syntax or in semantics. Was that a BJT miswired and fried, did you put in the wrong size load resistor so it sits in saturation when it was meant to be in the middle of the load line, did you put in an electrolytic cap the wrong way around, etc. Is this a heart attack triggered by a blood clot etc. Function is not a matter of imagination but observation. And you full well know that or should.
Joe, 44: Earth to E. Seigner- functionality, ie a function, is an OBSERVATION. We observe something performing some function and we investigate to try to figure out how it came to be the way it is. Within living organisms we observe functioning systems and subsystems. As for “information”, well with respect to biology ID uses the same definition that Crick provided decades ago. And we say it can be measured the same way Shannon said, decades ago.
ES, 46: To an observer it looks like cars take people to work and shopping. But most of the time cars stand in garage motionless, and sometimes they fail to start. If the observer is truly impartial, then it’s not up to him to say that the failure to start or mere standing is any less of the car’s function than the ability of being driven. The car’s function is what the car does and when the car fails to start then that’s what it does and this is its function. Of course this sounds silly, but it’s true . . .
BA, 48: It is clear to me now. You have drunk deeply from the post-modernist/constructivist Koolaid. Kairosfocus and gpuccio be advised — attempting to reason with such as E.Seigner is pointless.
Let’s first remind ourselves as to what the glorified common-sense design inference process actually does as an exercise in inductive, inference to the best current explanation on empirically observed evidence:
. . . and also, of the significance of Wickensian functionally specific, complex information and Orgellian informational specified complexity for a blind, needle in haystack search; as highlighted by Dembski et al:
While we are at it, let us remind ourselves of what FSCO/I looks like in the form of functionally specific organisation in the technological world:
Fig 6: An exploded view of a classic ABU Cardinal, showing how functionality arises from a highly specific, tightly constrained complex arrangement of matched parts according to a “wiring diagram.” Such diagrams are objective (the FSCO/I on display here is certainly not “question-begging,” as some — astonishingly — are trying to suggest!), and if one is to build or fix such a reel successfully, s/he had better pay close heed.. Taking one of these apart and shaking it in a shoe-box is guaranteed not to work to get the reel back together again. (That is, even the assembly of such a complex entity is functionally specific and prescriptive information-rich.)
. . . and, in the life of the cell, as the Ribosome constructs a protein (which is a functionally specific string structure) based on the coded algorithmic information in the mRNA tape:
Step by step protein synthesis in action, in the ribosome, based on the sequence of codes in the mRNA control tape (Courtesy, Wikipedia and LadyofHats)
. . . not to mention, the parallel in the punched paper tape reader used for older computers and NC machines:
Punched paper Tape, as used in older computers and numerically controlled machine tools (Courtesy Wiki & Siemens)
(When things have been strawmannised and twisted into pretzels, it helps to straighten them back out again. Where also, a picture is worth a thousand words.)
However, Mr Arrington has a point.
While those caught up in po mo deconstructionist schemes are hardly likely to have a sudden change of heart on the strength of a mere blog comment or even a headlined post, the rest of us can draw lessons from what we see laid out before us. I therefore crave the indulgence of a promoted comment to headlined status, including a snippet of intensely personal history of my homeland. For, comments get buried and forgotten within hours, but a headlined post is for the record:
It may be entertaining to play semantics games with terms like function, but that simply reveals that your problem is not with science, it is with common sense reality tracing to some of the sillier bits of post-modernist radical subjectivism and deconstructionism.
Perhaps, it has not dawned on you that survival of the fittest or hill-climbing algorithms or natural selection or the like pivot on the objectivity of function. Have you gone to Panda’s Thumb, TSZ, ATBC or the like Darwinist agitator sites to challenge the core concepts of evolution based on differential reproductive success pivoting on functional differences of life-forms? I safely bet not, you are reserving such talking-points for those you object to, regardless of inconsistencies or outright incoherence.
[Ill-]Logic with a swivel.
Patently, revealingly, sadly, you have indulged in incoherent selective hyperskepticism.
And if you genuinely imagine that a stalled car with a dead engine, or a leaky roof, or a crashed computer, or a PA system that distorts sounds horribly are functionally distinct as a mere matter of subjective opinion, your problem is a breach of common sense.
Do you — or a significant other — have a mechanic? Are you a shade-tree mechanic? Do you have even one tool for maintenance? Do you recognise the difference between sugar, salt and arsenic in your cup of coffee? Between an effective prescription correctly filled and faithfully carried out when you get sick and a breakdown of that process? Etc?
I put it to you that you cannot and do not live consistent with your Lit class seminar-room talking points.
And, your evasive resort to clinging to such absurdities to obfuscate the issue of functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information, speaks loudest volumes for the astute onlooker.
Own-goal, E-S.
The bottom-line of the behaviour of several objectors over the past few days, speaks inadvertent volumes on the real balance on the merits of the core design theory contention that there are such things as reliable empirical markers — such as Wickensian FSCO/I — that are strong signs of design as key causal process.
But, many are so wedded to the totalising metanarrative of a priori Lewontinian evolutionary materialism that they refuse to heed the 2350 year old warning posed by Plato on where cynical radical relativism, amorality opening the door to might makes right nihilism and ruthless factions points to for a civilisation. Refusing to learn the hard-bought, paid for in blood lessons of history, they threaten to mislead our civilisation into yet another predictably futile and bloody march of folly. As the ghosts of 100 million victims of such demonically wicked deceptions over the past century warn us.
The folly on the march in our day is so arrogantly stubborn that it refuses to learn living memory history or the history passed on first hand to our grand parents.
Here is Sophia (personification of Wisdom), in the voice of Solomon echoing hard-bought, civil war triggered lessons in Israel c 1,000 BC:
Prov 1:20 Wisdom [Gk, Sophia] cries aloud in the street,
in the markets she raises her voice;
21 at the head of the noisy streets she cries out;
at the entrance of the city gates she speaks:
22 “How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
and fools hate knowledge?
23 If you turn at my reproof,[a]
behold, I will pour out my spirit to you;
I will make my words known to you.
24 Because I have called and you refused to listen,
have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded,
25 because you have ignored all my counsel
and would have none of my reproof,
26 I also will laugh at your calamity;
I will mock when terror strikes you,
27 when terror strikes you like a storm
and your calamity comes like a whirlwind,
when distress and anguish come upon you.
28 Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer;
they will seek me diligently but will not find me.
29 Because they hated knowledge
and did not choose the fear of the Lord,
30 would have none of my counsel
and despised all my reproof,
31 therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way,
and have their fill of their own devices.
32 For the simple are killed by their turning away,
and the complacency of fools destroys them;
33 but whoever listens to me will dwell secure
and will be at ease, without dread of disaster.”
A grim warning, bought at the price of a spoiled, wayward son who fomented disaffection and led rebellion triggering civil war and needless death and destruction, ending in his own death and that of many others.
Behind the Proverbs lies the anguished wailing of a father who had to fight a war with his son and in the end cried out, Oh Absalom, my son . . .
History sorts out the follies of literary excesses, if we fail to heed wisdom in good time.
Often, at the expense of a painful, bloody trail of woe and wailing that leads many mothers and fathers, widows and orphans to wail the loss of good men lost to the fight in the face of rampant folly.
But then, tragic history is written into my name, as George William Gordon’s farewell to his wife written moments before his unjust execution on sentence of a kangaroo court-martial, was carried out:
My beloved Wife, General Nelson has just been kind enough to inform me that the court-martial on Saturday last has ordered me to be hung, and that the sentence is to be executed in an hour hence; so that I shall be gone from this world of sin and sorrow.
I regret that my worldly affairs are so deranged; but now it cannot be helped. I do not deserve this sentence, for I never advised or took part in any insurrection. All I ever did was to recommend the people who complained to seek redress in a legitimate way; and if in this I erred, or have been misrepresented, I do not think I deserve the extreme sentence. It is, however, the will of my Heavenly Father that I should thus suffer in obeying his command to relieve the poor and needy, and to protect, as far as I was able, the oppressed. And glory be to his name; and I thank him that I suffer in such a cause. Glory be to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; and I can say it is a great honour thus to suffer; for the servant cannot be greater than his Lord. I can now say with Paul, the aged, “The hour of my departure is at hand, and I am ready to be offered up. I have fought a good fight, I have kept the faith, and henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge shall give me.” Say to all friends, an affectionate farewell; and that they must not grieve for me, for I die innocently. Assure Mr. Airy and all others of the truth of this. Comfort your heart. I certainly little expected this. You must do the best you can, and the Lord will help you; and do not be ashamed of the death your poor husband will have suffered. The judges seemed against me, and from the rigid manner of the court I could not get in all the explanation I intended . . .
Deconstruct that, clever mocking scorners of the literary seminar room.
Deconstruct it in the presence of a weeping wife and mother and children mourning the shocking loss of a father and hero to ruthless show-trial injustice ending in judicial murder.
Murder that echoes the fate of one found innocent but sent to Golgotha because of ruthless folly-tricks in Jerusalem c. 30 AD.
(How ever so many fail to see the deep lesson about folly-tricks in the heart of the Gospel, escapes me. New Atheists and fellow travellers, when you indict the Christian Faith as the fountain-head of imagined injustice, remember the One who hung between thieves on a patently unjust sentence, having been bought at the price of a slave through a betrayer blinded by greed and folly. If you do not hear a cry for just government and common decency at the heart of the Gospel you would despise, you are not worth the name, literary scholar or educated person.)
And in so doing, learn a terrible, grim lesson of where your clever word games predictably end up in the hands of the ruthless.
For, much more than science is at stake in all of this.
GEM of TKI >>
_________________
I trust that the astute onlooker will be inclined to indulge so personal a response, and will duly draw on the hard-bought lessons of history (and of my family story . . . ) as just outlined. END
PS, Sept 30: ES has been making heavy weather over the idea of a primitive tribe encountering a can opener for the first time and not understanding its function (which he then wishes to project as subjective):
A rotating cutter can opener in action
And, a modern development showing meshing serrated gears:
modern rotary action can opener with meshing gears (Both images HT Wiki)
However, this is both incorrect and irrelevant to recognising from aspects of the can opener that exhibit FSCO/I, that it is designed:
1 –> Whether or not the primitive seeing an opener for the first time can recognise its purpose and contrivance that integrates materials, forces of nature and components into a functioning whole, that functionally specific, complex organisation for a purpose exists and is embedded in how the opener is designed.
2 –> Just by looking at the evident contrivance manifested in FSCO/I that is maximally unlikely to obtain by blind chance and mechanical necessity — as with the fishing reel above, the primitive is likely to perceive design.
3 –> The rotating gears with matched teeth set to couple together alone implies highly precise artifice to build centred disks, cut matching gearing, mount them on precisely separated and aligned centred axes, with other connected parts already demonstrates design to a reasonable onlooker.
4 –> The precisely uniformly thick handles joined in a pivot, and reflecting rectangle-based shapes would be equally demonstrative.
5 –> Where, actual intended function has not been brought to bear. (And note, we see here again the implicit demand that the design inference be a universal decoder/ algorithm identifier. That is a case of setting up and knocking over a strawman, where . . . just on theory of computation, such a universal decoder/detector is utterly implausible. The point of the design inference is that on inductively confirmed reliable signs such as FSCO/I we may confidently identify design — purposefully directed contingency or contrivance — as key causal factor. It seems that any number of red herrings are led away from this point to convenient strawman caricatures that are then knocked over as though the actual point has been effectively answered on the merits. It has not.)
6 –> But of course, that functionality dependent on specific components and an arrangement otherwise vanishingly improbable, reeks of design and the function can be readily demonstrated, as the patents diagram shows.
7 –> Where, again, it must be underscored that, per my comment 49 to ES:
[the] ultra-modernist, ugly- gulch- between- the- inner- world- and- the outer- one [of] sophomorised Kantianism fails and needs to be replaced with a sounder view. As F H Bradley pointd out over a century ago, to pretend to know that the external world is un-knowable due to the nature of subjectivitiy . . . the denial of objective knowledge . . . is itself a claim to objective knowledge of the external world and a very strong one too. Which therefore is self-referentially incoherent. Instead, it is wiser to follow Josiah Royce’s point that we know that error exists, undeniably and self evidently. Thus, there are certain points of objective knowledge that are firm, that ground that objective truth, warrant and knowledge exist, and that schemes of thought that deny or denigrate such fail. Including post modernism, so called. Of course, that we know that error exists means we need to be careful and conservative in knowledge claims, but the design inference is already that, it is explicitly inductive on inference to best explanation on observed patterns and acknowledges the limitations of inductive knowledge including scientific knowledge. [A Po-Mo] selectively hyperskeptical focus on the design inference while apparently ignoring the effect of that same logic on science as a whole, on history, on common sense reality and on reason itself, simply multiplies the above by highlighting the double standard on warrant.
