“Conservation of Information Made Simple” at ENV

_{William Dembski

August 28, 2012

Informatics, Intelligent Design}

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

Evolution News & Views just posted a long article I wrote on conservation of information.

EXCERPT: “In this article, I’m going to follow the example of these books, laying out as simply and clearly as I can what conservation of information is and why it poses a challenge to conventional evolutionary thinking. I’ll break this concept down so that it seems natural and straightforward. Right now, it’s too easy for critics of intelligent design to say, ‘Oh, that conservation of information stuff is just mumbo-jumbo. It’s part of the ID agenda to make a gullible public think there’s some science backing ID when it’s really all smoke and mirrors.’ Conservation of information is not a difficult concept and once it is understood, it becomes clear that evolutionary processes cannot create the information required to power biological evolution.” MORE

TEASER: The article quotes some interesting email correspondence that I had with Richard Dawkins and with Simon Conway Morris, now going back about a decade, but still highly relevant.

Comments

I was wondering why no one else had responded to R0bb's demonstrations of LCI violations, now I know. :)Joe_{August 30, 2012
August
08
Aug
30
30
2012
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

Alrighty then, moving on to R0bb's second "demonstration:
He used to make this point often. But two of his new information measures, “endogenous information” and “active information”, depend on the procedure used to individuate the possible outcomes, and are therefore ill-defined according to Dembski’s earlier position. To see how this fact allows arbitrarily high measures of active information, consider how we model the rolling of a six-sided die. We would typically define ? as the set {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}. If the goal is to roll a number higher than one, then our target T is {2, 3, 4, 5, 6}. The amount of active information I+ is log2(P(T) / (|T|/|?|)) = log2((5/6) / (5/6)) = 0 bits. But we could, instead, define ? as {1, higher than 1}. In that case, I+ = log2((5/6) / (1/2)) = .7 bits. What we’re modeling hasn’t changed, but we’ve gained active information by making a different modeling choice. Furthermore, borrowing an example from Dembski, we could distinguish getting a 1 with the die landing on the table from getting a 1 with the die landing on the floor. That is, ? = { 1 on table, 1 on floor, higher than 1 }. Now I+ = log2((5/6) / (1/3)) = 1.3 bits. And we could keep changing how we individuate outcomes until we get as much active information as we desire.
Again just because R0bb can muddle his target set doesn't mean someone else can't come along, take the muddled set and make simple sense out of it. For example instead of defining ? as the muddled {1, higher than 1}, we would properly define it as {1,2,3,4,5,6}. So this second example goes to my point about R0bb's first example- that yes, if you get to do whatever you want, no matter how senseless it is, you can seem to violate LCI. After running around the table after your fisrt example, you were probably drinking champagne after posting your second example.Joe_{August 30, 2012
August
08
Aug
30
30
2012
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

R0bb:
Consistently excluding zero-probability outcomes from ? would yield bizarre results.
So with the dice example I quoted above does that mean we should also include numbers 7 - infinity? And of course a coin toss would then have more than two outcomes- in zero G. Wow R0bb, thanks. That clears up my misunderstanding. If we just do whatever we want we can violate the LCI. I bet you ran around the table with your hands in the air, cheering for yourself, once you figured that out. Thumbs high, big guy...Joe_{August 30, 2012
August
08
Aug
30
30
2012
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

From LCI simplified:
To see how this works, let's consider a toy problem. Imagine that your search space consists of only six items, labeled 1 through 6. Let's say your target is item 6 and that you're going to search this space by rolling a fair die once. If it lands on 6, your search is successful; otherwise, it's unsuccessful. So your probability of success is 1/6. Now let's say you want to increase the probability of success to 1/2. You therefore find a machine that flips a fair coin and delivers item 6 to you if it lands heads and delivers some other item in the search space if it land tails. What a great machine, you think. It significantly boosts the probability of obtaining item 6 (from 1/6 to 1/2).
Any one of the 6 outcomes can be had on any ONE roll of the dice. Not so with your first example.Joe_{August 30, 2012
August
08
Aug
30
30
2012
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

