Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Francisco Ayala: “You’re a heretic and blasphemer, but don’t ask me what I am.”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Darwin's Gift to Science and ReligionFrancisco Ayala has taken an aggressive theological stance against intelligent design, even using words like “blasphemy” and “atrocity” to characterize it (go here). But if Ayala feels entitled to make such strong accusations against ID, one might wonder what Ayala’s own theological views are. I therefore emailed him and copied Michael Ruse:

Dear Prof. Ayala,

I’m writing to inquire whether in any of your writings you lay out your present religious faith (and, if so, where?). I’m copying my friend Michael Ruse because I find his criticisms of ID parallel your own, and yet he makes clear that he himself is an atheist. You, on the other hand, regularly cite your background in the Roman Catholic Church as a priest. Yet you left the priesthood and it’s not clear what aspects of the Christian faith you retain. Do you, for instance, believe in a personal God who created the world? Do you believe that humans experience continued conscious existence after they die? Do you believe that Jesus was God incarnate? I would appreciate any clarifications you can provide. Thank you.

Blessings,
Bill Dembski

Ruse got back to me first and suggested that Ayala would not be forthcoming about his religious views, whereupon Ayala got back to me, agreeing with Ruse: “What Michael Ruse told you about my not asserting publicly my religious convictions is correct. I have stated that on numerous occasions, quoted in all sorts of publications from The New York Times and Scientific American to religious journals and periodicals.”

Interesting that Ayala is willing publicly to acknowledge his former theological views as a Roman Catholic priest (presumably he embraced RCC dogma). And yet his present theological views are off limits. Perhaps when Dover II rolls around, Ayala will be an expert witness and under deposition be required to state his theological views. In the mean time, Ayala’s reticence about his present religious faith (or lack thereof) is at best a convenient ploy.

Comments
tgpeeler (281),
If a code is present then so is design/intelligence. Why? Because there are NO naturalist/materialist explanations for a code.
You seem to be assuming your conclusion by saying that codes are only the result of intelligent design. If you define "code" in that way then your conclusion is trivially true but irrelevant to what we observe in DNA.
If I am wrong, if there is a code somewhere, anywhere, that can be explained by means of natural laws, then simply point it out
You seem to be asserting that DNA is a code that cannot be explained by means of natural laws, but that's exactly the question under consideration. When we look at the internals of a cell, we see normal (bio)chemistry in action. You can model the nucleotides as a code, but what's really happening is chemical reactions and physics. That's as natural as it gets.Cassandra
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
"Thanks for the detailed response. Could you please point out the specific posts on the other threads where you provided a detailed mathematical definition of FAI or FSCI and where you have calculated this quantity for a real biological system of some sort?" At the risk of oversimplifying, again, the KEY point is the existence of a CODE. If a code is present then so is design/intelligence. Why? Because there are NO naturalist/materialist explanations for a code. If I am wrong, if there is a code somewhere, anywhere, that can be explained by means of natural laws, then simply point it out and I will shut up. That should be motivation enough, I would think.tgpeeler
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
gpuccio (272),
In my post 239 I have answered in some detail to your request about quantification of functional information. BA and KF have given similar concepts in other posts. Would you like to comment on these things?
Thanks for the detailed response. Could you please point out the specific posts on the other threads where you provided a detailed mathematical definition of FAI or FSCI and where you have calculated this quantity for a real biological system of some sort? With this information, we can perhaps answer Petrushka's question in 227:
Under what circumstances would a point mutation change the quantity of FAI?
I would also be interested in your response to Aleta's 273 which identifies a significant problem with your definition from 239:
b) A computation of the minimal search space (for a protein of length n, that would be at least 20^n).
Cassandra
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
Aleta: do you not read peer review either, you know the ones directly under the videos you didn't watch?bornagain77
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
At the risk of oversimplifying... The only objective criteria needed is the existence of information. Information requires the existence of a code (language) and a code can never be explained within a naturalist ontology that, by definition, relies solely on physical laws to explain everything. The mistake is glaringly obvious. Since physics is good at explaining material things then that must mean only material things exist. Hardly. The only thing in human history, on this planet, in this universe, that has ever explained a code is intelligence. Or, as some would say, a designer. I am continually mystified by people who cannot or will not see this. It really is interesting to see the lengths to which some people will go to deny the elephant in the room. Or to claim that indeed, the emperor is wearing a brand new spiffy set of clothes.tgpeeler
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
Bornagain, I do not watch your videos. If you personally have something to say, say it.Aleta
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
Cabal, instead of sidetracking into satisfying irrelevance, why not ask a fundamental question. How do we know a nest was not built by the wind?Upright BiPed
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
Aleta you state: "They do not take into consideration any causal chain of events that could have brought the thing under consideration into existence through a set of steps." Do you care to point out where Dr. Axe has failed to consider "climbing mount improbable" Aleta? Evolution vs. Functional Proteins (Mt. Improbable) - Doug Axe - Video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222 Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681 The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe - 2010 Excerpt Pg. 11: "Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin." http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1 Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds: Doug Axe: Excerpt: Starting with a weakly functional sequence carrying this signature, clusters of ten side-chains within the fold are replaced randomly, within the boundaries of the signature, and tested for function. The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723 further notes: In the year 2000 IBM announced the development of a new super-computer, called Blue Gene, which was 500 times faster than any supercomputer built up until that time. It took 4-5 years to build. Blue Gene stands about six feet high, and occupies a floor space of 40 feet by 40 feet. It cost $100 million to build. It was built specifically to better enable computer simulations of molecular biology. The computer performs one quadrillion (one million billion) computations per second. Despite its speed, it was estimated to take one entire year for it to analyze the mechanism by which JUST ONE “simple” protein will fold onto itself from its one-dimensional starting point to its final three-dimensional shape. "Blue Gene's final product, due in four or five years, will be able to "fold" a protein made of 300 amino acids, but that job will take an entire year of full-time computing." Paul Horn, senior vice president of IBM research, September 21, 2000 http://www.news.com/2100-1001-233954.html "SimCell," anyone? "Unfortunately, Schulten's team won't be able to observe virtual protein synthesis in action. Even the fastest supercomputers can only depict such atomic complexity for a few dozen nanoseconds." - cool cellular animation videos on the site Networking a few hundred thousand computers together has reduced the time to a few weeks for simulating the folding of a single protein molecule: A Few Hundred Thousand Computers vs. A Single Protein Molecule - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018233bornagain77
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
WRT design, how can we determine whether a bird's nest was intelligently designed by a bird - or a human? In other words, don't we need objective criteria for determining the level/amount of intelligence required for various designs?Cabal
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
gpuccio writes, "I must say that I will be very happy to discuss in detail these topics (usually, when we arrive at this level, nobody answers)" I, and many others more knowledgeable than me (some of who are banned - hard to answer when you can't post), have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in all these definitions of whatever acronym is currently in vogue about complex specified information. The fact that you don't agree with the answer doesn't mean that people haven't answered. Let me point out the flaw again. You write, "It is easily definable as any string of digital information with the following properties: complexity higher than 10^150 (that is, length of about 500 bits); non significant compressibility (it cannot be generated through laws of necessity from a simpler string); and a recognizable, objectively definable function." [my emphasis] All calculations of CSI et al are simple probability calculations that all the component parts of whatever is being considered came together simultaneously and entirely by chance. They do not take into consideration any causal chain of events that could have brought the thing under consideration into existence through a set of steps. Since no one believes that anything happens by a whole bunch of parts just coming to together by chance, such calculations of CSI are irrelevant: they eliminate a hypothesis (pure chance) that no one thinks happened anyway. That's the answer that you don't want to accept.Aleta
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
Cassandra, Aleta et al: In my post 239 I have answered in some detail to your request about quantification of functional information. BA and KF have given similar concepts in other posts. Would you like to comment on these things? I concluded my post as follows: I must say that I will be very happy to discuss in detail these topics (usually, when we arrive at this level, nobody answers). As I hate to be always right (not good for control of the ego :) ), I hope this time I can get some feedback from you, who seemed specially interested in the subject, and worried that "nobody" would address it...gpuccio
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
G Puccio I would love to elaborate but the result of moderated comments being eventually released with their original post numbers makes reasonable discourse impossible. May I request Clive consider lifting moderation.Zach Bailey
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
@gpuccio Actually they are the same thing. There is a book out by the atheist philosopher Quine called the "two dogmas of empiricism". In it he refers to reductionism as a "metaphysical article of faith".above
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT
Petrushka: So, it was a hippopotamus, Again, no. My compliments for your stubborness. You are really something... Rights are irrelevant. When we assert that an object found in an archeological site is designed and made by humans, it is because we have observed humans making similar objects. Maybe you assert that for that reason. I assert that because I can design things, and know that intelligent conscious processes are implicated, and understand that some features of designed things can only come from that kind of processes. Maybe not the first generation. Maybe not even the last. Your ability to shift from blind reductionism to blind faith is really remarkable. When have we observed silicon brains designing themselves? But, after all, maybe blind reductionism and blind faith are just the same thing.gpuccio
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT
It’s not like the brains are going to build themselves now are they?
Maybe not the first generation.Petrushka
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT
-"If and when silicon brains are built" It's not like the brains are going to build themselves now are they? Humans will design them. That pretty much nullifies your argument.above
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT
And we have no right to assume that humans are the only conscious intelligent beings in reality.
Rights are irrelevant. When we assert that an object found in an archeological site is designed and made by humans, it is because we have observed humans making similar objects. The closest thing we have to seeing animals being designed is observing animal breeders using selection. If and when silicon brains are built, the final, critical wiring that makes them able to do useful things like recognize faces or human speech will be some form of trial and error learning -- variation and selection.Petrushka
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
So, it was a hippopotamus,
Again, no.Petrushka
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT
"There are certainly non-human builders, but engineers do not simply follow repetitive steps." Neither do spiders, nor beavers, nor ... When you want to argue that they do, then humans follow repetitive steps as well. Give it a rest.Upright BiPed
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
Petrushka: Briefly: The simple fact is that the only engineers we have observed in action have been human the problem is that the property of humans which is connected to engineering is their being conscious and intelligent. So we associate engineering to being conscious and intelligent. And we have no right to assume that humans are the only conscious intelligent beings in reality. That's why aliens are a valid candidate as designers, as Dawkins himself admits. That's why a concious intelligent god is a valid candidate as designer, as Dawkins himself admits. Must I remind you that the existence of a conscious intelligent god has been considered a valid hypothesis in human thought for millennia? however more recent molecular phylogeny data suggest that whales are more closely related to the artiodactyls, specifically the hippopotamus So, it was a hippopotamus, and not a cow or a wolf... Staggering! So, if Berlinski had made his video about how to change a hippopotamus into a whale, you would have found it funny, I believe?gpuccio
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
Twilight Zone intro. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Ybornagain77
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
Your link says that the earliest ancestor was a wolf with hooves, so something like a carnivorous cow
It doesn't say that at all.
The traditional theory of cetacean evolution was that whales were related to the mesonychids, an extinct order of carnivorous ungulates (hoofed animals), which looked rather like wolves with hooves and were a sister group of artiodactyls. These animals possessed unusual triangular teeth that are similar to those of whales. For this reason, scientists had long believed that whales evolved from a form of mesonychid; however more recent molecular phylogeny data suggest that whales are more closely related to the artiodactyls, specifically the hippopotamus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans#Earliest_ancestorsPetrushka
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
There are certainly non-human builders, but engineers do not simply follow repetitive steps.Petrushka
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT
The circularity of logic in the following statement is staggering: -"The simple fact is that the only engineers we have observed in action have been human, and humans have yet to build anything architecturally like a brain. If they succeed, the architecture will be a copy of something that arose through some other process" Notice how via the use of the semantic 'other process', this poster limits the explanatory scope within the myopic perspective of materialistic mechanism. Thus we see her assumption now pretend to be the explanation.above
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
"No, I mean something ..." I didn't think so. Making comparisons between observed biological reality and those things we already know were enginieered is not a particularly profitable discussion for a materialist. "The simple fact is that the only engineers we have observed in action have been human..." That is not even close to being true. "If they succeed, the architecture will be a copy of something that arose through some other process." Checkmate then, even if indulgently asserted. - - - - - - As I already noted, where you are concerned, no evidence against materialism is sufficient, and no evidence for it is necessary.Upright BiPed
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
You mean like an IF/AND/OR logic gate on a schematic…or perhaps a rotor/stator assembly from a motor?
No, I mean something like a fly's brain. The simple fact is that the only engineers we have observed in action have been human, and humans have yet to build anything architecturally like a brain. If they succeed, the architecture will be a copy of something that arose through some other process.Petrushka
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
semi off topic but related to information: Many people, including myself, argue that the Bible itself is proof of God’s supernatural and personal involvement with man because it is "alive": Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. The Word Is Alive - Casting Crowns - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3ucyoy7sbkbornagain77
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT
Actually the reductionists are up a creek to since if you want to follow a purely reductionists route you will end up with "information" as well: leading quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger has followed in John Archibald Wheeler's footsteps (1911-2008) by insisting reality, at its most foundational level, is "information". "It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom - at a very deep bottom, in most instances - an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that things physical are information-theoretic in origin." John Archibald Wheeler Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/8638/Default.aspx Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf Single photons to soak up data: Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201 Ultra-Dense Optical Storage - on One Photon Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image's worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact. http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html This following experiment clearly shows information is not an "emergent property" of any solid material basis as is dogmatically asserted by some materialists: Converting Quantum Bits: Physicists Transfer Information Between Matter and Light Excerpt: A team of physicists at the Georgia Institute of Technology has taken a significant step toward the development of quantum communications systems by successfully transferring quantum information from two different groups of atoms onto a single photon. http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/quantumtrans.htm and if you really want to go full tilt reductionism then you end up with the "mind of God" which is causing this "infinite information" to collapse to a bit/it state: "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck - The Father Of Quantum Mechanics - (Of Note: Planck was a devout Christian, which is not surprising when you realize practically every founder of a major branch of modern science also had a deep Christian connection.)bornagain77
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
I don't think IF is a kind of logic gate, Upright ;)Berceuse
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
#253 You mean like an IF/AND/OR logic gate on a schematic...or perhaps a rotor/stator assembly from a motor?Upright BiPed
June 3, 2010
June
06
Jun
3
03
2010
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 11

Leave a Reply