ID Foundations

Okay, the thread of discussion needs to pick up from here on. To motivate discussion, let me clip here comment no 795 in the continuation thread, which I have marked up: _________ >> 795Jerad October 23, 2012 at 1:18 am KF (783): At this point, with all due respect, you look like someone making stuff up to fit your predetermined conclusion. I know you think so. [a –> Jerad, I will pause to mark up. I would further with all due respect suggest that I have some warrant for my remark, especially given how glaringly you mishandled the design inference framework in your remark I responded to earlier.] {Let me add a diagram of the per aspect explanatory filter, using Read More ›

On Sept 23rd, I put up an essay challenge as captioned, primarily to objecting commenter Jerad. As at October 2nd, he has definitively said: no. Joe informs us that Zachriel has tried to brush it aside: Try Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859). It’s a bit dated and longer than 6,000 words, (the 6th edition is 190,000 words), but Darwin considered it just a long abstract, and it still makes for a powerful argument. This is, frankly, a “don’t bother me” brush-off; telling in itself, as a definitive, successful answer would have momentous impact on this blog. Zachriel’s response reminds me, all too strikingly, of the cogency of  what Philip Johnson had to say in reply to Lewontin’s claims in his Read More ›

Evolutionnews.org just published an article by me titled “Design Inference vs. Design Hypothesis.” Here is an excerpt: The logic of the design inference moves from a marker of intelligence (specified complexity) to an intelligence as causal agent responsible for that marker. The direction of this logic can, however, be reversed. Thus, instead, one can postulate an intelligence operating in nature and therewith formulate predictions and expectations about what one should find in nature if that postulate is true. The logic in this case takes the form of hypothetical reasoning, where a hypothesis is put forward and then its consequences are drawn out and the explanatory fruitfulness of the hypothesis is seen as a way of advancing science and giving credibility Read More ›

Part of me feels like letting the TSZ thread go to a full 1,000 comments, but then my sense of responsibility to UD’s bandwidth budget kicks in. So, let us continue the discussion of the topics from the thread on TSZ issues and Jerad’s concerns continue here. To prime the pump, let me clip two posts in the thread: ______________ >>912 JeradSeptember 30, 2012 at 4:07 am KF (911) – ooo, spooky Are you unable to see that when those individual configs come in clusters that are functionally distinct, it is relevant to think about the relative statistical weights of the clusters? Hitting a cluster would have a higher probability than hitting a single configs but only because a cluster Read More ›

UD commenter Joe notes: Alan [Fox] amuses by not understanding the definition of “default”. He thinks the design inference is the default even though it is reached via research, observations, knowledge and experiences. To put this ill-founded but longstanding objection to the design inference — it is tantamount to an accusation of question-begging —  to bed permanently, I note: ____________ >> . . . a year after Dr Liddle was repeatedly and specifically corrected that the inference to design is after rejecting not one but TWO defaults, that is still being raised as an objection over at TSZ. That speaks volumes. Let’s outline again, for those unable to understand a classic flowchart [even UML preserves a version of this . Read More ›

Yesterday, following up from recent comment exchanges, I posted about the electron as an example of how we routinely deal with the invisible in science, and on how inductive — believe it or not that is now a fighting word — inference on sign is vital to science. This morning, I followed up on a remark by Joe in the UB thread that extends the same theme. I think this should be headlined, so let me clip (quickly, as I do have a draft to follow up on): ____________ >>I have a draft speech to follow up on, but could not resist this: [Joe:] the [Darwinist/Evolutionary Materialist] response is always “Eons of time cannot be reproduced in a lab and Read More ›

The Tektronix 465 Cathode Ray Oscilloscope is a classic of analogue oscilloscope design, one based on deflecting electron beams electrostatically to observe and measure electrical oscillations: But, wait a minute, are we ACTUALLY seeing electron beams? Nope, we are seeing a TRACE on the screen, where light is emitted by the phosphor as it is hit by the beams. Wait, again: are we actually seeing the electron beams? And more particularly, the electrons in the beams? Nope. No-one has ever actually seen that strange wavicle, the electron. It has never been directly observed. Never. So, why do we so confidently portray how a CRO works, if we cannot actually see the electrons that it is built around? Because, the invisible Read More ›

Over the past several days, there has been considerable debate at UD on thermodynamics, information, order vs disorder etc. In a clarifying note to Mung (who was in turn responding to Sal C) I have commented as follows. (My note also follows up from an earlier note that was put up early in the life of the recent exchanges here, and a much earlier ID Foundations series post on counter-flow and the thermodynamics FSCO/I link.) I think it convenient to scoop the below out for record and reference, as across time comments in threads are much harder to find than original posts: _____________________ >>One more time [cf. 56 above, which clips elsewhere . . . ], let me clip Shannon, Read More ›

In order for a biological system to have more biological complexity, it often requires a substantial increase in thermodynamic entropy, not a reduction of it, contrary to many intuitions among creationists and IDists. This essay is part II of a series that began with Part 1 The physicist Fred Hoyle famously said: The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. I agree with that assertion, but that conclusion can’t be formally derived from the 2nd law of thermodynamics (at least those forms of the 2nd law that are stated in many physics and engineering text Read More ›

Sal C has begun a series of UD posts on entropy, thermodynamics and info challenges. I have thought it important to highlight the macro-micro info gap issues underscored by Jaynes et al, and to raise the issue of spontaneously moving from Darwin’s Pond-state to cell-state (whether in increments or not does not materially affect the point) without intelligently directed organising work. This sets the context for the design inference on OOL, in light of the significance of our broad base of experience on the source of FSCO/I: Materials + Energy sources + IDOW –> FSCO/I Where FSCO/I is evident from functional specificity and complexity of organised entities. Such may also directly store information in physical data structures such as control Read More ›

The common belief is that adding disorder to a designed object will destroy the design (like a tornado passing through a city, to paraphrase Hoyle). Now if increasing entropy implies increasing disorder, creationists will often reason that “increasing entropy of an object will tend to destroy its design”. This essay will argue mathematically that this popular notion among creationists is wrong. The correct conception of these matters is far more nuanced and almost the opposite of (but not quite) what many creationists and IDists believe. Here is the more correct view of entropy’s relation to design (be it man-made or otherwise): 1. increasing entropy can increase the capacity for disorder, but it doesn’t necessitate disorder 2. increasing an object’s capacity Read More ›

Over the past several days, I have been highlighting poster children of illogic and want of civility that are too often found among critics to design theory – even, among those claiming to be standing on civility and to be posing unanswerable questions, challenges or counter-claims to design theory. I have also noticed the strong (but patently ill-founded) feeling/assumption among objectors to design theory that they have adequately disposed of the issues it raises and are posing unanswerable challenges in exchanges A capital example of this, was the suggestion by ID objector Toronto, that the inference to best current explanation used by design thinkers, is an example of question-begging circular argument. Here, again is his attempted rebuttal: Kairosfocus [Cf. original Read More ›

The existence of bad design, broken design, and cruelty in the world inspires some of the strongest arguments against the Intelligent Design of life and the universe. I consider the “bad design” argument the most formidable of the anti-ID arguments put forward, but in the end it is shallow and flawed. I will attempt to turn the “bad design” argument on its head in this essay. The “bad design” arguments have at least two major themes: 1. An Intelligent Designer like God wouldn’t make designs that are capable of breaking down 2. God (as the Intelligent Designer of Life) doesn’t exist because of all the cruelty and evil in the world To address the first point, consider the synthesis of Read More ›

Sometimes UD commenter, NR has started a thread at TSZ, which addresses my new poster child of illogical conduct by objectors to design theory series. Unfortunately, the thread all too soon illustrates just why it is wise to cordon off sites that harbour abusive commentary as enablers of uncivil behaviour. And into the bargain, it seems that Toronto manages to become a poster child with bar, i.e. s/he does it again (and Petrushka follows, as we will see). Let’s clip: NR: Over at UD, KF has started a new thread criticizing Toronto.  He had earlier started a thread criticizing Petrushka. It would have been nicer if KF had joined here to launch his criticism, instead of taking pot shots from Read More ›

The illustration to the right is a Hertzprung-Russell diagram of two star clusters, and is used to infer ages for these clusters. How is that done? Stellar clusters are gravitationally bound and so the stars seem to be of the same general age and composition, also they are at about the same distance from us. So, on the physics of collapsing Hydrogen-rich gas clouds (in turn based on relativity, atomic physics, spectroscopy etc), star formation, and the resulting life cycle, in particular the model timeline for main sequence turnoffs to the giant band, we can estimate the age of the cluster. In this case, M67 is estimated at ~ 4BY, and NGC 188 at ~ 5 BY. (SOURCE: Wiki CCA, Read More ›