R0bb- Perhaps you can tell us which one of Dembski & Marks' examples your example 1 is copying. The point is I say you pulled your example from your _______ and it has nothing to do with what they are saying.Joe_{August 30, 2012
August
08
Aug
30
30
2012
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

R0bb- There aren't 5 choices, ever. The item only has two choices, three if it can stay put. You can spew your rhetoric all you want it ain't ever going to change that fact.Joe_{August 30, 2012
August
08
Aug
30
30
2012
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Well DiEB, R0bb smooched the pooch with his first example as he didn’t realize that at any point the item moving only has two choices, not five. IOW the “problems” seem to be the anti-IDists, not the LCI
Endogenous information is defined in terms of the cardinality of Ω, not the number of choices available to the alternate search. Have you read the examples and proofs in Dembski's work?R0bb_{August 30, 2012
August
08
Aug
30
30
2012
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

Joe:
And if there HAS to be a shift then there are only 2 positions for the final state, which means (1/2)(1/2)
Thanks for bringing this up as it deals with a core question: How do we define Ω? You say that instead of defining Ω with 5 outcomes, we should define it to include only the 2 outcomes that are possible, i.e. the 2 outcomes on which the alternate search confers a non-zero probability. The problem is that Dembski and Marks don't define Ω this way. In most of their examples, active information is the result of restricting the alternate search to a subset of Ω. If they were to follow your reasoning, they would define Ω to include only the outcomes that are accessible to the alternate search, and the resulting active information would be zero. So by your reasoning, their examples of active information don't really have any active information. Consistently excluding zero-probability outcomes from Ω would yield bizarre results. Consider a search that confers a probability of almost 1 on the target and almost 0 on all other outcomes. This extreme bias toward the target constitutes a lot of active information. Now suppose we improve the search slightly so that the probability of hitting the target is actually 1, and all other outcomes have a probability of 0. We duly redefine Ω to include only the target, and as a consequence, the baseline search also hits the target with a probability of 1. The active information is now 0. So a slight improvement in the search resulted in a drastic reduction in active information. Furthermore, Dembski and Marks do not exclude zero-probability outcomes from Ω in their proofs of their CoI theorems. If they did, the proofs would far more complicated as they would have to consider multiple definitions of Ω. It would be great if we could have a canonical rule that Ω is always exactly the set of outcomes on which the alternate search confers non-zero probability. Then there would be no question as to how Ω should be defined. But as shown above, that's not how Dembski and Marks do it, and with good reason. So the choice of how to define Ω is up to us when we model a process, which is the subject of my second post at TSZ.R0bb_{August 30, 2012
August
08
Aug
30
30
2012
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

Well DiEB, R0bb smooched the pooch with his first example as he didn't realize that at any point the item moving only has two choices, not five. IOW the "problems" seem to be the anti-IDists, not the LCIJoe_{August 30, 2012
August
08
Aug
30
30
2012
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

OK R0bb is awake and posting over on TSZ. Hopefully he makes it over here...Joe_{August 30, 2012
August
08
Aug
30
30
2012
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Oops- forgot the / in my equations: (1/2)/(1/2) (comment 24)Joe_{August 30, 2012
August
08
Aug
30
30
2012
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

Can anyone point to an intelligent being that, without prior information, can create something that finds a needle faster than random search?
Yes, it's called a metal detector and humans use them on a daily basis to find those proverbial needles in haystacksJoe_{August 30, 2012
August
08
Aug
30
30
2012
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

And if there HAS to be a shift then there are only 2 positions for the final state, which means (1/2)(1/2)Joe_{August 30, 2012
August
08
Aug
30
30
2012
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

R0bb- If you are starting on n-1, as your example states, then there only 3 final states in which it can land, not 5. Actually it doesn't matter where you start, there will always only be 3 final states in can be after one move. Therefor (1/3)(1/2) NOT (1/5)(1/2) Anything else I can help you with?Joe_{August 30, 2012
August
08
Aug
30
30
2012
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