8 –> In short, we have here a case of clinging to an ideological absurdity in the teeth of accessible, well-warranted correction.
Comments
Gpuccio
I don’t agree with you. H1 can simply be that there is some unknown different non random explanation. H0 as a random explanation can certainly be rejected if it is really so unlikely.
That’s what is always done in medicine. You detect possible connection between variables, even if you don’t know at present how they are connected. But you simply reject the hypothesis that the connection is due to random sampling, if you have a p value, say, of 10e-9 or lower. Nobody would attribute that result to an effect of random sampling.
First – let’s not confuse sampling and the underlying hypothesis. H0 is not “due to random sampling”. H0 is something like: “the probability of any character appearing at a given position in the string is the same and independent of all other positions” or “the treatment makes no difference to the probability of recovery”. You may think you simply reject h0 but there is a always an assumption about h1. This may be implicit or even unconscious, but has to be there or there is no justification for rejecting H0.
For example:
Suppose you want to do a clinical trial into a new treatment (T) for alleviating hay fever. So you do a RCT on 1,000 patients. Half of them get T for a month, followed by a placebo for a month; the other half the other way round. You then ask patients were they more comfortable under the first or second treatment. You don’t give the option of “no difference” so they have to decide (I am grossly simplifying things but the reasoning can be extended to more realistic trials).
The result can be presented as a string 1,000 units long marked T or P. Every single possible string has exactly the same probability under H0: 2^1,000. So how do you decide which strings are grounds for rejecting H0? Traditionally we reject H0 if there are a large amount of Ts or Ps – but we would also reject it if there were exactly 500 Ts followed by 500 Ps – or if it corresponded to the Champerowne sequence. What’s the justification? You could say we reject H0 if the resulting string matches any special pattern. But for any string how do you know it doesn’t match a pattern? Perhaps it is the binary equivalent of a poem in Sanskrit. In fact it is quite possible that every string matches some pattern – there infinitely many patterns to choose from. The answer is actually fairly obvious – if resulting string has 700 Ts we reject H0 because that string is much more likely if T works (that is your H1), if the string is 500 Ts followed by 500 Ps we reject it because it is much more likely to be explained by some fiddling with the results (that is your H1). However, if it happens to be the binary equivalent of poem in Sanskrit we do not reject it because there is no plausible H1 connecting the poem to the outcome.
According to his reasoning, I could simply deny the law of gravitation if I just considered it a very unlikely explanation in my map of reality, because after all the events where the movements of objects are apparently connected to mass and distance are as improbable as any other configuration, so why bother to hypothesize strange attractions for which we have zero evidence, or even stranger effects of curve space?
I don’t see at all how this follows from my reasoning. The observed movement of objects is far more likely given the H1 of Newton’s laws than it would be if they were in some (to be defined) sense random.Mark Frank
October 11, 2014
October
10
Oct
11
11
2014
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
Mung at #188:
Objective???
You are really a naughty boy! There is always a context... :)gpuccio
October 11, 2014
October
10
Oct
11
11
2014
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
KF:
Thank you for the comments.
I really cannot understand how Mark so completely denies the foundations on which all scientific inference is based. According to his reasoning, I could simply deny the law of gravitation if I just considered it a very unlikely explanation in my map of reality, because after all the events where the movements of objects are apparently connected to mass and distance are as improbable as any other configuration, so why bother to hypothesize strange attractions for which we have zero evidence, or even stranger effects of curve space?gpuccio
October 11, 2014
October
10
Oct
11
11
2014
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
GP: That sampling challenge is what underlies the tests you speak of and the inconsistency we see here is yet another mark of selective hyper-skepticism. KFkairosfocus
October 11, 2014
October
10
Oct
11
11
2014
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
MF, all INDIVIDUAL outcomes may be improbable, but there is a world of difference between straw and needle, and as straw is the overwhelming bulk a blind chance and necessity search will predictably [and given the ratio of possible sample size to number of possible configs, all but absolutely certainly . . . with utter empirical reliability] pick straw. The same applies to clustering microstates in statistical thermodynamics, which grounds the second law and that reasoning is connected. In short after any number of opportunities to know more accurately and many corrections, you have again knocked over the same strawman caricature. KFkairosfocus
October 11, 2014
October
10
Oct
11
11
2014
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
Mark:
I don't agree with you. H1 can simply be that there is some unknown different non random explanation. H0 as a random explanation can certainly be rejected if it is really so unlikely.
That's what is always done in medicine. You detect possible connection between variables, even if you don't know at present how they are connected. But you simply reject the hypothesis that the connection is due to random sampling, if you have a p value, say, of 10e-9 or lower. Nobody would attribute that result to an effect of random sampling.
I don't understand what you mean when you say that "As you know all outcomes are equally improbable." Let's say that you have two sets of values of two variables, and that a linear regression analysis shows a p value of 10e-10. Everybody would reject H0, even if we have no detailed theory about how the two variables are connected. Here H1 can be that one of the variables is the cause of the other, and H2 can be that there is a third variable connected to both, and so on, Maybe we have no clues to which is the best explanation.
Still, no scientist with a sound mind would accept H0 as an explanation.gpuccio
October 11, 2014
October
10
Oct
11
11
2014
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
Gpuccio
Now, with all respect of our Bayesian friends (Mark first) who are suspicious about classical Fisherian hypothesis testing, a p value of 1:10^62 should convince even the most skeptical reasonable individual that H0 must be rejected.
The lowness of the p value is irrelevant as to whether you dismiss h0. As you know all outcomes are equally improbable. What matters is whether h1 or h2 can give a better explanation - including how plausible h1 and h2 are. This is why pure Fisherian hypothesis testing has been discarded for decades even by non-Bayesians. Even the most elementary statistics textbooks demand that you also make it clear what h1 is. Only that way can you decide what the rejection region is. If it is a one-tailed test then it doesn’t matter how extreme the result is towards the other tail, h0 will not be dismissed because h1 does not provide a better explanation.Mark Frank
October 11, 2014
October
10
Oct
11
11
2014
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
KF:
You are perfectly right. As you know, I just profit from the simple fact that protein coding genes are already in digital form :)gpuccio
October 11, 2014
October
10
Oct
11
11
2014
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT
GP: Excellent as usual. I would only add that a functionally organised thing can per AutoCAD etc be reduced to coded strings as we do with PCs routinely. So, discussion on dFSCI and strings is a key first case and arguably is WLOG. KFkairosfocus
October 11, 2014
October
10
Oct
11
11
2014
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT
HeKS at #187:
First of all, I want to say that I appreciate very much your detailed arguments about design detection. I don't think it's a problem of being right of wrong. There are probably some differences between the way I would express the concepts and the way you express them. I am certainly happy to discuss these aspect with you, so I will try to explain where I would use some different formulation.
1) The first point is that I usually express the concept of dFSCI (my subset of CSI, which is defined as digital and functionally specified) as a means to refute the random origin of a string in a traditional scenario of Fisherian hypothesis testing.
You say:
"Rather, a measure of the improbability of some event, pattern, etc., is directly connected to a specific chance hypothesis that seeks to explain the event, and it is only valid in relation to that particular chance hypothesis used to make the calculation."
I completely ahree with that. But in my hypothesis testing scenario, there is only one random hypothesis (it is usually called H0 in Fisherian hypothesis testing): the hypothesis that the effect we observe is explained by random events, according to some probability distribution.
Now, I agree that we always have to deal with some specific context. Indeed, in my reasoning, I always point out that we are trying to explain some observed effect (the digital string with its digital sequence which implements a well defined function) in a specific context: a well defined system, with specific probabilistic resources, and a definite time span.
So, we observe the string and we know that it originated in a definite time span in a definite system where definite random events happen, and therefore the probabilistic resources of the system can be evaluated quantitatively. These are the observed facts.
The question is: can the random events taking place in this system, in this time span, explain the specific string we observe?
At first, we accept this random hypothesis as our H0. Then we compute the probability of the observed result (the functional string) if we accept H0 as true. If the probability is extremely low, we reject H0.
Now, as you can see, we have only one random hypothesis (the null hypothesis H0), and we can have one or more alternative explanations (H1, H2...), which we will consider once we have decided that we reject H0.
The probability of the observed event (the functional string) must be considered under two aspects:
a) The probability of the functional string given the search space. That corresponds to the ratio target space/search space. IOWs, the functional definition generates a binary partition in the search space: strings with the function and strings without the function. The ratio target space/search space is a measure of that probability, assuming a uniform probability distribution of the states (which is completely reasonable, for reasons that I will not discuss here for brevity).
This probability corresponds to the probability of getting a functional state in a single attempt: IOWs, each time a new state is achieved. That includes any possible type of random variation events. -log2 of the probability is the functional complexity in bits (what Durston calls fits).
The functional complexity (dFSI) of a protein corresponds to that probability. For example, in Durston's paper, the functional complexity of beta-lactamase is 336 bits. That corresponds to a probability of finding a functional beta-lactamase in one attempt (in a random walk from an unrelated state) of 1:2^336 (about 1:10^99).
b) But certainly the system can perform much more than one random attempt in the time span. That's what we call the probabilistic resources of the system: the number of different states that can be reached in the system in the time span.
I have made a very gross computation that the maximum number of different states reached by a biological context on our planet in the whole time span of its existence is about 120-130 bits (2^130 different states).
Now, the probability of getting at least one success in 2^130 attempts, given a probability of success in one attempt of 1:2^336, is about 1:10^62. That expresses the probability of the observed event if we accept H0 (the classical p value).
Now, with all respect of our Bayesian friends (Mark first) who are suspicious about classical Fisherian hypothesis testing, a p value of 1:10^62 should convince even the most skeptical reasonable individual that H0 must be rejected (neo darwinists are not included :) ).
So, let's say that we reject H0 for beta lactamase in the system and time span of biological life on our planet: it could not arise randomly. Now, we have to consider alternative explanations.
I would stop here for the moment, and wait for your comments.gpuccio
October 11, 2014
October
10
Oct
11
11
2014
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT
ES: Pardon a newsflash -- not.
As there are entire professions based on it, it is not in our gift to define design, which ID uses in the very ordinary sense of intelligently/ purposefully directed contingency. Where intelligence is inferred from creativity, ability to understand and solve problems using creativity, insightfully creative use of mind etc, as IQ tests routinely show. Purpose comes out of credibly goal-directed behaviour reflecting activities and resource deployments towards a relevant target.
Anyway, here is that humble, materialism leaning generic source, Wiki:
Design is the creation of a plan or convention for the construction of an object or a system (as in architectural blueprints, engineering drawings, business processes, circuit diagrams and sewing patterns).[1] Design has different connotations in different fields (see design disciplines below). In some cases the direct construction of an object (as in pottery, engineering, management, cowboy coding and graphic design) is also considered to be design.
More formally design has been defined as follows.
(noun) a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints;
(verb, transitive) to create a design, in an environment (where the designer operates)[2]
Another definition for design is a roadmap or a strategic approach for someone to achieve a unique expectation. It defines the specifications, plans, parameters, costs, activities, processes and how and what to do within legal, political, social, environmental, safety and economic constraints in achieving that objective.[3]
Here, a "specification" can be manifested as either a plan or a finished product, and "primitives" are the elements from which the design object is composed.
Again.
In short, sadly, it seems that you are again living up to the seemingly harsh evaluation in the title line for this thread. Unfortunately, it has shown itself all too apt and that is why I did not revise it on second and third thought.
The zero concessions to IDiots policy is plainly failing.
And BTW, here is the UD glossary under the resources tab:
Design — purposefully directed contingency. That is, the intelligent, creative manipulation of possible outcomes (and usually of objects, forces, materials, processes and trends) towards goals. (E.g. 1: writing a meaningful sentence or a functional computer program. E.g. 2: loading of a die to produce biased, often advantageous, outcomes. E.g. 3: the creation of a complex object such as a statue, or a stone arrow-head, or a computer, or a pocket knife.)
Intelligence – Wikipedia aptly and succinctly defines: “capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn.”
Information — Wikipedia, with some reorganization, is apt: “ . . that which would be communicated by a message if it were sent from a sender to a receiver capable of understanding the message . . . . In terms of data, it can be defined as a collection of facts [i.e. as represented or sensed in some format] from which conclusions may be drawn [and on which decisions and actions may be taken].”
Intelligent design [ID] – Dr William A Dembski, a leading design theorist, has defined ID as “the science that studies signs of intelligence.” That is, as we ourselves instantiate [thus exemplify as opposed to “exhaust”], intelligent designers act into the world, and create artifacts. When such argents act, there are certain characteristics that commonly appear, and that – per massive experience — reliably mark such artifacts. It it therefore a reasonable and useful scientific project to study such signs and identify how we may credibly reliably infer from empirical sign to the signified causal factor: purposefully directed contingency or intelligent design. Among the signs of intelligence of current interest for research are:
[a] FSCI — function-specifying complex information [e.g. blog posts in English text that take in more than 143 ASCII characters, and/or -- as was highlighted by Yockey and Wickens by the mid-1980s -- as a distinguishing marker of the macromolecules in the heart of cell-based life forms], or more broadly
[b] CSI — complex, independently specified information [e.g. Mt Rushmore vs New Hampshire's former Old Man of the mountain, or -- as was highlighted by Orgel in 1973 -- a distinguishing feature of the cell's information-rich organized aperiodic macromolecules that are neither simply orderly like crystals nor random like chance-polymerized peptide chains], or
[c] IC – multi-part functionality that relies on an irreducible core of mutually co-adapted, interacting components. [e.g. the hardware parts of a PC or more simply of a mousetrap; or – as was highlighted by Behe in the mid 1990's -- the bacterial flagellum and many other cell-based bodily features and functions.], or
[d] “Oracular” active information – in some cases, e.g. many Genetic Algorithms, successful performance of a system traces to built-in information or organisation that guides algorithmicsearch processes and/or performance so that the system significantly outperforms random search. Such guidance may include oracles that, step by step, inform a search process that the iterations are “warmer/ colder” relative to a performance target zone. (A classic example is the Weasel phrase search program.) Also,
[e] Complex, algorithmically active, coded information – the complex information used in systems and processes is symbolically coded in ways that are not preset by underlying physical or chemical forces, but by encoding and decoding dynamically inert but algorithmically active information that guides step by step execution sequences, i.e. algorithms. (For instance, in hard disk drives, the stored information in bits is coded based a conventional, symbolic assignment of the N/S poles, forces and fields involved, and is impressed and used algorithmically. The physics of forces and fields does not determine or control the bit-pattern of the information – or, the drive would be useless. Similarly, in DNA, the polymer chaining chemistry is effectively unrelated to the information stored in the sequence and reading frames of the A/ G/ C/ T side-groups. It is the coded genetic information in the successive three-letter D/RNA codons that is used by the cell’s molecular nano- machines in the step by step creation of proteins. Such DNA sets from observed living organisms starts at 100,000 – 500,000 four-state elements [200 k – 1 M bits], abundantly meriting the description: function- specifying, complex information, or FSCI.)
And more . . .
Sitting there all along on this and every UD page, for years.
KFkairosfocus
October 11, 2014
October
10
Oct
11
11
2014
01:37 AM
1
01
37
AM
PDT
E.Seigner complains about our projections of ES. Repeatedly. They are mistaken (so sez ES). But why they are mistaken (wrong/not factual) remains a mystery.
E.Seigner appears to ascribe to a position which holds that our projections ought to be subject to some external reality. Dare we say, to something objective?Mung
October 10, 2014
October
10
Oct
10
10
2014
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
@gpuccio #181
I noticed that you said you didn't completely agree with my description of the logic of the methodology involved in calculating CSI. Can you specify where you disagree? Do you think I've made some mistake somewhere? If so I'd be interesting in knowing where you think I've gone wrong since, if I have, I don't want to continue repeating the mistake.
Take care,
HeKSHeKS
October 10, 2014
October
10
Oct
10
10
2014
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
E.Seigner:
By now I have a solid picture of ID theorists and their community:
You have a solid projection. We should cheer? Whether your projection is in fact a "solid picture" is doubtful.
Don't allow the incoherence of your position bother you in the least.Mung
October 10, 2014
October
10
Oct
10
10
2014
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
ES:
Don’t get me wrong. I actually appreciate how you are trying to explain these things. Not your fault that the theory is indefensible
That's just you projecting your subjective opinion on the facts. None of us are obligated in any way to conform to your subjective projections.Mung
October 10, 2014
October
10
Oct
10
10
2014
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT
E.Seigner:
The purpose of the exchange was to get to the definition of design.
Your definition of design is your own projection of your own definition of design. Isn't that your point?
Are you asking us to adjust your projection?Mung
October 10, 2014
October
10
Oct
10
10
2014
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
ES at 168:
The purpose of the exchange was to get the definition of design.
The purpose of the exchange was to defend your personal interpretation of creation - that all things were designed and therefore it is impossible even in principle to tell design from the non-design. You are willing to defend this interpretation into abject absurdity.
Upright BiPed
October 10, 2014
October
10
Oct
10
10
2014
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
E. Seigner:
By the way, my "previous comment" is not "moot" only because it answered something different from what you had asked. It remains valid and makes many important points, completely relevant to the discussion.
At first, I had thought you had proposed a more interesting question. That was not the case. I apologize.gpuccio
October 10, 2014
October
10
Oct
10
10
2014
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
E. Seigner:
"Context is always present."
You always make trivial statements that are completely irrelevant to what I have said. My compliments.
My point is that the detection of the function is a binary value: either it is present or it is not, according to specific and explicit rules to assess its presence. So the context is there, but it is completely repeatable.
You simply ignored, as it is your custom, my statement: "I agree that we should define the function in more detail, so that the observer has no doubts about the requisites which are requested. That can easily be done. I did not do it for brevity."
For an enzyme, I have given the very explicit example of an explicit definition which is absolutely repeatable:
"Any protein which, in the specific lab condition such and such, can accelerate the specific reaction A so that it takes place at least at the rate X."
Given that definition, any lab can assess any protein for the presence of the function, or not. Which makes it a binary variable whose value can be objectively determined in a completely repeatable way.
But please, go on making trivial statements which are irrelevant. It's your way, it seems.
Regarding HeKS'comment, I have read it, and while I probably agree on many things, I cannot say that I "completely agree with it". So, it's your choice. As you could not answer my points directly, you can try to do that indirectly. Your choice. I will answer accordingly.gpuccio
October 10, 2014
October
10
Oct
10
10
2014
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
gpuccio
I am realizing that perhaps when you said:
““How did you compute or detect the function “having a correct English meaning”?
maybe you were not asking how I did compute the target space/search space ratio (which is the real problem in the procedure), which is what I discussed in my previous post. Maybe you meant: “How did you decide that the function was there?”.
Exactly. And this unfortunately makes your previous comment moot.
gpuccio
The function is defined as “having a correct sense in English”. Any English speaker who can read the string, and understand it, and explain its meaning, can verify that the function is present.
Which is context and a bunch of subjective factors thrown in. There's "verification" only after a host of subjective prerequisites are met, which brings it closer to "expert assessment" rather than "verification".
gpuccio
The detection of the function is a binary value: either it is present or it is not.
Context is always present. Always without exception. Individual subjective factors are to be acknowledged and minimized, not ignored or amplified. This is so in philosophy of language.
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ea/e5/90/eae590efc23633af78ddf7ac237b9142.jpg
Don't get me wrong. I actually appreciate how you are trying to explain these things. Not your fault that the theory is indefensible :)
Now there's also this awesome comment by HeKS, clarifying the procedure more methodically than I've ever seen before. It emphasizes several key points that I have myself identified despite irrational denial by the theorists here. It explicitly states the inevitable. Of course, when everything is so lucidly laid out, then also the fundamental flaws of the theory stand out screaming. If you want, I can bring up some points from that comment. However, this only makes sense if you have yourself read it and completely agree with it.E.Seigner
October 10, 2014
October
10
Oct
10
10
2014
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
E. Seigner:
I am realizing that perhaps when you said:
"“How did you compute or detect the function “having a correct English meaning”?
maybe you were not asking how I did compute the target space/search space ratio (which is the real problem in the procedure), which is what I discussed in my previous post. Maybe you meant: "How did you decide that the function was there?".
That is much easier. The function is defined as "having a correct sense in English". Any English speaker who can read the string, and understand it, and explain its meaning, can verify that the function is present. The detection of the function is a binary value: either it is present or it is not. I agree that we should define the function in more detail, so that the observer has no doubts about the requisites which are requested. That can easily be done. I did not do it for brevity.gpuccio
October 10, 2014
October
10
Oct
10
10
2014
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
E. Seigner:
"How did you compute or detect the function “having a correct English meaning”? I know: You didn’t. You simply assume it’s obvious and should be uncritically accepted, even though we were supposed to be objectively calculating something. Sorry, but yours is a clear case of a foregone conclusion."
OK, I did not compute it because it is obvious and for brevity, but as you request it, let's discuss it.
The Shakespeare passage is 535 characters long, and has a correct English meaning.
Now, let's start computing the search space. I will consider an alphabet of 30 characters (including essential punctuation). So, the search space is 30^535. That is about 2622 bits.
I suppose we can accept a threshold of 500 bits as UPB. Indeed, Barry did not have 14 billion years and all the quantistic states of the universe to effect a computation of the string, so I would say that a very conservative threshold of 300 bits could be considered more than enough to infer design.
So the simple fact is, we can safely infer design is the number of sequences of 535 characters which have a correct English meaning is lower than 2^2322, IOWs lower than (about) 10^771. Which is a number greater than the quantistic states of the universe from the beginning to now.
Now, I am rather sure that the number of sequences of 535 characters which have a correct meaning in English is much, much lower than that. Do you really doubt it?
However, can I demonstrate that? Not explicitly and not now, and I am not really interested in trying. I suppose that a linguist (Piotr, where are you?) together with a mathematician could try some good approximation of the computation. In the past, I have suggested a very simple reasoning which shows clearly how the target space/search space ration must necessarily become lower as the string length increases, so one could start with some shorter string value and then extrapolate.
I am not really interested in that because my interest is in applying design detection to proteins. For proteins, the Durston method is at present the best way to approximate the target space/search space ratio. The target space/search space ratio must always be approximated by some indirect method for long sequences, because a direct estimation is beyond any realistic possibility. So, the method will be different for meaningful language, for functional software and for functional proteins. But in general, it will be found that beyond a certain length the ratio is definitely below any reasonable threshold. For example, out of 35 protein families in the Durston paper, 28 are definitely beyond my suggested biological threshold of 150 bits of functional complexity. The 7 protein families which have lower functional complexity are invariably short proteins (33-80 AAs).
Let's say that I will gladly infer design for any language string which has a correct English meaning and is at least 1000 bit long (205 characters). I defy you or anyone else to produce a false positive which was generated in any random character generating system on our planet (please, bring the evidence, otherwise I will not believe it! :) ).gpuccio
October 10, 2014
October
10
Oct
10
10
2014
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
PS: I count 535 chars for S1, and S2 the same, at least in the version I found.kairosfocus
October 10, 2014
October
10
Oct
10
10
2014
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
ES,
the string in question is ASCII English text, which has a readily identifiable size in bits, at 7 bits per character. It is functionally specific [any arbitrary at-random string is not] and is well beyond 72 - 143 characters. 500 - 1,000 bits.
The design inference on Chi_500 or Chi_1000 is obvious:
Chi_500 = I*S - 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold for FSCO/I
(Cf discussion here on in context . . . note biological cases in point per the Durston Info metrics)
String 1: approx 500 characters, no specification (any arbitrary string would have done as well, I would have recommended sky noise or Zener noise driving a digital string generator) so S = 0, the DEFAULT:
Chi_500(S1) = (500 x 7 bits/char) * 0 - 500 = - 500 bits, the default threshold meaning not specific and so baseline.
String 2: approx 500 characters, recognisable, grammatical English text, so per observed specificity and functionality, S = 1:
Chi_500(S2) = (500 x 7) * 1 - 500 = 3,000 bits beyond the solar system threshold
The design inference using this metric model first discussed publicly in 2011, says S1 is not designed, and S2 is.
As expected.
And per testimony of the source, S1 is not designed, it comes from haphazard keyboard typing similar to:
kiynptld52jpdw9msqauiak4kotvdiu . . .
Even, were this a case of an actually designed case, the want of recognisable specific functionality would lead to a false negative which is acceptable. We are not trying to create a universal decoder algorithm.
The second string is notoriously a famous passage from Shakespeare.
The design inference does exactly what it is intended to do. And in fact the Chi_500 or 1000 expression is the reduction of much of the flowchart in the OP above to a metric model.
Yes, it pivots on observing functional specificity, which can be a challenge.
So what, that challenge of observational anchorage is common for all sorts of sciences. Right now for instance I am using Solow's growth model to look at long waves in economics to identify what is driving the global economy forward form the current Kondratiev- Schumpeter long wave trough, in order to give sensible policy advice. And decades ago in Physics class, I recall the semi-empirical mass model of Weisacker, which brought forth the nuclear shell model, which was anchored to empirical observations.
Someone once objected to beyond-threshold metrics so I note that the photoeffect expression is a case of just that, one that helped win a Nobel Prize.
But of course, when you all were publicly presented with a metric model on measuring FSCO/I, you played at obfuscation and refused to attend to it or its effectiveness.
KFkairosfocus
October 10, 2014
October
10
Oct
10
10
2014
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
>> “Can you name a thing that has no design or function?”
>>> “the pattern my coffee makes on the floor after I spill it”
>> "coffee still has function" ... "I won’t accept category errors" ... "there is no logical way to distinguish design from non-design" ... "I have been faced with nonsense like this here all along"Upright BiPed
October 10, 2014
October
10
Oct
10
10
2014
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
E Seigner:
How did you compute or detect the function “having a correct English meaning”?
It's called knowledge of the English language. Are you really that simple?Joe
October 10, 2014
October
10
Oct
10
10
2014
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT
gpuccio
“And by all means tell where did Shallit go wrong in his calculations? Do you have better calculations? Thus far Barry has been spreading the message that it was wrong of Shallit to calculate at all.”
The point is simple. Barry has shown a clear example of positive design inference. Correct positive design inference. And of a string for which no design inference based on meaning could be done.
That is a perfect example of correct application of the design inference.
Perfect example of correct application of the design inference how? Barry's case is not based on the calculation of FSCO/I (even though the original context was about the mathematical proof, not mere assertion), so what is it based on? How can you claim it's correct and even a perfect example of correct application without any calculation and even without definition of the terms?
gpuccio
The fact that our non inference of design for the first string is a false negative or a true negative is irrelevant. However, just to make you understand, I will clarify that it is a true negative for the function “having a correct English meaning”. The first string was never designed for that.
How did you compute or detect the function "having a correct English meaning"? I know: You didn't. You simply assume it's obvious and should be uncritically accepted, even though we were supposed to be objectively calculating something. Sorry, but yours is a clear case of a foregone conclusion.
I have been faced with nonsense like this here all along. A little above, someone said spilled coffee was an obvious case of randomness, while some time earlier a messed-up room with disappeared jewellery was supposed to be an obvious case of design and - get this - none of the cases require any proof, calculation, or definition. They are supposed to be self-evident. All this clearly conveys the message that nobody has any idea what they are talking about, but you are quick to jump to conclusions and declare them obvious. And anyone who cites lack of evidence and lack of definitions is denounced as selectively hyperskeptical. Good grief.
As to "The fact that our non inference of design for the first string is a false negative or a true negative is irrelevant", well, if the distinction between design and non-design is real, isn't it highly relevant that it be reliably determined? The whole OP tries to make the case how design inference is supposedly objective and reliable, not subjective and unreliable. Yet as Aquinas (and any other classical theologian) implies - correctly in my opinion - creation in its entirety and totality is designed, so there is no logical way to distinguish design from non-design and therefore *all* your negatives are false. Consequently, the distinction between design and non-design is empirically indeterminable and does not exist for any practical purpose. Which means ID theory is just an exercise in sophistry. Your statement "The fact that our non inference of design for the first string is a false negative or a true negative is irrelevant" along with utter subjectivity of function and specification makes ID theory utterly irrelevant. And it won't help to blame Aquinas for employing po-mo antics, as KF does. Such a turn was ridiculous from the beginning.
gpuccio
But I doubt that you will accept even these simple ideas. If you and Shallit do not understand the basic concept of ID and of design detection (the complexity linked to a definable function), then there is no hope.
Indeed, I won't accept ideas that involve foregone conclusions and category errors, no matter how simple or complex. I prefer real distinctions and logical concepts with demonstrable practical utility, thanks.E.Seigner
October 10, 2014
October
10
Oct
10
10
2014
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
E Seigner is either willfully ignorant, deluded or dishonest as FCSI/O has been measured wrt biology and that was in peer-review.Joe
October 10, 2014
October
10
Oct
10
10
2014
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT
E.Seigner:
Very interesting. So:
1)
"I disagree based on the fact that you did not have any rigorous definitions to form a sensible hypothesis to clarify what you were supposed to be calculating there in the first place. Lack of definitions makes your calculations actually and factually inconclusive. You stuffed “objective” where it didn’t belong and you imagined by this you made it objective…"
OK. that is what you think. And I think you are wrong. Very wrong. And I think that not based on belief, but on the fact that you do not understand my definitions and you do not understand the clear meaning of my words, explicit and defined, including the context in which I use "objective".
And you seem not to understand a very simple truth about human nature and condition: people may disagree about things (see later).
2)
"So you see, people can sensibly disagree about ID. This is yet another sign among others by which you should be able to understand that it’s not as conclusive as it appears to you."
This is really a pearl! So, you are saying that people can disagree about ID. What a news!
I am sorry to inform you of something that maybe you should have already noticed in your life, unless you live on Mars or any other place which is not this unfortunate planet: people can disagree about everything.
Do you think nobody ever disagreed with Einstein about his relativity theory, or Bohr about quantum mechanics?
Now, let's say that Bohr goes to the shop to buy some food, and that the dealer says: "Mr Bohr, you know, I really disagree with you about quantum mechanics, therefore it’s not as conclusive as it appears to you". What a tragedy for science.
3)
"And by all means tell where did Shallit go wrong in his calculations? Do you have better calculations? Thus far Barry has been spreading the message that it was wrong of Shallit to calculate at all."
The point is simple. Barry has shown a clear example of positive design inference. Correct positive design inference. And of a string for which no design inference based on meaning could be done.
That is a perfect example of correct application of the design inference. In the Shakespeare passage, a huge quantity of functional information was connected to a detectable English meaning. In the other string, that was not true.
So, we infer design for the Shakespeare passage, and not for the other string. That is a perfectly correct positive inference. I don't understand why you and Shallit seem not to understand it.
Can you provide a false positive to falsify the procedure?
The fact that our non inference of design for the first string is a false negative or a true negative is irrelevant. However, just to make you understand, I will clarify that it is a true negative for the function "having a correct English meaning". The first string was never designed for that.
If you define the function as "being recognizable as a string typed on a keyboard without any intention to get a meaningful string" then the first string is probably recognizable for that function. It is very likely that strings randomly typed on a keyboard are recognizable because of the physical constraints generated by the typing tool (the keyboard). That has nothing to do with a design inference based on a conscious intentional meaning or function, implemented by a complex series of designed bits. The only thing you recognize here is the necessity constraints in the random system which generated the string (the keyboard and the random typist).
But I doubt that you will accept even these simple ideas. If you and Shallit do not understand the basic concept of ID and of design detection (the complexity linked to a definable function), then there is no hope.gpuccio
October 10, 2014
October
10
Oct
10
10
2014
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
gpuccio
I have offered calculations for specific proteins. They are not feeble, and they are not inconclusive. You are free to believe differently, of course. But simply stating your imaginations does not make them true.
You mean the other post you linked to, right? I disagree, but not based on belief. I disagree based on the fact that you did not have any rigorous definitions to form a sensible hypothesis to clarify what you were supposed to be calculating there in the first place. Lack of definitions makes your calculations actually and factually inconclusive. You stuffed "objective" where it didn't belong and you imagined by this you made it objective...
gpuccio
But I would never say that “I have a solid picture of anti-ID theorists and their community” and that the solid picture is that “Upon requests to back up their claims they turn to insults”. That would be an offensive lie. It would be an offensive lie against people like Mark Frank, Piotr, wd400, and a lot of others, for which I have esteem and respect.
So you see, people can sensibly disagree about ID. This is yet another sign among others by which you should be able to understand that it's not as conclusive as it appears to you.
And by all means tell where did Shallit go wrong in his calculations? Do you have better calculations? Thus far Barry has been spreading the message that it was wrong of Shallit to calculate at all.E.Seigner
It may be entertaining to play semantics games with terms like function, but that simply reveals that your problem is not with science, it is with common sense reality tracing to some of the sillier bits of post-modernist radical subjectivism and deconstructionism.
Perhaps, it has not dawned on you that survival of the fittest or hill-climbing algorithms or natural selection or the like pivot on the objectivity of function. Have you gone to Panda’s Thumb, TSZ, ATBC or the like Darwinist agitator sites to challenge the core concepts of evolution based on differential reproductive success pivoting on functional differences of life-forms? I safely bet not, you are reserving such talking-points for those you object to, regardless of inconsistencies or outright incoherence.
[Ill-]Logic with a swivel.
Patently, revealingly, sadly, you have indulged in incoherent selective hyperskepticism.
And if you genuinely imagine that a stalled car with a dead engine, or a leaky roof, or a crashed computer, or a PA system that distorts sounds horribly are functionally distinct as a mere matter of subjective opinion, your problem is a breach of common sense.
Do you — or a significant other — have a mechanic? Are you a shade-tree mechanic? Do you have even one tool for maintenance? Do you recognise the difference between sugar, salt and arsenic in your cup of coffee? Between an effective prescription correctly filled and faithfully carried out when you get sick and a breakdown of that process? Etc?
I put it to you that you cannot and do not live consistent with your Lit class seminar-room talking points.
And, your evasive resort to clinging to such absurdities to obfuscate the issue of functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information, speaks loudest volumes for the astute onlooker.
Own-goal, E-S.
The bottom-line of the behaviour of several objectors over the past few days, speaks inadvertent volumes on the real balance on the merits of the core design theory contention that there are such things as reliable empirical markers — such as Wickensian FSCO/I — that are strong signs of design as key causal process.
But, many are so wedded to the totalising metanarrative of a priori Lewontinian evolutionary materialism that they refuse to heed the 2350 year old warning posed by Plato on where cynical radical relativism, amorality opening the door to might makes right nihilism and ruthless factions points to for a civilisation. Refusing to learn the hard-bought, paid for in blood lessons of history, they threaten to mislead our civilisation into yet another predictably futile and bloody march of folly. As the ghosts of 100 million victims of such demonically wicked deceptions over the past century warn us.
The folly on the march in our day is so arrogantly stubborn that it refuses to learn living memory history or the history passed on first hand to our grand parents.
Here is Sophia (personification of Wisdom), in the voice of Solomon echoing hard-bought, civil war triggered lessons in Israel c 1,000 BC:
A grim warning, bought at the price of a spoiled, wayward son who fomented disaffection and led rebellion triggering civil war and needless death and destruction, ending in his own death and that of many others.
Behind the Proverbs lies the anguished wailing of a father who had to fight a war with his son and in the end cried out, Oh Absalom, my son . . .
History sorts out the follies of literary excesses, if we fail to heed wisdom in good time.
Often, at the expense of a painful, bloody trail of woe and wailing that leads many mothers and fathers, widows and orphans to wail the loss of good men lost to the fight in the face of rampant folly.
But then, tragic history is written into my name, as George William Gordon’s farewell to his wife written moments before his unjust execution on sentence of a kangaroo court-martial, was carried out:
Deconstruct that, clever mocking scorners of the literary seminar room.
Deconstruct it in the presence of a weeping wife and mother and children mourning the shocking loss of a father and hero to ruthless show-trial injustice ending in judicial murder.
Murder that echoes the fate of one found innocent but sent to Golgotha because of ruthless folly-tricks in Jerusalem c. 30 AD.
(How ever so many fail to see the deep lesson about folly-tricks in the heart of the Gospel, escapes me. New Atheists and fellow travellers, when you indict the Christian Faith as the fountain-head of imagined injustice, remember the One who hung between thieves on a patently unjust sentence, having been bought at the price of a slave through a betrayer blinded by greed and folly. If you do not hear a cry for just government and common decency at the heart of the Gospel you would despise, you are not worth the name, literary scholar or educated person.)
And in so doing, learn a terrible, grim lesson of where your clever word games predictably end up in the hands of the ruthless.
For, much more than science is at stake in all of this.
GEM of TKI >>