Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Anti TRIZ-Journal — Taking up my challenge??

William Dembski
October 3, 2005
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The October issue of the WEB-ZINE “Anti TRIZ-journal” has been posted at http://www3.sympatico.ca/karasik. The issue is mostly devoted to the patterns of technological evolution as well as to Mr. Dembski’s challenge.

Actually, you’ll do better to see my challenge met by looking at the comments/contest entries under https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/341.

Comments
wmmalo "ID proposes ‘greater intelligence’ is responsible for the natural features and functions of life by evidence of organization and complexity. Am I close?" Not really. ID proposes that some structures found in living things exhibit specified complexity and that specified complexity can only come to exist through intelligent agency. The nature of the intelligent agency isn't really knowable from the evidence. No violation of physical laws are postulated. "Greater intelligence" isn't presumed. A mousetrap is irreducibly complex and exhibits specified complexity. Did it take a "greater intelligence" to create a mousetrap? Nope. Not sure who invented it but am pretty sure it wasn't God. :-) I've put forward the possibility that the "intelligent agency" is a biologic computer of some sort integrated into cells. Quantum computers ostensibly powerful enough to predict protein folding can be constructed by a miniscule number of quantum logic elements. Should be no problem embedding one in something even as small as a bacteria. Would that be a greater intelligence? Nope. But it would explain how irreducibly complex proteins carved into interconnecting shapes like pieces of a 3D jigsaw puzzle, so complex it would make the faces on Mt. Rushmore blush, get designed.DaveScot
October 8, 2005
October
10
Oct
8
08
2005
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
one pathetic little species? put it how you want it, no reasonable person can claim that man is just another pathetic species. that's a view that is beyond narrow minded. with that sort of attitude- why save a person when you can save the cat drowing in the same river? why give a higher level of protection to man than any other "animal"? why work to make anything better? no other "animals" work to make anything better- its all about survival. not so with man. why save a life at all or work to cure disease when it's just a battle to survive and there's absolutely no purpose in any of it? nothing in life makes sense outside of a purpose for life. saving someone's life, looking to cure disease, doctors working on the sick, trying to bring peace between people who are at war...none of that makes any sense with a view that life is just a battle to survive, that any god that exists has no care for man (no more than any other "species"). if it's all pointless and purposeless- why not spend all our time in chaos just doing what makes us feel good and to hell with everyone and everything else?jboze3131
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
"ID doesn’t become a universal theory. It becomes one of many mechanisms that explain what we observe." ID proposes 'greater intelligence' is responsible for the natural features and functions of life by evidence of organization and complexity. Am I close? What if I am convinced of ‘design’ in nature? Would that mean I would then consider who or what designed this universe and beyond? Do I then conclude this ‘intelligent designer’ was an omniscient, omnipotent, awesome, benevolent fatherly archetype? Would all that be clear? Is it ‘back to the Book’? Explaining the complex experience we call ‘life’ shall forever remain beyond the intellectual capacity of man. The notion that the architect, creator, designer, deity or divinity, however simplistically tagged, would be concerned with one pathetic little species, mankind specifically, is grandiose.wmmalo
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
"Assuming ID we’re to be accepted as scientific fact, and therefore become the universal theory explaining the organization of energy, matter and more critically their origin, what comes next?" Non sequitur. ID doesn't become a universal theory. It becomes one of many mechanisms that explain what we observe.DaveScot
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
again, silly thinking. As no details of the designer are postited, and no methods, and no workshop, you are at a dead end. Imagine, an insect comes across a computer, eventually it discerns design in the object, does that mean it can design transistors, or use the principles. if the designer is god (and lets have no kidding here, it's what IDist mean), then you require supernatural powers to carry out similar manipulations. the analogy of design in nature doesnt need this. it emerges due to natural processes, determinsitic chemical processes (albeit complex ones). It does no good to use transistors, they were invented and their use re-utilised using natural processes, and methological natrualism. IDists would exchange magic circles, sacrificial virgins and the invocation of fouls gods to replace this. And you could never guess it would work, because it would be magic.2perfection
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
It's language. Communication is a linguistic system of sharing information that has evolved from smoke to ones or zeroes. Language is the "crowning glory" for this species. The words have been arranged and rearranged throughout the history of civilization, with either dignity or disgace, and "idle-mindedness" now permeates our universe. Is anyone listening?wmmalo
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT
I weren't so lazy I'd write an essay on the evolution of semiconductors. Beginning 60 or so years ago with a simple transister used to amplify an electrical signal they've evolved into devices that detect light, detect sound, transmit radio signals, generate normal light, generate laser light, cook food, read laser discs, guide satellites, regulate the operation of automotive engines, send comments to blogs, perform logic operations, etc. etc. etc. and etc.DaveScot
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
"as soon as one uncovers a designing intelligence" My questions are based on the assumption that Intelligent Design is accepted theory, "the" theory of "everything". With this validity, what would be the next hypothesis? Where would the 'research' be directed? What are some of the possible questions one would ask about cause and purpos? There must be a 'next' step, or this 'science' is dead-ended.wmmalo
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
“Design is not merely an argument but also a scientific theory. Specified complexity in particular provides an information-theoretic apparatus for understanding the design features of the physical world. Whereas the work of a design argument is done as soon as one uncovers a designing intelligence, this is only the start for a theory of intelligent design. To analyze the information in a design structure, to trace its causal history, to determine its function and to ascertain how it could have been constructed are just a few of the questions that a theory of intelligent design addresses."Gumpngreen
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
The benefit of such a 'universal theory'would be? If it can't explain "all of the organization of energy and matter", where does it fall short? Design, help me here, does imply planning, intention, vision, prescience, some original invention and implementation, or does it? What design theory explain? Life, as we know and experience is an orchestrated, step by step progression to where? from where? most mportantly, why?wmmalo
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
"therefore become the universal theory explaining the organization of energy, matter and more critically their origin" I can't see how ID touches on origins, and I'm pretty sure it does not. Also, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't explain all of the organization of energy and matter. That sounds like a TOE/M-theory.Ben Z
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT
I have a question. It is off topic and I apologize for that. Inteligent Design is being tauted as scientific theory sans religious underpinnings. Assuming ID we're to be accepted as scientific fact, and therefore become the universal theory explaining the organization of energy, matter and more critically their origin, what comes next? Wm Malowmmalo
October 3, 2005
October
10
Oct
3
03
2005
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply