Atheism Back to Basics of ID Darwinist rhetorical tactics evolutionary materialism's self-falsification Science, worldview issues/foundations and society

RVB8 tries to dismiss ID as failed science

Spread the love

. . . with yet another list of talking points.  Namely:

>>The irony of a scientific idea, ‘Intelligent Design’, with no experimentation?

The irony of a scientific idea, ‘Intelligent Design’, with no predictive qualities?

The irony of a scientific idea, Intelligent Design’, that refuses to identify, or even look for, the Designer?

My scientific idea has no irony, it does what it sets out to do; prove origins, prove life is one system linked by evolution, and prove life can be understood without holding God’s hand.>>

Accordingly, I have replied:

>>More failed talking points:

>>The irony of a scientific idea, ‘Intelligent Design’, with no experimentation?>>

1 –> False. Cf Axe et al, cf Scott Minnich et al, cf Durston et al, [–> Forgot, Marks, Dembski et al, Behe too] cf work by others that impinges on the same, cf the work of the astronomers on the cosmology side, cf others. Starved of resources and so less than otherwise, yes; absence of experiments is a claim in defiance of duties of care to truth before commenting.

>>The irony of a scientific idea, ‘Intelligent Design’, with no predictive qualities?>>

2 –> Doubly false.

3 –> Many scientific ideas work by unifying rather than being predictive, and

4 –> The design inference carries the implication that FSCO/I will continue to be caused by intelligently directed configuration [and indeed RVB8’s objecting remarks as a case in point add to the observational base of trillions], also that in the fossils, there will be a clear marker of gaps at body plan level.

5 –> The breakdown of the notion that junk was what up to 95 – 98% of DNA was predicted by ID supporting workers on order of a decade ago and more, and is coming to pass as we speak.

>>The irony of a scientific idea, Intelligent Design’, that refuses to identify, or even look for, the Designer?>>

6 –> The irony of a strawman caricature that refuses to acknowledge that there is a difference between a design and its designer, and that given that many things must be studied from traces, we are often forced to examine and account for traces on causal factors seen to do the like effects in the here and now.

7 –> The further irony that recognising presence of design on empirically grounded reliable signs is then a basis to seek the patterns of design, the styles of design, the technological evolution of designs [per TRIZ etc] and so to characterise the type of designer candidates that may be relevant.

8 –> The still further irony of refusing to accept that there is a difference between what is accessible on empirical evidence and what is not, but may be discussed in light of well grounded empirical findings.

>>My scientific idea has no irony,>>

9 –> Evolutionary materialistic scientism is worse than merely ironic, it is self-refuting by undermining scientists themselves, as say J B S Haldane long since pointed out:

“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. (NB: DI Fellow, Nancy Pearcey brings this right up to date (HT: ENV) in a current book, Finding Truth.)]

>> it does what it sets out to do; prove origins,>>

10 –> OoL on evolutionary materialism is in utter chaos and puzzlement, precisely because absent intelligently directed configuration, neither an FSCO/I-rich metabolic entity nor its von Neumann kinematic self-replicating facility are explainable.

11 –> Which is precisely a prediction of ID. (And, the long running offer to host at UD a summary essay on the empirically warranted case for evolutionary materialistic origin of life and body plans up to our own is still open after several years, with no serious takers.)

>> prove>>

12 –> Proof, BTW, is not in the remit of science, not when it comes to theories which are inherently abductive explanatory frameworks that infer a best current, empirically anchored explanation.

13 –> At best, scientific theories can achieve empirical reliability and credibility that leads us to trust them in say engineering or medicine.

>>prove life is one system linked by evolution,>>

14 –> The tree of life icon, pivoting on incremental changes has long since fallen on hard times, due to the abrupt discontinuities in the body plans of life, starting with the first, the living cell.

15 –> As Walker and Davies point out with particular reference to the very first body plan, islands of funciton are a hard fact of life, per the underlying physics that would have to drive a Darwin’s warm pond or the like pre-life environment:

In physics, particularly in statistical mechanics, we base many of our calculations on the assumption of metric transitivity, which asserts that a system’s trajectory will eventually [–> given “enough time and search resources”] explore the entirety of its state space – thus everything that is phys-ically possible will eventually happen. It should then be trivially true that one could choose an arbitrary “final state” (e.g., a living organism) and “explain” it by evolving the system backwards in time choosing an appropriate state at some ’start’ time t_0 (fine-tuning the initial state). In the case of a chaotic system the initial state must be specified to arbitrarily high precision. But this account amounts to no more than saying that the world is as it is because it was as it was, and our current narrative therefore scarcely constitutes an explanation in the true scientific sense.

