[Update:] Beliefnet Re-Re-Titles My Piece on President Bush

_{William Dembski

August 5, 2005

Intelligent Design}

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

At my prompting, Beliefnet has now reverted to the original title (go here).

[Earlier I had written:] After President Bush’s recently stated public support for teaching intelligent design, an editor at Beliefnet asked me to respond to it. Moreover, she asked me to clarify where I stand on creationism. I responded with a brief essay that appears on my designinference.com website (go here). I titled that essay “Why President Bush Got It Right about Intelligent Design.” That essay has now appeared on Beliefnet, where it was re-titled — without my knowledge or permission — “Intelligent Design, Yes; Creationism, No” (go here). This new title is contentious and misleading. My target in this essay is Darwinian materialism. I discuss creationism in this essay to clarify how my understanding of intelligent design differs from it.

Comments

Dave, First, I'm not struggling to find his crendentials. If he has published material in the peer-reviewed articles and is invited to scientific conferences (more than what any ID theorist and yourself has ever accomplished) then it is sufficient to say that he is credible. He may not be correct, but that is a different story. Secondly, I never said that biologists did not think that algorithms were a part of the organism. However, I question this idea and so do others. It is naive science to think that algorithms are a FACT and can NEVER be questioned. So your little phrase of "game, set, match" seems to indicate that science will not discover something new to unravel that idea. You are basically stating a religious doctrine, not a scientific one. Thirdly, you once again fail to comprehend what the author states (which probably stems from reading past a few words as you eshibited with Dembski). Swenson adds on after his HEADING: "But Evolution is Not an Algorithmic Process." He goes on to show that Dennett (and the papers that you provided) have not SHOWN "...won't any of these processes BE an algorithm?" not "can any of these processes BE CONSIDERED as and algorithm" (64). The paper by Schimmel does not SHOW that the processes are algorithms, but assumes them from the beginning. You failed to show what I asked for. I wanted a paper that conducts an experiment that shows the fact of algorithms. I wanted a paper that shows the cells translating, proofreading, editing, etc. We do not even know how the mind does this, and so it sounds premature to even consider these facts. So try again. Fourthly, considering the idea that the human organism is an information-processing machine, this has been attacked violently in the field, which shows your inadequate familiarity with the field and shows the absurdity with your "extensive" knowledge. Many neurologists, suc as Walter Freeman, have questioned the idea that we are information-processing machines. So have biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco J. Varela. These theorists have provided experiments and books that show that information can not be processed since information is an emergent property of both the organism and the environment. This corresponds to the idea that the environment co-evolves with the organism. For Freeman, here is his website with numerous articles and excerpts from his books: http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/ (see especially section IC: Postulating, Then Rejecting Neural Representations. As for Maturana and Varela, their book "Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living" gie an interesting analogy. First, they state, "The genetic and nervous systems are said to code infoirmation about the environment and to represent it in their functional organization. This is untenable; the genetic and nervous systems code processes that specify series of transformations from initial states, which can be decoded only through their actual implementation, not DESCRIPTIONS that the observer makes of an environment which lies exclusively in HIS cognitive domain" (53). To illustrate this point they state that we suppose there are two groups of construction workers. One group is given a plan to a house and know it is a house with instructions to build it where they follow a leader. The second group has no leader and a book that has no end-product instructions, but only shows if they are in this place they should perform this move. They state that the instructions in the first group code a house described in a cognitive domain, whereas the second group does not code a house but processes. However, following the ecological approach to information founded by James J. Gibson we can eliminate the idea of a code and show that processes are natural laws in the sense where the processes of the cells pick up information in the environment that are dictating by laws, not rules. The difference between laws and rules is that laws cannot be broken, but rules (such as Dembski's idea of chess) can be broken even though I may be called a cheater. For Gibson, look at his book "Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems" and his book book that describes information more deeply "The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception". Also, check out this website: http://www.huwi.org/cgi-bin/gibson_search/fmsearch.cgi (this shows his ideas against information-processing); http://huwi.org/gibson/toc.php (this is the overview of his lectures). Hence, we can see what Swenson meant about algorithms. He means that algorithms are part of cultural evolution, such as the algorithms that we use in mathematics. Here, we have sufficient evidence to say that algorithms exist in this realm, but to say that unconscious entities are able to compute math is absolutely ridiculous and is rooted in a Plantonic realm of mathematics. Again, show me the historical root where algorithms first came into play (which is what I asked for in the first place) or where a contemporary thinker gives a proof that shows algorithms working in cells. Citing authors that assume it in the first place proves one thing: you do not know why the field accepts these terms, which results in your inability to critique the ideas at all. You keep exhibiting religious methodology of dogma where you can't explain anything, but accept everything because it was written down even if you haven't read a proof of it. By the way, I will email Schimmel and see if he can answer these questions better than you can, which I am sure that he can.sartre_{August 14, 2005
August
08
Aug
14
14
2005
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

Where the rubber meets the road (commercial application): "In the conference's opening keynote address, Roy Whitfield, GSB '79, chief executive officer of Incyte Genomics Inc., a genomics information company in Palo Alto, drew strong parallels between the chip industry and the future of biotechnology and between microprocessors and the human genetic code. "The human chromosome is a storage device," Whitfield said. "The genetic code is an algorithm. The human body is an information-processing system." http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/services/news/2000healthcareconf.htmlDaveScot_{August 14, 2005
August
08
Aug
14
14
2005
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

http://www.scripps.edu/news/sr/sr2004/mb04schimmel.html "Genetic Code Components in Translation and Cell Biology" By Paul R. Schimmel, Ph.D. Ernest and Jean Hahn Professor of Molecular Biology and Chemistry The Scripps Research Institute "The genetic code is an algorithm that defines how codons, nucleotide triplets, specify amino acids, thus providing the instructions for the synthesis of proteins." Game, set, match. Thanks for playing, Sartre. Next!DaveScot_{August 14, 2005
August
08
Aug
14
14
2005
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Sartre What you're struggling to say is you can't find Swenson's credentials either. So when Swenson says this in big bold letters: "Algorithmic Processes Have Been Produced By Evolution" http://dennett.philosophyofscience.net/dennett17.html which part of that don't you understand?DaveScot_{August 14, 2005
August
08
Aug
14
14
2005
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

And to just add one more thing. Swenson was invited to speak at ISGSR and then ISSS (which is the same as ISGSR, but they changed the name). Also, he wrote a paper for the anthology of "Evolutionary Systems" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0792352602/qid=1124039357/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl14/103-1167565-8158256?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 . I hardly doubt that he would be asked to attend or write for these if he had no crendential. You simply assumed that he had none WITHOUT reading his work, which IS an ad hominem attack. You seriously need to take a look at yourself and realize that you have no authority to judge others in the field where YOU HAVEN'T written anything in the field nor have the ability/crendentials to do so. Nobody is impressed with you teaching yourself since, if you are the teacher, it is easily seen based on your comprehension and explanatory ability that you obviously have learned much. Again, not ad hominem, but it is based on your writings on here. It is funny how people throw that fallacy out there when they are shown that they have no stature in the field in order to save some dignity. Sorry, it won't work here. You haven't shown any knowledge in the field and everytime you fall back on the creationist tactics of not backing anything up you are simply proving your lack of knowledge. But perhaps this is why you haven't shown me what you know. It is hard to do so when you know nothing, no matter how much Dell pays you. I still crack up when I think about and read that, since you think that is an adequate argument. WOW.sartre_{August 14, 2005
August
08
Aug
14
14
2005
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Dave, Actually, you BEGAN with such attacks. You called me and Swenson cranks without reading his stance and even trying to grasp what I was saying; you basically said I was stupid; you called me a liar, which I am guessing this comes from my comments about Dembski's work and I showed that I was correct. And you saying that I was a liar came from the fact that you don't even read most of his work and with you relying on telepathy. Real scientific. Your arguments never had any merit scientifically since you wouldn't even take the time to read the otherside of the issue. That is not science (for some reason, you think science never changes considering algorithms, but yet you want science to change considering ID, nice contradiction). However, my comments are warranted since your logic is poor, you do not know how science works and you pretend that you do without any background in the field whatsoever, and you are egotistical for telling people how smart you think you are (without actually proving so) and telling us how much you make, which, again, I am skeptical about because you have shown no sign for having any type of intelligence. Again, it is based on your writing where I am attacking. Ad hominem attacks are a result of not critiquing so someone's arguments. Once again, you do not show any comprehension of what logic is. Also, you still fail to provide ANY articles that back you up. I did provide citations for my arguments. How can someone with such lack of knowledge about science, such as yourself, call me ignorant when you cannot back anything up? And, for the record, I just showed that Dembski agreed with me, and you are calling me ignorant. The funny thing is, you're a supported of ID and I am not, and I knew more about it than you did. And you truly think that you do not have to read the material to understand it. That is truly idiotic (once again, not ad hominem, but simply using your methodology against you). You have so much to learn about how science works. But, I am pretty sure that you won't take the time since, you seem up there in age and you are still using this methodology that I do not doubt that you have used in all of your years. Let me put it to you this way. You think that algorithms are a pure fact in biology. However, many biologists feel that natural selection can explain everything in biology without falling back on a creator and they feel that they have sufficient evidence for that claim. What is the difference between my rejection of algorithms (which is simply a conceptual problem) and your rejection of NS? And do not answer by saying how smart you are because that is has been shown to be ridiculous, even though you don't see it that way, which shows how unable you are to see absurd thinking because you can't even detect it in yourself. Thank "God" you are not in a high authoritative place dictating our educational system or we would be in trouble. By the way, I am still waiting for that article and any sign of your knowledge in any field in the sciences. I have a feeling that I will be waiting for the rest of my life.sartre_{August 14, 2005
August
08
Aug
14
14
2005
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Sartre I see I've reduced you to nothing but ad hominem outbursts. That's actually an improvement over the gross ignorance that preceded it. Thanks again for playing.DaveScot_{August 14, 2005
August
08
Aug
14
14
2005
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

In a recent email that I wrote to Dembski: "Bill, I do not know if you have been following the thread that Dave and I have been having. But I was just wondering if I am misreading you about the flagellum being able to be described by CSI. When you write, "I want to therefore in this section to show how irreducible complexity is a SPECIAL CASE of specified complexity, and in particular I want to sketch how one calculates the relevant probabilities needed to eliminate chance and infer design for such systemsÃ¢â‚¬Â (289). The latter part, I think, clearly shows that you want to move from specified complexity to CSI. Am I wrong here? If so, how? Thanks." He replied: "They're the same notions. --Bill" So there you have it. Dembski, once again, states that the flagellum can be described by CSI. Now, this is a different conclusion that he came up with than you. In order to understand someone's work, you have to at least attempt to read the material more carefully. By simply reading the conclusions is surely not a sign of a "great mind" that you claim to have, despite how much money Dell pays you (which I'm a little skeptical that you are telling the truth due to the fact that you are misleading in your statements).sartre_{August 13, 2005
August
08
Aug
13
13
2005
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT}

Dave, Let me get this straight. You say that biologists have no TRAINING in design, but, being an autodidact, you are claiming no TRAINING. Also, you asked for Swenson's credentials all the mean while you admitted that you have no scholarly training in biology. I sense a little bit of hypocrisy here. I guess being an autodidact seems appropriate for you since your understanding is limited and you only have yourself to blame. Without working in the scientific labs, you do not know how science works. Reading the articles and books (which you have failed to prove AT ALL) are irrelevant if you have not DONE science. Quit pretending that you understand that which you don't. You still have failed to cite any material that you have read that proves algorithms. By that measure you will not win any argument with me or the scientific community. If you have, as you stated, millions and millions of dollars, then why don't you donate money for ID research? Why, if your knowledge is extensive, write articles to open up the eyes of the biologists. For the most part, you have yet shown that you have any significant knowledge in any area. You can strut around, pounding your chest, and scream at the top of your lungs that you have superior knowledge, but until you produce results all you are spewing is pure garbage. And for the last time, human machines and natural organisms are not similar. I have provided preliminary reasons why they are different. Quit TELLING me how much you know and SHOW me how much you do in fact know. That is how you win arguments. Nobody cares how much you THINK you know. You sound like the town drunk saying if his dad didn't give him a drink at a young age he would be a millionaire because he really is brilliant. Snap out of it you egotistical fool. Do science or shut up. It is that simple.sartre_{August 13, 2005
August
08
Aug
13
13
2005
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

Sartre Biologists have no training in engineering. How can they recognize design? You aren't going to win this argument. I'm an autodidact. My knowledge of biology is extensive as is my knowledge of computers and machinery of all kinds.DaveScot_{August 13, 2005
August
08
Aug
13
13
2005
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

Dave, Once again, you have failed to understand. I said that your computer skills are NOT compatible to biology. You are in fact committing the error of "False Analogy". What you accomplish in computers has nothing to do with biology. In fact, this proves two things. One, you are showing how absurd your thinking is by stating that your knowledge in computers is significant for biology. Secondly, you are ignorant of this fact altogether. You deny your absurdity by making an absurd comment. Does it ever end? For some reason, you are on one huge ego trip. You consider yourself a great mind and you tout how much money you make that is outside of the discipline that you claim to have knowledge about. As I said, my brother works for Microsoft and has published books, and thus very successful in COMPUTERS. However, this success does not carry over to the sciences. This is an old CREATIONIST argument. You have knowledge in ONE area and then stick your flag in the ground to claim knowledge in ALL areas. And yes, you are exhibiting absurd thinking in your "explanations" of biology. You make unwarranted assumptions, break the rules of logic, you fail to use ANY citations whatsoever, you attack people's character without even giving any consideration to their work, and you say that you know Dembski's work because you both "have great minds", even though I showed that what you thought you knew about his work is false by, hold onto your hat, citing his own work. Your methodology would be rejected in the sciences, and not because of the lame excuse of a conspiracy theory. It is because your scientific methodology is extremely poor. This has nothing to do with how well you do in computers. If you are able to program a computer great. But that logic has NOTHING to do with science and you should wake up and realize that. And you continued this absurd logic by your above comment that you think that you have expertise in biology where you have none. So, I have a little task for you. Present a paper of a PEER-REVIEWED article that conducts an experiment and from that experiment conclusively affirms algorithms. It does not have to be on-line since I can request it at my library and they will send it to me if they do not have the bounded journal in the library. It is that simple.sartre_{August 13, 2005
August
08
Aug
13
13
2005
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

Sartre I'm truly absurd? LOL! Dell Computer Corporation paid me millions of dollars for my absurd thinking. The U.S. patent office doesn't think it's so absurd either. ;-) Thanks for playing.DaveScot_{August 13, 2005
August
08
Aug
13
13
2005
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

"I independently arrived at most of DembskiÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s conclusions without reading his work. You know the expression Ã¢â‚¬Å“great minds think alikeÃ¢â‚¬Â? Since you have no way of knowing let me assure you now that the expression is true." Dave, you are truly absurd. This is your scientific basis? You assume your intellectual based on what? All that I have seen is poor logic, no citation, and unwarranted assumptions wrapped in the first two noted above. Anyway, obviously you don't think alike since I provided an example of Dembski's work that goes against what you said. It is hard to put into words how ridiculous you really how. I gave a quote of Dembski's showing that you were wrong, but you say that you were right. And you call other people cranks? Unbelievable. "Will you leave and never come back if I provide my design engineering credentials?" Haha, no. But since design engineering is not actual science, but an application of science (physicists have long stated that engineers are not science), it would not matter to me. I am not saying that engineering is NOT important, but it is false to call it science. Anyway, even if I am wrong, Swenson has published articles in "systems" journals and gave "systems" speeches at conferences which add onto the ideas of engineering. So, what IS important to me is if you have published anything. Or is the conspiracy after you as well? "No kidding. DNA and ribosomes working together to translate the information in genes into functional proteins is a prime example." Again, you provided no back-up for this. This is why ID is not accepted in journals. Not because of some insane conspiracy, but because most of the work is not backed up. You are presupposing that DNA and ribosomes are some intellectual creature that can "translate" information. What is the evidence that SHOWS DNA and ribosomes DOING a translation? It is a misguided interpretation. As Swenson states, DNA has long been found to be a dead molecule. How can something dead (intellectual or not) translate something? You provided NOTHING. "Do you have a link to SwensonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s credentials? I couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t find any." I cannot find a link, no, but I do not think that that is necessary since he has published papers in various fields and the conferences that he is asked to participate in. I know that he has worked with individuals who have degrees in physics, so I am pretty sure that they wouldn't want someone unqualified working with them. Published material in fields of experts is adequate enough. If the reviewers find that that article's information has no merit, they will reject the article. But they didn't. So it has credibility. Actually, this is ironic. Any of Swenson's papers or anybody elses (my psychology professor had an article rejected several times) that gets rejected, they do not call into question the intentions of the reviewers. Maybe it's because REAL scientists understand the process and it is only pseudo-scientists that try to make themselves into a victim. "By the way, you keep changing the subject away from DNA/ribosome to talk about whole organisms. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m looking at one well defined sub-cellular bit of machinery that manufactures proteins according to stored instructions. Try to focus." Ok, lets recap. First, there is plenty of research that shows that the sub-celluar activities in organisms cannot be studied outside of the organism as a whole (which is why I reject Behe's IC). This is why system dynamical theories suggest. The whole organism works together where one cannot distinguish between the parts because they are all inter-related and emergent. It's not that I was jumping around, but denying your reductionist approach to organisms. Secondly, you are already presupposing an intellectual activity by saying that the cells manufacture proteins and that they are machinery (and I'm guessing you are suggesting that they are machinery like human invented machines, which is what I would deny due to the fact that organisms are self-organized and our machines are not). Your assume to much in your ideas to be considered relevant. "The protein factory represented by the combination of DNA and ribosomes is a very early product of (ostensibly) evolution. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s undeniably (except by cranks) algorithmic in its operation. I never claimed that DNA/ribosome evolved by an algorithmic process. What I claimed was that it is, in and of itself, algorithmic in operation. The $64,000 question is how it came into existence. Since all similarly complex Ã¢â‚¬Å“artifactual productionsÃ¢â‚¬Â are the result of intelligent design itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s reasonable to assume that the DNA/ribosome protein factory is no exception. The onus of proof is on the nay-sayer." What you said is the worst logic application I have ever seen. First, Swenson is not replying to you, but to Dennett. I know that you know this but I thought I better be safe. Dennett does claim that DNA evolved by algorithms. Secondly, once again, you fail to provide ANY evidence that shows DNA to be algorithmic. You keep saying that it is "undeniably algorithmic", but you cannot back it up and show the experiments that warrant this interpretation. Your statements remind me of http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ website where they put in bold "objectivity" and scientific evidence in order to amaze us. I mean, whatever is in bold MUST be true, right? For years, people thought that time and space were absolute, then that idea began to slip away. For years, people thought that the Earth was flat. For years, people thought that God was undeniable (and some still do). You cannot predict where science will go. You still do not get it. You think that people who question algorithmic processes in cells are crank, but you think that people who deny evolutionary fundamentals are heroes (which Swenson does by the way). The only difference is, the former actually uses scientific ideas. How do you think that they get their articles published in REAL journals and are invited to REAL conferences? Secondly, our machines are NOT simliar to the cells. Cells are emergent, self-organized,dynamical, circular-causal entities. Our machines are life-less, linear causal, non-emergent, and require OUR intelligence. The former are the defining characteristics of the cell. You provide way too many gaps to be taken seriously, as usual. The idea that they are similar while, at the same time denying their differences, is a huge mistake. So no, it is not resonable because they are complex for DIFFERENT reasons. And there are studies that show that they higher-order processes are emergent activities. ID has yet to understand this process. Think about this. In every instance where a machine has been observed and the origin can be determined the machine was a product of intelligent design. Therefore Ã¢â‚¬Å“machines are the product of intelligent designÃ¢â‚¬Â should be a LAW until an exception is found where the machineÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s origin can be determined to be non-intelligent. The DNA/ribosome protein factory is quite well understood, deterministic, algorithmic, and is in fact a reprogrammable protein manufacturing machine in every sense of the word. Until proven otherwise itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a product of intelligent design like every other machine where the origin has been determined. Again, you overlook the differences. I have never seen our machines self-organize, exhibit emergence, etc. Also, to consider ID as a "law" is ridiculous. A law is something that would happen if the conditions are right. You are bringing a natural explanation into an intellectual agency explanation. ALL scientists state that what you are saying is, as you put it, a crank idea. How would you respond to that? I am pretty sure I know the answer, but I want to see it for myself. Furthermore, the real law is perceptual. You are assuming that the mind has some special quality to it. However, in order to build a house, or a machine, the objects must exhibit certain qualities (known as affordances) to even be perceived to be used as building materials. What are the initial conditions? Some suspect that thermodynamics provide the example for the emergence of life.sartre_{August 13, 2005
August
08
Aug
13
13
2005
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

However, Swenson then puts his foot in his mouth "Like recipes and other rule-based procedures, algorithms, as ordinarily understood and defined, are artifactual productions of cultural systems (human social systems) and thus very lately evolved products of evolution." The protein factory represented by the combination of DNA and ribosomes is a very early product of (ostensibly) evolution. It's undeniably (except by cranks) algorithmic in its operation. I never claimed that DNA/ribosome evolved by an algorithmic process. What I claimed was that it is, in and of itself, algorithmic in operation. The $64,000 question is how it came into existence. Since all similarly complex "artifactual productions" are the result of intelligent design it's reasonable to assume that the DNA/ribosome protein factory is no exception. The onus of proof is on the nay-sayer. Think about this. In every instance where a machine has been observed and the origin can be determined the machine was a product of intelligent design. Therefore "machines are the product of intelligent design" should be a LAW until an exception is found where the machine's origin can be determined to be non-intelligent. The DNA/ribosome protein factory is quite well understood, deterministic, algorithmic, and is in fact a reprogrammable protein manufacturing machine in every sense of the word. Until proven otherwise it's a product of intelligent design like every other machine where the origin has been determined.DaveScot_{August 13, 2005
August
08
Aug
13
13
2005
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

Swenson p.63 "Algorithmic Processes Have Been Produced By Evolution" No kidding. DNA and ribosomes working together to translate the information in genes into functional proteins is a prime example. Got it, Sartre?DaveScot_{August 13, 2005
August
08
Aug
13
13
2005
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

Sartre - do you have a link to Swenson's credentials? I couldn't find any. By the way, you keep changing the subject away from DNA/ribosome to talk about whole organisms. I'm looking at one well defined sub-cellular bit of machinery that manufactures proteins according to stored instructions. Try to focus.DaveScot_{August 13, 2005
August
08
Aug
13
13
2005
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Sartre - will you leave and never come back if I provide my design engineering credentials?DaveScot_{August 13, 2005
August
08
Aug
13
13
2005
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

SaRtre - I independently arrived at most of Dembski's conclusions without reading his work. You know the expression "great minds think alike"? Since you have no way of knowing let me assure you now that the expression is true.DaveScot_{August 13, 2005
August
08
Aug
13
13
2005
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Gump, The rejection of the terminology is not just a few people, but has been accruing for several decades. It is a shifting in thought. Dave's explanation ("I call it Ã¢â‚¬Å“codeÃ¢â‚¬Â because everyone has been calling it code since its discovery 50 years ago.") is not an explanation at all, but is merely an acceptance of such ideas with no critical output. Now, the idea of code presupposes many ideas. One (for the basic idea) is a type of dualism. It supposes that the environment and organism are separated at inception and so, in order to keep a connection, there must be a copy of the environment in the organism. It has been shown that the environment and the organism have evolved together through action (there are several theories of this, but the basic approaches are the ecological approach and the enactive approach, where the latter is founded by biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela). Secondly, it presupposes a type of causality called linear causality. Linear causality are basic if-then logics and presuppose an agency. However, there have been numerous studies that show that biological systems exhibit properties of circular causality. This is typically called self-organinzation and emergence. Demsbki, however, looks for the entity where the emergent emerges from. This is misunderstanding emergence. Emergence theories state that the emergents cannot be reduced to its simpler parts. Also, because of circular causality, there is no local point where the emergent emerges from. It occurs through mass action. Those are just a few examples. Anyway, the relevent pages about DNA are 63-73 (the 1st 2 lines of 73). Again, I do respect you for at least attempting to discuss this.sartre_{August 13, 2005
August
08
Aug
13
13
2005
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

Dave, First, the name is Sartre. Secondly, you have shown signs of being unable to "fisk through" Dembski's work since you did not even know his position of the flagellum. But yet you are a supporter of his work. Very suspicious and interesting. Thirdly, your response is typical by those who have no true arguments against an idea. Now, are you talking about people on this site, or people in general? Swenson has been a part of scientific conferences, scientific anthologies, and peer-reviewed journals. What are your credentials? Also, the people on this site are NON-SCIENTISTS. I am pretty sure that no one on this site has the credentials to say that Swenson is full of it. I know in fact that you do not because of your writing style and how you are unable to critique arguments AT ALL. Your writing is vague and uninformative to have any credibilty at all. And I am pretty sure that the ENTIRE scientific community refers to IDists as cranks for questioning natural causes as explaining all phenonmena. Swenson and others have their ideas published in peer-review journals. No IDist has ever gotten the theory of ID in such a journal. Claiming a conspiracy theory in order to explain why their articles are not published a petty tactic. That is the true sign of a crank; making excuses for why your material isn't accepted.sartre_{August 13, 2005
August
08
Aug
13
13
2005
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

"I call it Ã¢â‚¬Å“codeÃ¢â‚¬Â because everyone has been calling it code since its discovery 50 years ago." Dave, I'm aware of the historical reasons for calling it the "genetic code" (read enough on the subject and how couldn't anyone be?) but irrespective of prior examples I think sartre is arguing that the usage of such terminology is invalid whether DNA is being compared/associated with modern software engineering code or an encryption cypher. And I also do not understand his rejection of commonly used terminology. Sartre, if you could point out the exact page(s) which support your argument I'd appreciate it.Gumpngreen_{August 13, 2005
August
08
Aug
13
13
2005
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Satre - I'm not about to fisk 60 pages of crappola from Swenson. Nobody else has either. That's not because it's irrefutable but because no one thinks it's worth their time. After your refusal to acknowledge that the genetic code is algorithmic I'm writing you off as a crank. Talk to the hand. Or better yet peddle your crap to fellow crank Rod Swenson.DaveScot_{August 12, 2005
August
08
Aug
12
12
2005
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

Dave, But yet you are unable to say what is wrong with his ideas. ID cannot survive if their arguments are based on character attacking rather than attacking the arguments. Swenson is well versed in physics and biology (as is most of the people associated with ecological science since ecological science brings psychology, physics, and biology together). Anyway, you show no evidence of reading the article so I am skeptical that you even took the time to do so. Also, how could I be wrong if I QUOTED Dembski. Dave, you are really making it hard for me to take ID as a serious discipline when you are making comments such as these. Instead of showing WHERE Dembski goes against what I am saying (which is hard because I am using HIS OWN WORDS), you say I am making things up. Without quotes to back it up you have nothing. However, I do understand that, like political bases, you say you opponent is incorrect without any facts and that still gets you somewhere. Now I see why you are scientifically handicapped. Good luck with your rhetoric and reluctance to support ANYTHING that you say. It will get you far on Internet sites. Fortunately, science has higher standards and actually use experimentation to justify their claims.sartre_{August 12, 2005
August
08
Aug
12
12
2005
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Sorry about that ist line in the last paragraph(is there an edit button?). I was just saying that it has been for awhile. Here is another article that speaks of Gaia: http://www.ecologicalpsychology.com/SwenTurv.pdf . And here are books by the co-founder: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/103-1167565-8158256sartre_{August 11, 2005
August
08
Aug
11
11
2005
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

Gump - I call it "code" because everyone has been calling it code since its discovery 50 years ago. Code perhaps means something different today and is connected with computer programming but 50 years ago a code was widely understood to be a cypher and few knew anything even rudimentary about computer architecure. The article in question is http://dennett.philosophyofscience.net/ It's a tedious piece of offal written by some dazed and confused guy named Rod Swenson who was somehow connected to http://ione.psy.uconn.edu/~cespaweb/people.html the University of Connecticut CENTER FOR THE ECOLOGICAL STUDY OF PERCEPTION AND ACTION. Whatever his former connection he's not there anymore. I was, to say the least, less than impressed with his writing. Once again Satre is wrong and is simply making things up out of thin air.DaveScot_{August 11, 2005
August
08
Aug
11
11
2005
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

Gump, I provided Dembski's quote on another thread. Here is what he said in NFL, "I want to therefore in this section to show how irreducible complexity is a SPECIAL CASE of specified complexity, and in particular I want to sketch how on calculates the relevant probabities needed to eliminate chance and infer desigh for such systems" (289). It is quite apparent that he is suggesting that IC will become a special case of CSI, not just specified complexity. To me, the problem seems that proponents of ID do not even read their own literature, but only falls head over heels for the idea, not the details. Again, we were posting on other threads and I was recapping from other threads. I posted the link a few times and gave mention to ideas in there that need further reading. Since he refused to, yes, I call that laziness and intellectually dishonest where he says something does not exist where the nonexistence occurs because he closes his eyes. But I do commend you for willing to read it. My judgement of him is in no way a judgement of IDists as a whole. Here is the link: http://dennett.philosophyofscience.net/ . Also, biology is NOT engineering. The idea of representation presents numerous problems such as the binding problem and what Dembski finds in neuroscience to be troubling, the framing problem. Even though those two theories deal with the brain mind and body, the problems of representations and codes remain. Gaia theory has been around since the theories. It was presented by Lovelock in the 70s. He has some books that are cheap to buy. I think this article speaks of it, but I don't have time to look (I have to go to work): http://philosophyofscience.net/evolution1/sartre_{August 11, 2005
August
08
Aug
11
11
2005
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

Lack of reading comprehension makes the arguments go round... "Lets recap. You said that the flagellum has nothing to do with CSI" What Dave actually said was "The flagellum is held out as an example in irreducible complexity not CSI" because "the probabilistic resources are too ill-defined at this point in time for that to be a good example." Either I'm misreading Dave myself, and stringing together two separate incoherent thoughts, or apparently you're latching onto what you want to see and not what is actually being said. "gave the link to an article" Based upon my reading I've always assumed the information conveyed by DNA was not intrinsic and instead was representative (which is why engineers like Dave and myself like to call it "code" since it's a familiar term). I'm actually interested in reading this article to see if that assumption was incorrect. Perhaps my browser is acting funky but I cannot find the link you supposedly posted. Anyway, without a link to read how can Dave be lazy and intellectually dishonest. "rather the evidence shows that the Earth as a planetary whole is the first living entity" Gaia Theory?Gumpngreen_{August 11, 2005
August
08
Aug
11
11
2005
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

Dave, I agree that we are getting nowhere, but you have made no case whatsoever. Lets recap. You said that the flagellum has nothing to do with CSI, but I quoted Dembski saying otherwise. Thus, you support Dembski, but you do not know his work in entirety. Interesting. I quoted other material and gave the link to an article that you refused to read (laziness and intellectually dishonest). You said that cells are algorithmic, but you failed to give any such description except for saying that, "DNA and ribosomes together build proteins. Every living thing does it that way and they all use the same genetic code that translates nucleic acid triplets (codons) into 1 of 20 amino acids along with codons that specify sequence stop and start. This is algorithmic. The genetic code itself is called a Ã¢â‚¬Å“lookup tableÃ¢â‚¬Â in engineering parlance and is a very common structure in all kinds of hardware and software. This is well established fact and anyone arguing otherwise deserves instant dismissal as a crackpot." Now, saying this last sentence makes us believe that this fact cannot be overturned with further ionvestigation. Again, intellectually dishonest when you make this claim and THEN refuse to read the literature that goes against it. You are basically saying that you know the future and that there will be no evidence to show this to be wrong. Plus, this is ironic for an IDist because Darwinists say the same thing about natural selection being the fundamental mechanism. However, IDists state that they have found NEW evidence that there is no such thing as this mechanism. Its amazing how you are on one side for finding new evidence for one issue, but in the same breath you deny that new evidence cannot be found on the other issue. All in all, the idea of algorithms and genetic codes depict a built in Cartesian worldview, and that amino acids, DNA, nucleotide bases, etc. are not the foundation of life, but rather the evidence shows that the Earth as a planetary whole is the first living entity and when the Earth cooled to the right temperature organisms began to arise. This HAS been experimentally verified, but yet you did not see this because you refused to do the research. Ignorance does not allow one to say that they have made their case when all you have done is right a one or two-liner and say that it is an established fact. This is not how science works. Keep making the same argument and ID will never make it onto the scientific scene and will only be a political statement and wishful thinking on websites.sartre_{August 10, 2005
August
08
Aug
10
10
2005
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

I'm about talked out with you at this point. I made my case. Take it or leave it.DaveScot_{August 10, 2005
August
08
Aug
10
10
2005
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Dave, But you said that the flagellum is "held out as an example in irreducible complexity not CSI." Dembski redefines (or "tightens" up Behe's definition) IC. I am unsure if Behe agrees with Dembski that IC is a special case of CSI, but this DOES come from Dembski's book "NFL." However, I do not agree that genes are some sort of code. To say that genes are coded like our linguistic system is a huge conceptual jump. Again, you have refused to even look at that article. Also, algorithms are being refuted in the biological and physical communities. When you described the DNA and said that it was algorithmic, and then said I did not know the meaning of algorithms, you failed to show that the DNA process was algorithmic. You misunderstood my criticism. I was not say that your description was not algorithmic, but your description was altogether false. Information for ecological psychologists and others are not probabilistic. Dembski creates a dualism between physical information and conceptual information, whereas we see the two domains as equivalent. Information specifies BOTH the environment and the organism, and the natural world is not seen as some action-neutral, meaningless entity. Also, the idea of the mind is misleading. The mind is not some special feature of reality, but the body is not some passive entity either. Thus, there is no mind/body dualism since they are the same feature, and the organism is the same material as the natural world. Instead of critiquing the natural world, IDists try to add onto the natural world (hence, they say the natural world is limited). Complexity and specification, as I see it, is just some linguistic tool that has nothing to do with the object itself and is just a psychological phenomena based on dualism. The ideas assume that there are objectively discrete parts that evolve independently of other things. However, our recognition of such parts have been seen to evolve with our embodied capabilities without a psychological agency. For example, it has been witnessed that color evolves along with the evolution of organisms.sartre_{August 10, 2005
August
08
Aug
10
10
2005
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply