Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

When Darwinism infects popular culture, confusion follows as well as nonsense

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
File:Nostradamus prophecies.jpg

Every so often, one reads a sentence that just takes one’s breath away from an otherwise intelligent writer who uses Darwinism to help explain the world: This from Colin Dickey’s “Quack Prophet” (Lapham’s Quarterly):

Whether it’s the Dead Sea Scrolls or Finnegan’s Wake, there’s a long literary history of taking the garbled and the fragmented and looking for lucid meaning beneath. The science writer and professional skeptic Michael Shermer has gone so far as to argue that we’re hard-wired, from an evolutionary perspective, to look for such hidden meanings. “From sensory data flowing in through the senses the brain naturally begins to look for and find patterns, and then infuses those patterns with meaning,” Shermer writes. “We can’t help it. Our brains evolved to connect the dots of our world.” By adjusting the signal-to-noise ratio, Nostradamus introduced enough static into his Prophecies that they could be all things to all readers, poetic Rorschach blots of detail and blur.

Excuse us, but: The Dead Sea Scrolls are a remarkable 1947 find (since augmented) of a group of manuscript fragments and artifacts that everyone knew had lucid meaning, but awaited translation and clarification. You didn’t need to be “hard-wired” to notice any of that. Finnegan’s Wake is a deliberately obscure novel written by Irish novelist James Joyce, pored over by generations of academic dullards – to Joyce’s huge amusement, had he lived to see that entire circus play out. Much of it probably did have some meaning; it was written in English by an already successful novelist. Again, no “hardwiring” required to suppose that, though a certain amount of denseness for spending a lot of time on the problem.

It’s not like seeing patterns in the clouds, which might actually be evidence for Shermer’s thesis if not pressed too far – which it nearly always is.

Conflating the Scrolls and Finnegan’s Wake, spiced up with some Shermerite nonsense about how our brains evolved to … whatever, is an appalling but telling example of cultural Darwinism at work.

Those who don’t believe in meaning corrupt and confound it.

Note: The ostensible subject of the piece is that reliable checkout counter tabloid icon, the “prophet” Nostradamus, who was obscure for an entirely unrelated reason – to avoid falsification. Reminds one of something, no … ?

Comments
Do we need to know the identity of the designers, their manufacturing techniques, or their mechanisms for application before we reach a finding that a phenomena is best explained by some kind of human-like ID? Of course not.
Assuming the object is sufficiently similar to objects made by humans. But no one has responded with a general metric for determining the origin objects that are ambiguous, nor has anyone really tackled the problem of false positives. The real problem is that we know the mechanism for the inheritance of variation in living things, and there is no designer in sight, nor is there the slightest trace of evidence that variation exhibits foresight.Petrushka
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
No, the evidence says genomes of living organisms contain fsci. And the only thing known to account for it is designing agencies.Joseph
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
Right he synthesized it from a computer record but he added "water marks", right?
1) Outside of human design, can you provide me an actual example of biological intelligent design, say 500-100 bits of biological information arising at once?
Besides the origin of life?
2) Provide the calculation.
If it is by design then there wouldn't be any calculation.Joseph
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
GinoB, ID infers design, leaving a wide margin of error. You are demanding that KF demonstrate that a volcano was not designed. Let me say that again. The statement is so irrational that it gives the mind pause. You are demanding that KF demonstrate that a volcano was not designed. Clearly you do not believe that the volcano was designed. If, for reason, KF irrationally yielded to your demand and attempted to show that it was designed, you would also find fault. Having determined that you shall pester KF indefinitely for not demonstrating that the volcano was designed, and knowing you would certainly object to the statement that it was, what is KF to do? You have made plain that no answer, rational, irrational, or otherwise, will end your interminable, insatiable need to argue for the sake of arguing. Such is the behavior of a troll. There's no nicer way to say it. I could think of a few worse. The position you have taken demonstrates beyond a doubt that you have no purpose other than to argue and harass.ScottAndrews2
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
Demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can produce a volcano? Get back on your medication...Joseph
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
S = 0 because there is no reason to suspect specification
That is a completely subjective judgement on your part. KF claims to be able to have an objective method for determining S. We're right back to "it looks designed to me", which has zero validity or usefulness.
Do you see any way that the logic could circularly infer design? That would be cause for concern.
I see a very easy way. You define the arrangement of nucleotides in a genome as having "FSCI", then say the fact that it has FSCI indicates design. It's not only a cause for concern, it's one of the many reasons the whole stupid "FSCI" argument got rightly rejected by mainstream science.GinoB
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
But you just reinforce my point. The design inference is subject to false positives. One never has the perfect scan, and without knowing the history of an object, and without having similar objects whose history is known, the inference is dubious. One trouble with applying the design inference to living things is the assumption that the current state of a population is specified. No mainstream biologist thinks genomes are specified. There is no observational evidence that variation has foresight or that there is any goal intended. There are countless examples of populations that went extinct because natural selection was unable to provide an adaptive change in time.Petrushka
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
kairosfocus
Pinatubo is adequately explained on chance and necessity, so it is.
The demonstrate it. Show your objective calculations fir its specificity.GinoB
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
DrREC,
Using the best calculation of ID, kairosfocus determined Mt. Pinatubo was a volcano by stating S=0 (“means it’s a volcano!”). So KF determined it was a volcano and not a monument by deciding it was a volcano. Really trivial example, but the hilarious circularity in the logic is exposed here!
S = 0 because there is no reason to suspect specification. It is not circular. Rather, it errs on the side of caution, away from a false positive. Do you see any way that the logic could circularly infer design? That would be cause for concern. Is it absurd and comical? Yes. We are negotiating logic to help us determine which is designed, Mount Pinatubo or a perfect 1/1000 scale replica of it, a watch, a molecular self-replicator which contains blueprints of both itself and every other component in the system of which it is part, or a machine that constructs and monitors orbital spiderwebs. This is where I see the failure of ID. If anyone lacks or deliberately tunes out the simple human intuition that makes such determinations, then it is unlikely that they could acquire the same knowledge through logic, as the former is a possession of most children and the latter requires far more effort. It's reason to assist those who have already rejected reason. It does not descend into absurdity. It begins there.ScottAndrews2
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
Venter did NOT design a genome. He copied it. If I copy and paste your post above, did I generate more information? And maybe I'll rephrase again: 1) Outside of human design, can you provide me an actual example of biological intelligent design, say 500-100 bits of biological information arising at once? 2) Provide the calculation.DrREC
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
KF, the simple fact is you defined the genomes of life forms as containing your meaningless metric dFSCI, just like you defined the specificity of a volcano to be S=0. Then you claim the thing your defined into existence as evidence for design. Completely circular, completely useless, completely typical for an incompetent bumbler trying his best to fool himself.GinoB
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
Venter, by choice, assembled a genome of considerable length, at 2 bits per base. You may want to do a redundancy estimate but the result is plain and plainly proof of concept; save to those determined not to see it on whatever excuse. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
Also it is clear by using examples of artificial selection that tehre are limits to the amount of phenotypic plasticity allowed.
Artificial selection made American corn (maize) out of a wild grass. Maize cannot even reproduce itself without human intervention. Toy and miniature dogs are entirely the product of artificial selection, and the phenotypic differences are far greater than the differences between fossil species. If we did not have DNA evidence to confirm that dogs and wolves are subspecies of each other, we would asssume they are different species. Many fossil lineages are linked by morphological similarities exceeding that of dog breeds. There is a series of fossils demonstrating the incremental transformation of jawbones into inner ear bones. Please feel free to quantify exactly what morphological changes are unreachable by incremental changes in gene regulation.Petrushka
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Onlookers, notice how GB has had links to calculations and results but still denies that the exist and then uses that as a basis for willfully false accusation. Cf here for a handy summary, notice the cases for protein families. Next time GB makes a similar snide dismissal, do recall this. GEM of TKI PS: Dr Rec makes a claim that suggests my ducking out. Unfortunately, until UD gets back a chrono tracking feature it is just not possible to follow complex threads with any reliability, and due to the pace of new threads, old ones are v hard to keep track of.kairosfocus
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
That doesn't answer my question. Venter copied a genome, and inserted some phrases. The phrases are biologically functionless, so they are not biological information. Just human language on a new template. Can you provide me an actual example of biological intelligent design, say 500-100 bits of biological information arising at once, and the calculation?DrREC
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
That the only known cause of FSCI is intelligence is. And, I think you need to look at the work of Venter and co as adequate proof of concept of the intelligent design of life.kairosfocus
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
Pinatubo is adequately explained on chance and necessity, so it is. The posts in this thread are not. Neither is the digital code in the living cell. A key feature of both has one empirically observed cause: intelligence.kairosfocus
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
Let me rephrase, "Now, anyone want to provide me an actual example of biological intelligent design, say 500-100 bits of biological information arising at once, and the calculation?" That humans can create information isn't what is being debated here, kairosfocus.DrREC
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
To bat the spin-bowling just above for four, cf here, onlookers. And, BTW, any case of an ASCII coded text in excess of 72 characters where we are looking at coherent text in English, is beyond the FSCI threshold and is a case where S is 1. This example has been presented over and over and over, but has been insistently ignored by objectors desperate to find an occasion to dismiss what is staring them in the face.kairosfocus
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
Onlookers: It should by now be plain what is really going on. Five or six months ago, there was an orchestrated attempt to try to publicly discredit the central ID concepts, using the MathGRRL sock-puppet, and a wave of supporters. (This by the way is where the "CSI/FSCI/ Chi metric is meaningless" talking point comes from.) This failed, indeed, what it ended up doing is leading to the simplification and summary of CSI as measured by the log reduction of Dembski's Chi expression: Chi_500 = I*S - 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold. Now, the further attempt is made to try to discredit the simplified expression. The talking point is that S is a question-begging subjective value that gives the result we "want." This is being insisted on in the teeth of obvious and repeated correction: 1 --> The first thing is why is S = 0 the default? ANS: Simple, that is the value that says we have no good warrant, no good objective reason, to infer that it is a serious candidate that anything more than chance and necessity acting on matter in space across time is at work. 2 --> In the case of Pinatubo, that is tantamount to saying that however complex the volcano edifice may be, its history can be explained on it being a giant sized, aperiodic relaxation oscillator that tends to go in cycles of eruption from quiescent to explosive eruption depending on charging up, breaking through erupting, discharging and reblocking. In turn, driven by underlying plate tectonics. As SA just said: S=0 means it’s a volcano! 3 --> In short, we are looking at an exercise in doing science, per the issue of scientific warrant on empirically based inference to best explanation that was put on the table for GB et al to deal with, and which they have studiously avoided addressing. 4 --> Why that avoidance? ANS: because they are plainly deathly afraid that there may be matters that on good observational warrant are not explicable on chance plus necessity alone. That is, they want to get away with begging major questions by imposing Lewontinian a priori materialism, disguised as the "scientific" principle that scientific explanations must only be based on inference to naturalistic mechanisms, those of chance and necessity. 5 --> but as was repeatedly laid out with examples, there is another class of known causal factors capable of explaining highly contingent outcomes that we do not have a good reason to expect on blind chance and mechanical necessity, thanks to the issue of the needle in the haystack. 6 --> Namely, the cause as familiar as that which best explains the complex, specified information -- significant quantities of contextually responsive text in English coded on the ASCII scheme -- in this thread. Intelligence, working by knowledge and skill, and leaving characteristic signs of art behind. 7 --> Notice, how we come to this: we see complexity, measured by the scope of possible configurations, and we see objectively, independently definable specificity, indicated by descriptors that lock down the set of possible or observed events E, to a narrow zone T within the large config space W, such that a blind search process based on chance plus necessity will only sample so small a fraction that it is maximally implausible for it to hit on a zone like T. indeed, per the needle in the haystack of infinite monkeys type analysis, it is credibly unobservable. 8 --> Under those circumstances, once we see that we are credibly in a zone T, by observing an E that fits in a T, the best explanation is the known, routinely observed cause of such events, intelligence acting by choice contingency, AKA design. 9 --> In terms of the Chi_500 expression that GB et al consistently fail to examine and explain as to why they say they find it meaningless:
a: I is a measure of the size of config space, e.g. 1 bit corresponds to two possibilities, 2 bits to 4, and n bits to 2^n so that 500 bits corresponds to 3 * 10^150 possibilities and 1,000 to 1.07*10^301. b: 500 is a threshold, whereby the 10^57 atoms of our solar system could in 10^17 s carry out 10^102 Planck time quantum states, giving an upper limit to the scope of search, where the fastest chemical reactions take up about 10^30 PTQs's. c: In familiar terms, 10^102 possibilities from 10^150 is 1 in 10^48, or about a one-straw sample of a cubical haystack about 3 1/2 light days across. An entire solar system could lurk in it as "atypical" but that whole solar system would be so isolated that -- per well known and utterly uncontroversial sampling theory results -- it is utterly implausible that any blind sample of that scope would pick up anything but straw; straw being the overwhelming bulk of the distribution. d: In short not even a solar system in the haystack would be credibly findable on blind chance plus mechanical necessity. e: But, routinely, we find many things that are like that, e.g. posts in this thread. What explains these is that the "search" in these cases is NOT blind, it is intelligent. f: S gives the criterion that allows us to see that we are in this needle in the haystack type situation, on whatever reasonable grounds can be presented for a particular case, noting again that the default is that S = 0, i.e. unless we have positive reason to infer needle in haystack challenge, we default to explicable on chance plus necessity. g: What gives us the objective ability to set S = 1? ANS: Several possibilities, but the most relevant one is that we see a case of functional specificity as a means of giving an independent, narrowing description of the set t of possible Es. h: Functional specificity is particularly easy to see, as when something is specific in order to function, it is similar to the key that fits the lock and opens it. That is, specific function is contextual, integrative and tightly restricted. Not any key would do to open a given lock, and if fairly small perturbations happen, the key will be useless. i: The same obtains for parts for say a car, or even strings of characters in a post in this thread, or notoriously, computer code. (There is an infamous case where NASA had to destroy a rocket on launch because a coding error put I think it was a comma not a semicolon.) j: In short, the sort of reason why S = 1 in a given case is not hard to see, save if you have an a priori commitment that makes it hard for you to accept this obvious, easily observed and quite testable -- just see what perturbing the functional state enough to overwhelm error correcting redundancies or tolerances would do -- fact of life. This is actually a commonplace. k: So, we can now pull together the force of teh Chi_500 expression:
i] If we find ourselves in a practical cosmos of 10^57 atoms -- our solar system . . . check, ii] where also, we see that something has an index of being highly contingent I, a measure of information-storing or carrying capacity, iii] where we may provide a reasonable value for this in bits, iv] and as well, we can identify that the observed outcome is from a narrow, independently describable scope T within a much larger configuration space set by I, i.e. W. v] then we may infer that E is or is not best explained on design according as I is greater or less than the scope 500 bits.
10 --> So, we have a metric that is reasonable and is rooted in the same sort of considerations that ground the statistical form of the second law of thermodynamics. 11 --> Accordingly, we have god reason to see that claimed violations will consistently have the fate of perpetual motion machines: they may be plausible to the uninstructed, but predictably will consistently fail to deliver the claimed goods. 12 --> For instance, Genetic Algorithms consistently START from within a zone ("island") of function T, where the so-called fitness function then allows for incremental improvements along a nice trend to some peak. 13 --> Similarly, something like the canali on Mars, had they been accurately portrayed, would indeed have been a demonstration of design. However, these were not actual pictures of the surface of Mars but drawings of what observers THOUGHT they saw. they were indeed designed, but they were an artifact of erroneous observations. 14 --> Latterly, the so-called Mars face, from the outset, was suspected to be best explained as an artifact of a low-resolution imaging system, and so a high resolution test was carried out, several times. The consistent result, is that the image is indeed an artifact. [Notice, since it was explicable on chance plus necessity, S was defaulted to 0.] 15 --> Mt Pinatubo is indeed complex, and one could do a sophisticated lidar mapping and radar sounding and seismic sounding to produce the sort of 3-D models routinely used here with our volcano, but the structured model of a mesh of nodes and arcs, is entirely within the reach of chance plus necessity, the default. There is no good reason to infer that we should move away from the default. 16 --> If there were good evidence on observation that chance and necessity on the gamut of our solar system could explain origin of the 10 - 100 million bits of info required to account for major body plans, dozens of times over, there would be no design theory movement. (Creationism would still exist, but that is because it works on different grounds.) 17 --> If there were good evidence on observation that chance and necessity on the gamut of our observed cosmos could account for the functionally specific complex organisation and associated information could credibly account for the origin of cell based life, there would be no design theory movement. (Creationism would still exist, but that is because it works on different grounds.) 18 --> But instead, we have excellent, empirically based reason to infer that the best explanation for the FSCO/I in body plans, including the first, is design. 19 --> Fair comment: the reason for the controversy is not that there is overturning empirical observation based evidence [the evidence is actually strongly supportive], but that the design theory movement cuts across institutionally dominant evolutionary materialism, which is resisting the loss of its control over science and science education. 20 --> The old guard dies hard, but in the end a revolutionary new paradigm prevails one retirement, and one funeral at a time. That's why it takes a generation or two. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
"I’ll repost here, since I never received an answer from you" Dr Rec, you left a conversation with me where you didn't respond to my answer to your question. Here is a link.Upright BiPed
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
Scott, The question at 9.1.1.1 was: "Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines is an andesitic island arc volcano. I suspect it may actually be a giant monument designed by space aliens." Using the best calculation of ID, kairosfocus determined Mt. Pinatubo was a volcano by stating S=0 ("means it’s a volcano!"). So KF determined it was a volcano and not a monument by deciding it was a volcano. Really trivial example, but the hilarious circularity in the logic is exposed here! Now, anyone want to provide me an actual example of intelligent design, say 500-100 bits of information arising at once, and the calculation?DrREC
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
Neither KF nor you has shown the claimed objective method for calculating the specificity value S. If you are trying to determine design, but arbitrarily set S=0 (meaning non design) as KF did here, your results are guaranteed to be worthless. I can easily believe you're too slow to understand that.GinoB
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
Clearly you knew by now that any common ground understanding was never the purpose of it's original presence and appearance here on this board in the first place. In actual fact, common ground to an atheist means that you accept and believe every word that spews out of their mouth.Eocene
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
GinoB, S=0 means it's a volcano! What the heck is it supposed to specify? Are you for real, or just pretending not to understand that?ScottAndrews2
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
I see. You said you have an objective criteria and independent description for determining S, but you really don't. You arbitrarily set S=0 not from any objective criteria but merely because it gave you the answer you wanted. On the plus side, your track record of blustering but failing to provide the calculations you claim you can do is still perfect.GinoB
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
I'll repost here, since I never received an answer from you: Let us start here: give me an example of 500-100 bits of information arising at once, and the calculation. Otherwise, design has never been observed. And don’t say life. My genome contains a lot of information, but not greater than the universal probability bond MORE than that of my parents. KF: “to overturn, all that would have to be done is to provide reliable counter-examples.” Every time I provide such, you conclude either it is a designed experiment, or the result of design in nature. ID is unfalsifiable, because it is a self-defining inference and not a mechanism. If I produce an example of X amount of information arising naturally, you can (and have) conclude it is design in action because of the inference. Do you not get that it is impossible to rule out design?DrREC
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
GB: You are playing selective hyperskepticism. Default S = 0 is saying in effect that we by default explain on chance and necessity (mechanical forces following lawlike necessity and/or stochastic processes) save where something else can be warranted. Which is YOUR side's position, save that we do not beg the question and assume/impose a priori that this ALWAYS holds or MUST hold. This has been pointed out to you, repeatedly. But ignored. Can you justify the claim that S = 0 in all cases? If so, how, apart from quesiton-begging Lewontinian a prioris. Next problem. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
kairosfocus
The decision of value on S is justified by objective criteria, namely an independent description that confines acceptable set members E to a narrow zone T in the set of abstractly possible configs,
Then show me this objective criteria and independent description that makes Mt. Pinatubo S = 0. You're always rattling on about how you can objectively calculate these values for real world objects, but when called on it you can never actually do it.GinoB
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
Oops
yawn
Point taken. It takes two people to drag this out.ScottAndrews2
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 12

Leave a Reply