We are left in a bit of a conundrum with respect to the problem of specifying the initial conditions necessary to explain our world. A key point is that if we require specialness in our initial state (such that we observe the current state of the world and not any other state) metric transitivity cannot hold true, as it blurs any dependency on initial conditions – that is, it makes little sense for us to single out any particular state as special by calling it the ’initial’ state. If we instead relax the assumption of metric transitivity (which seems more realistic for many real world physical systems – including life), then our phase space will consist of isolated pocket regions and it is not necessarily possible to get to any other physically possible state (see e.g. Fig. 1 for a cellular automata example).

[–> or, there may not be “enough” time and/or resources for the relevant exploration, i.e. we see the 500 – 1,000 bit complexity threshold at work vs 10^57 – 10^80 atoms with fast rxn rates at about 10^-13 to 10^-15 s leading to inability to explore more than a vanishingly small fraction on the gamut of Sol system or observed cosmos . . . the only actually, credibly observed cosmos]

Thus the initial state must be tuned to be in the region of phase space in which we find ourselves [–> notice, fine tuning], and there are regions of the configuration space our physical universe would be excluded from accessing, even if those states may be equally consistent and permissible under the microscopic laws of physics (starting from a different initial state). Thus according to the standard picture, we require special initial conditions to explain the complexity of the world, but also have a sense that we should not be on a particularly special trajectory to get here (or anywhere else) as it would be a sign of fine–tuning of the initial conditions. [ –> notice, the “loading”] Stated most simply, a potential problem with the way we currently formulate physics is that you can’t necessarily get everywhere from anywhere (see Walker [31] for discussion). [“The “Hard Problem” of Life,” June 23, 2016, a discussion by Sara Imari Walker and Paul C.W. Davies at Arxiv.]

16 –> Then, too, we face the landscape of AA sequence space, in which protein domains fall in deeply isolated islands.

>> and prove life can be understood without holding God’s hand.>>

17 –> This actually puts the cart before the horse, as Philip Johnson pointed out nigh on 20 years back in his reply to Lewontin’s infamous NYRB piece reviewing Sagan’s last book:

For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.

[–> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:

“Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific “dead ends” and God of the gaps-type hypotheses.”

Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to “natural vs [the suspect] supernatural.” Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga’s reply here and here.]

And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And it is not an appeal to ever- diminishing- ignorance to point out that design, rooted in intelligent action, routinely configures systems exhibiting functionally specific, often fine tuned complex organisation and associated information. Nor, that it is the only observed cause of such, nor that the search challenge of our observed cosmos makes it maximally implausible that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity can account for such.]

That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

. . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]>>

Let’s discuss. END

PS: It may be helpful — and less embarrassing — for persistent objectors to take a time out and read then ponder the UD Weak Argument Correctives and other information under the Resources tab on this and every UD page. (And BTW, this is actually one of the most read pages at UD.)

38 Replies to “RVB8 tries to dismiss ID as failed science

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Responding to more ID is failed science talking points.

  2. 2
    kairosfocus says:

    BTW, the Darwinist Debating Devices category is well worth the read too: https://uncommondescent.com/category/ddd/

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Each and every OP and each comment at UD is actually an experiment in the origin of FSCO/I. As with the trillions of other cases, reliably, by intelligently directed configuration. The config space blind search challenge analysis readily shows why and Walker & Davies give an elegant underlying reason. KF

    PS: Wiki on the Infinite Monkeys theorem, just now . . . and of course we have discussed this stunning admission against interest many times here at UD:

    The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. In fact the monkey would almost surely type every possible finite text an infinite number of times. However, the probability that monkeys filling the observable universe would type a complete work such as Shakespeare’s Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time hundreds of thousands of orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe is extremely low (but technically not zero).

    In this context, “almost surely” is a mathematical term with a precise meaning, and the “monkey” is not an actual monkey, but a metaphor for an abstract device that produces an endless random sequence of letters and symbols. One of the earliest instances of the use of the “monkey metaphor” is that of French mathematician Émile Borel in 1913,[1] but the first instance may be even earlier.

