A Quiz for Intelligent Design Critics

_{January 31, 2014

Intelligent Design

4}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In the near decade that I’ve been watching the Intelligent Design movement, one thing has consistently amazed me: the pathological inability of many ID critics to accurately represent what ID actually is, what claims and assumptions are made on the part of the most noteworthy ID proponents, and so on. Even ID critics who have been repeatedly informed about what ID is seem to have a knack for forgetting this in later exchanges. It’s frustrating – and this from a guy who’s not even a defender of ID as science.

But I’m interested in progress on this front, and I think I’ve come up with a good solution: let’s have an ID quiz. And let’s put this quiz to critics, in public, so at the very least we can see whether or not they’re even on the same page as the ID proponents they are criticizing.

I want to stress here: the goal of this quiz isn’t to score points, or force ID proponents to concede controversial things – asking ‘Is there a complete and satisfactory origin of life theory?’ is an important question, but it’s not what I’m after here. I’m talking about the bare and basic essentials of Intelligent Design arguments, as offered by Dembski, Behe and others.

To that end, here’s the quiz I’ve come up with, just by recalling off the top of my head the systematic mistakes I see made:

1. Is Intelligent Design compatible with the truth of evolution, with evolution defined (as per wikipedia) as change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations?

2. Is Intelligent Design compatible with common descent, with common descent defined as the claim that all living organisms share a common biological ancestor?

3. Does Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents (Behe, Meyers, etc) propose to explain any purported incident of design by appeal to miracles or “supernatural” acts of any kind?

4. Does Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents, argue that any given purported incident of design must have been performed by God, angels, or any “supernatural” being?

5. Is Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents, compatible with atheism?

6. Does Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents, rely on the bible, or any religious document? (as a source of evidence, etc)

7. Hypothetical scenario: a designer starts an evolutionary process. The designer arranges the environment and the organisms involved in the process in such a way so as to yield a particular, specified and intended result, with no intervention on the designer’s part aside from initially setting up the situation, organisms and environment. Is this an example of Intelligent Design in action, according to ID’s most noteworthy proponents?

8. Revisit 7. Stipulate that designer only used completely “natural” means in setting up the experiment and successfully predicting the result. Is this still an example of Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents, in action?

9. An ID critic proposes that intelligent aliens, not God, may be responsible for a purported incident of Intelligent Design – for example, the origin of the bacterial flagellum. Has the ID critic proposed a scenario which, if true, would disprove Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents?

10. A creationist argues that evolution must be false, because it isn’t mentioned in the Bible. Has the creationist made an Intelligent Design claim?

This list could be tweaked or expanded, I’m sure. But I have a suspicion here: I think many ID critics, at least critics of public note, would be unable to pass the quiz I just outlined. Not just unable, but unwilling – because to answer it would be to obliterate some common misrepresentations of Intelligent Design, and for whatever reason, those misrepresentations are very important to people. And pardon the repeated inclusion of ‘as offered by its most noteworthy proponents’ bit – I’m being stuffy about that because I don’t want to see someone exploit a loophole and run off on a tangent.

Regardless, I offer this quiz for ID regulars – critics and supporters alike. Feel free to take it in the comments if you’re interested! I can already name a few ID critics on UD I think would successfully pass the test, and maybe some ID proponents would actually fail it. Perhaps we’ll see.

Comments

To Phinehas #188 Sir Fred Hoyle departed Scottland in 2001, never to returntvarhegyi_{February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

SC: As I clipped above the real significance of the 2005 model is that it points tot he real issue, informaiton content . . . in praxis fuctionally specific complex info content beyond a reasonable threshold. And, for our solar system scale, I am very comfortable asserting that a realistic probability model will be overwhelmed by 10^57 atoms observing fair coin flips of 500 coins each per 10^-14 s for 10^17 s, which gives us a sampling ratio of the config space for 500 bits of about 1 straw to a cubical haystack 1,000 LY across. Sampling theory will tell us that under such circumstances we can only reasonably expect a blind sample to pick up the dominant cluster, once target zones are rare. So, a 500 bit threshold of complexity is good enough for govt work. For observed cosmos as a whole, 1,000 bits is even more seriously buried. Under these circumstances the Chi_500 expression developed incrementally by VJT, P Giem and the undersigned is in fact functionally equivalent tot he explanatory filter. mechanical necessity will be inherently low informational, and objectively assigned functional specificity will keep us on complexity and specificity. To be objective start by seeing if modest chance disturbances move you off target zone. Start by taking a modest object code pgm and firing a proportion of random bit changes at it, to see the point. Of course, make sure it is not doing anything that catastrophic failure is likely to do damage with. That is the algebraic model with the expression Chi_500 = I*S - 500, F S bits beyond the solar system threshold, identifies info capacity (I), functional specificity (S), and complexity by applying a threshold (- 500), and giving an answer in functionally specific bits beyond a reasonable complexity threshold. KFkairosfocus_{February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

P: A no true Scotsman of great distinction for decades in astrophysics, who holds a Nobel Equivalent Prize and probably should have got the full Nobel for Physics! KFkairosfocus_{February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank, What I was looking for was an understanding of the method of calculating S(T ) which is kind of fundamental to calculating CSI.
Exactly my concern. It introduces some estimation methods I was not comfortable endorsing. I decided it's not my role to defend something I don't feel comfortable endorsing. That's when I decided an alternative approach, one closer to the first approaches of the original Explantory Filter were more accessible and transparent. From the links above, the reader can see that there are easier ways to make certain design inferences that have nothing materially objectionable in them.scordova_{February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

KF:
That is why I have been inclined to point out that atheism and design theory are not utterly incompatible, though obviously evolutionary materialism and design are. In that discussion, I have pointed to a Nobel Equivalent Prize winning astrophysicist and agnostic/atheist, who is actually a pioneer of modern design thought (especially on the cosmological side, but he made significant suggestions on life forms too), Sir Fred Hoyle.
Obviously, Sir Fred Hoyle is No True Scotsman.Phinehas_{February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

PS: Let me give short sample answers, confident that objectors will not be able to give correct answers, even on seeing these: >>1: Have you recognised — just as a simple example of a much broader pattern long since identified by the likes of Orgel and Wicken from the 1970?s — that [a} a string of meaningful text (like this) is different from [b] random strings like gfiehuehfdvhsuivfh or [c] ordered repetitive ones like FGFGFGFGFG?>> ANS: The three are different as order is a product of mechanical necessity, chance of highly contingent clusters of forces yielding stochastic contingency of outcomes, and design produces FSCO/I. >>2: What marks that difference between order, randomness and complex organisation to achieve specific function?>> ANS: Best clustered first on high/low contingency under similar start conditions. Mechanical necessity leads to lawlike regularities e.g. as a dropped heavy object near earth behaves. Highly contingent outcomes come from chance or design. Chance is marked by stochastic outcomes such that when there is a large bulk "typical" result it dominates outcomes as say a Quincunx Galton box shows (peak vs far skirts). The only reliable source of FSCO/I beyond 500 bits of complexity is design, a process of intelligently directed configuration/ contrivance/ contingency towards function or other targetted outcome. >>3: What causal process is easily and generally observed to cause the pattern known as complex functional organisation, on billions of cases?>> ANS: Design, a process of intelligently directed configuration/ contrivance/ contingency towards function or other targetted outcome." 4: What causal processes singly or in combination have never been reliably observed to do so, once complexity is beyond 500 bits? ANS: Blind chance and/or blind mechanical necessity. Despite many erroneous claims tot he contrary and proposed examples that predictably turn out to exemplify design in action. >>5: What therefore passes the vera causa [actually seen cause] test, and what does not . . . and therefore should not be used in abductive explanations of the traces of the deep past of origins which we have not directly observed, why?>> ANS: Design pases vera causa. Blind chance and/or necessity do not. The latter therefore should not be used to explain observations of FSCO/I, on the grounds that speculative but empirically ungrounded hypotheses should not be used in science. Where, the issue is that to explain OOL, we need a genome of credibly 100 - 1,000 kbits complexity, and for body plans 10 - 100+ mns, dozens of times over (to account for cell types, tissues, organ systems and associated regulation). >>6: What then allows us to infer on reliable sign from such FSCO/I to its cause, per abductive inference to best empirically grounded explanation, a species of induction in the modern sense?>> ANS: The reliability of design as causal process responsble for FSCO/I, and absence of blind chance and/or necessity being able to do same. This, multiplied by the needle in haystack search challenge faced by blind search, leading tot he LCI cascade of searches for higher and higher order searches, which effectively compound in accordance with the power set cardinality law as a search in a set of possible configs is a subset of the set of possibilities. The order of the power set for a set of n members is 2^n. KFkairosfocus_{February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

Lenoxus: 1: Have you recognised -- just as a simple example of a much broader pattern long since identified by the likes of Orgel and Wicken from the 1970's -- that [a} a string of meaningful text (like this) is different from [b] random strings like gfiehuehfdvhsuivfh or [c] ordered repetitive ones like FGFGFGFGFG? 2: What marks that difference between order, randomness and complex organisation to achieve specific function? 3: What causal process is easily and generally observed to cause the pattern known as complex functional organisation, on billions of cases? 4: What causal processes singly or in combination have never been reliably observed to do so, once complexity is beyond 500 bits? 5: What therefore passes the vera causa [actually seen cause] test, and what does not . . . and therefore should not be used in abductive explanations of the traces of the deep past of origins which we have not directly observed, why? 6: What then allows us to infer on reliable sign from such FSCO/I to its cause, per abductive inference to best empirically grounded explanation, a species of induction in the modern sense? ************* If you cannot answer these correctly, why should we take your dismissals above seriously? And, FYI, the original quiz is about the misrepresentations by too many Darwinist objectors. It is not making the sort of inductive case that I outlined just now. instead, it is asking, can objectors accurately and fairly represent the positions and arguments publicly held by leading design theorists? Let's just say that your remarks above come across as another case of failing to do so. KFkairosfocus_{February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
1. T is defined on page 17 (25 is just a worked example for the BF) and can be either a pattern or the event identified by that pattern.
Again, wrt the BF "T" is defined on page 25. Mark's quiz pertained to the BF
2. Dembski does indeed define S(T ) as the descriptive complexity of T. But this does not tell us much as this is a technical term defined by Dembski earlier in the paper. If you read the definition of S(T ) on page 17 you will see that it is essentially as I have defined it: the number of patterns which are at least as simple as T where “simple” means highly compressible e.g. a string of heads.
Dembski defines it as I have defined it also. I took mine from the paper- the part on the BF
3. I asked how S(T ) was estimated. Joe gave his estimate of 10^20 and referred to page 25. All page 25 does is supply the estimate given a natural language lexicon of 100,000 basic concepts. What I was looking for was an understanding of the method of calculating S(T ) which is kind of fundamental to calculating CSI.
And I answered "how".Joe_{February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

Joe #180 Sal #157 I am not going to trade insults with Joe ( I couldn’t hope to give as much as I would receive). So take this as clarification of things badly explained by me. 1. T is defined on page 17 (25 is just a worked example for the BF) and can be either a pattern or the event identified by that pattern. 2. Dembski does indeed define S(T ) as the descriptive complexity of T. But this does not tell us much as this is a technical term defined by Dembski earlier in the paper. If you read the definition of S(T ) on page 17 you will see that it is essentially as I have defined it: the number of patterns which are at least as simple as T where “simple” means highly compressible e.g. a string of heads. 3. I asked how S(T ) was estimated. Joe gave his estimate of 10^20 and referred to page 25. All page 25 does is supply the estimate given a natural language lexicon of 100,000 basic concepts. What I was looking for was an understanding of the method of calculating S(T ) which is kind of fundamental to calculating CSI.Mark Frank_{February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

LoL! If you are relying on Mark Frank then you already lost. And unguided evolution is content free and that is why it is attacked. Thank you, LenoxusJoe_{February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

