Sometimes, it is necessary to speak for record on rather unpleasant matters. This is one of them, in response to longtime objector AF’s willfully continued misrepresentations and false accusations.
>>Over the past few days, AF has unfortunately shown just why after eight years he has made no progress in understanding or soundly interacting with design theory or thinkers. This has come to a head in his remark at 454 above, where he stated:
CSI is a bogus concept so it would not figure in anyone’s calculations.
That is a flat out false accusation of sustained fraud by the design theory movement and associated thinkers, and when he has been confronted with cases in point, including taken from his own comments, he has only been evasive or dismissive, returning to some variant of this false accusation or concepts pretty directly tied to it. However, in his mind he thinks himself justified in his behaviour — a typical problem with ideologues. Why is that? This can be seen from what he has further plainly stated at 400 above:
I think ID is dangerously political nonsense. I have never posted anything here that I knew was not true . . .
In short, first he imagines himself to be defending the materialist orthodoxy from some dangerous attack, an attack by what others elsewhere have called — by way of false accusation — “Creationism in a cheap tuxedo.” This can be seen from his further remark at 448 that plainly reflects this assumption that the framework for design thought is Bible-based fundamentalism (by way of irrelevantly injecting a reference to the Bible projected unto design theory supporters, into a discussion on SETI):
There is no mention of other planets and other lifeforms being created elsewhere in the universe in the Bible . . .
Now, such attacks have long since been corrected and pointed out to him, but he is not listening, he is too full of his ideological frame of thought and the pattern of thinking and arguing that has led him so far astray.
But isn’t he sincere, never speaking that which he knows to be false, as he also declared in the cited snippet?
I am afraid, however, duties of care to truth, accuracy and fairness go beyond merely not speaking what one KNOWS is not true.
They include not speaking that which one SHOULD KNOW is not true. And particularly, they require refraining from manifestly false accusations (how many slanderers imagine they are speaking the truth?!!) and from refusing to attend to or heed correction. Of which unfortunately we have all too much evidence of in hand, even just in this thread.
I simply again point to the UD weak argument correctives again (which were already linked and are accessible on this and every UD post), on the attempt to politicise what design theory is about and the related attempts to conflate it with the already successfully smeared creationists. Let it further suffice to note that the creationists themselves make it plain that they differ fundamentally with design thinkers. The WAC’s make plain why: creationism in the usual sense is about starting with scripture held to be accurate record of origins from the Creator, and adjusting science to fit that record. Design theory is about what can be inferred on tested reliable inductive sign that indicates cause across chance, necessity and design. The antecedents of design thought lie in those Bible thumping fundies — NOT — Plato [cf. here on The Laws, Bk X c. 360 BC], Cicero and co.
All of this is in the easily accessible corrective record, but AF has chosen to refuse to heed his duties of care to seek the truth before speaking in reflection of what is well warranted as true. On being corrected, he has either ignored it or has resorted to some of the worst debate tactic comebacks that distort, dismiss, evade or twist about the truth.
That is, he has plainly, repeatedly spoken in willful defiance of duties of care to truth, fairness and warrant, hoping to profit from what is false or what is a misrepresentation or what is a false accusation being perceived as true. Such, sadly, is willfully deceptive. (Cf. definition here.) And at length when corrected, he has sought to twist about the matter, projecting falsehood and misrepresentation to others as if that justifies his behaviour.
Now, let us — in steps of thought, proceed to correct some key points in his comment at above, by way of record:
1 –> Observe his opening tactic in comment 465 above [the main focus for this response], responding to a step by step presentation in above that lays out facts, develops rational argument on such facts and then draws up corrective conclusions and calls, after many days of repeated, unheeded correction of falsehoods:
I’m not going to respond to the following numbered points:
2. (FSC is irrelevant to this thread)
3. ad hominem
7. ad hominem
12. Durston does not talk about CSI so irrelevant
18. ad hominem
and the bafflegab in the PS
So, to the remaining points:
2 –> First, foremost he begins by willfully ignoring the baseline directly presented fact in comment 459 no 1, which lays out the contrast of FSCO/I with random strings and strings that reflect order, and thus also DEMONSTRATES the existence of CSI . . . complex, AND specified information. That is, CSI (regardless of merits and demerits of any particular metric model) cannot be “bogus” — fraudulent — as it is objectively and readily shown to be an actual observable phenomenon:
1 –> CSI is an observable and measurable entity, as can be seen, again, by a very simple example of three different strings:
1] OSC/ mechanical order (like in a crystal of NaCl): wewewewewewe . . .
2] RSC/chance strings (such as may happen with a rock matrix):iw3ertujshkjsdbvhsdv . . .
3] FSC/organised functionally specific strings (such as may happen in an informational polymer like RNA/protein): this string is a case of functionally specific information . . .
3 –> So, if one shuts ones eyes to patent facts again presented in correction, then one begins on the wrong foot.
4 –> He then proceeds to the key step of arbitrarily dismissing remark 2 of 459, on the fact that functional sequence complexity speaks to strings that exhibit FSCO/I and thus Complex Specified Information. Note no 2 from 459, which AF dismisses with the bland — and obviously false– assertion that “FSC is irrelevant to this thread”:
2 –> FSC [–> as was directly exemplified in 1 of 459, just cited] depends crucially on the specific configuration of matched components, which drastically constrains the number of possibilities, relative to the configuration space of possible arrangements, scattered or clumped of same components. [Think about how many ways the parts of a car engine can be arranged in working order, vs the number of ways such could be clumped or scattered that would not work.] This is why the concept of an island of function [T] in a much larger sea of non-functional gibberish [W – T], out of the field of possibilities W, makes sense.
5 –> That is, I have given an example of FSCI in 1 of 459, pointing out that it exhibits functional sequence complexity and have tied it directly to Dembski’s definition of CSI in NFL, pp. 144 and 148, which AF should be aware of. Let me cite that definition as it has long sat in the IOSE introsummary page that AF has openly brushed off with a wave of his hand:
p. 148: “The great myth of contemporary evolutionary biology is that the information needed to explain complex biological structures can be purchased without intelligence. My aim throughout this book is to dispel that myth . . . . Eigen and his colleagues must have something else in mind besides information simpliciter when they describe the origin of information as the central problem of biology.
I submit that what they have in mind is specified complexity [[cf. here below], or what equivalently we have been calling in this Chapter Complex Specified information or CSI . . . .
Biological specification always refers to function . . . In virtue of their function [[a living organism’s subsystems] embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the sense required by the complexity-specificity criterion . . . the specification can be cashed out in any number of ways [[through observing the requisites of functional organisation within the cell, or in organs and tissues or at the level of the organism as a whole] . . .”
p. 144: [[Specified complexity can be defined:] “. . . since a universal probability bound of 1 [[chance] in 10^150 corresponds to a universal complexity bound of 500 bits of information, [[the cluster] (T, E) constitutes CSI because T [[ effectively the target hot zone in the field of possibilities] subsumes E [[ effectively the observed event from that field], T is detachable from E, and and T measures at least 500 bits of information . . . ”
6 –> In short, CSI is directly connected to function, is manifested in patterns that restrict acceptable configurations to narrow zones T in the wider space of possibilities W [“islands of function”] and so functional sequence complexity per Abel, Trevors, Durston et al is directly relevant to the concerns of this thread. Demonstrated by fact and reasoning, to be further warranted in the end at 16 and 17[b!] of 459 by extensively citing from a 2007 paper just how Durston et al deduced the following directly relevant cases of FSC that then fit in the Chi_500 metric model reduced from the Dembski 2005 expression, namely: Chi_500 = Ip*S – 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold; and — by simply using the fact of function of protein families to see that S = 1 and taking up the I value they deduce from Shannon’s H as extended in the paper cited in detail at point 14 of 459 for the functional state, yield that:
17 –> Durston et al do not discuss a specific threshold of reasonable search resources, but the needle in haystack threshold for the solar system already given is reasonable. Durston’s metric brings in the redundancy of the actual code used [as opposed to the distribution that is chemically possible] and so we may freely insert it into the Chi_500 metric expression, as was done in the IOSE and in discussion threads here at UD before that, some years back now . . . with AF doubtless looking on:
Using Durston’s Fits values — functionally specific bits — from his Table 1, to quantify I, so also accepting functionality on specific sequences as showing specificity giving S = 1, we may apply the simplified Chi_500 metric of bits beyond the threshold:
RecA: 242 AA, 832 fits, Chi: 332 bits beyond
SecY: 342 AA, 688 fits, Chi: 188 bits beyond
Corona S2: 445 AA, 1285 fits, Chi: 785 bits beyond
xxiii: And, this raises the controversial question that biological examples such as DNA — which in a living cell is much more complex than 500 bits — may be designed to carry out particular functions in the cell and the wider organism.
18 –> So, not only is it a matter of reasonable description, modelling and quantification, but this is closely linked to serious work that has appeared in the peer reviewed literature, for some years now. AF, you are willfully misrepresenting what you do or should know better than. That, sir, FYI — as you know or full well should know, is willfully deceptive and in defiance on your part of duties of care to truth, accuracy and fairness.
7 –> So, AF is willfully ignoring the actual presentation of facts, reasoning and evidence that warrants the conclusions, the better to snip and snipe points where corrections are specifically made on the long record of willfully ignoring such facts and evidence, to pretend that such are ad hominem attacks. That is already the proper explanation for the dismissive remarks he makes on points 3, 4, & 7 & 8 etc. Indeed, we see such a warranted correction at 18, which he dismissed “ad hominem.” As for the PS to 459, it directly responded to his prior willful politicisation of and false accusations regarding the matter in defiance of the facts and evidence in record long since. He may brush it aside with a clever quip but it is unfortunately well warranted and corrective of a major political smear he seems to have bought into.
8 –> So we see the consistent tactics of willfully ignoring facts and evidence, in order to snip out points where after many attempts to correct on facts and evidence, it has had to be directly put that there is a willful falsehood and continued misrepresentation problem at work.
9 –> To which AF replied by making further dismissals of evidence and further willfully false accusations. Compounded by the rhetorical tactic of twisting about the problem and projecting the blame to the one correcting. Shoot the messenger instead of deal with the message.
10 –> Point 10 of 459 is dismissed as “garbled.” Let us see, in context:
10 –> In addition, there may be post copying adjustments that point to further CSI — such as in the maturation of mRNA with snipping and possible rearrangements, addition/stripping of headers etc. [Cf here the ISO OSI 7-layer comms model and how similar mechanisms do appear in the living cell.]
11 –> This is particularly revealing of underlying refusal to address material evidence that Af should know about if he is to comment with knowledge on CSI, FSCO/I and FSC. In the context of discussing duplication (of strings of info) — raised as an intended objection by AF and before him by Mr May, P, in the sock-puppet persona of MathGirl — and why it does not in itself increase the CSI stock of the cosmos, it had been pointed out at 9 of 459, immediately preceding — note the “In addition” a the start of 10 — that:
. . . Does duplication create new info de novo? Nope, from its very name. However, the duplicating mechanism may indeed be further FSCO/I as can be seen from a photocopier or the highly complex DNA transcribing mechanism in the living cell.
12 –> So, the immediate context is the making of mRNA, and it is pointed out that on completion of transcription, mRNA is subject to processing, snipping and possible rearrangements. It is also noted that headers may appear in bio-molecules similar to the same pattern in the well known OSI seven layer info system model that underlies the Internet.
13 –> Surely, such processing transforms a mere duplicate into something else and points onwards to something else that has the functionally specific complex organisation to do this, and to do it correctly on a reliable basis.
14 –> So, far from being “garbled,” what is on display here is AF’s willful ignorance — these things have been pointed out to him, and/or he has had access to research them by making simple web searches — that was then covered over by making a rhetorical dismissal.
15 -> This is a patent case of speaking in willful disregard of duties of care to accuracy, truth and fairness, as well as of defiance of correction, in the interests of a continued willful misrepresentation.
16 –> the is a similar pattern in response to point 12 of 459. Let us cite 11 – 13 as this gives context:
11 –> Where also (contrary to your just counting bits caricature) it has been carefully specified right there in the name, that the issue is a joint specificity- complexity criterion; as has been pointed out by Dembski et al for years and indeed as traces back to Orgel’s distinctions in 1973 and to Wicken’s identification of functionally specific complex organisation in 1979 that you also ignore. (Cf. here for the cites and comments that have been repeatedly pointed out, linked and/or cited to you, and which you willfully ignored the better to continue willful misrepresentations.)
12 –> One that may as Durston et al show, be adjusted for redundancy that comes up in the code or possible substitutions.
13 –> Where also — as you full well know or should know — that joint between complexity and specificity [especially functional specificity] is a crucial distinction from mere info carrying capacity, aka info in the Shannon sense.
17 –> It is simply not true that Durston et al do not discuss CSI, the whole 2007 paper is on measuring the information in FUNCTIONALLY specific bio-molecule sequences that are complex. let us note the title and the methods section of the abstract:
Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins
Kirk K Durston1*, David KY Chiu2, David L Abel3 and Jack T Trevors4 . . . .
We have extended Shannon uncertainty by incorporating the data variable with a functionality variable. The resulting measured unit, which we call Functional bit (Fit), is calculated from the sequence data jointly with the defined functionality variable. To demonstrate the relevance to functional bioinformatics, a method to measure functional sequence complexity was developed and applied to 35 protein families. Considerations were made in determining how the measure can be used to correlate functionality when relating to the whole molecule and sub-molecule. In the experiment, we show that when the proposed measure is applied to the aligned protein sequences of ubiquitin, 6 of the 7 highest value sites correlate with the binding domain.
18 –> That is why they discuss functional sequence complexity — in a context where from NFL we can see that the issue is functional info in biological contexts and that specificity in that context is cashed out in terms of function in the biological context. Where, proteins are notoriously the workhorses of the cell. Durston et al then use Shannon’s H in null, ground and functional states of long sequences of chained bio-monomers to quantify its information content, and this built on a base where they discussed it across several peer-reviewed papers over the course of years.
19 –> If this is “misunderstood,” it is misunderstood in a context where AF has been repeatedly corrected on the point, but has consistently defiantly ignored or brushed it aside. Such behaviour, in a context of associated false accusations of fraud [“bogus”], is willful and irresponsible relative to his manifest duties of care to truth, accuracy, warrant and fairness.
20 –> Not least, this is a specific case that — in a patently biological context (protein families that function across the world of life) — demonstrate FSCO/I in measurable action, and thus also CSI in measurable action. So at this point AF’s case has collapsed and he has no cause for complaint that he has had to be brought up short for irresponsible misbehaviour in the teeth of repeated, easily accessible correction.
21 –> So, how does he address the explicit, detailed citation and summary on the relevance of FSC to FSCO/I and CSI in the world of life, as I gave in points 16 and 17 of 459? He simply compounds the problem by saying ditto twice, i.e he refuses to attend to direct evidence of his error presented in detailed correction. This is willful and it is fair comment to say it is closed minded and a case of continued misrepresentation compounded by false accusations of fraud (“bogus”)in the teeth of adequate correction.
22 –> A this point the substantial issue has been settled, but let us continue on at least a snippet basis (ignoring further twist-about accusations or insinuations, ad hominems and personalities for the moment), to see how AF continues to try to brush aside the correction that he has rejected.
23 –> The first detail point begins:
[KF:] CSI is an observable and measurable entity [–> NB: with a textual snippet from AF and and biological examples given, with links to the derivation of the metric for Chi_500, and with the Durston case highlighted] …
[AF:] So you keep saying. But you fail to explain how to measure it for any meaningful example.
24 –> Willfully misleading falsehood and continued misrepresentation.
25 –> AF then introduces a novel case, demanding that I address it (it was in fact already taken up by Joe):
Try the nine residue polypeptide, oxytocin . . .
26 –> AF knows or should know that 9 AA’s are represented by 27 mRNA bases, and come form a space of 20^9 possibilities for relevant protein space, where the maximum number of bits per 20-state element (disregarding redundancies) is 4.322, yielding ~ 39 bits as carrying capacity; well within the 500-bit limit for FSCO/I. He also knows that it is bio-functional. So, on a simple model of informational capacity adequate for this purpose, we already know that oxytocin is not beyond the threshold where design would be inferred. Chi_500 = 39 – 500; i.e. we are 461 bits short of the relevant threshold of exceeding the search capacity of the solar system’s 10^57 atoms.
27 –> His attempt to dismiss point 6 of 459 is revealing, given what we have already seen — which includes not only a correction that shows just how CSI is quantifiable and measurable in general and in cases relevant to the biological world, but also AF’s unjust and slanderous assertion that CSI is “bogus” i.e. fraudulent:
[KF:] You objected that CSI cannot be quantified.
[AF:] I wouldn’t put it as strongly as that. CSI may be a measurable quantity. We have yet to see a meaningful definition or a clear reproducible way of calculating this (let’s say) alleged property of an entity.
28 –> I think this is an unacknowledged, unapologetic retraction in part. AF probably realises that the accusation of fraud he has made will not wash, so he sneaks in a modification without accounting for his false accusation. But this will not wash, as in fact meaningful definition and actual calculations both simple and sophisticated have been presented, just willfully ignored.
29 –> This is continuing misrepresentation, with all that that means given duties of care to truth, accuracy, fairness and warrant ignored by AF as already pointed out.
30 –> Notice the artfully placed snip-off (do I dare say “quote mining” . . nah, we all know that only those wretched “creationists” do such . . . ) that cuts out the justification again given above in this comment, i.e. my point that duplication itself is not creating novel FSCO/I but that the duplicating mechanism may well be more FSCO/I and further processing will likely inject FSCO/I:
[KF:] You tried to then raise the issue that has been addressed for years, of duplication of information. Does duplication create new info de novo? Nope, from its very name.
[AF:] Right so all entities that are identical only contain one measurable quantity of CSI. So CSI literally doesn’t add up. If you have a gene duplication event followed by drift mutations in the redundant gene does that then have more CSI?
31 –> See how, by quote mining, a strawman has been set up and pummelled? And, how the problem of crossing a sea of gibberish to reach relevant novel body plans on a new island of function has been ducked? In a context of assumed junk DNA where there would be no natural selection pressure of differential reproductive success to filter for function, i.e. we are here looking at a pure random walk? Notice, utter absence of observed, empirical warrant for novel body plans emerging by such “drift”?
32 –> Let’s just say: just-so story.
33 –> Nor should we forget the underlying issue: why should copying information to a new site or medium be even imagined to be creation of novel — never before existing — information? That is why I pointed out that duplication already tells us that nothing new is appearing at this stage. But mature the mRNA by snipping up and rearranging etc, push in headers on informational molecules when assembled to dispatch them and snip off for use or the like, or do much the same with information in the Internet and we are dealing with transformation, thus new information.
34 –> Notice, how AF tries to brush aside the evidence from all around us that when we need specific arrangements of well matched parts to function, it leads to narrow zones in the space of possible configurations, and it then leads to the challenge of search and the question that with limited atomic & temporal resources [10^57 atoms and 12 – 14 bn years in our effective universe, absent discovery of warp drive] we are only reasonably warranted in expecting to pick up the bulk of the distribution, not the narrow special zones:
Needles in haystacks and islands of function are repackaged arguments from incredulity. And you seem to be back to bit counting.
35 –> Of course, immediately, when one counts functionally specific bits, one is not merely counting bits, as has been repeatedly pointed out to AF but willfully ignored in the rush to make up strawman targets. Right from the beginning with Orgel in 1973 it has been recognised that the joint between specificity [which may be based on function] and complexity is pivotal in distinguishing organisation from the mere order of a repetitive, low information necessity-shaped crystal structure and chance based mixtures of polymers in a tar or the like:
. . . In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [[The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189.]
35 –> But, AF cannot resist the temptation of a willful misrepresentation that sets up a strawman target.
36 –> This continues into the attempt to dismiss the inference on what is known from sampling theory into a supposed fallacious appeal to personal incredulity. (Of course, one has a perfect epistemic right to be incredulous in a scientific context where there is an absence of empirical evidence of FSCO/I arising by blind chance and mechanical necessity but plenty of it arising from intelligent action.)
37 –> But it is in fact well known that blind samples tend to represent the bulk of a distribution, and that as a result when one has the equivalent of a truck full of beans with some few gold beads in it by comparison on steroids, a blind sample made by pulling out a handful will overwhelmingly be likely to only pick up beans. (The calculated comparison is that of using up the resources of our solar system to take a one straw sized sample of a cubical haystack as thick as our galaxy. Even if that were somehow superposed on the galaxy in Earth’s neighbourhood, with overwhelming likelihood the only expected result of such a sample will be straw and nothing else, not suns not planets etc.)
38 –> Strawman tactics continue:
I asked “So how is function quantified? And how does that quantity enter into the calculation?”
This remains unanswered.
39 –> Function in the world of life — as was pointed out to AF but predictably ignored in the interests of setting up and knocking over strawmen — is of course observed (which gives it objective character) and may be measured in many cases, e.g. the degree of activity of a candidate enzyme in promoting a relevant reaction.
40 –> This is implicit in functional specificity, which appears in the Chi_500 expression as S [which based on observation and resulting objective warrant takes up values of 0 — not functionally specific as default, and 1 when such is shown to be present]. Let us remind ourselves, by again clipping the relevant part of the IOSE intro-summary that AF has brushed aside:
chi is a metric of bits from a zone of interest, beyond a threshold of “sufficient complexity to not plausibly be the result of chance,” (398 + K2). So,
(a) since (398 + K2) tends to at most 500 bits on the gamut of our solar system [[our practical universe, for chemical interactions! ( . . . if you want , 1,000 bits would be a limit for the observable cosmos)] and
(b) as we can define and introduce a dummy variable for specificity, S, where
(c) S = 1 or 0 according as the observed configuration, E, is on objective analysis specific to a narrow and independently describable zone of interest, T:
Chi = Ip*S – 500, in bits beyond a “complex enough” threshold
NB: If S = 0, this locks us at Chi = – 500; and, if Ip is less than 500 bits, Chi will be negative even if S is positive.
E.g.: a string of 501 coins tossed at random will have S = 0, but if the coins are arranged to spell out a message in English using the ASCII code [[notice independent specification of a narrow zone of possible configurations, T], Chi will — unsurprisingly — be positive.
Following the logic of the per aspect necessity vs chance vs design causal factor explanatory filter, the default value of S is 0, i.e. it is assumed that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity are adequate to explain a phenomenon of interest.
S goes to 1 when we have objective grounds — to be explained case by case — to assign that value.
That is, we need to justify why we think the observed cases E come from a narrow zone of interest, T, that is independently describable, not just a list of members E1, E2, E3 . . . ; in short, we must have a reasonable criterion that allows us to build or recognise cases Ei from T, without resorting to an arbitrary list.
A string at random is a list with one member, but if we pick it as a password, it is now a zone with one member. (Where also, a lottery, is a sort of inverse password game where we pay for the privilege; and where the complexity has to be carefully managed to make it winnable. )
An obvious example of such a zone T, is code symbol strings of a given length that work in a programme or communicate meaningful statements in a language based on its grammar, vocabulary etc. This paragraph is a case in point, which can be contrasted with typical random strings ( . . . 68gsdesnmyw . . . ) or repetitive ones ( . . . ftftftft . . . ); where we can also see by this case how such a case can enfold random and repetitive sub-strings.
Arguably — and of course this is hotly disputed — DNA, protein and regulatory codes are another. Design theorists argue that the only observed adequate cause for such is a process of intelligently directed configuration, i.e. of design, so we are justified in taking such a case as a reliable sign of such a cause having been at work. (Thus, the sign then counts as evidence pointing to a perhaps otherwise unknown designer having been at work.)
So also, to overthrow the design inference, a valid counter example would be needed, a case where blind mechanical necessity and/or blind chance produces such functionally specific, complex information. (Points xiv – xvi above outline why that will be hard indeed to come up with. There are literally billions of cases where FSCI is observed to come from design.)
xxii: So, we have some reason to suggest that if something, E, is based on specific information describable in a way that does not just quote E and requires at least 500 specific bits to store the specific information, then the most reasonable explanation for the cause of E is that it was designed.
41 –> In turn this is reflected in Dembski’s CSI-defining remarks as already cited from NFL, that in the biological context specificity is cashed out as function, and it appears in the work of Durston et al as functional sequence complexity. There is no justification whatsoever for the strawman tactic.
42 –> This one takes the cake for setting up and knocking over strawmen through quite mining in the interests of Alinskyite rhetoric of ridicule:
[KF:] It also shows that – per willingness to spend a fair sum of money — it is generally accepted that humans do not exhaust the set of potential intelligences.
[AF:] Obscure to the point of inscrutability!
43 –> What was left off? Just, the context of noting that if people are spending millions on searches for signals from extraterrestrials, then they obviously do not think that humans exhaust the list of possible intelligences. (It being a well known objection tactic that an objector pretends that only human intelligence can be considered as reasonable and empirically justified so the design inference is out of order somehow.) . . . >>
This is a headlined for record showing what we have to routinely deal with at UD and surrounding UD; comments may continue in the Oldies but Baddies thread (which is also about AF’s tactics). END