    Variants of the theorem include multiple and even infinitely many typists, and the target text varies between an entire library and a single sentence. Jorge Luis Borges traced the history of this idea from Aristotle’s On Generation and Corruption and Cicero’s De natura deorum (On the Nature of the Gods), through Blaise Pascal and Jonathan Swift, up to modern statements with their iconic simians and typewriters. In the early 20th century, Borel and Arthur Eddington used the theorem to illustrate the timescales implicit in the foundations of statistical mechanics . . . .

    Random document generation

    The theorem concerns a thought experiment which cannot be fully carried out in practice, since it is predicted to require prohibitive amounts of time and resources. Nonetheless, it has inspired efforts in finite random text generation.

    One computer program run by Dan Oliver of Scottsdale, Arizona, according to an article in The New Yorker, came up with a result on August 4, 2004: After the group had worked for 42,162,500,000 billion billion monkey-years, one of the “monkeys” typed, “VALENTINE. Cease toIdor:eFLP0FRjWK78aXzVOwm)-‘;8.t” The first 19 letters of this sequence can be found in “The Two Gentlemen of Verona”. Other teams have reproduced 18 characters from “Timon of Athens”, 17 from “Troilus and Cressida”, and 16 from “Richard II”.[24]

    A website entitled The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, launched on July 1, 2003, contained a Java applet that simulated a large population of monkeys typing randomly, with the stated intention of seeing how long it takes the virtual monkeys to produce a complete Shakespearean play from beginning to end. For example, it produced this partial line from Henry IV, Part 2, reporting that it took “2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey-years” to reach 24 matching characters:

    RUMOUR. Open your ears; 9r”5j5&?OWTY Z0d…

    Due to processing power limitations, the program used a probabilistic model (by using a random number generator or RNG) instead of actually generating random text and comparing it to Shakespeare. When the simulator “detected a match” (that is, the RNG generated a certain value or a value within a certain range), the simulator simulated the match by generating matched text.[25]

    More sophisticated methods are used in practice for natural language generation. If instead of simply generating random characters one restricts the generator to a meaningful vocabulary and conservatively following grammar rules, like using a context-free grammar, then a random document generated this way can even fool some humans (at least on a cursory reading) as shown in the experiments with SCIgen, snarXiv, and the Postmodernism Generator.

  4. 4
    juwilker says:

    Hi KF,

    I suggest you stop posting ops about what RVB8 has to say. You give him way too much credit for his trollish behavior that has been amply noted and dealt with in many other ops. Even onlookers know this to be the case. Don’t waste your time. Save your effots, which I appreciate, for others interested in open and honest debate.

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    Hi JUW, I hear you. It is just that he gave a nice handy list of current talking points to tick off and correct. Besides, many do believe the assertions he made and need to be corrected on record. Let us see if he or others of like ilk have anything substantial to say on the matter. KF

  6. 6
    groovamos says:

    Actually I appreciate the opportunity to point out the behavior of the dude, who admittedly I assume is a dude because women are too intuitive to say the stuff he does.

    For example he makes the judgement, or rather personal attack, on Isaac Newton, who was “unhealthy” enough to engage Ouija boards and Spiritualism, and the “occult” according to RVB when the first two did not exist until the 19th century. And the laughable accusation on the “occult” which is a perfectly good word applying to materialist unconscious fears of the supernatural, fears that are mostly HIDDEN and the ego wants them that way; ‘hidden’ which is a synonym for ‘occult’.

    And poor Newton getting a diagnosis from a real pro like we have here from wow 300 years subsequent: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fred-hoyle-thought-that-there-is-design-in-nature/

    Now I’m going to reply to something else from the above link – RVB: groovamos,

    you do realise that the word ‘ego’ coined by Freud is the third part of the psyche along with the ‘superego’ and ‘Id’?

    Do you use Marxist phraseology too?

    Here we have a case in point of how materialism corrupts the search for knowledge. See if RVB were not afraid of his own unconscious mind bringing the dreams and behavior that it does, and philosophically committed, he might have taken a few hints from yours truly to explore the vast literature on the use of psychedelics in psychiatry, addiction treatment, PTSD treatment, and relationship counseling. And in CONSCIOUSNESS RESEARCH where materialism has been an obviously abject failure given the worthless impact it has had given its vast attempted studies of mental health. The field is exploding right now and one of the things exploded as a result is most of Freudian speculation on the Freudian named areas of the mind to which RVB refers. The only part of Freudian psychology which remains valid are the childhood imprinting and possibly the Oedipal thing in some form although that is questionable.

    The writings on ego in this literature reveal something quite different from Freud. Both Freud and the Spritualists considered ego to be “normal” that is to say ‘good’ as if bigger is better.