Hmm, haven't been here a while. My last comment got eaten (too many links, perhaps), so here's a re-try. Hope I don't sound too frustrated. kairosfocus @ 158:
The focal issue is back in the original post, and it is highly illuminating that it seems that by and large Darwinist objectors to ID are studiously ignoring a very simple request: show, by filling out a short quiz, that you can accurately and fairly describe the basic case on the merits made by design thinkers.
As Mark Frank suggested in his first post on this thread, the quiz (in combination with its answers) actually shows how there is no ID "case" or "merits" to speak of. It's just a negatively-argued grumbling that some kind of design is somewhere maybe. Even the two best arguments ID has, Behe's assertion about the flagellum and Dembski's questionable equations, are entirely negative-oriented. So if the neo-pseudo-Darwino-materio-naturists do understand that ID isn't the same as YEC or even the same as theology, why do many of them attack it like it is one of those things? I can think of three reasons. The biggest one is that if a worldview is content-free, then its attackers are by definition are going to attack it for something it's "not". ID isn't this, it isn't that. ID can always retreat and say "No, no, I'm not that!" ID has shrunk itself. Opponents bring up God stuff because that's easily the most substantial thing ID has to offer. A second reason is that YEC is such an obvious target -- even while its supporting arguments consist of putting down evolution (as with ID) or simply pointing to the Bible, it is additionally responsible for a complete buffet of refutable falsehood (most prominently an Earth-age claim which is refuted by practically every area of scholarship). There is always something for an anti-creationist blogger, whether experienced at it or new to the game, to sample on. The third reason spins off the second: ID has not outright rejected nonsense like YEC from its big tent. In fact, it pretty much depends on YEC for its base of support. We bring up YEC time and again for similar reasons that American Democrats in 2012 liked to talk about Barack Obama's birth certificate -- because their Republican opponents could neither afford to reject or embrace that popular but absurd conspiracy theory. As much as ID might try to deflect this point, evolution has nothing on ID when it comes to ancillary nuttiness-baggage.Lenoxus_{February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

F/N: As it seems necessaryu to clear the decks, let me clip from Dembski 2005:
define ?S as . . . the number of patterns for which [agent] S’s semiotic description of them is at least as simple as S’s semiotic description of [a pattern or target zone] T. [26] . . . . where M is the number of semiotic agents [S's] that within a context of inquiry might also be witnessing events and N is the number of opportunities for such events to happen . . . . [where also] computer scientist Seth Lloyd has shown that 10^120 constitutes the maximal number of bit operations that the known, observable universe could have performed throughout its entire multi-billion year history.[31] . . . [Then] for any context of inquiry in which S might be endeavoring to determine whether an event that conforms to a pattern T happened by chance, M·N will be bounded above by 10^120. We thus define the specified complexity [?] of T given [chance hypothesis] H [in bits] . . . as [the negative base-2 log of the conditional probability P(T|H) multiplied by the number of similar cases ?S(t) and also by the maximum number of binary search-events in our observed universe 10^120] ? = – log2[10^120 ·?S(T)·P(T|H)].
In my IOSE note, I outlined the log reduction that turns this to a practical metric using an upper bound: _____________ >> ix: At most, it [Weasel] illustrates that once we are already on an island of function, chance variation and differences in reproductive success may lead to specialisation to fit particular niches. Which is accepted by all, including modern Young Earth Creationists. And, more sophisticated genetic algorithms have very similar failings. For, (a) they implicitly start within an island of function, that (b) has a predominantly smoothly rising slope that gently leads to peaks of performance so that "hill-climbing" on "warmer/colder" signals will usually get you pointed the right way. x: In short, GA's do not only start on the shores of an island of function, but also the adaptation targets are implicitly pre-loaded into the program [[even in cases where they are allowed to wiggle about a bit] and so are the "hill-climbing algorithm" means to climb up to them. This point has been highlighted by famed mathematician Gregory Chaitin, in a recent paper, Life as Evolving Software (Sept. 7, 2011): . . . we present an information-theoretic analysis of Darwin’s theory of evolution, modeled as a hill-climbing algorithm on a ?tness landscape. Our space of possible organisms consists ofcomputer programs, which are subjected to random mutations. We study the random walk of increasing ?tness made by a single mutating organism. [[p.1] xi: Plainly, this more sophisticated approach is a model of optimising adaptation by generic hill-climbing, within an island of function; i.e. this is at best a model of micro-evolution within a body plan, not origin of such complex, integrated body plans. xii: So, while engineers -- classic intelligent designers! -- may well find such algorithms quite useful in some cases of optimisation and system design, they fail the red-herring- strawman test when they are presented as models of microbe to man evolution. xiii: For, they do not answer to the real challenge posed by the design theorists: how to get to an island of complex function -- i.e. to a new body plan that for first life would require something like 100,000 base pairs of DNA and associated molecular machinery, and for other body plans from trees to bees, bats, birds snakes, worms and us, at least 10 million bases, dozens of times over -- without intelligent direction. xiv: Instead, we can present a key fact, one that Weasel actually inadvertently demonstrates. That is: in EVERY instance of such a case of CSI, E from such a zone of interest or island of function, T, where we directly know the cause by experience or observation, it originates by similar intelligent design. And, given the long odds involved to get such an E by pure chance -- you cannot have a hill-climbing success amplifier until you first have functional success! -- that is no surprise at all. (The Internet and the major libraries of the world, together, have billions of successful tests of this claim. On years of experience with suggested counter examples, they are consistently dubious or outright errors, as a rule being illustrations of the very point they were meant to oppose. E.g. the drawings of canals on Mars from 100 years ago, if they were of real canals on Mars would be evidence of a Martian civilisation. Alas, they are inaccurate, and instead are drawings that were intelligently designed to show what the astronomers of that time thought they saw on Mars.) xv: Why should this be so? Let us consider: in the 10^17 or so seconds on its conventional timeline the 10^57 or so atoms of our solar system (our practical "world") will have gone through maybe as many as some -- oops, corrected 12:06:01 -- 10^117 Planck-time quantum states. (We note, it takes about 10^30 such for the fastest chemical reactions, and many more for the organic chemistry type reactions relevant to so much of cell based life.) But 10^150 possibilities is 10^33 times as much as that, so our solar system could not search out more than a negligible fraction of 10^150 possibilities. Where, we can see that a string of 500 bits has 2^ 500 = 3.27*10^150 possible configurations. For just 500 bits [[~ 72 ASCII characters], on the gamut of our solar system, there is just too much haystack to reasonably expect to find the proverbial lost needle. xvi: To understand this better, let us work back from how it takes ~ 10^30 Planck time states for the fastest chemical reactions, and use this as a yardstick, i.e. in 10^17 s, our solar system's 10^57 atoms would undergo ~ 10^87 "chemical time" states, about as fast as anything involving atoms could happen. That is 1 in 10^63 of 10^150. So, let's do an illustrative haystack calculation: Let us take a straw as weighing about a gram and having comparable density to water, so that a haystack weighing 10^63 g [= 10^57 tonnes] would take up as many cubic metres. The stack, assuming a cubical shape, would be 10^19 m across. Now, 1 light year = 9.46 * 10^15 m, or about 1/1,000 of that distance across. If we were to superpose such a notional 1,000 light years on the side haystack on the zone of space centred on the sun, and leave in all stars, planets, comets, rocks, etc, and take a random sample equal in size to one straw, by absolutely overwhelming odds, we would get straw, not star or planet etc. That is, such a sample would be overwhelmingly likely to reflect the bulk of the distribution, not special, isolated zones in it. xvii: In the case of biology, since 1953 we have known that in the heart of the cell lies the coded information storing molecule DNA. It is worth excerpting the remark made by Sir Francis Crick, one of the discoverers, to his son Michael in a March 19, 1953 letter: "Now we believe that the DNA is a code. That is, the order of bases (the letters) makes one gene different from another gene (just as one page of print is different from another)." [[Emphases added. From about 1961 on, that code has been identified, and is now routinely used in scientific work.] xviii: So, whether we are interested in the origin of life as Dr Eigen was, or in the origin/evolution of new complex structures requiring the equivalent of 500 or more bits of information, we need to look at the CSI information generating hurdle. xix: Later on (2005), Dembski provided a slightly more complex formula, that we can quote and simplify, showing that it boils down to a "bits from a zone of interest [[in a wider field of possibilities] beyond a reasonable threshold of complexity" metric: ? = – log2[10^120 ·?S(T)·P(T|H)]. --> ? is "chi" and ? is "phi" xx: To simplify and build a more "practical" mathematical model, we note that information theory researchers Shannon and Hartley showed us how to measure information by changing probability into a log measure that allows pieces of information to add up naturally: Ip = - log p, in bits if the base is 2. That is where the now familiar unit, the bit, comes from. Where we may observe from say -- as just one of many examples of a standard result -- Principles of Comm Systems, 2nd edn, Taub and Schilling (McGraw Hill, 1986), p. 512, Sect. 13.2: Let us consider a communication system in which the allowable messages are m1, m2, . . ., with probabilities of occurrence p1, p2, . . . . Of course p1 + p2 + . . . = 1. Let the transmitter select message mk of probability pk; let us further assume that the receiver has correctly identified the message [[--> My nb: i.e. the a posteriori probability in my online discussion here is 1]. Then we shall say, by way of definition of the term information, that the system has communicated an amount of information Ik given by I_k = (def) log_2 1/p_k (13.2-1) xxi: So, since 10^120 ~ 2^398, we may "boil down" the Dembski metric using some algebra -- i.e. substituting and simplifying the three terms in order -- as log(p*q*r) = log(p) + log(q ) + log(r) and log(1/p) = – log (p): Chi = – log2(2^398 * D2 * p), in bits, and where also D2 = ?S(T) Chi = Ip – (398 + K2), where now: log2 (D2 ) = K2 That is, 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. The metric may be directly applied to biological cases: 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. >> _______________ Over the years the pretzel-twisting on this by Darwinist objectors has been a sight to behold, and underscores just how telling the above is. but then, that is just a part of the wider pretzel twisting being played tot he point where objectors seem willing to do anything but simply address the challenge of fairly representing what Design thinkers have repeatedly publicly argued for years. KFkairosfocus_{February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
1- T is a pattern.
It is the pattern AND the event
2- S(T ) is defined on page 17 (not 25). It is the number of patterns which are at least as simple as T where “simple” means highly compressible e.g. a string of heads.
WRT the BF it is on page 25- Mark was asking wrt the BF. He can't even follow his own quiz. LoL! And all my other answers were right, too. So I got it all right, not partly.Joe_{February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT}

I am particularly conscious of how many ID people are not aware of the answers to 1 through 3.
I actually was well versed in the paper 8 years ago, but concluded the procedures for design inference were too unwieldy and unnecessarily difficult. I abandoned CSI V2 (as I called it). I liked CSI V1 better! And I like the notion of "specified improbability" (a term Bill is using now himself) even better! You can see how I framed less general specialized cases in far simpler and accessible math. I tried to draw on literature that is more familiar, not "ID" literature. And the methods I outline have the pedagogical quality of showing degree of rejection (standard deviations from expectation), than just outright rejection. The formalisms are backed up by intuition and simpler math. One can demonstrate "not law, not chance" with far simpler math, imho for select simple cases, and I suspect on more challenging ones (I'm working on it). In general, I don't take too much offense to your criticisms, I find them valuable and only occasionally will I express my frustration when I feel a criticism is unfair. When I said, "I fail" it was more an expression of "I give up trying to do inferences this way, it's like using a sledge hammer to kill a fly that's resting on your head." What Bill tried to do in his paper was eliminate the post-diction argument by referring to the limited number of ways elementary concepts can be combined to form specifications. I don't think one has to make a generalized method to handle every case in order to make compelling design inferences. That said, RA Herrmann seems to be constructing an alternate proof of how to create specifications. But his writings on ID are incomprehensible to me, but I can sense he is exploring the same body of ideas with a different approach. But if I can ever figure it out, it may be the way to describe specifications for deeply integrated systems. That's something I'm searching for since my current examples only deal with trivial specifications like homochirality, not algorithmically complex structures.scordova_{February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT}

Null: 7 and 8 are closely connected, and as I recall, questions were raised above, early in the thread, on both. KFkairosfocus_{February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT}

TVH: Pardon, you are again conflating evolutionary materialists -- especially those of the new/gnu atheists stripe -- with atheism. Such are only one of many types of atheists across time and today. As I pointed out, idealism is an historically important, different variety of worldview that has had atheistical adherents. And, in reporting atheists who pray, I am simply reporting and briefly commenting on a survey result. That is why I have been inclined to point out that atheism and design theory are not utterly incompatible, though obviously evolutionary materialism and design are. In that discussion, I have pointed to a Nobel Equivalent Prize winning astrophysicist and agnostic/atheist, who is actually a pioneer of modern design thought (especially on the cosmological side, but he made significant suggestions on life forms too), Sir Fred Hoyle. Let me clip:
Once we see that life is cosmic it is sensible to suppose that intelligence is cosmic. Now problems of order, such as the sequences of amino acids in the chains which constitute the enzymes and other proteins, are precisely the problems that become easy once a directed intelligence enters the picture, as was recognised long ago by James Clerk Maxwell in his invention of what is known in physics as the Maxwell demon. The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare’s plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true.” [[Evolution from Space (The Omni Lecture[ --> Jan 12th 1982]), Enslow Publishers, 1982, pg. 28.]
This strongly suggests some sort of intelligence built into the cosmos, at least as a possibility. And this particular case may well have contributed to the name attaching to design theory. Likewise, we have from his pen:
From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? . . . I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has "monkeyed" with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. [F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16.Cited, Bradley, in "Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe". Emphasis added.]
As well as, in the same talk at Caltech c. 1981:
The big problem in biology, as I see it, is to understand the origin of the information carried by the explicit structures of biomolecules. The issue isn't so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties, which other orderings wouldn't give. The case of the enzymes is well known . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrange-ments that would be useless in serving the pur-poses of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link,it's easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be? This is, as I see it, the biological problem - the information problem . . . . I was constantly plagued by the thought that the number of ways in which even a single enzyme could be wrongly constructed was greater than the number of all the atoms in the universe. So try as I would, I couldn't convince myself that even the whole universe would be sufficient to find life by random processes - by what are called the blind forces of nature . . . . By far the simplest way to arrive at the correct sequences of amino acids in the enzymes would be by thought, not by random processes . . . . Now imagine yourself as a superintellect working through possibilities in polymer chemistry. Would you not be astonished that polymers based on the carbon atom turned out in your calculations to have the remarkable properties of the enzymes and other biomolecules? Would you not be bowled over in surprise to find that a living cell was a feasible construct? Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use: Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix.
He also noted at the same time:
I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. [["The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12]
Remember, this is a lifelong agnostic/atheist, who was an eminent astrophysicist (he gave the name "Big Bang" to the theory, with which he disagreed for many years) and independent minded thinker on many dimensions. I hope this helps you. KFkairosfocus_{February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT}

Sal #157 Joe has it partly right. 1- T is a pattern. 2- S(T ) is defined on page 17 (not 25). It is the number of patterns which are at least as simple as T where “simple” means highly compressible e.g. a string of heads. 3- Dembski does this for life forms by considering the minimum number of signs (roughly speaking words) that can be used to describe patterns. So you count the number of patterns that can be described in fewer words than T and that is S(T ) 4- H is a chance hypothesis. 5- This varies but typically relies on assuming some kind of uniform probability distribution and applying Bernoulli’s principle of indifference. 6- Joe Felsenstein has pointed out to me that Dembski may not have intended this to be a probability at all but an expected number of hits on the target. So I withdraw this question. I am particularly conscious of how many ID people are not aware of the answers to 1 through 3.Mark Frank_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT}

Scordova, I think the only people who got any answers 'wrong' were the people I directly replied to and said as much. You were entirely correct I think.nullasalus_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

Null, Can you tell us who passed the test? Did I pass? Salscordova_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

to Joe #172 : Thanks, but no more research. I referenced for you the ultimate authority on ID, Dr. Meyer. Ask him.tvarhegyi_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

OK then please find the definition of atheism that disallows for an Intelligent Designer that is not a deity.Joe_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

kf,
Looks like 7 & 8 are problematic for many. I think the discussion somehow should emphasise the world of life, as cosmological ID moves in a different circl. KF
I think 8 is only confusing most people in terms of clarity. There's no real controversy over 7, is there?nullasalus_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

To joe #165, kairosfocus #167 Quoting from the webpage : http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/10/is-the-new-atheism-any-different-from-old-atheism/ Several other Google hits confirm its assessment “What’s new about New Atheism? No, not substantive arguments for disbelief, which are as perennial as the case for God. Rather, a tactical lurch toward emotion-laden partisanship and take-no-prisoners rhetoric that might make a Fundamentalist blush. Such tactics win visibility and sales, much like what we get in current U.S. politics and political media. Wolf said the new approach demands uncompromising hostility by folks like himself, “we lax agnostics, we noncommittal non-believers, we vague deists.” The New Atheists insist that such fence-sitters must arise to ”help exorcise this debilitating curse: the curse of faith… They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it’s evil.” Thus all religions must be ridiculed, believers scorned as naive or stupid, and even trivial acknowledgments of religious heritage extirpated from public life. Some proponents even think parents should no longer be permitted to raise children in their faith. (It’s unclear whether government should enforce this by law or whether in fairness atheists should likewise be forbidden to press their skepticism upon offspring.) “ To joe #165 : According to this reference there is no difference between the philosophy of atheism and New Atheism. Where they differ is tactics…looks like they declared an all-out war. To kairosfocus #167 : If you keep it up pretty soon you will enroll all atheists in Sunday school. I suppose that there are atheists who pray, and what they probably pray for is that all ID proponents go to hell. I now know that I will never convince either of you since you move the goalpost as you see it fit. For the record I will take the definition of atheism as Dr. Meyer uses it and leave the new, old, praying, idealist, pantheist materialists to you. ID was, is and will always be incompatible with all of them. I am sure you already knew that.tvarhegyi_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

OOPS, idealist atheism. KFkairosfocus_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

Null, maybe, we can tinker here then? Looks like 7 & 8 are problematic for many. I think the discussion somehow should emphasise the world of life, as cosmological ID moves in a different circl. KFkairosfocus_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

TVH, Joe is right. Some species of atheism are not materialist. An idealist materialism can envision our world as a manifestation of immanent intelligence in the cosmos. Others tend to talk about simulations or even super scientist-tinkerers. Indeed, that may just be -- I am guessing -- what Hoyle was fishing for; he was famously atheistical/agnostic. And yes, surveys show praying atheists, though maybe that shades off at one end of the spectrum into something like pantheism. I am not saying it all hangs together particularly well, just that it exists on the ground. KFkairosfocus_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

KF,
Null: Pardon, but this thread has been pulled way off track by repeated tangents. The focal issue is back in the original post, and it is highly illuminating that it seems that by and large Darwinist objectors to ID are studiously ignoring a very simple request: show, by filling out a short quiz, that you can accurately and fairly describe the basic case on the merits made by design thinkers. KF
Thank you, I needed this. You know I see this sort of thing happen so many times on UD and I always gripe about it - 'Great the whole conversation is about TSZ again' - and here I get sandbagged into it. Lesson learned, it won't need repeating. I'm going to tweak this list - that was the point of this post, after all - and we'll have this discussion again. And the next time, there will be no TSZ talk, because I'll moderate anyone who tries to bring them up or have a conversation with whatever crazy parallel thread they put up in a desperate vying for attention.nullasalus_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

tvar- If the NEW atheism is built on top of materialism, then it is not compatible with ID. However the question pertained to atheism, the one not built on top of materialism.Joe_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

To Joe #85, William J. Murray #86, nullasalus #79, kairosfocus #139 Re: My answer of NO to Quiz question #5 which is : 5. Is Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents, compatible with atheism? Well, maybe you will take Dr. Meyer’s word for it, who you might agree is ID’s most noteworthy proponent : But unlike strict Darwinian materialism and the New Atheism built atop it, the theory of intelligent design affirms the reality of a designer— a mind or personal intelligence behind life. This case for design restores to Western thought the possibility that human life in particular may have a purpose or significance beyond temporary material utility. It suggests the possibility that life may have been designed by an intelligent person, indeed, one that many would identify as God. Meyer, Stephen C. (2013-06-18). Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (Kindle Locations 7667-7671). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition. Nor does the theory of intelligent design merely assert the existence of a creative intelligence behind life. It identifies and detects activity of the designer of life, and does so at different points in the history of life, including the explosive show of creativity on display in the Cambrian event. The ability to detect design makes belief in an intelligent designer (or a creator, or God) not only a tenet of faith, but something to which the evidence of nature now bears witness. In short, it brings science and faith into real harmony. Meyer, Stephen C. (2013-06-18). Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (Kindle Locations 7673-7676). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition. Just as importantly, perhaps, the case for design supports us in our existential confrontation with the void and the seeming meaninglessness of physical existence— the sense of survival for survival’s sake that follows inexorably from the materialist worldview. Richard Dawkins and other New Atheists may find it untroubling, even amusing and certainly profitable, to muse over the prospect of a universe without purpose. But for the vast majority of thoughtful people, that idea is tinged with terror. Modern life suspends many of us, so we feel, high over a chasm of despair. It provokes feelings of dizzying anxiety— in a word, vertigo. The evidence of a purposeful design behind life, on the other hand, offers the prospect of significance, wholeness, and hope. Meyer, Stephen C. (2013-06-18). Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (Kindle Locations 7677-7682). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.tvarhegyi_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

Phinehas, you are precisely correct. The issue has always pivoted on the IS-OUGHT gap of any worldview that has in it no foundational IS capable of properly grounding OUGHT. KFkairosfocus_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply