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
presenting stupid Creationist PRATTs from AIG and CreationSafaris.
Never heard of them. As for your identity (I can't believe I wasted time to do this.) Look at this post and this post from Thornton at darwins-god.blogspot.
Does it make you feel better about yourself to keep repeating this lie? We show you detail after detail after detail, like the paper with evidence for avian lung evolutionary development, and all you can do is bawl NUH UH!
T: "CH doesn't 'discuss' science here. CH takes legitimate scientific research published in the primary literature, comes up with some goofy strawman version of what was actually done, then goes NUH UH!! at the top of his lungs."
And then, this one from this site:
You’ve yet to address any of the technical details in the papers except to go “NUH UN!”
You're either Thornton or someone who finds his wit worthy of imitation. I'm not sure which is worse.ScottAndrews2
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews2/Thornton
Why should anyone respond to your arguments, hoping to be read and considered, when you clearly don’t give any consideration to your own? You’re trolling.
LOL! Says the guy who has been doing nothing but presenting stupid Creationist PRATTs from AIG and CreationSafaris. How you coming with those details and the mechanisms for Special Creation?
ps – Thornton is your handle from another blog on which you troll and interact with some who also post or read here. I can easily demonstrate that, and it won’t be flattering.
LOL! If you say so Thornton.GinoB
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
Right, so please define "discrete state information storage". Sorry to keep on about definitions but if we are going to apply models from computing to biological organisms, it's really important to know how one set of systems maps on to the another.Elizabeth Liddle
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
GinoB/Thornton,
Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines is an andesitic island arc volcano. I suspect it may actually be a giant monument designed by space aliens.
That means that you are insane.ScottAndrews2
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
The question is: is there enough information present to make a finding that the markings were probably the result of intelligent design?William J Murray
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
Petrushka said:
There is no metric for distinguishing design. It is a matter of judgement, except when we have clear evidence that something is made by a known kind of maker.
So if in one's judgement the object is more likely explained as the product of a human-like (even if non-human) intelligence, they have warrant to investigate the object as if it is such? If so, would the research into the object under the "intelligently designed" premise be distinguishable in any way from research conducted as if it were a naturally-occurring object? Can both avenues of research be scientific? GinoB said:
Not without knowing (or making assumptions about) lots of other information outside of the object – where it was found, what raw materials were available, what manufacturing processes were required to physically produce it, what natural physical processes that might have produced it are in the area, etc.
Fair enough. Here's another, more detailed hypothetical I'd like for you to look at: Sometime in the future we land on a barren desert & rock planet in some other solar system - the first time humans have left our solar system. There are no apparent signs of life of any sort. We were looking for some kind of element and follow our sensors to a cavern. Deep inside the cavern we find a very large, relatively smooth rock face with pigmented markings on it. The pigments appear to be naturally occurring materials found in the various rock, oxides and dust. The markings consist of aperiodic groupings of squares, circles, triangles, rectangles and lines. None of the markings form perfect geometric forms, but they are pretty accurate. Some of the lines are straight (though not perfectly), some are wavy (but always with three waves). Some circles have lines inside that go from edge to edge. The squares and rectangles are always around sets of the other markings and never by themselves. There are no machine markings or tool marks.William J Murray
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
GinoB/Thornton, There isn't an item in this that makes an ounce of sense. One indicates that you didn't think at all before you typed.
Not without knowing (or making assumptions about) lots of other information outside of the object – where it was found, what raw materials were available, what manufacturing processes were required to physically produce it, what natural physical processes that might have produced it are in the area, etc.
You found it!!! How could you not know where it was found? It's made of aluminum. The terrain is full of cryolite or aluminum oxide deposits. Or it is not. Explain how one or the other influences your determination. What manufacturing processes were required to produce it? Really? How would you determine how it was manufactured before deciding that it was manufactured? What natural processes might have produced it? Well, let's start with the list of known natural processes that produce spaceships and go from there. Are you stopping for even a moment to think, or just objecting as fast as your fingers can type? Why should anyone respond to your arguments, hoping to be read and considered, when you clearly don't give any consideration to your own? You're trolling. ps - Thornton is your handle from another blog on which you troll and interact with some who also post or read here. I can easily demonstrate that, and it won't be flattering.ScottAndrews2
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
kairosfocus
We see certain types of rock in a certain way of layering on the side of this mountain, what best explains? ANS: A PYROCLASTIC FLOW AND MUD FLOWS FROM AN EXPLOSIVE, ANDESITIC ISLAND ARC VOLCANO.
Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines is an andesitic island arc volcano. I suspect it may actually be a giant monument designed by space aliens. Can you please calculate its dFSCI so I can tell for sure if it was designed or not? Thanks!GinoB
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
F/N 2: if we were to make a trip to the far side of the Moon and find a pile of apparent machinery in a crater, we would be entitled to infer to the best explanation being the observed source of such machinery, intelligence. A side trip to one of the Apollo landing sites would provide a comparative case where we did see what happened. And, I am sure that, apart from being in a context where one is trying to object to design inferences, you would NEVER make a selectively hypersksptical argument like that. Why? Because it breaches the old Kolij rule no 1: A breach of common sense is a breach of the school rules.kairosfocus
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
F/N: The key issue in the design inference is that it enables us to use the logic and epistemology of empirically based inference to best explanation to infer cause from features of an object. In case you do not realise this, this is the general challenge that faces investigations of deep past origins. We see certain types of rock in a certain way of layering on the side of this mountain, what best explains? ANS: A PYROCLASTIC FLOW AND MUD FLOWS FROM AN EXPLOSIVE, ANDESITIC ISLAND ARC VOLCANO. Why? Because the signs we see point to the source and cause we did not see, in light of the dynamics at work in cases we do observe.kairosfocus
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
Petrushka, BTW... If you are not from USSR/Russia, your ignorance about what free market ideology unleashed can achieve is justifiable. If you are, you might well know what Yeltsin and his clique advocating for free market did in economics. Under Gaidar, who was minding the business in Yeltsin's time, everything was ruined to pieces. Salt was probably the only product to be found in shops in the 90's. So even free market, a nice model it may be, fails without careful regulation from the state.Eugene S
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
GB: Strawman. To apply signs of something, we must first observe the signs. Once present, per tests we have carried out, the signs are reliable. (As in, deer tracks point to deer.) What about when the signs are NOT present -- as in no deer tracks are there, so deer tracks are not reliable signs of deer -- is a strawman fallacy distraction. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
Red herring. The explanatory filter is designed to respond to observed signs that on strong observational basis, reliably point to design. Your hypothesis is unresponsive to what is actually on the table but distracts attention to erect and knock over a strawman.kairosfocus
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
I am happy, as I’ve said, to accept a your definition of “base”.
It isn't my definition as if I conjured it up, rather it is the same definition you originally relied upon in your wiki cite. All I've done in this series of posts is elucidate to you the errors in your understanding of that definition.
However, as I’ve said, perhaps if we regard DNA solely as a Read Only Memory system, it may work.
As long as you understand the analogy is not perfect. There are occurrences of writing, when strands are copied, when mutations occur, but mostly, yes, it can be thought of as a base-4 program with data in ROM.
Well, I meant that the “letters” are the four bases, and the “words” are the codons and the “sentences” whole genes, and the exons puntuation, I guess.
I don't care to drag this out further, but you really ought to stick with standard meanings of terms within their context and stop substituting alternate meanings.
Far from being “intellectually dishonest” I am more than happy to concede an argument if the point is made persuasively. You have made your point. It doesn’t actually alter my my model, because my original point was that the system was alphabetic.
Well it seems then I haven't made my point, yet. See my above post to DrBot.
And thinking of it as a system in which new information is written as state changes seems to me to fail to capture how the information is generated, which is a pretty central issue in the ID case.
However the information is generated, it is generated in base-4, which was the point of this thread, or at least my interaction with you.
As I said, Charles, I have reached my limit with you regarding the number of times I will be accused of “dishonesty”. I am not dishonest.
I am not accusing you of theft, plagerism, or perjury, not that kind of dishonesty, but rather "intellectual dishonesty", wherein to sustain your argument you conflate concepts, substitute meanings, obfuscate, spin and self-contradict. While we all make mistakes (and I have made my share of "stunningly asinine" assertions myself and tried to defend them and my ego), it is the obdurate repetition in the face of correction that lends the appearance of dishonesty in intellectual debate. Your underlying attitude and motivation may well be to purely seek the truth, but the external behaviour evident in the words you write belies that. Your most recent example is conceding I've made my point yet that doesn't change your model because your original point was that the system was alphabetic. Many times you have posted self-contradictory statements concluding in a reassertion that you were right all along. The Greeks use to say that self-contradiction is the touchstone of error, and thus, its avoidance is the touchstone of truth.Charles
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
Ever heard of error correcting codes?kairosfocus
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
Many computer and related systems have built in error recovery, and the error recovery capacity of life forms is also limited, as in fatal genetic defects limited.kairosfocus
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
DrBot:
The difference between an alphabetic system and a numeric one is sequence, and from that the effects of magnitude.
The false premise in there, the mistake you and Elizabeth Liddle persist in, is thinking alphabetic and numeric data are different "systems" per se and are thus somehow different as regards to the base in which they are implemented. However, the interpretation of whether something is alphabetic or numeric or instruction (or even noise) is only relevant to the operation being performed on them, not the base in which they are implemented. The "system" is base-4, the DNA/RNA strings of "letters" are data and instructions within that base-4 system.
How does this [change of magnitude or size] work for an alphabet system – Is a change from from C to F positive or negative? and what size is it?
There is your false premise, that you expect to perform math operations on alphabetic data. There are legitimate examples e.g. error correction checking, hashing, encryption/decryption where math is done on alphabetic (i.e. alphanumeric) strings, however, more to your point, alphabetic data is usually operated on logically, not mathematically. But that distinction is irrelevant as regards the base in which alphabetic or numeric data is implemented.
If DNA is a base 4 numeric system then what are the rules for addition, subtraction, multiplication etc – i.e. what order are the four bases in, which is the lowest in value and which is the highest?
I stated earlier:
Data processing systems employ logical operators (AND, OR, XOR, Compare, shift, copy, etc.) as well as mathematical. A base-four system merely does this with strings wherein each element (bit or digit) is in 1 of 4 possible states. That in RNA, strings are not found reflecting all possible permutations in no way changes the irrefutable fact that any position will never have anything other than either adenine uracil guanine or cytosine; regardless of the operation, the allowed values of each position will always be adenine uracil guanine or cytosine.
There need not be a canonical or magnitude interpretation to data for logical operations. Two strings can be compared, altered, etc., for legitimate purposes without ever needing mathematical operations. Such strings can even be legitimate numbers operated on logically (such as comparing if they're identical in value, length and sign) or bit-shifted to effectively multiply or divide them without using math instructions. Further, legitimate numbers can be treated as unordered strings such as invoice numbers, Serial numbers, error correction codes and hash codes. The point being, data need not be strictly numeric to be encoded/implemented in base-4. Strings of DNA "letters" are just as legitimately encoded in base-4 as could be numbers. For the most part DNA and RNA strings (in base-4) seem to be operated on logically, sometimes sequentially (letter by letter), sometimes in parallel (multiple letters simultaneously when "pattern matching").Charles
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
Petrushka: Have you even bothered to follow the link already given, on the issue of ADDITIONALITY of self-replication, and what it further suggests? As in, updated, the origin of the von Neumann self replicator found in life, which is both FSCI rich and irreducibly complex, is best explained on -- design. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle: Atoms do exhibit discrete state properties per quantum physics, but that is utterly distinct from the discrete state information storage and 4related algorithmic processing in cells using DNA. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
Yes indeed, Eugene, and any metaphor has its problems. What we need to look at is precisely what information is being transferred when, and how. IMO.Elizabeth Liddle
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
"One can argue about whether this capability evolved or was designed, but the capability exists." Oh yes, it does. The problem is to determine if it is really ubiquitous or its capabilities are limited. My view is that evolution has limitations. There are strict limits on the amount of information RV + NS can generate. I do not fully agree with your point about nations evolving because intelligence does make a difference, esp. human intelligence. Another example that springs to mind is that the law describing the great migrations of people is the same as the law of viscous liquid flow, so what? There are different levels at which we can study the same phenomenon. Physics and biology are fine, but they cannot comprehensively describe what humans are.Eugene S
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
William J Murray
No, it does not; that’s part of what I’m challenging you to answer. I said someone suspects that it might be a ancient alien artifact, not that they recognize it as such. How could they “recognize” it as such, when to their knowledge they’ve never seen one before?
That's the problem I keep pointing out to you.
The question I put to you is: if we suspect it might be an alien artifact, is there any rigorous or scientific way to validate that “alien design” is the best answer without knowing anything about the putative aliens in question?
Not without knowing (or making assumptions about) lots of other information outside of the object - where it was found, what raw materials were available, what manufacturing processes were required to physically produce it, what natural physical processes that might have produced it are in the area, etc. That's why I find the claim "ID is only about the designed object itself" so ludicrous.
GB: "How about this: suppose we receive trustworthy information that somewhere in the tens of thousands of separate peaks in the Rocky Mountains is a peak that space aliens carved into a statue of their Great Leader. It has a designed function (a shrine) and it’s an exact copy so has lots of designed-in information (or CSI or dFSCI or whatever you want to call it). Unfortunately the space aliens all look a lot like craggy granite blocks. How would you go about determining which peak was designed?" ID theory doesn’t claim to be able to discern all ID. Something designed to appear natural might not be detectable via the ID metric.
So dFSCI isn't a reliable indicator of design. Interesting.GinoB
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
If you are using that definition, kf, then I accept that DNA is a digital system. By the same token all molecular systems are digital, indeed the entire universe is digital as it consist of discrete quanta. The issue then becomes whether saying that DNA is a "digital system in base 4" means anything different from saying that DNA is a polynucleotide consisting of four different nucleotides. And I concede that in a sense it does, because the sequence of nucleotides interacts with various RNA enzymes to produce an output that varies according to the sequence. However I think, as I keep saying, that we have to be very specific in how we apply that model. When we consider the transfer of information from DNA to ribosome, maybe we can consider it as "base 4 digital", certainly at the transcription stage where the syntax essentially in which a given DNA base is matched to a corresponding RNA base. At the translation stage the system is different, and we have triplet nucleotides matched to amino acids holistically i.e. there are, in the cell, tRNA molecules that bind to specific amino acids at one end (not in "base 4") and to specific mRNA codons at the other (which again you might call "base 4" except that the thing that has a "state" now is the codon currently in the reading frame, not the nucleotide, the mRNA molecule having already been through an editing stage so that only the codon string reaches the ribosome. And the amino acids are also discrete (and therefore digital, by your definition) but not in "base 4" but in "base 20" to use the same nomenclature. And that is only one part of the information transfer chain. In fact many many molecules are involved, and they are all discrete (therefore digital in your definition) but not all in "base 4" by any means. So if you are going to use computer metaphors, it's important to specify what you are applying to what. Let's stipulate that because it's all discrete molecules (or ions), it's all digital. But how many types of these discrete units are there in a cell? I have no idea, but it is way more than four. So is the whole cell the "computer"? Or are you just regarding the DNA as a "digital base 4" ROM within a system that has some different base? And how do you modify the ROM in the next generation?Elizabeth Liddle
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
Suppose the alien space ship looks exactly like a river pebble, and only becomes a space ship whe the correct words are spoken in the correct language? My point would be that our tendency to categorize theings as natural or designed has little to do do with any inherent attributes, and everything to do with out experience with observing various makers of artifacts. I know from personal experience that I cannot always tell the difference between a accumulation of twigs and an old, decaying bird's nest. There have been numerous disagreements in anthropology regarding ambiguous artifacts. There is no metric for distinguishing design. It is a matter of judgement, except when we have clear evidence that something is made by a known kind of maker. But it is knowledge and observation of makers that weighs heaviest.Petrushka
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
Your example still assumes aliens built space ships the same way humans do and that we could recognize one just by looking at it.
No, it does not; that's part of what I'm challenging you to answer. I said someone suspects that it might be a ancient alien artifact, not that they recognize it as such. How could they "recognize" it as such, when to their knowledge they've never seen one before? The question I put to you is: if we suspect it might be an alien artifact, is there any rigorous or scientific way to validate that "alien design" is the best answer without knowing anything about the putative aliens in question? Secondly, if you say we can only reach such a finding if the design is sufficiently like "what humans produce" to "recognize" it, what is the metric or type of evidence that determines "how much like" human design is enough to warrant "recognition" of human-like intelligent design? In other words, what is the falsifying parameter that determines when something is recognizably like what humans design, and when something is just an anthropocentric mis-identification of a naturally-occurring feature?
How about this: suppose we receive trustworthy information that somewhere in the tens of thousands of separate peaks in the Rocky Mountains is a peak that space aliens carved into a statue of their Great Leader. It has a designed function (a shrine) and it’s an exact copy so has lots of designed-in information (or CSI or dFSCI or whatever you want to call it). Unfortunately the space aliens all look a lot like craggy granite blocks. How would you go about determining which peak was designed?
ID theory doesn't claim to be able to discern all ID. Something designed to appear natural might not be detectable via the ID metric.
How do you rigorously and objectively quantify what ‘similar enough’ is?
That's what I'm asking you in the alien artifact example. Do you have an answer? Or are we never going to be able to identify any alien artifacts as such unless we happen to know the aliens that produced them?
Seems to me that’s always going to be a subjective call, which is what keeps tripping up IDers. Features that ‘look designed’ to them don’t look designed to the scientific community, those who know of non-designed processes that produce the same features.
From this, I conclude your answer is that there is no way to ever conclude if an object found as in my example is better explained as the product of alien design, regardless of how similar to human design the parts of the object appear to be, and that we must limit ourselves to pursuing natural causes for any such object. Correct?William J Murray
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
Strict point mutation and selection might lead to wobbling stability, but when you add in known mechanisms of variation (described in detail by Shapiro and Koonin in their recent books) you have no restrictions on what can be produced. we have two recent descriptions, by Thornton and by Lenski, that describe how a neutral mutation can be carried in a population and eventually lead to a new function. Behe's paper describes three instances of gain of function. There is also the accumulation of regulatory changes, which transformed jaw bones into inner ear bones. So your claim is factually wrong.Petrushka
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
Except fecundity and selection never lead to the construction of new, useful and functional multi-part systems. Fecundity and selection leads only to a wobbling stability.Joseph
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
Dude, Your position can't even muster an argument from analogy and that is why you and your ilk have to complain about the use of analogies. And that is beyond pathetic... And reality is definitely a stumbling block for your position.Joseph
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
Regarding the tolerance of errors, I understand that NASA built systems with several "discrete" systems running in parallel. The system was designed so that if one computer differed from the others, the majority vote would control the mission. There is no "intelligence" involved in the majority vote. there is no knowledge that requires the majority to be correct. It is simply a physical attribute of the system that enables the majority to rule. Living populations do this by the physical mechanism of fecundity and selection. It is a form of majority rule. The direction of the population is determined by which code produces the majority. There is no foresight involved or required.Petrushka
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
Seems to be a common problem with Design proponents like KF here. They just can't understand that arguments by analogy only go so far, and that all analogies eventually break down. At some point they have to deal with reality, which seems to be a major stumbling block.GinoB
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
1 6 7 8 9 10 12

Leave a Reply