    Psychedelic studies routinely report cases of ego shattering sequences in subjects, immediately followed by a drastic reduction in psychiatric symptoms.

    But the problem for RVB is bigger than all this. The problem for him is that materialists are virtually absent from the community, subjects and professionals alike, with experience in this field. Including Psychiatrists, psychologists, ethnobotanists, anthropologists and psychopharmacologists who are involved, even some in the U.S. government licensing the use of these substances. The reason for this is obvious: consciousness research and clinical practice with psychedelics refutes materialism without doubt to all involved

    There are videos coming out monthly on the consciousness research revolution brought on by psychedelics and I’m going to link to a recent one here by NatGeo in the obliteration of addiction using these substances. We already know RVB won’t dare watch it: http://channel.nationalgeograp.....elic-cure/

  7. 7
    es58 says:

    my favorite is that something isn’t designed if it doesn’t have round numbers

  8. 8
    rvb8 says:

    Kairos,

    could you please follow ‘juwilker’s’ recommendation and stop creating posts based upon your opinion of the stupidity or otherwise of my comments.

    It’s better for all concerned, and the ammount of time and space you spend rebutting me does nothing for your argument that what I write is nonsense, or easily debunked.

    I mean, all I said was that ID has no labs, teaching syllabus, recognised scientists, predictive qualities, experiments, peer reviewed publications, evidence, or credability scientifically.

    These are well known and accepted observations outside this echo-chamber.

  9. 9
    rvb8 says:

    es58,

    I never said something is not designed if it does not have round numbers.

    I said God is an incompitant designer if He couldn’t use round numbers in His design.

    I also asked whether God could make Pi=3.0. If he is omnipotent that is.

    I don’t mind being accused of stupidity, but I do prefer my accusers to display a little reading comprehension.

  10. 10
    es58 says:

    incompitant designer if He couldn’t use round numbers in His design
    Why?

  11. 11
    rvb8 says:

    Because when humans design we try to keep things simple, repeatable, easy to assemble and take apart, and internationally interchangeable; as much as we can. It’s simpler and easier to reproduce.

    The incompotence of all the weird constants in the universe points to really poor design, or no design.

    Obviously it’s the latter, as no self respecting designer would claim credit for this mish mash of weird numbers as their handiwork.

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8, pardon, but you have stood up as a champion of atheistical talking points (and specifically anti-Christian ones also), as well as of typical points used to create and pummel a strawman caricature of ID. I have a perfect right to answer such, and where it seems necessary, to headline them. I have not called you stupid or implied that. In serious error and propagating a strawman caricature of the ID position based on falsities masquerading as facts, yes. You have put up talking points, I have replied, false and/or strawman caricatures, here is an outline response point by point. Do you have replies to show my corrective remarks are ill-founded, starting with my response to ” ‘Intelligent Design’, with no experimentation?” I have called forth Axe [and so Gauger et al too], Minnich, Durston et al [he did a PhD on ID themes], Dembski & Marks et al, Behe. Have they or have they not done empirical and linked analytical investigations under the ID paradigm leading to results put up in the relevant professional literature and communicated to the wider public? Merely repeating a string of rebutted talking points as though they were fact, in the teeth of a body of published research [note, update to March 2017] by duly qualified and technically capable practitioners is not a cogent or fair response, indeed it begins to verge on speaking with willful disregard to truth. Let’s start there. KF

    PS: On the “round numbers”/simplicity theme, I suggest that you start with a gear train and on the c = 2* pi* r relationship explain how we could get an even, integer number of teeth without facing irrationals. Likewise, point out how your simplicity is superior to identifying the commonplace fact of entities such as watches, motors [including addressing the observed molecular nanotech ones in the cell], bicycles, cars, computers, cell phones and 747 jumbo jets etc exhibiting :

    a: unified, evidently purposeful operational coherence based on

    b: functionally specific, complex organisation, and thus exhibiting

    c: associated information (which may be elucidated by creating a string of y/n q’s that cumulatively describe the components, their arrangement, coupling and operation, much as an AutoCAD drawing would; going beyond 500 – 1,000 bits), in turn

    d: implying a vast configuration space of possible alternative clumped and/or scattered arrangements, where

    e: the utterly overwhelming majority would be non-functional, and

    f: where functionality comes in deeply isolated clusters of configurations [–> islands of function],

    g: thus placing the observed result beyond sol system scale or observed cosmos scale blind search or easy stepping-stone incremental functionality from initial “simple” function.

    Also, address the implications of the thought exercise in Ch 2 of Paley’s work, in which he envisioned a functional watch found in a field that in the course of its operation proceeds to create a daughter watch as a replica of itself, i/l/o say the requisites of a von Neumann kinematic self-replicator. Address the implications of this architecture of requisites for self-replication for spontaneous [and if you please incremental] origin of cell based life in a Darwin’s pond or the like pre-life environment. Highlight the associated overwhelming empirical evidence amounting to “proof” as you asserted. Kindly explain the absence of Nobel prizes or the like in response to such achievements of “proof.”

  13. 13
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: DI’s opening remarks on the annotated list of ID professional literature updated to March 2017:

    BIBLIOGRAPHIC AND ANNOTATED LIST OF
    PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS
    SUPPORTING INTELLIGENT DESIGN
    UPDATED MARCH, 2017

    PART I: INTRODUCTION
    While intelligent design (ID) research is a new scientific field, recent years have been a period of encouraging growth, producing a strong record of peer-reviewed scientific publications.

    In 2011, the ID movement counted its 50th peer-reviewed scientific paper and new publications continue to appear. As of 2015, the peer-reviewed scientific publication count had reached 90. Many of these papers are recent, published since 2004, when Discovery Institute senior fellow Stephen Meyer published a groundbreaking paper advocating ID in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. There are multiple hubs of ID-related research.

    Biologic Institute, led by molecular biologist Doug Axe, is “developing and testing the scientific case for intelligent design in biology.” Biologic conducts laboratory and theoretical research on the origin and role of information in biology, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and methods of detecting design in nature.

    Another ID research group is the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, founded by senior Discovery Institute fellow William Dembski along with Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University. Their lab has attracted graduate-student researchers and published multiple peer-reviewed articles in technical science and engineering journals showing that computer programming ”points to the need for an ultimate information source qua intelligent designer.”

    Other pro-ID scientists around the world are publishing peer-reviewed pro-ID scientific papers. These include biologist Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin Superior, Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig who recently retired from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, and Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe.

    These and other labs and researchers have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some published by mainstream university presses), trade-press books, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books. These papers have appeared in scientific journals such as Protein Science, Journal of Molecular Biology, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Complexity, Quarterly Review of Biology, Cell Biology International, Physics Essays, Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, Physics of Life Reviews, Quarterly Review of Biology, Journal of Bacteriology , Annual Review of Genetics, and many others. At the same time, pro-ID scientists have presented their research at conferences worldwide in fields such as genetics, biochemistry, engineering, and computer science.

    Collectively, this body of research is converging on a consensus: complex biological features cannot arise by unguided Darwinian mechanisms, but require an intelligent cause.

    Despite ID’s publication record, we note parenthetically that recognition in peer-reviewed literature is not an absolute requirement to demonstrate an idea’s scientific merit. Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience — his Origin of Species — not in a peer-reviewed paper. Nonetheless, ID’s peer-reviewed publication record shows that it deserves — and is receiving — serious consideration by the scientific community.

    The purpose of ID’s budding research program is thus to engage open-minded scientists and thoughtful laypersons with credible, persuasive, peer-reviewed, empirical data supporting intelligent design. And this is happening. ID has already gained the kind of scientific recognition you would expect from a young (and vastly underfunded) but promising scientific field . . .

    So, let us see for ourselves.

    KF

  14. 14
  15. 15
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: Of course, we must not let the no peer reviewed articles etc talking point distract us from the glorified common-sense, empirically based inductive inference at the heart of ID . . . we do not actually need peer reviewed literature to understand the scientific case at the heart of ID. So, let me clip from 12 above:

    On the “round numbers”/simplicity theme, I suggest that you start with a gear train and on the c = 2* pi* r relationship explain how we could get an even, integer number of teeth without facing irrationals. Likewise, point out how your simplicity is superior to identifying the commonplace fact of entities such as watches, motors [including addressing the observed molecular nanotech ones in the cell], bicycles, cars, computers, cell phones and 747 jumbo jets etc exhibiting :

    a: unified, evidently purposeful operational coherence based on

    b: functionally specific, complex organisation, and thus exhibiting

    c: associated information (which may be elucidated by creating a string of y/n q’s that cumulatively describe the components, their arrangement, coupling and operation, much as an AutoCAD drawing would; going beyond 500 – 1,000 bits), in turn

    d: implying a vast configuration space of possible alternative clumped and/or scattered arrangements, where

    e: the utterly overwhelming majority would be non-functional, and

    f: where functionality comes in deeply isolated clusters of configurations [–> islands of function],

    g: thus placing the observed result beyond sol system scale or observed cosmos scale blind search or easy stepping-stone incremental functionality from initial “simple” function.

    Also, address the implications of the thought exercise in Ch 2 of Paley’s work, in which he envisioned a functional watch found in a field that in the course of its operation proceeds to create a daughter watch as a replica of itself, i/l/o say the requisites of a von Neumann kinematic self-replicator. Address the implications of this architecture of requisites for self-replication for spontaneous [and if you please incremental] origin of cell based life in a Darwin’s pond or the like pre-life environment. Highlight the associated overwhelming empirical evidence amounting to “proof” as you asserted. Kindly explain the absence of Nobel prizes or the like in response to such achievements of “proof.”

  16. 16
    AnimatedDust says:

    Rvb8, you obviously don’t realize how ridiculous you sound critiquing the greatest design ever witnessed. Countless human designers and engineers have tried to copy the design in nature, and yet you somehow have it all figured out, and your assessment is that it is wanting.

    Wise in your own eyes much?

  17. 17
    Sebestyen says:

    Because when humans design we try to keep things simple, repeatable, easy to assemble and take apart, and internationally interchangeable; as much as we can. It’s simpler and easier to reproduce.

    The only reason why humans keep things simple is because our mental capacities are limited and we need to account for that, not because it’s better or necessary for the function of a system.

    The incompotence of all the weird constants in the universe points to really poor design, or no design.

    Nope, it just points to the fact that a lot of things in this world go “woosh” over your little head.

    Obviously it’s the latter, as no self respecting designer would claim credit for this mish mash of weird numbers as their handiwork.

    This and many other comments of yours show you know jack [SNIP-ed] about engineering/design. If there’s one thing a self respecting designer wouldn’t do is to dumb down or limit their own designs just so numbnuts like you can understand it.

    Seriously, your argumentation is so cringeworthy it makes my toes curl…

  18. 18
    EugeneS says:

    Juwilker,

    I agree, it is absolutely pointless to discuss RVB’s “points” because there is nothing to discuss. It is not even wrong. If you discuss something, you already assume it is cogent enough to be debatable.

    Actually, I think that the argument about pi is a masterpiece of the genre 😉

  19. 19
    kairosfocus says:

    Es, I just note, RVB8 and ilk are actually telling us the partyline on what ID is, that is being used to justify what is being done. A LOT of people believe these talking points, never mind they are not particularly good ones — if you doubt me go to the penumbra of attack sites and of course Youtube etc. (Save of course, the stuff on round numbers; RVB8 I doubt has ever had reason to ponder on getting an integer number of matching teeth on a gear or the like.) We do need to take these up every now and then, and I think this is a convenient time, esp as it is at least possible that some of his students are lurking and might pick up another side to the story they are being told. Pretty sure (given recent weeks) Chinese Intel is now also watching, and that makes this more important than it at first appears. It’s a real pity that this is what far too many people have swallowed hook, line and sinker. the one that has me shaking my head is the line about no peer reviewed, published research. And even that is a distraction from the basis on which the evidence points to design: reliable inference on readily recognised sign, with trillions of cases in point of FSCO/I. KF

  20. 20
    EugeneS says:

    KF

    Maybe I am being a bit cynical but, seriously, I cannot believe that objections of this caliber are worth taking notice of.

    “Save of course, the stuff on round numbers”

    And on pi, this one is my favorite one. It made my day today 🙂 I posted this one on my live journal for everyone to enjoy.

  21. 21
    Dionisio says:

    KF, please allow me this “off topic” entry here. Thanks.

    God was very unfair according to maestro Salieri:

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/vNaXQQbcgw0

    Salieri’s argument was very strong. So strong that the visiting priest had nothing to reply against it. All the priest could do was listening to Salieri’s argument and remain quiet. No one could have rebuked maestro Salieri at that point. He was exactly right. Actually, in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians , the last part of the first chapter basically announced that very clearly. We could assume the priest knew that part of the scriptural text. Perhaps Salieri was not aware of it. Most certainly he wasn’t, because otherwise he would have accepted the reality with less anxiety. God is absolutely sovereign. He has given us free will. Both concepts coexist in a way we can’t understand. But there are many things that we don’t understand, even though they are part of the reality we observe. But many times we don’t want and don’t like to accept that truth. Perhaps that’s a reason why a biochemistry professor mistakenly responded “YES” to the question “Do you know exactly how morphogen gradients form?” though we still don’t know exactly why he responded that way.

  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    ES, unfortunately, rhetorical talking points do not have to be very good to work all too effectively. The story of Hitler’s rise to power comes to mind. If there is narrative dominance and people have little access to correctives, crude strawman caricatures, stereotypes and scapegoating can prevail. The yardstick is the insistence on total absence of peer reviewed literature backed by appropriate empirical evidence and analysis. Notice, utter unresponsiveness to correction. KF

  23. 23
    rvb8 says:

    EugeneS,

    I agree, as I have said many times, I would prefer if Kairos would refrain from making my posts, headlines for posts.

    My objections are merely the objections of evolutionary biologists, such as Jerry Coyne, and others at research institutions and universities.

    Your designer, is an ill educated oaf, who blunders through creation, chipping here, tweeking there.

    Newton was so upset by some discrepancies in his calculations that he suggested God touched things up abit when the system needed rebooting. For this Leibnitz teased him asking, ‘why didn’t God get it right the first time?’

    You can mock the ‘bad design’ argument all you wish, it doesn’t distract from the point that we live in a chaotic universe, on a tiny poorly designed planet, as tiny poorly designed organisms.

    Faulty, eyes, backs, knees, and are basically walking juryrigged frailties.

    Oh, and why can’t God make Pi=3.0. The Bible says its 3.0!

  24. 24
    rvb8 says:

    AnimatedDust,

    I’m not critiqeing nature that would be silly, as nature isn’t listening.

    I’m critiqueing the contention that the beauty in nature points to a single designer.

    You say man has been trying to copy the perfect design in nature. You’re wrong. Man is trying to copy the solutions nature has come up with over millions of years of trial and error.

    I also dislike your tone of adulation.You know the, ‘look at the beauty and be awed by the creator’, tone which gets science absolutely no where. There is little more that is as unattractive as blind acceptance and the burying of human evolved curiosity.

  25. 25
    Dionisio says:

    addendum to comment @21:

    A few segments of the film showing maestro Salieri’s unfair god:

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/j9NG_NPLktA
    https://www.youtube.com/embed/nDxrf5UdyWU
    https://www.youtube.com/embed/vNaXQQbcgw0
    https://www.youtube.com/embed/LCQjrW0ofRE

    Please, note that the historical accuracy of the movie is debatable, but the symbolic message of the shown scenes is very interesting.

    BTW, the actor who played maestro Salieri got an Academy Award for his performance.

    Since God did things against Salieri’s expectations, Salieri consider God unfair.

    Don’t we see this same kind of judgment all around us? Don’t we do that ourselves too?

    Same about the evidences provided by the science research discoveries. When they shake our boat, we tend to discredit such evidences.

  26. 26
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8, Let’s see you improve on the original then we will take your dismissiveness seriously. Next, there are some small matters of fact to be corrected. KF

  27. 27
    Dionisio says:

    error @25:

    […] Salieri consider […]

    it should read:

    […] Salieri considers […]

    my mistake.

  28. 28
    rvb8 says:

    Kairos,

    Dismissiveness is a characteristic principally held by the religious.

    A simple read of News’s posts and Barry’s posts exposes that. You could also visit evolutionnews to get dismissiveness on steroids, with no ability to rebutt.

    No, dissmissiveness is the hallmark of religion, and with good reason, it’s habit.

    For over two thousand years religion was the answer to all questions, and now that we have far better answers that dismissive habit is terribly hard to shake.

    Absolutely any of Duane Gish’s talks on youtube show a man who has built a career on dissmissive talks, based upon increduility, and nothing else.

    Or better, the utterly dissmissive and stupid ‘Crcoduck’ video of Kirk Cameron, and the egregious Ray Comfort; dissmissiveness personified.

  29. 29
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8, that is an attempted turnabout projection. The thread above and other recent threads substantiate my concerns. In particular, there is a tendency to pretend to know the balances of constraints and trade-offs better than the designer and particularly to ignore the problem of sub-optimisation whereby a local peak can be a global sub optimum. Also, being at an extremum may trade off against robustness against contingencies. It is appropriate to ask that you demonstrate a superior design in adequate action before taking your objection seriously. And, that is without noting that inferior designs (certain computer products come to mind) are designs. Where, of course the biggest thing being ducked is that on config space blind search challenge as well as empirical observation, complex coherent organisation and information rich functionality tied to such configuration are directly strong signs of design. KF

    PS: There is also a list of demonstrably false claims about ID that you have made and need to retract.

  30. 30
    rvb8 says:

    Kairos @29,

    ‘It is appropriate to ask that you demonstrate a superior design in adequate action before taking your objection seriously.’

    Unbelievable! Truly miraculously, gob smackingly unbelievable. Your patronizing condescension has always been annoying, but this level of dissmissiveness goes beyond the farcicle.

    Pay attention: “There is no good or bad design, it evolved by environmental pressure and selection.”

    Your style of writing reminds me of a person trying to be academically formal, but instead comes off as infuriatingly confusing.

    George Orwell on writing;
    1) Never use big words when small words willdo.
    2) Never use long sentences when short ones will suffice.
    3) Never use complicated grammar when simple grammar works.
    4) Ignore all three rules if it leads to ugly prose.

    You Kairos, start at rule number four and work backwards, try rules one, two and three, first.

    I shouldn’t be surprised, it is the mentality of creationists. Start with the answer, the Bible, then work backwards to find the proof.

  31. 31
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8, again, you are objecting to designs known to work well. You have used highly dismissive, sneering and sometimes intemperate language. You have made grave false accusations and have studiously ignored corrections. It is entirely appropriate to see much of your behaviour as trollish and supercilliously, selectively hyperskeptical; which, is inherently fallacious. To top off, you have shown persistent refusal to engage the worldviews implications and issues that your talking points have pointed to. So, returning to focal point, it is appropriate to require you to show superior performance and greater robustness under contingencies before taking attempted dismissals of successful designs seriously. KF

  32. 32
    EugeneS says:

    rbv8

    “For this Leibnitz teased him asking, ‘why didn’t God get it right the first time?’”

    Well, to complete the picture I will add an important detail that you omitted. Leibnitz, too, believed in God.

    “You can mock the ‘bad design’ argument all you wish”

    Somebody gave you a birthday present. You broke it and then your friend comes to you, sees it and says: “Look what rubbish you got for a present”.

  33. 33
    Dionisio says:

    EugeneS,

    Somebody gave you a birthday present. You broke it and then your friend comes to you, sees it and says: “Look what rubbish you got for a present”.

    Excellent analogy! Thank you.

    Prosto otlichna! Spasiba balshoe! (is this a valid ‘a’ for ‘o’ phonetic substitution in some regions? Ya zabil).

    However, the clarity of your analogical illustration doesn’t guarantee that your politely dissenting interlocutor(s) will understand it. For mysterious reasons some folks don’t get it.
    The controversial issues of free will vs. God’s sovereignty come to mind, don’t they?

  34. 34
    Dionisio says:

    KF seems to possess an enviably substantial reserve of patience for dealing with stubbornly dissenting interlocutors. I definitely lack such a virtue.
    Some anonymous onlookers and lurkers may benefit from reading KF’s conceptually rich articles and comments, but I doubt that his stubbornly dissenting interlocutors have any interest in understanding what really matters here.
    Certain folks simply don’t get it because they don’t care. There’s nothing one can do to help with this situation. Only our Maker can, according to the purpose of His will.

  35. 35

    KF is trying his best to help these a/mats, but I think they are beyond help.

  36. 36
    EugeneS says:

    Dionisio,

    Thank you!

    Some people tend to say more ‘a’ than ‘o’, such as in Moscow. But it is always spelled with an ‘o’ 🙂

  37. 37
    EugeneS says:

    Truth @35,

    “but I think they are beyond help.”

    People have really strange ideas sometimes. One particular idiosyncrasy is to require that pi should be 3.0. Somebody else has objections to the number 5, the gravitational constant or Young’s elasticity modulus of steel. And they will accuse the Creator for so choosing the parameters of the world. Strange indeed.

    It reminds me of a 2-year child who was sorry for a horse because it could not pick its nose. At least, this child did not blame the Creator for it.

    Whatever you say, they will always be in opposition just like naughty children, always learning but never any wiser.

    As a Russian saying goes, it is impossible to say “bless you” after every sneeze.

  38. 38
    Dionisio says:

    EugeneS @36,
    Pazhalusta!
    I resided several consecutive years in Moscow while studying engineering at a local university and got used to their local phonetic style saying harasho’ instead of the spelled horosho’.
    Mnie ochen nravitsa ruski yazik
    🙂

Leave a Reply