Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Complex Specified Information? You be the judge…

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Is it chance or design?
Is it chance or design?

This Google Ocean image is 620 miles off the west coast of Africa near the Canary Islands. It is over 15,000 feet deep and the feature of interest is about 90 miles on a side or 8000 square miles.

In another thread ID critics complain there is no rigorous definition or mathematical formula by which everyone can agree on whether or not something exhibits complex specified information. Believe it not, they say it like mainstream science isn’t chock full of things that not everyone can agree upon. Like duh.

Comments
I posted a link to my blog earlier in this thread, but all of sudden the code was changed and the image that was there was gone. So here again: http://hawaii.gov/hdoa/pi/ppc/varroa-bee-mite-folder/mite-surveys/mite-suveys-november-2007/varroa%20kauai%20111507.jpg http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/1226/mapofgod21.jpg What these images show is that we can see intelligent design not only in life forms, but also in earth's geographical features. mentok
Simple question to those asking about mechanism: A person reading this page might read any post and simplistically think they were looking at typeing on a page, or the output of a laser printer, or a "ditto" machine, or a fax, or a xerox machine; they might not realize they were looking at electronic pixels ; but is there any chance they wouldn't assume what they read is the product of the intent of a mind? does the medium, or the process of how it came to be have "any" impact on that decision at all? es58
Rob In order to be scientifically useful, measures must give the same results when different people apply them independently to the same objects. Actually to be scientifically useful lots of measure only need to be accurate to a factor of 10. Get out of my thread, Rob. You're either uninformed or a troll or both. Either way your welcome is worn out. DaveScot
Mark (#90): I am rather comfortable with what you write. I think I basically agree with you on those points. You ask: "why are there so many aspects of life which patently don’t lead towards that end? Why did the designer create so many designs that work dramatically against that same purpose in other livings things (or were there many rival designers?" Those are very good questions, and absolutely valid and pertinent. I don't have final answers, especially not scientific answers. But the answers can certainly be searched. Obviously, I have philosophical answers. But my answers have not to be necessarily shared by others. My answers, like anybody else's, can anyway be the basis for scientific theories, and there is no doubt that scientific research can in time help to clarify what scenarios are more likely. I have no reason to believe that everything in the biological world is due to one designer. I have no reason to believe that there is only one purpose expressed in biological design. I have no reason to believe that the designer, even if he were a God, has worked in the biological world free from any constraint. Those are assumptions which, for strange reasons, seem to be cherished especially by darwinists, when they try to misrepresent IDists, as though we had to believe necessarily in a magic God who creates everything out of nothing, by some sacred magic wand. Let's be clear about one thing: the implementation of biological design has happened inside natural history, and not at the beginning of the universe. So, there is no reason to believe that the designer, however we may imagine him, worked independently of any constraint: he obviously worked in a context, and with tools which can themselves be context dependent. And just a final note: my personal and strong belief is that survival is not the main purpose in the design of life: it is certainly a very important intermediate purpose, but not the final one. The main purpose of life, IMO, is the expression of life itself and of the qualities inherent in it. The focus of darwinian thought on survival alone, and the tendency to consider everything else as a byproduct of that, are IMO one of the most desolate aspects of that kind of culture. gpuccio
Mark Frank #90, I've always felt that individual ID-compatible hypotheses should be evaluated separately from the initial design inference, and I've already given my reasons why before. In fact, this thread about Atlantis and grids-based-upon-designed-sonar-patterns is a good example of why this should be. Patrick
PS: on "sceince stoppers: Kindly observe: ________________ Scientific method(s) – the toolkit of empirically based, logically credible experimental, observational, statistical, mathematical, computational, thought experiment, visualization, modeling, simulation and analytical etc. techniques and investigative strategies used by scientists as they work to describe, explain, model, predict – and, sometimes, influence or control — events, objects and processes in the cosmos. A useful, ID-informed summary of the broad generic process involved is O, HI PET: O –> OBSERVE – objects, phenomena, events and aspects of scientific interest; seeking patterns (and “exceptions”) that trace to one or more of:
(i) “mechanical necessity,” i.e. forces of nature that lead to “natural regularities”(which – fair warning — may include sensitive dependence on initial and/or intervening conditions, i.e. “chaos,” etc.); (ii) “undirected contingency” or “chance” that may sometimes show itself in “noise” and/or “statistical distributions” (which last can sometimes be modeled [e.g. Gaussian, Poisson, Weibull, U or reverse-J, etc.] and then may possibly be traced to underlying second level driving forces and constraints, etc.); (iii) “directed contingency,” i.e. “design,” (often showing itself in complex specified information, active information, and/or irreducible complexity)
H –> HYPOTHESISE — propose explanatory models of the observed “facts” towards testing the alternatives on their relative strengths and limitations IP –> INFER AND PREDICT – lay out projected consequences for envisioned future experimental or observational situations. (In some cases, “redrodict” to the past.) ET –> EMPIRICAL TESTING – carry out a programme of tests to identify and confirm which alternative model(s) have the best explanatory power: (i) factual adequacy, (ii) logico-mathematical and dynamical coherence, (iii) explanatory elegance and power that is neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork of ever-multiplying auxiliary hypotheses that only serve to explain [away] what has already been observed. (NB: In light of the history of science, and the cumulative findings of philosophy of science in recent decades, there is no set of distinctive approaches to acquiring knowledge and understanding or inferring to best explanation that are (i) universal across the conventionally accepted list of sciences, and/or that are (ii) so necessary to, sufficient for and unique to scientific investigation and argument, that we may use them to mark (iii) a definite and sharp dividing line between science on the one hand and non- (or even pseudo-) science on the other. [Cf. a useful discussion here. This is not a general endorsement.]) _________________ Is this REALLY a "science stopper" onlookers? [It comes from the remarks on generic scientific methods, in the UD glossary above.] GEM of TKI kairosfocus
#85 Gpuccio You didn’t need to write such a long comment. By evidence I mean something like “provides valid grounds for belief”. It doesn’t have to be a logical deduction or overwhelming evidence. That’s all I wanted to clear up. In this sense, you appear to believe that the functional nature of living things and the symbolic nature of DNA are evidence. Given that, I think you accept that my two statements in #64 above are a reasonable account of your position. I will repeat them to save scrolling back: 1) Life includes patterns that suit a purpose (in your terms they are functionally specified) e.g hemoglobin suits the purpose of carrying oxygen. Outside of life we only find functionally specified patterns when things have been designed by people. Therefore we have evidence that life was created by a similar process. 2) Life includes symbols e.g. DNA bases are symbols for amino acids in that the relationship between base pair and amino acid appears to be an arbitrary choice. Outside of life we only find functionally specified patterns when things have been designed by people. Therefore we have evidence that life was created by a similar process. Now let me explain why I disagree. I need to be very precise about what I am saying. Given some assumptions about the designer then both these things might be evidence that life was designed. I just don’t think you can use them as evidence for design in general without those assumptions. In fact one way I could interpret them is revealing your unconscious assumptions about the designer. Take (1) first. If a pattern is to suit a purpose then there must be a purpose. It is not sufficient that you have a long pattern of events. A cancer is a pattern of events which often culminates in the death of the organism. But I don’t think you would want to claim it was designed to bring about the death of the individual. I am sure you will accept that a cancer is a sequence of unfortunate accidents. So if we are to describe living systems as functional we must have a purpose in mind. And it is obvious what purpose we are thinking of. It is to allow the organism to reproduce (for which it is, usually, necessary to keep it alive). A pattern of events allows haemoglobin to carry oxygen. This same pattern also makes blood red. The first attribute appears functional because it contributes to the life of the organism. The second appears to be an accident. I have no problem taking the existence of a pattern of events which lead to an end as evidence that something was working towards that end. It is weak evidence without any more information about the something or the method – but it tells us a little bit. But if we have a theory about the designer’s purpose then there is another consequence. This is the first glimmer of a proper hypothesis and so it lets in the first glimmer of evidence both for it and against it. We can ask questions like – why are there so many aspects of life which patently don’t lead towards that end? Why did the designer create so many designs that work dramatically against that same purpose in other livings things (or were there many rival designers?). I am going to pause for comment here before moving on to 2. This already too long and I have no doubt you will respond to this much. Just bear in mind that I will deal with symbolic nature of life separately. Mark Frank
Detection of Intelligent Causation is obviously alive and well: Google Quashes Atlantis Buzz
Alas, the Atlantis discovery was not meant to be. Google quashed the idea a day later in a statement, "what users are seeing is an artifact of the data collection process," Google said. "Bathymetric (or seafloor terrain) data is often collected from boats using sonar to take measurements of the seafloor. The lines reflect the path of the boat as it gathers the data."
The "unwashed masses" obviously recognize the functioning of the Explanatory Filter. Now the challenge of explaining it to the "washed elite". DLH
You know that should be 79 "protons" (blush). tribune7
Dave, great post at 82. tribune7
Mark -- I was responding to your request to name a non-designed thing fits Dembksi’s criteria and pointing out that this is impossible by definition. Not by definition but by inability. Dembski's definition is not tautology, but a description. It's akin to saying that an element with 79 proteins in its nucleus is gold. And if you show were Dembski's description as to the traits of design fail, you falsify it. If I was able to demonstrate to your satisfaction that the flagellum could arise by chance then:1) It would still be possible that it could have arise by design. Mark, it is faith bordering on delusion to think that bacteria arose by chance. What you should be looking for is some contingency -- a confluence of natural forces that make the formation and ordering of proteins into life a certainty. And it is true that if you should find this, you would not disprove God. You would, however, disprove the methodology of ID. With regard to the the flagellum, which provides mobility to bacteria, the ID claim is that it is "irreducibly complex" i.e. that it could not have arisen via Darwinian pathways, and I'll grant that is a negative argument. The counter-claim is not that it arose solely by chance but that it arose by natural selection fixing random genomic changes. tribune7
Mark: I will try to be as clear as possible, so that the discussion may go on without misunderstandings. We start form empirical observations. For me, conscious agents are an empirical observation, as you well know. Conscious agents, in their human subset, display specific subjective processes usually labeled as "intelligence". That is a fact, too. One of the objective manifestations of intelligence are designed objects. The subjective and objective process through which conscious intelligent agents produce designed objects is called the design process. Again, we are still dealing with observed facts and simple definitions of what we observe, taken form very common language. There is nothing complicated here. Now, we observe that designed objects can be recognized, even if we know not the specific designer or observe the design process, because they display two kinds of properties: specification, which is any kind of recognizable pattern which could be pusposefully willed by an intelligent agent (in the case of biology, a function); and complexity, in the sense of improbability, which guarantees that the observed pattern is not the product of a random system. Now, we can see those two properties, together, only in human artifacts and in biological structures. In many human artifacts (like software programs) and in all the genomes of living beings, those properties are present in the specific form of digital sequences encoding functions. These are, again, simple facts. Those observations are the basis for the design inference: given that scenario, and in the absence of any other scenario based on chance and or necessity which can explain biological information, it is perfectly reasonable to make an inference: biological information can be explained as the product of a design process implemented by some conscious intelligent being. You may ask if that is evidence or not. I don't know what you mean with that word. It is not a logical proof, obviously: our reasoning here is empirical, like in most sicences. In a sense, we usually build a theory to explain observed facts. Here we build a theory based on design to explain two things: 1) the formal similarities between designed things and biological information 2) the lack of any other reasonable explanation for biological information. It is absolutely reasonable that, given those two points, a design hypothesis is warranted, and is at present the best explanation. That does not mean that it is the certain explanation. That does not mean that it is the only possible explanation in the universe. I would say that at present it is the only working explanation, but obviously that statement rests on how much I find unreasonable the classical darwinian explanation. Once we have a theory, we can look for further evidence in support of it, or against it. That's exactly what we do (both IDists and darwinists) each time we try to interpret any new biological data, here or elsewhere. You ask what the hypothesis is. It is very simple: biological information is the product of a design process, involving purpose and intelligent organization, implemented by a conscious intelligent being (or by more than one). In a sense, it is the most spontaneous hypothesis, one that has been accepted by almost everybody for a very long time. But the specific analysis of the nature of the formal properties of design (specification and complexity), and the specific criticism of the so called "naturalistic" theories of darwinism are the relevant part which makes the theory scientific and quantitative, and not only a philosophical argument. gpuccio
DS: Very well put. I only add that as a practical threshold, if . .
a] something requires stored info to function . . . b] e.g. in an explicit store like DNA or a PC RAM chip, or else c] in implicit things like strings of letters or d] functional shapes that work in terminal ballistics to kill deer etc,and also allow fastening to arrow shafts and well-aimed shooting, and e] if the resulting stored info exceeds 1,000 bits [i.e. simple yes/no decision nodes] then f] the number of possible configs is over 10^301, or ten times the square of the reasonable no of quantum states of the observed cosmos across its lifespan, i.e. the cosmos as a search engine could not sample 1 in 10^150 of the config space [which gives teeth of "probability"]; SO: g]since intelligences as observed routinely generate that much info, and chance + necessity is challenged to find such a config . . . h] then it is reasonable to infer to intelligence as the best explanation.
But then, it is increasingly evident that he real problem is that inference to best explanation across reasonable alternatives is what is being challenged to rhetorically undermine ID. But, such IBE or abduction is the heart of science, i.e. this seems to be selective hyperskepticism at work. GEM of TKI kairosfocus
Mark Furthermore, the same methodology can be used on the pattern in the Google Ocean image. It is not a simply described pattern such as a few parallel and perpendicular lines. We need a fair amount of information to accurately and precisely define that layout - it is complex. It also has at least a few possible specifications such as a sonar search grid or a city layout. We know intelligent agency produces patterns like this. Thus we again arrive at the ID hypothesis: "Patterns such as this require intelligent agency to produce." Again this hypothesis is falsifiable in principle requiring only a single observation, reproduction, or simulation of a law & chance process plausibly producing such a pattern. I've yet to see any evidence that law & chance can produce a pattern like this on such a large scale. The design inference from specified complexity is robust in this case. DaveScot
Mark Probability is one way of measuring complexity. Another way is the number of bits required to describe the pattern. Pick any irregularly shaped rock. You can use both methods on it. The atoms that compose it can take on a very, very, very large number of possible permutations. The rock is just one of those possibilities. It is thus complex. One can also describe the shape of the rock mathematically. A perfect cube doesn't take much information to describe. An irregular shape takes a lot of information to describe. Thus a cubic rock is not complex while an irregularly shaped rock is complex. The catch is that nature is chock full of complex patterns. We then look for specification which is an independently given description of the pattern. Say your irregularly shaped rock has all the characteristics of an arrowhead. That's your specification. It takes a lot of information to mathematically describe the shape of the arrowhead. The atoms that compose it could take on an almost infinite number of permutations. So it's complex by any measure. But it can be independently described as an arrowhead. Thus it has specified complexity. Specification is where ID critics balk because it requires a judgement call using independent knowledge. To specify a rock as an arrowhead requires independent knowledge of arrowheads. You can be quite expert in general knowledge of rocks and minerals but without independent knowledge of arrowheads you can't tell a randomly shaped rock apart from an arrowhead. And how closely the rock conforms to the specification "arrowhead" is a judgement call. The exact shape of the rock is objective and as mathematically precise as you care to measure it. That the shape conforms to that of an arrowhead is subjective and imprecise. We can use the same means to evaluate the molecular motors such as that which powers the bacterial flagellum. It is complex by any objective measure and in this case the specification "molecular motor" has little subjectivity or imprecision in it. Something either is or is not a functional molecular motor and that can be determined by direct observation of it functioning as a motor. We know that intelligent agents can design & assemble molecular motors, we know that in at least one instance intelligent agents with that capacity are extant in the universe today so intelligent agency is a proven-capable mechanism. We then arrive at the $64K question: "Is there any plausible way a law and chance (non-intelligent) mechanism can assemble a molecular motor?" So far I haven't seen any plausible way. Possible ways yes, plausibe ways no. So we have the ID hypothesis, which is falsifiable in principle, "molecular motors require intelligent agency to produce in the first instance". This can be falsified by a single observation (or experimental reproduction or computer simulation) of any non-intelligent means of producing a molecular motor. The chance & necessity theory is a real science stopper when it is taken as dogma (and it usually is). Instead of trying to verify, observe, reproduce, or simulate law and chance assembling a molecular motor we just dogmatically assert that it happened by law and chance and leave it at that. DaveScot
Gpuccio thanks. You write: In particular, in both cases,I would not say that “Therefore we have evidence that”… My idea is that the similarity between human artifacts and biological information is a good and positive start for an explanatory theory based on design, rather than a final evidence for design itself. I think this is important. What kind of start do these analogies with human activities give us if it is not evidence? Are you simply saying that the analogy with human processes gives us an idea for a hypothesis based on design? I might agree with you. I would just like to know what that hypothesis is. Mark Frank
#78 Tribune7 IOW, you can falsify it. Find a cause that excludes design that explains this pattern. It’s not circular. I wasn't actually talking about the falsifiability of ID. I was responding to your request to name a non-designed thing fits Dembksi's criteria and pointing out that this is impossible by definition. As soon as something was shown not to be designed it would automatically fail to meet his critera. Wrt to falsifiability of ID. If I was able to demonstrate to your satisfaction that the flagellum could arise by chance then: 1) It would still be possible that it could have arise by design. Right? So we have removed your only reason for believing in design - the lack of a chance explanation - but we have not falsified design. 2) I have only shown that particular example did not arise by design. I don't think ID claims that all life is the result of design. Right? So it only has to move on to another example where there is no current chance explanation and count that as evidence. Given the complexity and long history of life there will always be a very large number of unexplained facets of life. Mark Frank
Mark: Just two brief notes, and then you can go on with the discussion: 1) I agree with you that if we had more understanding about the identity of the designer or the modalities of implementation the position of ID would be much stronger. That is obvious. But still I stay with my opinion that design detection does not need that. Anyway, as you probably know, I am convinced that as we deepen our understanding, scientific evidence about the designer and the process of design will come. It is only a matter of time. 2) I think you have expressed my points well enough. I would probably use some words in a slightly different way. In particular, in both cases,I would not say that "Therefore we have evidence that"... My idea is that the similarity between human artifacts and biological information is a good and positive start for an explanatory theory based on design, rather than a final evidence for design itself. The final conclusion, that design theories are the best explanation for biological information, depends critically also on the "negative" point that any other current explanation does not work. That is a slight difference, but an important one. For me, ID has both a positive aspect and a negative aspect. Both are important, both are necessary. Neither of them, alone, is enough. That said, I believe that you understand my position well enough. But if there are other specifications which become necessary, we can have them in the course of the discussion. gpuccio
Mark--Dembski’s criteria include “no cause that excludes design can plausibly explain this pattern”. IOW, you can falsify it. Find a cause that excludes design that explains this pattern. It's not circular. tribune7
Re #75 Tribune7 I have lost the train of your thought here! I have nothing against probability calculations. I am just pointing out that this particular probability calculation is all about refuting a particular chance hypothesis. So when you claim that design is associated with complexity all your are doing (indirectly) is claiming that design is associated with the improbability of a chance hypothesis - which was my point. Of course I can't name anything that is not designed that fits Dembski's criteria because Dembski's criteria include "no cause that excludes design can plausibly explain this pattern". If we establish something has a plausible non-designed cause then that outcome doesn't meet his criteria by definition. My point is - it is circular. Mark Frank
Dave, Barry, Patrick, I am bringing this up here and will bring it up again on other threads, especially when Allen MacNeill comes back because comments can get lost quickly here as other post afterwards. Allen recommended a book on macroevolution (Macroevolution: Diversity, Disparity, Contingency: Essays in Honor of Stephen Jay Gould) but it really is a reprint of an issue of the journal Paleobiology in honor of Gould. I received my copy yesterday and just barely got through the first chapter because of the technical terms used. My guess is that this book represents a high percentage of the extent of technical understanding of the genome and how it changes over time. Dave, you might be interested because the initial author is a big fan of retro viruses as a source of genomic variability. The value of this for us in the future is one of education as to just what is known about the genome and how it changes. As I said it is very technical but I believe with an effort a layman's version can be translated. It might be worthwhile inviting Allen and some of his students to come here and discuss the implications of some of the essays in this book. It would make an interesting thread. jerry
Mark, probability calculations are an important and positive part of many aspects of practical science. Think statistical mechanics. Anyway, sticking with Dembski's method can you cite anything that is not designed that fits its criteria? You might say DNA, but if DNA is the only thing and it fits that criteria, why would it not be more reasonable to assume design? tribune7
Maybe this is Atlantis. Plato is a very credible source of information on the Ancient World. Wouldn't it be funny, eh? Platonist
"The ID response would appear to be. I can’t think how a natural cause could do it. Therefore it must involve intelligence. Equally you could imagine another response on the lines of: I can’t think how an intelligent cause could do it. Therefore, the cause must be natural." Mark, can you read. It was just pointed out to you that this interpretation you have is nonsense and then you continue to repeat it. You are making it too easy for us. Or maybe you do have reading comprehension problems. I joke about it but this persistence in repeating myths after they are denied is getting a bit wearing. jerry
This is an interesting example, but I regret getting into a discussion of the plausability of geological causes. It is irrelevant to the main point. Let us suppose for the moment that this pattern was not just a Google image but that the lines were observed to actually exist on the surface. Clearly it is hard to imagine a natural cause but it is also very hard to imagine that they are the result of intelligent activity. In both cases no plausible mechanism exists (actually I think there may be a plausible geological mechanism based on dykes intersecting a ridged gradient - but let's assume no such mechanism exists). The ID response would appear to be. I can't think how a natural cause could do it. Therefore it must involve intelligence. Equally you could imagine another response on the lines of: I can't think how an intelligent cause could do it. Therefore, the cause must be natural. I hope that readers can see that both responses are irrational. The rational response and the one that actually happened in practice is to look at specific natural and intelligent causes and compare their plausability. Could it be dykes intersecting gradients? Or an effect of ocean currents on a softer ocean floor? Or maybe it was ships somehow disturbing the ocean floor as they followed a pattern. That's real science and real design detection. Mark Frank
Re #69 Me: ID limits itself to attempting to disprove various specific chance hypotheses. Tribune7: No, no, no. While there is discussion here about the best means of determining design one very simple, and positive, way is to discern a pattern — an event that is repeating or consistent — then determine its complexity. If that pattern has a certain degree of complexity, we can ascertain design. And how do you define complexity? If you use Dembski's definition (and I know no other) it is the improbability of a natural cause of the pattern. The whole edifice in the end relies on disproving current natural causes. Show me a single place where an ID proponent has discussed the plausability of life being designed. Mark Frank
"Therefore we have evidence that life was created by a similar process." No, not a good choice of words to express what we believe. The correct choice would be something like this: "We then know that intelligence can create this sort of pattern. In fact there is evidence that humans will be assembling a life form in a short time. We have no evidence that nature can create such a pattern which is positive evidence for intelligent design. Therefore, we believe that the cause of this process is more likely to be intelligence than a natural cause. We continue to support the search for natural causes but until the time it can be shown that natural causes is the most likely cause then we believe that intelligence is still the logical conclusion for such phenomena." Given such a statement, how does one justify what the anti ID position is, which says absolutely that intelligence is not the cause. Our position has been laid out before but it continually get wordsmithed to suit one's position. We never use the absolute position. That is what the anti ID people do. Again, Mark continues to contribute to our position. Thank you. jerry
Mark -- ID limits itself to attempting to disprove various specific chance hypotheses. No, no, no. While there is discussion here about the best means of determining design one very simple, and positive, way is to discern a pattern -- an event that is repeating or consistent -- then determine its complexity. If that pattern has a certain degree of complexity, we can ascertain design. It's positive, practical and practiced. I believe that without examining how ID is implemented ID is basically a diagnostic tool. Diagnostic tools are very useful and not expected to answer causes. You are driving along and a light on your dashboard tells you your oil pressure is low. It's quite useful information but it's not telling you why it's low. You are feeling ill and you take your temperature and confirm you have a fever. This methodology won't tell you why you have a fever but you are still acquiring useful information by this action. But they are not prepared to subject ID to the same enquiry. I think it's more the case that those who disagree are unable :-) tribune7
Mark A striation can be either natural or artificial. The pattern on the rock you linked to does not look designed. There are all kinds of odd angles in it. The pattern on the ocean floor is composed of almost all nearly perfect rectangles of various dimensions contained within a nearly perfect rectangle. Although the explanation that it's an artifact of multiple ships with side scanning sonar travelling in paths at right angles to each other still makes it the result of an artificial process I don't really believe that explanation as it fails to explain why all the scans begin and end within a perfect rectangle and why there arent' any other similar things either in the near vicinity or anywhere else that anyone has discovered. The only plausible explanation involving sonar scans is that someone was looking for something within that rectangle, confined their search to that area, and methodically searched it with a grid pattern. DaveScot
Mark: Parallel or precisely angled straight lines/edges and planes are common with crystals; more or less horizontal and parallel planes are common with rocks laid down as particles [flood sediments and volcanic ash flows come to mind . . . ]; but dozens of miles long linear striations at more or less right angles forming a rectangular pattern in seabed "mud" does not strike one as "natural." [Note: our instinctive contrast is nature vs art, not Ms Forrest's tendentious natural vs supernatural -- save where one suspects a miracle. (Muy interesante . . . )] THAT is why there was talk about "Atlantis," from the outset. (Never mind that Santorini is a more probable site.) In short, the much derided explanatory filter, intuitive version, was at work. And, the issue that then followed was whether there was a credible "natural" explanation, with parallel and angular lines in rocks being suggested. It turns out -- as noted above -- that, even at the intuitive level, the EF's design judgement was correct. For, artifacts of sonar grid search patterns are artificial, not natural; albeit unintended. The climate change debate is about a similar artificiality without intent. Interestingly, many design thinkers on DNA, think a natural explanation is more likely on climate. And of course, many confirmed darwinists usually think that of course climate changes as observed are man-made. The key explaining variable: whether or not you are inclined to trust the "consensus" narratives of the science and policy establishments. [For why such trust in conventional wisdom may sometimes be misplaced, cf. the Platonic parable of the cave.] GEM of TKI kairosfocus
1 2 3

Leave a Reply