Semi OT:
Learning from Bacteria about Information Processing - video Excerpt: I will show illuminating movies of swarming intelligence of live bacteria in which they solve optimization problems for collective decision making that are beyond what we, human beings, can solve with our most powerful computers. I will discuss the special nature of bacteria computational principles in comparison to our Turing Algorithm computational principles, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJpi8SnFXHs
bornagain77_{August 30, 2012
August
08
Aug
30
30
2012
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

Robb, I noticed a glaring omission in perusal of your 3 posts. You did not cite any actual example of Neo-Darwinian processes producing any functional information. Nor did I see you provide any example of exactly where in the physical universe, besides earth, LCI would not hold as I had asked you previously. Seeing as I am not trained in mathematics, am I suppose to just take your word that it can be done by blind/dumb material processes without a actual example from empirics? The reason I ask you specifically for actual evidence is because neo-Darwinists have a notorious history of claiming that they have overwhelming evidence for evolution, yet when one checks carefully for actual evidence the claims always come up short. Perhaps Robb you can be the first to remedy this shameful history of deception on neo-Darwinists part and produce an actual physical example before you proceed as if Darwinism has any empirical proof for its validity??? Notes to that effect: In spite of the fact of finding molecular motors, and highly sophisticated systems, permeating the simplest of bacterial life, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such motor or system.
"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist
The following expert doesn't even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,,
‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity,,,
Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,,
,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’ Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA Michael Behe - No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/ “The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.” David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology
As well Robb, speaking of actual empirical evidence, do you believe that the very surprising recent findings of 'non-local' (unable to be reduced to within space and time causes) quantum information/entanglement in molecular biology finally offers somewhat tangible support for the theist's contention for a soul or not?
Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068 Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US
bornagain77_{August 30, 2012
August
08
Aug
30
30
2012
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT}

Rob, your example of Bertrand’s Box highlights another problem I have with W. Dembski's and R. Marks's papers: without discussing whether it is suitable they take the arithmetic mean to get the average of the active information for various experiments. Your example shows that the active information of the example is 1 (as the probability to find a gold coin is 1/2) - and that is what the average should be, while the active information of the three equally probable partial experiments is infinity, 0 and 1. The arithmetic mean doesn't make much sense in this context.DiEb_{August 29, 2012
August
08
Aug
29
29
2012
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT}

A few random observations wrt the article:
So our attempt to increase the probability of finding item 6 by locating a more effective search for that item has actually backfired, making it in the end even more improbable that we'll find item 6 ... Conservation of information calculates the information cost of this performance increase and shows how it must be counterbalanced by a loss in search performance elsewhere (specifically, by needing to search for the information that boosts search performance) so that global performance in locating the target is not improved and may in fact diminish. ... raising the probability of success of a search does nothing to make attaining the target easier, and may in fact make it more difficult ... If we therefore start with a search having probability of success p and then raise it to q, the actual probability of finding the target is ... less than or equal to p
These bolded phrases lend themselves to misunderstanding. We could interpret them to say that adding a higher level search to the mix can decrease the overall probability of finding the original target, but such is not the case in any of Dembski's CoI theorems or examples. When Dembski says that the probability of finding the target may decrease, he seems to actually mean that finding the higher-level target AND finding the lower-level may be less than the probability of simply finding the lower-level target directly. But that clarification of the statement renders it much less impressive. We don't need the LCI to tell us that P(X&Y) ≤ P(Y) (where P(Y) is the probability of finding the target directly, and also is the unconditional probability of finding the target via a two-level search, the two probabilities being equal in all of Dembski's examples). This is simply of truism of probability theory.
Indeed, that is the defining property of intelligence, its ability to create information, especially information that finds needles in haystacks.
Where is the evidence that intelligence can create information that finds needles in haystacks? Can anyone point to an intelligent being that, without prior information, can create something that finds a needle faster than random search? The LCI supposedly shows, using math that makes no exceptions for intelligence, that this is impossible. Can designers do mathematically impossible things?
The whole magic of evolution is that it's supposed to explain subsequent complexity in terms of prior simplicity, but conservation of information says that there never was a prior state of primordial simplicity
Earlier in the article, Dembski uses complexity to mean improbability, which is the kind of complexity that the LCI deals with. But here he is using complexity in the sense of structural complexity, a property on which the LCI is silent. If Dembski wants to assert that structural complexity is conserved, he needs to quantify this type of complexity and somehow link it to the LCI.
Instead, we see sharply disconnected islands of invention inaccessible to one another by mere gradual tinkering.
I don't know what he means by "mere gradual tinkering", but obviously inventors do more than randomly modify stuff. Their searches are assisted by a lot of information about how reality works. They didn't create this information -- it has been gleaned from observations over many centuries. Has Dembski included this information in his accounting? We don't know, because he hasn't shown us the ledger, or even mentioned what items would be involved in such an accounting. Or to put it another way, he hasn't shown even a rough model of the search space topology, including the connections that are forged by pre-existing knowledge. Inventors, of course, differ from rocks, hurricanes, and cows in their ability to employ this information. What evidence is there that intelligence, as the notion is typically understood, entails the ability to "create information" as opposed to the ability to effectively use existing information?R0bb_{August 29, 2012
August
08
Aug
29
29
2012
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT}

But yes I would love to see your demonstration of the 3 points you claim.
Okay -- here, here, and here.R0bb_{August 29, 2012
August
08
Aug
29
29
2012
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT}

Dear Dr. Dembski - as evolutionnews doesn't allow comments on this article, I hope that you take the opportunity to discuss your insights on this your former blog! BTW: I can't help to notice that now I'm being mentioned twice in the article "The Search for a Search"! May I expect a bottle of whisky (or some other token of your appreciation) for my contributions to the idea of active information?DiEb_{August 29, 2012
August
08
Aug
29
29
2012
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Semi Off Topic:
Information Storage in DNA by Wyss Institute https://vimeo.com/47615970 Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram - Sebastian Anthony on August 17, 2012 Excerpt: A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvard’s Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data — around 700 terabytes — in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times.,,, Just think about it for a moment: One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. That’s 14,000 50-gigabyte Blu-ray discs… in a droplet of DNA that would fit on the tip of your pinky. To store the same kind of data on hard drives — the densest storage medium in use today — you’d need 233 3TB drives, weighing a total of 151 kilos. In Church and Kosuri’s case, they have successfully stored around 700 kilobytes of data in DNA — Church’s latest book, in fact — and proceeded to make 70 billion copies (which they claim, jokingly, makes it the best-selling book of all time!) totaling 44 petabytes of data stored. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134672-harvard-cracks-dna-storage-crams-700-terabytes-of-data-into-a-single-gram DNA Stores Data More Efficiently than Anything We've Created Casey Luskin August 29, 2012 Excerpt: Nothing made by humans can approach these kind of specs. Who would have thought that DNA can store data more efficiently than anything we've created. But DNA wasn't designed -- right? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/who_would_have_063701.html
bornagain77_{August 29, 2012
August
08
Aug
29
29
2012
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Robb you make a statement here that I find peculiar:
1) Contrary to Dembski’s claim, the LCI (Law Of Conservation Of Information) is not universal. Counterexamples are easy to find.
Now I'm trying to think of just where in the universe the law of conservation of information, especially as it pertains to Darwinian evolution, would not possibly hold: Would it be in deep inter-stellar space where it is just a few degrees above absolute zero and devoid of mass that you believe the law does not hold in the universe??, or is it in the interior of stars, pulsars, quasars or blackholes, that you believe it does not hold? Please tell me, Robb, from the following inventory where it does not hold:
Table 2.1 Inventory of All the Stuff That Makes Up the Universe (Visible vs. Invisible) Dark Energy 72.1% Exotic Dark Matter 23.3% Ordinary Dark Matter 4.35% Ordinary Bright Matter (Stars) 0.27% Planets 0.0001% Invisible portion - Universe 99.73% Visible portion - Universe .27% of note: The preceding 'inventory' of the universe is updated to the second and third releases of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe's (WMAP) results in 2006 & 2008; (Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Hugh Ross; pg. 37)
Even granting the most favorable of circumstances, right here on earth, for Darwinian processes to conduct successful searches for functional information is certainly a extremely rare event in the universe, and is certainly no easy task for the 'universe' to accomplish on its own before a search for functional information can even begin to start:
Does the Probability for ETI = 1? Excerpt; On the Reasons To Believe website we document that the probability a randomly selected planet would possess all the characteristics intelligent life requires is less than 10^-304. A recent update that will be published with my next book, Hidden Purposes: Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, puts that probability at 10^-1054. Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross's book, 'Why the Universe Is the Way It Is'; Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ? 10^-1333 dependency factors estimate ? 10^324 longevity requirements estimate ? 10^45 Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ? 10^-1054 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe ? 10^22 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles. http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part3.pdf Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere (10^-1054) - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236
Moreover, even granting the most favorable of circumstances right here on earth does not circumvent the laws grip preventing Darwinian processes from ever producing functional information:
HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY - WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm
I readily admit Robb, that I'm not a mathematician and that it is hard for me to follow some of the high level debates that you have engaged in trying to undermine the credibility of the LCI as laid out by Dembski, Marks, Ewert etc.., but from a practical, empirical, point of view, I'm left wondering just how do you plan to show that LCI is not universal to Darwinian processes as far as physical reality itself is concerned. related note: It is also extremely interesting to note, the principle of Genetic Entropy, a principle which stands in direct opposition of the primary claim of neo-Darwinian evolution, and is complete agreement with the second law of thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of information, lends itself quite well to mathematical analysis by computer simulation:
Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load: Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space. http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdf MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution vs. Reality - video (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/35088933 Are You Looking for the Simplest and Clearest Argument for Intelligent Design? - Granville Sewell (2nd Law) - video http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/looking_for_the056711.html Physicist Rob Sheldon offers some thoughts on Sal Cordova vs. Granville Sewell on 2nd Law Thermo - July 2012 Excerpt: This is where Granville derives the potency of his argument, since a living organism certainly shows unusual permutations of the atoms, and thus has stat mech entropy that via Boltzmann, must obey the 2nd law. If life violates this, then it must not be lawfully possible for evolution to happen (without an input of work or information.) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-rob-sheldon-offers-some-thoughts-on-sal-cordova-vs-granville-sewell-on-2nd-law-thermo/ Evolution Vs. Thermodynamics - Open System Refutation - Thomas Kindell - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4143014
bornagain77_{August 29, 2012
August
08
Aug
29
29
2012
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Oh wait, there is a mathematical model for evolutionism: mother nature + father time + magical mystery mutations = the diversity of lifeJoe_{August 29, 2012
August
08
Aug
29
29
2012
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

B) Given #1 above, claims that the LCI applies to Darwinian evolution must be justified, which would involve mathematically modeling Darwinian evolution. This is something that no IDist has done, AFAIK.
Umm there isn't any mathematically modeling Darwinian evolution. You cannot mathematically model imagination and magical mystery mutations. And that is the problem with evolutionism and materialism-> no mathematical connection to the real world. But yes I would love to see your demonstration of the 3 points you claim.Joe_{August 29, 2012
August
08
Aug
29
29
2012
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

I know I'll regret posting this when I don't have time to carry on a conversation, but here goes. Some things to note about the LCI, independent of any ID claims: 1) Contrary to Dembski's claim, the LCI is not universal. Counterexamples are easy to find. 2) Active information is sensitive to the definitions of the lower- and higher-level search spaces, which are modeling choices. Any observed process can be modeled such that it violates the LCI, and any observed process can be modeled such that the LCI holds. 3) Even with models for which the LCI holds, there is still no guarantee that active information won't be generated by chance. In fact, it's easy to come up with a scenario in which we expect this to occur. Any of the above can be conclusively demonstrated, albeit not easily in a blog comment. If anyone disputes any of the above facts, let me know, and I'll post demonstrations at TSZ when I get the time. Some things to note about the LCI with regards to ID: A) Given conditions under which the LCI holds, intelligent designers are no less constrained by the LCI than nature is, since the LCI is strictly mathematical. So the LCI can't be employed to distinguish an intelligent cause from a natural cause. B) Given #1 above, claims that the LCI applies to Darwinian evolution must be justified, which would involve mathematically modeling Darwinian evolution. This is something that no IDist has done, AFAIK. C) The Principle of Indifference (also called the Principle of Insufficient Reason) is a heuristic for assigning prior epistemic probabilities in the face of ignorance. Assuming, without updating the prior, that the prior reflects reality is literally an argument from ignorance.R0bb_{August 29, 2012
August
08
Aug
29
29
2012
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

As well, to add further plausiblity to Christ's unique claim, the following study shows that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court, not by public decree, in 1963. Whereas the SAT scores for private Christian schools have consistently remained at the top, or near the top, spot in the world:
The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped – David Barton – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930 AMERICA: To Pray Or Not To Pray - David Barton - graphs corrected for population growth http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/graphs.html
Of related interest, as to defending the integrity of David Barton's scholarship, David Barton defends, from several recent attacks by seemingly 'friendly scholars', his scholarship for a book he wrote suggesting Thomas Jefferson may have held beliefs that were far more friendly to Christianity than what many recent 'revisionist' historians have been portraying his beliefs to be to the general public:
David Barton responds to critics during a interview with Glenn Beck on GBTV - Aug, 2012 http://t.co/FPk503pp
Moreover, the rise of America to preeminence in science was accompanied by a 'Christian revival':
Bruce Charlton's Miscellany - October 2011 Excerpt: I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival. ,,,The point I put to (Richard) Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world. How, I asked, could this be - if Christianity was culturally inimical to science? http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/10/meeting-richard-dawkins-and-his-wife.html
And while the preceding certainly should raise a few eyebrows as to establishing the plausibility of Christ's unique claims for being 'the truth' ( being the existing information) that has enabled 'successful searches' for scientific truth by humans, I would like to point out, once again, that the resurrection of Christ finds itself, strangely, in the center of the number 1 problem in science today, The unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into a 'theory of everything'. Amazingly, a very credible reconciliation to the number 1 problem in physics and mathematics today, of a 'unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, is found in the resurrection event of Christ, though Christ's resurrection should be nowhere near offering such a credible solution in the atheistic mindset:
General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin - updated video (notes in video description) http://vimeo.com/34084462
i.e. when one allows God into math, as Godel indicated must ultimately be done to keep math from being 'incomplete', then there actually exists a very credible, empirically backed, reconciliation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into a 'Theory of Everything'!,,, As a footnote; Godel, who proved you cannot have a mathematical ‘Theory of Everything’, without allowing God to bring 'completeness' to the 'Theory of Everything', also had this to say:
The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” – Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed) http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
further notes:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
as well:
The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - Pg.31 William Dembski PhD. Mathematics Excerpt: "In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity." http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf Philippians 2: 5-11 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
All in all, though certainly not proof in any rigorous sense as the 'conservation of information' is, this cumulative evidence for Christ being the source of all truth, as he claimed he was, certainly should be enough plausibility to give severe pause to anyone who has written Christ off as being fantasy on par with unicorns and the Easter Bunny. At least anyone who is reasonable enough not to be given over to denying God/Christ at all costs:
'Other than Christ, no other religious leader was foretold a thousand years before he arrived, nor was anything said about where he would be born, why he would come, how he would live, and when he would die. No other religious leader claimed to be God, or performed miracles, or rose from the dead. No other religious leader grounded his doctrine in historical facts. No other religious leader declared his person to be even more important than his teachings.' - StephenB - UD Blogger
Music
Empty (Empty Cross Empty Tomb) with Dan Haseltine Matt Hammitt (Music Inspired by The Story) http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=F22MCCNU
bornagain77_{August 29, 2012
August
08
Aug
29
29
2012
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

Of somewhat related note. As to the limits that the 'conservation of information' places on 'finite' human intelligence conducting successful searches for 'true knowledge', I would like to point out this following limit that Godel and Turing found.
Alan Turing & Kurt Godel - Incompleteness Theorem, Halting Problem, and Human Intuition - video (notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8516356/
This 'human intuition' that Godel, a Christian Theist and close friend of Einstein, appealed to to overcome the 'materialistic' limits that he, and Turing, had found to finite human intelligence, and to material computers, respectfully, increasing human knowledge, is, in my opinion, far too vague. Exactly where is this 'true knowledge' coming from that makes our 'human intuition' searches truly successful? Or as Dr. Dembski has put it,,,
Searches achieve success not by creating information but by taking advantage of existing information.
i.e. exactly where is this 'existing information' coming from that makes humans search for true knowledge successful? Appealing to 'human intuition' as Godel does, in my opinion, does little to clarify exactly where the 'true knowledge' is coming from that makes any particular search for truth, by humans, successful. In fact, given the overwhelming propensity of Darwinists to choose any solution that they can possibly imagine over the real solution staring them in the face, i.e. namely I.D., I would have to say it is not of minor importance to identify the actual source for 'true knowledge', separating it from human imagination, as best that we can as finite humans, instead of just leaving it 'up in the air' to something as vague as 'human intuition'. As to this endeavor at clarification, I believe a fairly strong case of plausibiliy can now be made to solidify Christ's claim as to being the ultimate 'source of truth':
John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 15:4 Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. John 8:31-32 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
Sir Isaac Newton, whom many consider to be the greatest scientist of all time, was certainly not bashful as to giving credit to God for his successful search for truth:
“I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily…. All my discoveries have been made in an answer to prayer.” — Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
As well, Sir Isaac Newton's book 'Principia' is considered by many the most important scientific work of all time that had the greatest impact on transforming Western culture, and bringing modern science to a sustainable level of maturity. The book contains a General Scholium (General Interpretation) that reads in part,,,
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,,, The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,, from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present: Sir Isaac Newton - Quoted from what many consider the greatest science masterpiece of all time, his book "Principia"
Sir Isaac Newton was certainly not the only founder of modern science who was not bashful as to giving glory to God. In the following article are several eye opening quotes:
Founders of Modern Science Who Believe in GOD – Tihomir Dimitrov http://www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/viewFile/18/18
Many may object that amazing 'leaps of intuition', in modern science, have been accomplished by people, such as Einstein, who had no confessing faith in Jesus Christ. And indeed Einstein had brilliant thought experiments, such as this one 'riding a beam of light':
Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - 'thought experiment' video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/
But if we 'peak under the hood', to see what enabled Einstein to make this 'leap of intuition' of 'riding a light beam' successful, we find that a lot of preparatory work preceded Einstein's 'leap of intuition' on special relativity:
It is easily proven that Albert Einstein did not originate the special theory of relativity in its entirety, or even in its majority.1 The historic record is readily available. Ludwig Gustav Lange,2 Woldemar Voigt,3 George Francis FitzGerald,4 Joseph Larmor,5 Hendrik Antoon Lorentz,6 Jules Henri Poincaré,7 Paul Drude,8 Paul Langevin,9 and many others, slowly developed the theory, step by step, http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/prioritymyth.htm
Moreover, to be more particular to Christianity, if we look at Einstein's central masterpiece, General Relativity, we find that his central masterpiece was made possible by the work of a devout Christian mathematician, Bernhard Riemann:
The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality - Gauss & Riemann http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6199520/
This is not to take any credit away from the staggering genius of Einstein in effectively channeling his imagination, in his precise thought experiments, which were, without question, penetratingly effective, but just say, in all fairness, that in doing so Einstein had to stand on the shoulders of giants who themselves had stood on the shoulders of Christ in order to make his 'leap of intuition' fruitful scientifically! Moreover, to add to the plausibility of Christ's unique claim for being the source for truth, if we look for ‘leaps of intuition’ (successful searches for truth) throughout history in modern science, we notice a very strange pattern in regards to scientific discovery in Judeo-Christian cultures. A very strong piece of suggestive evidence, which persuasively hints at a unique relationship that man has with ‘The Word’ of John 1:1, is found in these following articles which point out the fact that ‘coincidental scientific discoveries’ are far more prevalent than what should be expected from a materialistic perspective:
List of multiple discoveries Excerpt: Historians and sociologists have remarked on the occurrence, in science, of “multiple independent discovery”. Robert K. Merton defined such “multiples” as instances in which similar discoveries are made by scientists working independently of each other.,,, Multiple independent discovery, however, is not limited to only a few historic instances involving giants of scientific research. Merton believed that it is multiple discoveries, rather than unique ones, that represent the common pattern in science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries In the Air – Who says big ideas are rare? by Malcolm Gladwell Excerpt: This phenomenon of simultaneous discovery—what science historians call “multiples”—turns out to be extremely common. One of the first comprehensive lists of multiples was put together by William Ogburn and Dorothy Thomas, in 1922, and they found a hundred and forty-eight major scientific discoveries that fit the multiple pattern. Newton and Leibniz both discovered calculus. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace both discovered evolution. Three mathematicians “invented” decimal fractions. Oxygen was discovered by Joseph Priestley, in Wiltshire, in 1774, and by Carl Wilhelm Scheele, in Uppsala, a year earlier. Color photography was invented at the same time by Charles Cros and by Louis Ducos du Hauron, in France. Logarithms were invented by John Napier and Henry Briggs in Britain, and by Joost Bürgi in Switzerland. ,,, For Ogburn and Thomas, the sheer number of multiples could mean only one thing: scientific discoveries must, in some sense, be inevitable. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_gladwell/?currentPage=all
bornagain77_{August 29, 2012
August
08
Aug
29
29
2012
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

Jon, Yes, they have many misconceptions and still no evidence that blind and undirected processes can do it.Joe_{August 29, 2012
August
08
Aug
29
29
2012
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

Joe I've looked at the Skeptical Zone thread, and the previous one linked to there (replying to NFL). You're right, they are critical of Dembski. Whether they constitute "refutation" is quite another matter. One small point that occurs to me. The "Methinks there is a weasel" example is still defended, though rightly criticised as targeted on a particular result. Presumably it would be more convincing to mutate a sentence through a whole sequence of random, but readable, permutations, but unfortunately that doesn't actually work. Yet Alan Fox says "There is no reason to suppose functionality is not common in the set of all possible protein sequences", in other words what doesn't work in simple English sentences is easy-peasy in real cells. There's significant dispute over the facts of the case, of course (there are some reasons for supposing functionality not to be common), but you wouldn't intuitively think that cells are easier to evolve than sentences, would you?Jon Garvey_{August 29, 2012
August
08
Aug
29
29
2012
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

Hey Jon, TSZ has some "critics" LoL!:
Later, he cheerfully admits that the evolution of nylonase represents an increase of information:
Nylon, for instance, is a synthetic product invented by humans in 1935, and thus was absent from bacteria for most of their history. And yet, bacteria have evolved the ability to digest nylon by developing the enzyme nylonase. Yes, these bacteria are gaining new information, but they are gaining it from their environments, environments that, presumably, need not be subject to intelligent guidance. No experimenter, applying artificial selection, for instance, set out to produce nylonase.
So much for his fellow IDers who insist that mutation invariably causes a loss of information. Dembski admits that there is a gain of information, but argues that it falls below his 500-bit CSI threshold and therefore does not indicate design.
1- There isn't any evidence that blind and undirected processes produced nylonase 2- It could very well be that nylonase arose via built-in responses to environmental cues. These opponents have absolutely no clue....Joe_{August 29, 2012
August
08
Aug
29
29
2012
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply