Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Design inference?: The Reuters photoshop scandal and the blogosphere

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

According to Jeff Jarvis of the Guardian,

After Reuters ran a photo last week of black smoke over Beirut, suspicious bloggers noted that smoke isn’t known to rise in incredibly symmetrical bulbous billows. That was clear evidence of Photoshopping, using a tool to “clone” one part of a picture so you can cut-and-paste it over other parts. Someone took this photo, added smoke and made it darker. You can see the before-and-after most clearly here.

The sleuth who proved the hoax was Charles Johnson, the man behind the controversial Little Green Footballs blog and the same man who uncovered the faking of the memos used in Dan Rather’s fateful – for Rather, that is – story about George Bush’s military service. In that case, too, Johnson took the original and the fake the showed how the deception was done by dissecting and overlaying the efforts at technical trickery.

Reuters, however, did not wait 11 days, as CBS did, to respond to the outing. Yesterday, it pulled the photo, apologised, and suspended the photographer, Adnan Hajj.

Now, this is obviously a classic design inference, but the main thing to see is the importance that the blogosphere has assumed in recent years. No longer can legacy media organizations palm this stuff off on a helpless public.

As a journalist friend commented recently,

Contrary to what the MSM keeps screaming, the blogosphere is by its nature self-correcting,. By means of links it provides its own electronic “paper trail”, so that a dubious source can be investigated. Print cannot match this, even with print footnotes, which are cumbersome, slow, & necessarily limited. And TV cannot dream of trying. (We can hardly thank Al Gore enough for inventing the Internet.)

Funny thing: I haven’t found where Al Gore is listed as one the prophets of the Internet, though Canadian Marshall McLuhan is. (My j friend was making a joke.)

Comments
"What I am saying is you can’t restrict OPEN discussion to only “goalless” and “purposeless” processes in biology without understanding the origin of biological organisms (one or many). Yet that is what is happening." I personally and many sceintists would like to have a disscussion about goal-directed processes in biology but I am not aware of very many. I have seen ID supporters talking about mechanims such as frontloading etc so I expect they will come up with something and we will be happy to discuss it. "Whatever- evolutionism doesn’t predict either reptiles or mammals." Im not quite sure what you mean, it does predict that mammals evolved from a ancient reptilian ancestor. "But there aren’t ANY constraints on evolutionism. Just throw father time at anything and abbra cadabra we have novel structures- bones from the boneless, for example." I don't know much about bone evolution, but there are several papers on it. I think the are constrainsts expecially in the fact that there are many discoveries that could be made which would disprove the theory. "We have no idea what mutations caused what changes. NOR do we know if any mutations can cause the changes required" Thats what genomics is helping us figure out, although it is generally on a higher level than the individual mutations (eg, change of expresison in gene X) although the reconstruction of ancestral sequences is helping us in that regard. "For the sake of clarity, is the ancestor of mammals not supposed to be a “mammal-like reptile”?" I think the mammal like reptiles are supposed to be transitiona between mammals and reptiles. I think the common ancestor of mammals and reptiles looks very much like a reptile in the same way as the common ancestor of mammals and modern fish will look like a modern fish.Chris Hyland
August 11, 2006
August
08
Aug
11
11
2006
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
No problem, Tom. I'm frantically preparing for a nine-day trip out of state, and I was afraid I wouldn't be able to continue a conversation with you anyway. We'll chat again some other time.crandaddy
August 10, 2006
August
08
Aug
10
10
2006
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
crandaddy, Thanks for your interesting response. I just discovered it, and I regret I don't time at the moment to interact more with you.Tom English
August 10, 2006
August
08
Aug
10
10
2006
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
Chris said:
Ok reptiles and mammals shared a common ancestor. This ancestor probably resmebled reptiles a lot more than it did mammals.
For the sake of clarity, is the ancestor of mammals not supposed to be a "mammal-like reptile"? I know the popular phrasing is "share a common ancestor" such that nothing in particular ever evolved from anything else in particular, but does the term "mammal-like reptile" not presume this creature to be an actual reptile? Isn't that the theory? Do textbooks not, in fact, say that mammals evolved from reptiles?
Mark Ridley's Evolution has become the premier undergraduate text in the study of evolution. Readable and stimulating, yet well balanced and in-depth, this text tells the story of evolution, from the history of the study to the most recent developments in evolutionary theory. "Therefore, when the mammals evolved from the reptiles, there had to be changes on a large scale in many characters. It was a macroevolutionary change. How did this transition take place?"
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/Fossils_and_the_history_of_life23.aspCharlie
August 10, 2006
August
08
Aug
10
10
2006
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
“My issue is just as stated- abiogenesis directly impacts evolution for the reason provided.” CH: Just so I’ve got it straight, your argument is that you cant say evolution appears to be a goalless process without having a working theory of non-directed abiogenesis? Nope, we missed each other. What I am saying is you can't restrict OPEN discussion to only "goalless" and "purposeless" processes in biology without understanding the origin of biological organisms (one or many). Yet that is what is happening. “In order for that to happen reptiles allegedly “evolved” into mammals.” CH: Ok reptiles and mammals shared a common ancestor. This ancestor probably resmebled reptiles a lot more than it did mammals. Whatever- evolutionism doesn't predict either reptiles or mammals. “But Dennett has already told us there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time. Therefore the processes cannot be used to predict anything.” CH: For example if we assume one species evolved into another, the mechanisms of evolution put constraints onto what can happen at the molecular level. If we have no constraints we can’t really make many predictions. But there aren't ANY constraints on evolutionism. Just throw father time at anything and abbra cadabra we have novel structures- bones from the boneless, for example. We have no idea what mutations caused what changes. NOR do we know if any mutations can cause the changes required (if life started as single-celled organisms). From what we do know about what happens on the molecular level an accumulation of mutations may give you a blind pygmy albino with sickle-celled anemia but I wouldn't pin my materialistic hopes on that observation.Joseph
August 10, 2006
August
08
Aug
10
10
2006
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
"My issue is just as stated- abiogenesis directly impacts evolution for the reason provided." Just so I've got it straight, your argument is that you cant say evolution appears to be a goalless process without having a working theory of non-directed abiogenesis? "In order for that to happen reptiles allegedly “evolved” into mammals." Ok reptiles and mammals shared a common ancestor. This ancestor probably resmebled reptiles a lot more than it did mammals. "But Dennett has already told us there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time. Therefore the processes cannot be used to predict anything." For example if we assume one species evolved into another, the mechanisms of evolution put constraints onto what can happen at the molecular level. If we have no constraints we can't really make many predictions.Chris Hyland
August 10, 2006
August
08
Aug
10
10
2006
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
“If that is what you require then it is obvious you are NOT interested in science as science does not ‘do’ “proof”. And it (life’s origins) is very relevant for the reason provided.” Chris Hyland: If your argument is that we need to have a working theory of abiogenesis to accept evolution then this is probably a fundemental point of disagreement. My issue is just as stated- abiogenesis directly impacts evolution for the reason provided. CH: I am not assuming poof or even naturalistic assumptions, Im making no assumptions about abiogenesis other than primitive single celled organisms came into existance somehow. How they came into existence directly impacts their subsequent evolution for the reason provided. “Evolutionism does NOT predict reptiles will “evolve” into mammals.” CH: Im not sure where I said that. Comment #20: The prediction of intermediates between reptile and mammal ears is also quite interesting In order for that to happen reptiles allegedly "evolved" into mammals. “How are those predictions of evolutionism? IOW what to they have to do with unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes?” CH: Becuase predictions of evolution are constrained by its processes. But Dennett has already told us there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time. Therefore the processes cannot be used to predict anything. CH: Granted you could come up with another theory that explains the phenomenon and if it explained all current data and made new predictions then it would eventually become the prevailing theory. Both IDE and TE accept the data for common descent. Also the debate is all about the mechanisms/ processes involved.Joseph
August 10, 2006
August
08
Aug
10
10
2006
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
"If that is what you require then it is obvious you are NOT interested in science as science does not ‘do’ “proof”. And it (life’s origins) is very relevant for the reason provided." If your argument is that we need to have a working theory of abiogenesis to accept evolution then this is probably a fundemental point of disagreement. I am not assuming poof or even naturalistic assumptions, Im making no assumptions about abiogenesis other than primitive single celled organisms came into existance somehow. "Evolutionism does NOT predict reptiles will “evolve” into mammals." Im not sure where I said that. "How are those predictions of evolutionism? IOW what to they have to do with unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes?" Becuase predictions of evolution are constrained by its processes. Granted you could come up with another theory that explains the phenomenon and if it explained all current data and made new predictions then it would eventually become the prevailing theory.Chris Hyland
August 10, 2006
August
08
Aug
10
10
2006
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
“The demonstration of life arising from non-living matter via blind watchmaker-type processes would be as soon as one or more researchers fif=gures it out.” Crhis Hyland: I agree but I was talking more about evolution. But evolution depends on abio for the reason provided. “Then THAT is what should be taught in the biology classroom- “We don’t know”” Chris Hyland: It’s certainly what I was taught. It isn't what I was taught and that isn't what is being taught today. “Evolution depends on abiogenesis for the reason provided.” Chris Hyland: If we can prove abiogenesis occured due to intelligence then I agree it would lead us to suspect that intelligence was also involved in evolution. But since we don’t know about abiogenesis I don’t see how it’s relevant. If that is what you require then it is obvious you are NOT interested in science as science does not 'do' "proof". And it (life's origins) is very relevant for the reason provided. “Please give us an example of a testable prediction of evolutionism so that we have a reference.” Chris Hyland: Well people have mentioned the chromosome fusion on another thread. The nonfunctional vitamin C gene and intermaxillary bone in humans are some others that come to mind. I personally like the prediction of hemocyanin in stoneflies... Evolutionism does NOT predict reptiles will "evolve" into mammals. The history of life may but that is another story. How are those predictions of evolutionism? IOW what to they have to do with unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes? Tom English: From Dictionary.com, supernatural — 1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. 2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. [plus 3 other meanings] As I have already posted that means even the anti-ID position requires the supernatural becasuse natural processes only exist in nature and therefore could NOT be responsible for its origins. And THAT is why supernatural vs. natural is bogus. No one can escape the something beyond nature as a first cause.Joseph
August 10, 2006
August
08
Aug
10
10
2006
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
"Are they teaching Miller-Urey did not prove evolution from warm pond and lightning? Have they removed Haeckel’s drawings?" I never saw Haeckel’s drawings, and I've looked at several current textbooks and they don't contian them either. I've also not been able to find a textbook that says Miller-Urey proves evolution from warm pond and lightning, many don't mention it at all, and the ones that do give a very brief description along the lines of 'there has been little research on the origin of life, one example is the Miller-Urey experiments which showed that small organic molecules can form in conditions similar to Earth when life was thought to have originated'. Although America might be different. "Regarding intermaxillary bone, is that not just comparative anatomy and discovery; an after the fact prediction?" No becuase humans were thought not to have one, whereas apes do. Therefore it was hypothesised that humans should contain a homologue if they evolved from ape like creatures, and embryological studies showed that we do develop one which fuses into the jaw. Similarly since we were thought to evolve from animals which could synthesise vitamin C it was predicted that we would contain a nonfunctional vitamin C gene. Granted you could argue that these kind of predictions don't prove evolution themselves, and say nothing about specific mechanisms, but there are many things we could have found that would have disproved evolution. I would currently agree with Tom that modern evolutionary theory is more constrained than ID on what it can accept, and for ID to win it must become a theory that can make prediction and aid investigations. "For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells." It's hard to tell wht context the quote is in, but I would say that if someone is researching the origin of life I don't see what choice they have but to assume that. Which basically is the whole argument for methodological naturalism: we don't currently have an alternative.Chris Hyland
August 10, 2006
August
08
Aug
10
10
2006
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT
Tom, I accept methodological naturalism as the preeminent scientific methodology but think that uncompromising adherence to it is illfounded. MN is not just the presupposition that observable events are causally closed; it also includes the presupposition that intelligence is an invalid explanation for natural phenomena where the source of the intelligence cannot be further reduced to a physical, embodied source. Entering scientific investigation with the former presupposition has been very epistemically fruitful, but dogmatically attributing phenonema which under other circumstances would be categorized as intelligently caused to nonrational mechanisms just because an embodied designer cannot be established is to accept a model of basic design detection which renders invalid our capacity to differentiate design from nondesign in the first place. I agree with Bill Dembski that our understanding of design external to ourselves is an effect to cause inference. The nature of the intelligent source is irrelevant. As to your questions regarding nature, I first should say that if there is an official concensus definition within the ID community, I am unaware of it. This is how I tend to think of nature: That which which has a spatiotemporal location and/or explanatory significance within observable reality. Supernatural is in scare quotes because the term seems to suggest that nature is a rigidly defined and neatly enclosed bubble of cause and effect, and any involvement from an external source is a perturbation of this neatly enclosed order. But why should this be so? Perhaps all of reality is a seamless continuum. Maybe what is generally considered to be \"natural\" is derivative of and even supervenes upon an even more fundamental reality.
Let’s suppose that tomorrow the Reuters photographer tells the world that a demon possessed him. Note that Creation = Design + Implementation. (And Design = Creation — Implementation.) The demon designed the fraud and made the photographer implement it. The implementation was terrible because the photographer resisted. Assuming that the definition of nature excludes demons, does an ID scientist (acting as a scientist) reject the notion of demonic design? [emphasis mine]
The emphasis is to say that I don\'t understand your meaning. Could you clarify? Otherwise, I would ask you this question in response: How do you know the photo is doctored to begin with? Maybe the photographer is lying and didn\'t alter the photo at all. Regardless of what the photographer says or whether or not demons were acting through him, we must first address the issue of whether or not an alteration took place. This is the proper application of ID.crandaddy
August 9, 2006
August
08
Aug
9
09
2006
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
Michaels7, "Again, it appears to me, evolution can predict anything and everything." Compared to ID, neo-Darwinism is highly constrained in what it may predict. I have seen no one put constraints on ID that would preclude someone saying that the universe is intelligently designed in all aspects. Physicists debate whether the universe is better modeled as deterministic or not. Under a deterministic model, a designed origin (e.g., Big Bang) could impart design to the universe throughout its history. That is, literally everything would be designed, and design would explain literally everything.Tom English
August 9, 2006
August
08
Aug
9
09
2006
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
crandaddy, "Intelligence and design operate to some extent within the natural order, and to this extent they can be observed and studied. Whether or not they extend beyond the natural order and into what could be called the “supernatural” is an issue outside the scope of ID." So it seems that if I let you define "nature," you are willing to adopt methodological naturalism in scientific investigation. Is that correct? Has the ID community adopted some definition of "nature" by consensus? If so, what is it? From Dictionary.com, supernatural -- 1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. 2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. [plus 3 other meanings] Are you suggesting with your scare quotes that under your definition of nature nothing exists outside the natural world and no power seems to violate or go beyond natural forces? Let's suppose that tomorrow the Reuters photographer tells the world that a demon possessed him. Note that Creation = Design + Implementation. (And Design = Creation -- Implementation.) The demon designed the fraud and made the photographer implement it. The implementation was terrible because the photographer resisted. Assuming that the definition of nature excludes demons, does an ID scientist (acting as a scientist) reject the notion of demonic design?Tom English
August 9, 2006
August
08
Aug
9
09
2006
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
What the NAS wants taught:
 For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells.
Who is the book for?
Attractive in presentation and authoritative in content, Science and Creationism will be useful to anyone concerned about America's scientific literacy: education policymakers, school boards and administrators, curriculum designers, librarians, teachers, parents, and students.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6024.htmlCharlie
August 9, 2006
August
08
Aug
9
09
2006
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
“Then THAT is what should be taught in the biology classroom- “We don’t know”” Chris said, "It’s certainly what I was taught." What year? I was taught we most likely came from a warm pond of goblin gooooo back in the 70s. We were taught the Miller-Urey experiment showed how it all started. And we also had the Haeckel drawings. Are they teaching Miller-Urey did not prove evolution from warm pond and lightning? Have they removed Haeckel's drawings? Regarding intermaxillary bone, is that not just comparative anatomy and discovery; an after the fact prediction? Off the topic, I have a lovely old English translation of Wilhem Meister I bought from a used book store in Louisville, hardcover, encased, lovely read. And why would evolution predict mutation gene to turn off vitamin C production? We already knew from days of men dying on ships from Scurvy we lacked vitamin C. I think this is another after the fact prediction. Why wouldn't the fittest produce vitamin C? Again, it appears to me, evolution can predict anything and everything.Michaels7
August 9, 2006
August
08
Aug
9
09
2006
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
"The demonstration of life arising from non-living matter via blind watchmaker-type processes would be as soon as one or more researchers fif=gures it out." I agree but I was talking more about evolution. "Then THAT is what should be taught in the biology classroom- “We don’t know”" It's certainly what I was taught. "Evolution depends on abiogenesis for the reason provided." If we can prove abiogenesis occured due to intelligence then I agree it would lead us to suspect that intelligence was also involved in evolution. But since we don't know about abiogenesis I don't see how it's relevant. "Please give us an example of a testable prediction of evolutionism so that we have a reference." Well people have mentioned the chromosome fusion on another thread. The nonfunctional vitamin C gene and intermaxillary bone in humans are some others that come to mind. I personally like the prediction of hemocyanin in stoneflies http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/pharyngula_an_e.html. The prediction of intermediates between reptile and mammal ears is also quite interesting http://daphne.palomar.edu/ccarpenter/reptile%20to%20mammals.htm.Chris Hyland
August 9, 2006
August
08
Aug
9
09
2006
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
Curious, wouldn't any Design Hypothesis start with a minimal concept: Life begets life; therefore, a minimum starting point must be coded for survival and suitable biosphere regulation guaranteed? Whereas Evolution exist merely upon accidental collisions to produce the right biosphere.Michaels7
August 9, 2006
August
08
Aug
9
09
2006
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
“So if I show people I can hit a golf-ball over 350 yards,what would be subjective about that demonstration?” CH: It’s not the same when we are trying to discover what is happening in the past, so what evidence counts as effective to prove evolution varies from person to person. I never said anything about the past. The demonstration of life arising from non-living matter via blind watchmaker-type processes would be as soon as one or more researchers fif=gures it out. “Then there isn’t any reason to keep pushing the anti-ID view when there isn’t any data to substantiate it.” CH: I’ve already said we don’t know with abiogenesis, I am pushing the ‘we don’t know’ view. Then THAT is what should be taught in the biology classroom- "We don't know". IOW present the data we do have and then have an OPEN discussion about it. Right now that isn't happening. “if life didn’t arise from non-kiving matter via some blind watchmaker-type process there wouldn’t be any reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those types of processes.” CH: Whether or not this is true is currently irellevent as we don’t know what processes life arose through. Evolution does not depend on abiogenesis, although if you could prove life arose through intelligent input we would certainly have to consider that intelligence may have also been involved in evolution. Evolution depends on abiogenesis for the reason provided. crandaddy: “What would qualify as evidence that design took place?” CH: A design hypothesis that leads to testable predictions would be a good start. Please give us an example of a testable prediction of evolutionism so that we have a reference. (I bet you cannot do so)Joseph
August 9, 2006
August
08
Aug
9
09
2006
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
"So if I show people I can hit a golf-ball over 350 yards,what would be subjective about that demonstration?" It's not the same when we are trying to discover what is happening in the past, so what evidence counts as effective to prove evolution varies from person to person. "Then there isn’t any reason to keep pushing the anti-ID view when there isn’t any data to substantiate it." I've already said we don't know with abiogenesis, I am pushing the 'we don't know' view. "if life didn’t arise from non-kiving matter via some blind watchmaker-type process there wouldn’t be any reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those types of processes." Whether or not this is true is currently irellevent as we don't know what processes life arose through. Evolution does not depend on abiogenesis, although if you could prove life arose through intelligent input we would certainly have to consider that intelligence may have also been involved in evolution. "But it’s OK to infer the anti-ID position without the evidence to support it?" I've already said several times I'm not inferring the anti-ID position of abiogenesis becuase we don't have enough information. "What would qualify as evidence that design took place?" A design hypothesis that leads to testable predictions would be a good start.Chris Hyland
August 9, 2006
August
08
Aug
9
09
2006
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
“Both intelligence and design are natural.” Tom English: Then there is neither intelligence nor design outside of nature. That doesn't follow from what I posted. Something at least had to have been outside of nature at one point- even in the anti-ID position. THat is just a fact of life. Tom English: If we detect intelligent design in a material entity, then we must conclude that the intelligence that conceived the design was not supernatural. The "supernatural" is irrelevant as every scenario "turtles down" to it. “The debate is unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes vs. intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes.” Tom English: Are directedness and goal-orientation also natural? They are if they exist in nature. But again the debate is NOT about "natural" vs. "supernatural", The people trying to play that card either do not understand that nature, which science has demonstrated had an origin and therefore requires a cause- a cause that must be outside of nature, or they just do not know what they are talking about. To Chris Hyland: “All one has to do Chris (to falsify the design inference) is to show the structure in question could arise via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes.” Chris Hyland: But what would show this varies very much from person to person, so it is still quite subjective. You can't be serious. So if I show people I can hit a golf-ball over 350 yards,what would be subjective about that demonstration? “IOW if someone were to demonstrate that life could arise from non-living matter via those type of processes the design inference would fall.” Chris Hyland: We have very little idea about how abiogenesis could occur through non-goal oriented processes, and theres a very good chance we’ll never know. Then there isn't any reason to keep pushing the anti-ID view when there isn't any data to substantiate it. Ya see Chris if life didn't arise from non-kiving matter via some blind watchmaker-type process there wouldn't be any reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those types of processes. Chris Hyland: When people ask me about it I say we dont have a clue, I just don’t see how we can infer design from that without evidence that design took place. But it's OK to infer the anti-ID position without the evidence to support it? What a crock. We infer design because of what we know about nature and what it can accomplish if left to itself as contrasted with what intelligent agencies can do. and Thanks to Crandaddy: Intelligence and design operate to some extent within the natural order, and to this extent they can be observed and studied. Whether or not they extend beyond the natural order and into what could be called the “supernatural” is an issue outside the scope of ID. Joseph
August 9, 2006
August
08
Aug
9
09
2006
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
Chris,
We have very little idea about how abiogenesis could occur through non-goal oriented processes, and theres a very good chance we’ll never know. When people ask me about it I say we dont have a clue, I just don’t see how we can infer design from that without evidence that design took place.
What would qualify as evidence that design took place? Tom,
Then there is neither intelligence nor design outside of nature. If we detect intelligent design in a material entity, then we must conclude that the intelligence that conceived the design was not supernatural.
Intelligence and design operate to some extent within the natural order, and to this extent they can be observed and studied. Whether or not they extend beyond the natural order and into what could be called the "supernatural" is an issue outside the scope of ID.crandaddy
August 8, 2006
August
08
Aug
8
08
2006
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT
Joseph, "Both intelligence and design are natural." Then there is neither intelligence nor design outside of nature. If we detect intelligent design in a material entity, then we must conclude that the intelligence that conceived the design was not supernatural. "The debate is unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes vs. intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes." Are directedness and goal-orientation also natural?Tom English
August 8, 2006
August
08
Aug
8
08
2006
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
"All one has to do Chris (to falsify the design inference) is to show the structure in question could arise via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes." But what would show this varies very much from person to person, so it is still quite subjective. "IOW if someone were to demonstrate that life could arise from non-living matter via those type of processes the design inference would fall." We have very little idea about how abiogenesis could occur through non-goal oriented processes, and theres a very good chance we'll never know. When people ask me about it I say we dont have a clue, I just don't see how we can infer design from that without evidence that design took place.Chris Hyland
August 8, 2006
August
08
Aug
8
08
2006
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
“Could someone please, pretty please, tell me what prevents “tried-n-true” design detection methods, as well as the following processes that help us understand the design, from being used on biological organisms (that we don’t know if they have been “tinkered” with)?” Chris Hyland: Becuase whether or not you think biological organisms are designed still depends on whether you accept the evidence for evolution or not. Evidence for evolution is not evidence against design. There are many Intelligent Design Evolutionists. Chris Hyland: As I understand it the design inference involves calculation of the probability that the system could have arisen through natural causes. Then you have a mis-understanding. Both intelligence and design are natural. The debate is unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes vs. intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes. All one has to do Chris (to falsify the design inference) is to show the structure in question could arise via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes. IOW if someone were to demonstrate that life could arise from non-living matter via those type of processes the design inference would fall.Joseph
August 8, 2006
August
08
Aug
8
08
2006
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
Well, BC, this is really not a classic design inference. The claim here is not that something designed the smoke. The claim is that someone designed an image of smoke. The image is known to have resulted from human agency, and thus there is a "smoking gun" (to use Bill Dembski's term). Besides that, the process of recording data about an object in nature may introduce artifacts that happen to match patterns. (Somthing may have dripped on the lens of the camera before the photographer took the shot.) To see how a famous pattern on the surface of Mars vanishes with changes in imaging techniques, visit http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast24may_1.htmTom English
August 8, 2006
August
08
Aug
8
08
2006
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
> Has anyone calculated the complex specified information of the smoke billows in the original? in the fake? Well, Tom, it's really very hard to calculate the CSI. Although, since the fake contains many repeating patterns, we know it has less CSI than the original. Thus, the conclusion that the original photo is more likely to be intelligently designed than the fake. Er. Wait.BC
August 8, 2006
August
08
Aug
8
08
2006
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
Has anyone calculated the complex specified information of the smoke billows in the original? in the fake?Tom English
August 8, 2006
August
08
Aug
8
08
2006
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
"Could someone please, pretty please, tell me what prevents “tried-n-true” design detection methods, as well as the following processes that help us understand the design, from being used on biological organisms (that we don’t know if they have been “tinkered” with)?" Becuase whether or not you think biological organisms are designed still depends on whether you accept the evidence for evolution or not. As I understand it the design inference involves calculation of the probability that the system could have arisen through natural causes. At the moment it's impossible to put a number on it so either you think the evidence points to evolution having has no discernable direction or goal in which case you would put a high probability on it, or you don't in which case you'd put a low probability on it.Chris Hyland
August 8, 2006
August
08
Aug
8
08
2006
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
Funny thing: I haven’t found where Al Gore is listed as one the prophets of the Internet
Here's a quick copy-and-paste from Wikipedia that should explain... On 1999-03-09, Wolf Blitzer had an interview with Gore on CNN's Late Edition. During this interview, Gore said,
During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
This quote became the subject of heavy satire. In some cases, Gore was misrepresented as having said he had "invented" the Internet rather than having "taken the initiative in creating" it. In response to this controversy, Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Robert E. Kahn, wrote an e-mail dated 2000-09-28, that stated:
[A]s the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time. Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.
sagebrush gardener
August 8, 2006
August
08
Aug
8
08
2006
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
From moderator Denyse: Just for the record, commenter Joseph (rather than me) wrote this: \"Could someone please, pretty please, tell me what prevents “tried-n-true” design detection methods, as well as the following processes that help us understand the design, from being used on biological organisms (that we don’t know if they have been “tinkered” with)?\" But thanks for compliments.O\'Leary
August 8, 2006
August
08
Aug
8
08
2006
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply