Human Evil, Music, Logic, and Himalayan Dung Heaps

_{Gil Dodgen

July 6, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

When I was in college I studied classical piano with Istvan Nadas who was a Hungarian concert pianist and a student of Bela Bartok. Istvan was a miraculous survivor of one of Hitler’s death camps. The stories he told me still haunt me to this day.

The commandant of the death camp liked to play Bach over the loudspeaker system while he had random inmates shot or hung, just for fun and entertainment. Nadas told me about the horror of listening to Bach while he watched his fellow inmates being machine-gunned to death in front of him. Nadas told me, “I knew every note of that music and could play it on the piano, but I also knew that if they discovered I was a concert pianist they would break all my fingers so I could never play the piano again.”

Nadas’s death camp was eventually “liberated” by the Russians. Istvan was one of only 150 survivors from a camp of thousands. He weighed 90 pounds and was suffering from dysentery and other diseases. While the Russians were transporting him on a train to what he knew would be a Russian internment camp he managed to jump out of the train as it slowed in the mountains. Under machine-gun fire he fled into the trees, was helped my local residents, and was eventually smuggled by an African American GI under a tarp in the back of a jeep through Check Point Charlie.

Nadas eventually discovered that every member of his extended family had either been gassed or otherwise tortured and exterminated by the Nazis, or shot by the Russians, with one exception: his mother, whom he eventually tracked down in Italy after the war.

One evening, after a concert at the university while I was studying piano with Nadas, which was conducted by a guest “contemporary composer” — it was just a bunch of random cacophony, very painful to listen to, but sold as legitimate music — I asked Nadas what he thought.

“It is a Himalayan dung heap,” he replied. (Nadas spoke six languages fluently, and had a way with words.) This phrase stuck in my mind, and it’s the perfect description of something so obviously stupid that it represents a pile of crap of Himalayan proportions.

The students and faculty applauded the Himalayan-dung-heap “music” because no one had the courage to point out the obvious, except for Nadas.

This is a perfect metaphor for Darwinism. Very few people in academia have the courage to point out the cacophony and illogic of Darwinian speculation.

It takes the courage of someone like Nadas, who was willing to jump off a train in the mountains under machine-gun fire, to tell the obvious truth.

Comments

Mung:
Elizabeth Liddle:
I am completely convinced by substantial evidence (including my own work!) that self-replication with variance in a fitness landscape results in entities with the appearance of well-engineered design!
You keep talking about reams and reams of evidence. Please, show it so us. Just one.
I already have. GAs. Ask DrBot - if you set up self-replication with variance in a fitness landscape, you end up with virtual organisms that do a job with great efficiency, often using tricks that the person who set up the GA hadn't even thought of. DrBot had a good example. Sometimes it takes a while for the people who set up the GA even to work out how the solution actually works! And often the code (if code is what is evolving) is exceptionally efficient. Now I know you have raised objections to this example, but I think your objections are ill-founded, as I have tried to explain. So we may have to continue to differ on that. But from my own PoV, the principle is extremely well established, to the extent that if I want to solve a difficult problem (a pattern classification problem for instance) I figure out some learning algorithm (i.e. one based on Darwinian principles) to figure it out, rather than do it myself. That's a pretty good example, actually, as pattern classifiers are an important aspect of biological vision.
But first. Where did the replicator and fitness landscape come from?
The fitness landscape is dead easy. It's the environment. The replicator is of course more tricky, and, as of writing, remains unsolved. However, what I was quite excited about doing was devising a simulation in which a self-replicator would emerge from non-self-replicators. I'm hoping still to have a shot at that. It might even be publishable if I succeed :)
IOW, don’t we have the appearance of well-engineered design before we had those things you assert are capable of generating the appearance of well-engineered design?
Well, the very simplest self-replicators can be pretty crude. It's getting in the variance that's the tricky part - variance in self-replication efficiency.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

Mung:
Are you serious? A footprint in cement is information? To whom?
To someone looking at it.
You need to explain the arrival of information prior to the presence of any mind to pronounce meaning.
Not if what I am trying to do is determine the depth of symbolism in the medium in which the message is encoded, which I was. I wasn't discussing sender or receiver, but the format of the message. Context is important.
Please, come up with a better example than one that requires a mind to assign the meaning.
Upright BiPed have already agreed that no mind is require to assign the meaning. That is not at issue.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
I am completely convinced by substantial evidence (including my own work!) that self-replication with variance in a fitness landscape results in entities with the appearance of well-engineered design!
You keep talking about reams and reams of evidence. Please, show it so us. Just one. But first. Where did the replicator and fitness landscape come from? IOW, don't we have the appearance of well-engineered design before we had those things you assert are capable of generating the appearance of well-engineered design?Mung_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
Let say that a footprint is recorded in a wet cement pavement. In a sense that footprint is information (it has meaning – it informs us that someone stepped in the cement while it was wet).
Are you serious? A footprint in cement is information? To whom? You need to explain the arrival of information prior to the presence of any mind to pronounce meaning. Please, come up with a better example than one that requires a mind to assign the meaning.Mung_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Hello Dr LIddle, Sorry for the delay by not being able to respond yesterday. I will post my repsonse later today.Upright BiPed_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

Good Afternoon Lizzie, Remember when you said that there was no “prejudice against a Creator God” at play when people reject Intelligent Design theory? I think your last response to me shows numerous examples of such a prejudice. In other words, design detection is perfectly rational, intuitive and empirically sound, unless the Designer in question might be the Creator. While you concede that you no longer need to know the identity of the Designer, you still insist that we must postulate a specific kind of Designer. Why? Your next step is to postulate “an omnipotent God who could do anything s/he felt like at any time”. Again, why? Such a step is extremely illogical: it doesn’t follow from your previous step. It is also unscientific: what does science even have to say about things that possess omnipotence? Such muddled thinking is a clear sign that you are approaching Intelligent Design theory with a prejudice against any Designer who might be the Creator. You also claim that it is unlikely that the Designer “was able to transfer solutions from one lineage to another” and that the Designer “preferred retrofitting to “going back to the drawing board” where possible”. Again, these are prejudicial comments given that all we are trying to do is establish whether or not actual Design has taken place. It’s almost as if you’re saying: “Well, the Designer is not capable of transferring solutions from one lineage to another and prefers retrofitting. If I was the Designer, that’s not how I would do it. So there can’t possibly be a Designer: it must have all made itself!” At one point, you even suggested that we have to know that the Designer(s) “lived around these parts” before entertaining the possibility that something didn’t make itself. Why would you insist on such an odd requirement if you are not bringing prejudicial baggage to the table (ie. there is no Creator around these parts so don’t even go there with the cell)? No doubt your opponents bring their own prejudices to the debate, Lizzie: Biblical Literalists being an extreme (and rare) example. But most of us put science ahead of those prejudices. Most of us can take or leave evolution, for example. You’ve got theistic evolutionists on one end of the scale and then creationists on the other. Personally, I don’t see any scientific evidence whatsoever to support the belief that a single-celled common ancestor evolved into human beings. I don’t even accept common ancestry. Again, this is on purely scientific grounds. If the evidence led to evolutionist explanations then I’d simply become a theistic evolutionist. Even front-loaded deism would be relatively easy to accommodate (including the implications for abiogenesis). But atheists have got no room for manoeuvre. They can’t take or leave a Designer that might be the Creator. The universe and everything in it MUST have made itself, through purely naturalistic processes or else their entire worldview collapses and it really is back to the drawing board. I put it to you, Lizzie, that you are placing your worldview, and therefore prejudices against a Designer who might be the Creator, ahead of what are otherwise plainly obvious and entirely straightforward means of Design detection in the cell. You’ve already conceded that you’ve got absolutely no idea where the first self-replicator came from. As I’ve already pointed out: things that self-replicate are more difficult to explain than the same things that don’t self-replicate. It is impossible that non self-replicating artifacts such as Stonehenge or the Sphinx made themselves. Crazy appeals to science fiction aside, it is all the more impossible that a self-replicating version of these things made themselves! It is not their inability to self-replicate that leads you to the certain and immediate conviction of design. Throwing self-replication into the mix only strengthens that conviction. And the cell is vastly more functional, sophisticated and complicated than Stonehenge and the Sphinx even before it self-replicates… However, you “consider the evidence overwhelming, as well as supported by elementary logic, that things that reproduce themselves with variance tend to end up evolving into ever-more-efficient self-reproducing things”. Surely, then, you can briefly summarise an important part of this ‘elementary logic’ as well as briefly identifying some of this ‘overwhelming’ evidence because most of us just don’t see it. Just remember, artificial selection is much more powerful than natural selection. As kairosfocus pointed out back in May: “[Natural] selection, contrary to popular opinion, is not a source of information, but patently a culler — a remover — of information. The variants that do not find niches do not survive to pass on genes. That which subtracts does not add. We have to look at that which supposedly adds, before we can see how subtraction may lead to survivors. By repeating the mantra “natural selection” one does not escape the need for engines of variation, and for specifically non-foresighted engines of variation, for darwinian type evolution.” Artificial selection offers more than Natural Selection, but it is still limited to mere sub-specific variety: something that has been happening to all extant species for their entire known existence without any significant alteration whatsoever. Just offering evidence of sub-specific variety would therefore be completely underwhelming because any increased efficiency it generates is merely a product of a pre-existing gene pool.Chris Doyle_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Hi Chris! No apology required for persisting, Chris, it's a good thing not a bad, IMO :)
Sorry to persist, Lizzie, but you definitely are getting “way ahead of yourself”! We identified the same problem over on the “extraterrestrials-could-have-started-life-on-earth” thread: You won’t even consider the possibility of murder until I give you the identity and motive of the murderer so natural causes MUST be the explanation no matter what I say! In the real world, we do not require the identity and motive of the murderer in order to establish that murder has taken place.
That is true. But it does not contradict my point. We do not have to know the identity of the axehead maker to infer that the axehead was made by an axehead maker. But we do have to know that axehead makers lived around these parts, in order to draw the conclusion with any degree of confidence. That was my point.
The same applies in many other fields of knowledge, including archaeology and biochemistry. Instead of dealing with at least one of the three examples I listed, you decided to bring up dodgy axeheads (made out of straw, not rock). I repeat, you do not need to know anything whatsoever about the Designer(s) of Stonehenge, the Sphinx or the Easter Island statues to know that these things did NOT make themselves: they must have been made.
I agree. And I specifically addressed the Stonehenge example.
This is all the more true of the cell.
Well, no, because in the case of the cell we have something very different, which is a self-replicator! And we know that self-replicators have certain pertinent properties. At least it is my claim that they do.
I strongly deny “the undeniable fact that unlike most human artefacts, living things reproduce themselves with variance, and we know that things that reproduce themselves with variance tend to end up evolving into ever-more-efficient self-reproducing things.”
Right. :)
This is 100% wishful thinking and 0% fact. It is also highly misleading: if Stonehenge or the Sphinx reproduced themselves tomorrow we wouldn’t all of a sudden conclude “oh well, they weren’t made after all, they must have just made themselves.” No, creating something that has the ability to reproduce itself is vastly more difficult than creating something that lacks this ability.
Yes, we might well do precisely that. Well, I mean obviously this is a fantastical example, but if we were in some sci fi movie perhaps, to observe the stones moving around and reproducing, and their seeds flying off and burrowing into some green plain elsewhere, leaving no surface trace, we might well think: "aha! Perhaps this is why we have found no answer to how the stones were erected! They are not stones at all! They are self-reproducing organisms! And we have witnessed a rare event - the self-seeding of a new stone circle - an Avebury for the future!" So no, it's not 100% wishful thinking at all. I am completely convinced by substantial evidence (including my own work!) that self-replication with variance in a fitness landscape results in entities with the appearance of well-engineered design! But I do accept that you are not :)
Confusingly, you’ve used the term ‘know’ in the “undeniable” statement above when surely what you meant was ‘must believe’: “…and we must believe that things that reproduce themselves with variance tend to end up evolving into ever-more-efficient self-reproducing things.”
Fair enough. But I tend to consider that things I've seen with my own eyes are probably true! However, both illusions and delusions are possible, as I should know. I'll rephrase: I consider the evidence overwhelming, as well as supported by elementary logic, that things that reproduce themselves with variance tend to end up evolving into ever-more-efficient self-reproducing things". Better?
If we correct the statement in that way, I can understand your position as it is now less unrealistic. In the absence of an empirical basis, belief in this is necessary because without it, neo-darwinism fails. By the way, evidence for sub-specific variety doesn’t count (just in case you were going to bring up peppered moths, finches or e-coli again).
The first two do count! - e-coli, not so much, as e-coli don't speciate, whereas finches may, and indeed do. I simply dispute that this inference has no "empirical basis". It has as much, if not more, empirical basis than much science we simply take for granted. Remember that we don't do "proof" in science - we fit models to data. The evolutionary model fits the data extremely well.
As for misunderstanding the Null Hypothesis, it seems like you’ve identified a misunderstanding that is shared by all atheistic evolutionists. ID opponents have criticised ID proponents precisely for articulating the null, then rejecting it (apparently, that approach is too negative)!
No, it isn't too negative at all. The reason I think ID proponents are wrong is not because they articulate non-Design as the null (that's the best way of doing it) but because their rejection criteria are incorrect.
Furthermore, we could substitute “Stonehenge” for “the cell” and quickly discover that the vast majority of atheists do not proceed on that basis.
Not sure what you mean.
“So if you wanted to demonstrate that Stonehenge was NOT designed, your null would have to be:Stonehenge was designed.”
So if you wanted to demonstrate the the cell was NOT designed, you null would have to be: the cell was designed.
Yes. But to do that you'd have to postulate a specific kind of Designer. If the postulated designer was an omnipotent God who could do anything s/he felt like at any time, it wouldn't work, because the null would cover every possible and every impossible observation. That's why proving that the cell was not designed is not actually feasible. The best we can do is show that we have a good model of the emergence and evolution of the cell that is compatible with non-design. Then you either use a Bayesian approach, or Occam's Razor to decide which alternative you prefer. However, we can demonstrate that living things were not likely to be designed by any entity that was able to transfer solutions from one lineage to another, as human designers do, and, if they were designed, were designed by someone who preferred retrofitting to "going back to the drawing board" where possible. This pattern of design fits will with Darwin's theory, but is rather unlike the pattern of human design lineages.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: Responding to your response to my belated response to you, aware that it may now be out of date (that’s why I responded to your other post first).
Dr Liddle, Below is my response to your post at 46. I hesitate to post it yet, given that I don’t want to cover up your response to my post at 50. - – - – - – - – - – -
My own view – or perhaps “hunch”- is that the reason that IDsts regard evolutionary scientists as missing a Glaringly Obvious Fact (and therefore assume at best stupidity and/or ignorance, and at worst deliberate dishonesty) while conversely evolutionary scientists regard IDists as Completely Missing The Point (and therefore assume ditto) is not because they disagree on some level at which the disagreement can be resolved in favour of one or other to the satisfaction of both, but because they have very different “problem statements”.
I’m not interested in political statements at this juncture. If your point is that people who are competing with ideas argue about them, then thanks for pointing that out, but it’s irrelevant to the content of the conversation we were having.
No, that’s not my point. My point is that you can’t even start to argue constructively until you have a shared problem statement. That’s what I’m trying to get to.
Unfortunately, the converse is probably true as well – that we don’t manage to agree on the problem statement, or, worse (for me!) we appear to agree with it, and I produce a demonstration that I think supports my view, and then we find that actually we didn’t actually agree in the first place!
You have my apologies if you cannot tell it, but I am trying to be clear and descriptive of the observations. When I say something and you reply “Yes!” or “Right!” or “Cool, I like it” then I assume you understand what I am saying. If you make that same reply several times in a row to several interrelated comments, then I assume you understand a whole class of interrelated comments. Beyond that, I have asked you for a reasonable preliminary overview of how you plan to integrate the observations we’ve agreed upon into your simulation. I think it’s reasonable to expect at some point that overview might include such words are “representation” and “protocol” and the like – given that is what the conversation is about. Conversely, it would seem odd to acknowledge the observations of a phenomenon on the front side, then to attempt a simulation of that phenomenon without addressing those observations.
Well, I do understand that you are trying to be clear and descriptive, and yes, when I say I like something, it does mean that I think I understand it – and that I agree with it! However, it is no guarantee that I understand it, because words are tricksy things. , “Protocol” I was interpreting as a set of procedures that are initiated in response to incoming information, for instance, the assembly of a protein from the information arriving in the form of messenger RNA from the DNA. I’m fairly clear about that I think. “Representation” however, opens a potential can of worms, but I’ve already flagged that up.
For that we needed an operational definition of both “information” and “Darwinian processes”. For the latter, I have operationalized “Darwinian processes “ as comprising of no more than Chance and Necessity. I haven’t done this formally, but I’ll do so now: “Chance” processes will be generated by a random number generator with a flat distribution, and will govern the movement of elements in my model, in a manner analogous to Brownian Motion. “Necessity” processes will govern the conditions under which the basic elements of my model bind and/or repel each other. These will be laid out at the start, and will not be changed during the running of the model – the “chemistry” of the system.
No problem.
Excellent!
Meyer’s account of Shannon information is … … So it seems that Shannon information supplies us with… …and is what Dembski calls… … Dembski, talks about … … But Meyer talks about…
Again, these things may be interesting on their own merit, but they have nothing to do with the conversation we have been having. These concepts were not required by Nirenberg, and they aren’t a requirement for us.
Nirenberg? OK, well, now I know we aren’t talking about Shannon information, or Dembski information or Meyer information, but Nirenberg! But my original claim was about those first things, because I, obviously naively as it turns out, assumed that on Dembski’s own site, that was probably what people regarded as information! But OK.
Two things were missing …
I have not seen this exchange between you and KF – but to my understanding of them, I agree with both points. To my mind, they speak to the same structural problem. If such a structure somehow existed in the genome, we would have never discovered the genetic code. There would have been no observations in which to discern it as we did. At the same time, we are not looking for a new way in which information can exist; we are looking for it as it does exist.
In my original plan, I was not going to attempt …
When recorded information is transferred from a medium it goes through protocol to its e. See my comment #50
Not sure which comment you mean. Nor what this means. Let say that a footprint is recorded in a wet cement pavement. In a sense that footprint is information (it has meaning – it informs us that someone stepped in the cement while it was wet). If we then drop a load of latex on the pavement, and let it set, we can then use that latex mould to make a replica of the original pavement. We can, in other words, transfer the information to a new piece of cement, using the medium of the latex. But I think you would, rightly, say that this medium was not “symbolic”, even though there is a clear “protocol” for the transfer of information (pouring the latex, taking it elsewhere, using it as cement shuttering). But let’s say the footprints were those of a great dancer, and the purpose of making replicas was to help train new dancers in the same style, by showing them how to place their feet. Now that information is being translated into something quite different – a dance. We still don’t have a true symbol though, more what Saussure (Saussure? My semiotics is rusty, it might have been Peirce) called an index - a pointer. So let’s say that instead, a choreographer interprets the footprints and notates them. Now (if I recall my memories of a choreologist friend!) we have an iconic representation of the original dance – signifiers derived from the way the original looks. Finally, we might simply describe the footprints in words – true symbols, and transmit the dance steps that way to the dancer. So there are layers and layers of abstraction between a direct template or mould, to a fully symbolic system. In my view tRNA is not much more than a template. But I’d like to know just how remote the information format has to be from the transmission medium format for it to qualify as a symbolic representation.
This is what I meant when I said DNA is not “inert” – its state at the beginning and end of the process is unchanged, but it undergoes a state change during the process.
We can talk about the backbone of DNA if you wish; it’s an extremely rare object that allows any of the four nucleotides to occupy any position along its length without influencing their order. But as interesting as it is, the sequence of nucleotides seems more interesting, given that it is where the information is. And that sequence doesn’t change as an observable effect of being unzipped for transcription.
I entirely agree that the nucleotide sequence does not change. I didn’t mean to imply that it did. I simply meant that as a molecule it actually takes part in the process, and changes state during the process, while reverting to its original state afterward. That’s as long as we regard the DNA molecule as not including the methyl groups periodically bonded to it. If we do, then it most certainly is not inert.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

Sorry to persist, Lizzie, but you definitely are getting “way ahead of yourself”! We identified the same problem over on the “extraterrestrials-could-have-started-life-on-earth” thread: You won’t even consider the possibility of murder until I give you the identity and motive of the murderer so natural causes MUST be the explanation no matter what I say! In the real world, we do not require the identity and motive of the murderer in order to establish that murder has taken place. The same applies in many other fields of knowledge, including archaeology and biochemistry. Instead of dealing with at least one of the three examples I listed, you decided to bring up dodgy axeheads (made out of straw, not rock). I repeat, you do not need to know anything whatsoever about the Designer(s) of Stonehenge, the Sphinx or the Easter Island statues to know that these things did NOT make themselves: they must have been made. This is all the more true of the cell. I strongly deny “the undeniable fact that unlike most human artefacts, living things reproduce themselves with variance, and we know that things that reproduce themselves with variance tend to end up evolving into ever-more-efficient self-reproducing things.” This is 100% wishful thinking and 0% fact. It is also highly misleading: if Stonehenge or the Sphinx reproduced themselves tomorrow we wouldn’t all of a sudden conclude “oh well, they weren’t made after all, they must have just made themselves.” No, creating something that has the ability to reproduce itself is vastly more difficult than creating something that lacks this ability. Confusingly, you’ve used the term ‘know’ in the "undeniable" statement above when surely what you meant was ‘must believe’: "...and we must believe that things that reproduce themselves with variance tend to end up evolving into ever-more-efficient self-reproducing things." If we correct the statement in that way, I can understand your position as it is now less unrealistic. In the absence of an empirical basis, belief in this is necessary because without it, neo-darwinism fails. By the way, evidence for sub-specific variety doesn’t count (just in case you were going to bring up peppered moths, finches or e-coli again). As for misunderstanding the Null Hypothesis, it seems like you’ve identified a misunderstanding that is shared by all atheistic evolutionists. ID opponents have criticised ID proponents precisely for articulating the null, then rejecting it (apparently, that approach is too negative)! Furthermore, we could substitute “Stonehenge” for “the cell” and quickly discover that the vast majority of atheists do not proceed on that basis. “So if you wanted to demonstrate that Stonehenge was NOT designed, your null would have to be:Stonehenge was designed.” So if you wanted to demonstrate the the cell was NOT designed, you null would have to be: the cell was designed. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?Chris Doyle_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, I have just read your response. I thank you for it, and will respond later today.Upright BiPed_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Chris: Chris:
Morning Lizzie, There is a big problem with this statement that you made: “A-theism is surely the default in the absense of evidence for a theos? I mean, I know you disagree about evidence, but the burden of proof is usually to those making the claim for the existence of something, rather than on those who do not accept the claim.” I think identifying this problem gets us closer to the question that we need to answer: if the basis for the atheistic worldview is neither rational, nor empirical, then what is it? You get way ahead of yourself Lizzie when you get preoccupied with questions about HOW Intelligent Design was implemented and by WHO. Front-loading, tinkering, aliens, the Creator: all interesting technical details but utterly irrelevant until you admit that Intelligent Design is the best, and only, scientific explanation for existence. After all, we are in complete agreement that everywhere we look and anything we look at is giving us the overwhelming impression of design. The only disagreement lies in the fact that atheists and evolutionists claim that this appearance of design is not real, it is only an illusion.
Well, I disagree, Chris, that I get “way ahead of myself”. That would only be true if it were true that we can distinguish, without a shadow of a doubt, between natural phenomena and artefacts, without any knowledge of the characteristics of likely designers. Archaeologists often struggle to distinguish between axe-heads and naturally chipped stones, and the way they do so is not only by exhaustive examination of the object in question, but also by using other information such as the proximity of known camps; known styles of axehead; the technology known to be contemporaneous with the object etc. In other words, it’s an iterative process of hypothesis testing, and very substantially Bayesian: given two identical candidate axe heads, one found in a region known to be inhabited by axehead makers and the other on Mars, the reason we would infer that the first was probably designed, and the second probably wasn’t is by computing the conjoint probability that it’s an axehead based on its morphology and the probability based on the likelihood of an axehead Designer at that time in that location (namely 1-(1-p(axehead morphology)*1-p(axehead designer)).
Yet, atheists only ever employ this rather absurd line of argument when it comes to one thing: the Creator. In all other walks of life, they wouldn’t entertain it for a minute. Take three examples: 1. Stonehenge 2. The Sphinx 3. Easter Island Atheists never, ever say that the null hypothesis is that these things just made themselves. Atheists never say that the default position is that these things were put together by Chance and Necessity and that the burden of proof is on those who claim that these things required Intelligent Design. Atheists never say that people who reject purely naturalistic explanations for these things are Completely Missing The Point.
Here we come up against (I think) a misunderstanding of the nature of a Null Hypothesis (again!) Yes, “atheists” might present “these things just made themselves” as the null in these examples, because casting that as the null is the best way to test the hypothesis that they did not. And it’s a hypothesis that can be readily rejected. That’s the whole point of articulating the null – so that you have a chance of rejecting it. If you want to demonstrate design, in fact, that’s exactly the null you have to cast, which is exactly what Dembski does in the Explanatory Filter, and in the concept of CSI. You cast as the null, in other words, the hypothesiss you seek to reject. And if you fail to reject it, you are not entitled to conclude the null, merely to “retain it”. Your alternative hypothesis remains undemonstrated, not rejected. So if you wanted to demonstrate that Stonehenge was NOT designed, your null would have to be: Stonehenge was designed. To reject that hypothesis, you’d have to find evidence that a non-design mechanism was unlikely under the null hypothesis that it was designed. Which would be very difficult. In fact, you wouldn’t use null hypothesis testing at all, probably, you’d use some kind of Bayesian method: you’d say (as above) : is a non-design mechanism possible? If so, how probable are the conditions that would make possible? And how does this probability compare with the probability that the conditions existed for stone-age designers to have erected such vast stones? And you’d probably conclude that while a freak set of geological catastrophes just might have left the henge as we find it, they are vanishingly unlikely, while the probability that a stone-age civilisation just might have figured out how to erect the stones is more likely, even though we still have no clue how they did it.
Atheists would be the first to agree that the burden of proof lies COMPLETELY with anyone who claimed that Stonehenge built itself, that the Sphinx carved itself and that the Easter Island statues buried themselves. Atheists would have no doubt that anyone who advanced such absurd claims would have entirely irrational and non-empirical reasons for rejecting that which is plainly obvious. And yet, it is far more probable that Stonehenge made itself than that the cell made itself. It is much more obvious that the cell requires Intelligent Design than Stonehenge. There is no logic, no reason and no evidence to support the belief that Stonehenge made itself and that is even more true of the cell. It seems that atheists only ever reject arguments for Intelligent Design if there is a possibility that the Intelligent Designer might be the Creator (a point previously hammered home by Cannuckian Yankee). So it all comes back to, what is really going on with atheists? Why do they ignore science whenever science points to the Creator? Something emotional or cultural perhaps? If we can identify the true (no doubt, very personal) motivation behind atheism, we need not concern ourselves with trying to define our disagreement in the most acceptable terms: or even quibbling over the meaning of the term “information”.
Well, as I explain above, I think you have a straw man here. “Atheists” (scare quotes because they include lots of non-atheists) do not reject a Designer as the best explanation for the complexity of the cell because of some prejudice against a Creator God, but because there is a plausible alternative (or one they consider plausible) that is more likely. In particular is the undeniable fact that unlike most human artefacts, living things reproduce themselves with variance, and we know that things that reproduce themselves with variance tend to end up evolving into ever-more-efficient self-reproducing things. So we have a candidate mechanism, that makes predictions that are in fact borne out by evidence, some of which are rather different to the predictions made by the hypothesis of an Intentional Designer. In addition, there isn’t much really credible independent evidence for an Interventionist Designer God, whatever the logical arguments might be for a Light-Touch-Paper-And-Retire one, and the hypothesis requires an Interventionist Designer (or, if not, I haven’t seen a convincing one that doesn’t). So people’s priors (in a Bayesian sense) are low, whereas they are considerably higher for a mechanism that we know works in principle, and makes testable differential predictions. We are still stuck, of course, on the problem of how self-replicators emerged from non-self-replicators, but it isn’t as though even there we have some promising candidate explanation that again do not require a high prior for something (an Interventionist Designer God) that doesn’t seem to be much in evidence. As usual, not asking you to agree with me, just trying to explain my position :) Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, From my previous post to you, I have assumed that we came to some valuable agreements, based upon your responses. For instance we agreed that the presence of information has specific requirements. To my mind, these requirements are the primary agreement needed in demonstrating that information did in fact arise from your simulation. Those requirements consist of the presence of discrete representations, as well as the discrete protocols needed to decode them.
Well, we certainly agree that in order to demonstrate my claim I need an operational definition of information, and that, clearly will have requirements. However, if it turns out that your requirements (your operational definition) goes well beyond the conceptual definition I had in mind, I may have to retract. But I’m not there yet :)
I make the above assumption from the following exchange: BIPED: In retrospect, when I stated that recorded information requires symbols in order to exist, it would have been more correct to say that recorded information requires both symbols and the discrete protocols that actualize them. Without symbols, recorded information cannot exist, and without protocols it cannot be transferred. Yet, we know in the cell that information both exists and is transferred. LIDDLE: Yes. And I like that you refer to “the cell” and not simply “the DNA”. BIPED: This goes to the very heart of the claim that ID makes regarding the necessity of a living agent in the causal chain leading to the origin of biological information. LIDDLE: Let me be clear here: by “living agent”, are you referring to the postulated Intelligent Designer[s]? Or am I misunderstanding you? BIPED: ID views these symbols and their discrete protocols as formal, abstract, and with their origins associated only with the living kingdom (never with the remaining inanimate world). Their very presence reflects a break in the causal chain, where on one side is pure physicality (chance contingency + physical law) and on the other side is formalism (choice contingency + physical law). Your simulation should be an attempt to cause the rise of symbols and their discrete protocols (two of the fundamental requirements of recorded information between a sender and a receiver) from a source of nothing more than chance contingency and physical law. LIDDLE: Cool. I like that. BIPED: And therefore, to be an actual falsification of ID, your simulation would be required to demonstrate that indeed symbols and their discrete protocols came into physical existence by nothing more than chance and physical law. LIDDLE: Right. BIPED: The question immediately becomes “how would we know?” How is the presence of symbols and their discrete protocols observed in order to be able to demonstrate they exist? For this, I suggest we can use life itself as a model, since that is the subject on the table. We could also easily consider any number of human inventions where information (symbols and protocols) are used in an “autonomous” (non-conscious) system. LIDDLE: OK. BIPED: For instance, in a computer (where information is processed) we physically instantiate into the system the protocols that are to be used in decoding the symbols. The same can be said of any number of similar systems. Within these systems (highlighting the very nature of information) we can change the protocols and symbols and the information can (and will) continue to flow. Within the cell, the discrete protocols for decoding the symbols in DNA are physically instantiated in the tRNA and its coworkers. (This of course makes complete sense in a self-replicating system, and leads us to the observed paradox where you need to decode the information in DNA to in order to build the system capable of decoding the information in DNA). LIDDLE: Nicely put. And my intention is to show that it is not a paradox – that a beginning consisting of a unfeasibly improbable assemblage of molecules, brought together by no more than Chance (stochastic processes) and Necessity (physical and chemical properties) can bootstrap itself into a cycle of coding:building:coding:building: etc. BIPED: Given this is the way in which we find symbols and protocols physically instantiated in living systems (allowing for the exchange of information), it would be reasonable to expect to see these same dynamics at work in your simulation. LIDDLE: Yes, I agree. Cool! BIPED: I hope that helps you “get to the heart of what [I] think evolutionary processes can’t do”. LIDDLE: Yes, I think so. That is enormously helpful and just what I was looking for.
Yes, except that I need to know a little more about what you would regard as the minimum for the “symbolic” requirement. This is not part Dembski’s definition, and, as I think I said, when I made the claim, I was thinking in those terms. I’m not saying the symbolic layer is impossible for me, just that it adds a further requirement, and I need to have a clear metric.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - With these agreements in hand, it seems that the primary question now on the table is getting your simulation to ascend to the appropriate structure required for the transfer of information. After all, not just any structure will do. Here I am not speaking to the initial conditions of your simulation, but only the end result. Whatever the initial conditions of the simulation I will leave to your expertise, with the only caveat being that the simulation operates in good faith with the claim that chance and natural law are the only causal forces allowed to impact the output (the simulated environment).
Yes, and I will (indeed have) given my operational definitions of those, for your approval. As to that structure, I think it is important to take a full accounting of what is observed in nature. Again, I am not speaking here of your initial conditions (or whatever reaction pathways your simulation may take in the process of leading up to the rise of information) but only speaking of the structure of the final condition once attained. In that regard it seems that we should highlight two or three observations (some we’ve already discussed). The first of those is the presence of certain discrete objects. Here I am, of course, talking about the discrete representations and protocols. Both of these objects should be fully observed as such in your simulation, and I think we’ve discussed them well enough to understand what they are. If there is any ambiguity remaining, then we can certainly discuss them further. Probably worth doing. I’ll describe what I hope will be the end product of my simulation, and check that, if I succeed, that that end product will satisfy your criteria.
The second structural item has to do with a necessity that the output of information transfer must be dynamic, based upon the input of that information. If the output is not dynamically driven by the representations being given at the input, then the input cannot be seen as informative to the output.
I’d like that unpacked with some ferinstances if possible :)
Thirdly, to facilitate this dynamic property, there must be a necessary break in the causal chain. This break is exemplified within the cell by the simple fact that proteins are not created from nucleotides. In other words, if you plucked the ribosome from the cell’s protein synthesis machinery, and put yourself in its place, in one direction you would see sequences of nucleotides coming in for translation, and in the other direction you would see sequenced amino acids floating off into the distance to be folded into proteins. One of these marks the input of information (representations instantiated in matter) and the other is the output (a process being dynamically altered by the input). But these are two entirely separate causal chains (if I may use that word).
Ah. A problem. No, I cannot incorporate a “necessary break in the causal chain”! To insist I do so is to make the criteria for my success the refutation of my claim! By claiming that “Chance and Necessity” can produce information, including symbolic information, I am, of course, saying that there is a direct causal chain between the starting conditions and the final conditions – between the input and the input. If, to quote the old cartoon, I have a “break in the causal chain” I am essentially saying “a miracle occurs here” which is precisely what I am claiming to demonstrate need not occur! This is why I think that if we were ever to get to the stage where it was clear to both of us what my claim is and what your counter-claim is, my demonstration would be unnecessary – either it would be clear that I had made a logical error or that you had. So, let’s persevere. I sort of hope I’m wrong, because the project would be cool, and I might do it anyway :)
The first causal chain is the sequence of representations, which I say is the product of design, and you contend is the result of chance/necessity. It is made up of nucleic acids. The second causal chain is the bonding within the resulting polypeptide. It is made up of amino acids. The amino acids and the nucleic acids do not interact. They are connected at this dynamic break only by the protocol itself, which I say is the product of design, and you say is the result of chance/necessity. Regardless of who is correct, this dynamic break in the causal chain must be represented in the simulation.
My challenge to you is to rewrite this paragraph in such a way that it is clear to me that it is not circular. I am not saying that it is – there may be something important that I am missing. But to me, you seem to be saying that my simulation must involve a pairing of symbol with meaning (cf DNA sequence with amino acid) that does not arise from either Chance or Necessity, which seems to me to be the same as saying, “that is not causal”. That I must Design It In from the start. But obviously I can’t do that, because the whole point of my simulation is that all I’m allowed to input is Chance and Necessity, or my claim will fail. So as it stands right now, if I succeed in setting up a simulation, where the starting conditions are simply a set of physical/chemical laws (Necessity) and random kinetic energy (Chance), and I end up with a mapping of virtual DNA and virtual Amino Acid, you will reject my achievement because there is no “break in the causal chain”. But if I make a break (by Designing In a mapping) then obviously you will reject it also, because I have failed to demonstrate that I can do this solely by Chance and Necessity. Where am I misunderstanding you? Or have you made an error?
Lastly, there is the structural entailment of information always necessarily being ‘about’ something. Therefore, the output (being driven by the input) must serve some identifiable necessary function within the system. In a living system, one of those necessary functions of information is to create the protocol required to make the system work. Given that your simulation is designed to demonstrate the origin of information, it is at least reasonable to think this will be a function of the information within the simulation as well. By doing so, this entailment will be satisfied.
That’s fine. My sim wouldn’t work if there were no functional parts within the system. As you recognise. If I’m going to demonstrate the spontaneous emergence of a self-replicator from non-self-replicating starting conditions (and that was my original intention) then by definition I’m going to need functional parts. It was my original anticipation that this would, by definition, fulfil my claim (that not only could information be generated by self-replicators-with-variance, but that the original self-replicators could emerge from a non-self-replicating “soup”). Getting some kind of symbolic layer in there will be trickier (an equivalent to tRNA), although not, IMO, impossible, though I’d rather do it as a separate sim. But it will be impossible if that bit has to involve a “break in the causal chain”! I willingly concede that only a Designer can produce a function that can only be produced by a Designer :)
So, in order to fully demonstrate the rise of information, this is the structure your simulation must ultimately assume. And as you will note, none of these have anything whatsoever to do with measuring or quantifying information (either by ‘this person’s metric’ or ‘that person’s theory’). The question is simply “Is information present?” To answer that question, these are the observable entailments that would indicate that it is.
Well, it looks we have at least one major wrinkle to sort out first. And even if we do, I’m not sure I can demonstrate that Chance and Necessity can produce information by your definition (though I would certainly claim that it can produce information as defined by Dembski, the complex specified kind). I can see how it could (as long as we iron out that wrinkle) I’m just not sure I can simulate it. Still, if I bring off the first part, maybe someone else can take on the second.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

Nullasalus:
I mean, I know you disagree about evidence, but the burden of proof is usually to those making the claim for the existence of something, rather than on those who do not accept the claim.
No, the burden of proof is ‘usually to those’ making a claim, period. ‘There is no God’ is a claim. ‘Naturalism is true’ is a claim. ‘Theism is false’ is a claim.
Oh, indeed. I would agree. But most atheists do not claim "there is no god" nor that "naturalism is true" nor that "theism is false", merely that there is no good reason to assume these statements are untrue.
And just who has what ‘burden of proof’ isn’t made clear to begin with. The Maverick Philosopher had a good mini-series on this. But you are right, “atheism” is not verified. It’s very hard to verify a null. So? “Gosh, it’s hard to verify the atheism!” So… What, then we just treat atheism with kid gloves then? There’s no good evidence for the position, there’s no proof of it, but that’s okay, let’s go easy on them?
No, not at all. You can go as hard on them as you like. But if you want to rebut the position that there is no good reason to posit God, then you need to provide a good reason.
No. I would think that ‘it’s very hard to verify this position’ would, at the very least, suggest someone should be hesitant before committing to it.
Sure.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT}

Mung:
Hi Elizabeth, According to latest theory, what is a representation? What part does representation play in information processing? Have you heard of David Marr? c.f. http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalo.....8;tid=3958
Yes indeed. But do you know about the concept of active vision? http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780198524793.do It's even better :)Elizabeth Liddle_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT}

Also had omitted to bookmark this thread. Have it bookmarked now.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT}

Upright Biped:
Dr Liddle, I see that you have made a response at 46. I will catch up and read it later.
Thanks for your responses, which I have just located. Will have to respond later.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT}

Hi Elizabeth, According to latest theory, what is a representation? What part does representation play in information processing? Have you heard of David Marr? c.f. http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=3958Mung_{July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT}

Mung at 55: It’s a Southwest influence.
lol. I actually read about that when looking it up.Mung_{July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

If the sim is supposed to model an organic environment, then a proper energy variable must incorporated. If the necessary high energy value is set, then so should proper decay rates.junkdnaforlife_{July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

Mung at 55: It’s a Southwest influence. Mung at 57: Thanks, and correct. Hence - the observed break in the causal chain; the point of transfer where information is introduced and the output is constrained. Dr Liddle says from natural law she can recreate that point, and that those observations (which allowed us to discover it in the first place} will be there to verify her success. I say its very existence is a physical artifact of design. Information injected into the causal chain (natural law) in order to cause something to happen. In time we may see who is right, but I find it interesting; she states that ID proponents have failed to make their case, yet she has had to assume the responsibility of designing a simulation in order to refute the very thing she says doesn’t exist. In light of this fact, it seems like she might back off that claim, but that’s not in the cards.Upright BiPed_{July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

Wow, sorry.
In my original plan, I was not going to attempt …
When recorded information is transferred from a medium it goes through protocol to its effect. See my comment #50
This is what I meant when I said DNA is not “inert” – its state at the beginning and end of the process is unchanged, but it undergoes a state change during the process.
We can talk about the backbone of DNA if you wish; it’s an extremely rare object that allows any of the four nucleotides to occupy any position along its length without influencing their order. But as interesting as it is, the sequence of nucleotides seems more interesting, given that it is where the information is. And that sequence doesn’t change as an observable effect of being unzipped for transcription.Upright BiPed_{July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, Below is my response to your post at 46. I hesitate to post it yet, given that I don’t want to cover up your response to my post at 50. - - - - - - - - - - -
My own view – or perhaps “hunch”- is that the reason that IDsts regard evolutionary scientists as missing a Glaringly Obvious Fact (and therefore assume at best stupidity and/or ignorance, and at worst deliberate dishonesty) while conversely evolutionary scientists regard IDists as Completely Missing The Point (and therefore assume ditto) is not because they disagree on some level at which the disagreement can be resolved in favour of one or other to the satisfaction of both, but because they have very different “problem statements”.
I’m not interested in political statements at this juncture. If your point is that people who are competing with ideas argue about them, then thanks for pointing that out, but it’s irrelevant to the content of the conversation we were having.
Unfortunately, the converse is probably true as well – that we don’t manage to agree on the problem statement, or, worse (for me!) we appear to agree with it, and I produce a demonstration that I think supports my view, and then we find that actually we didn’t actually agree in the first place!
You have my apologies if you cannot tell it, but I am trying to be clear and descriptive of the observations. When I say something and you reply “Yes!” or “Right!” or “Cool, I like it” then I assume you understand what I am saying. If you make that same reply several times in a row to several interrelated comments, then I assume you understand a whole class of interrelated comments. Beyond that, I have asked you for a reasonable preliminary overview of how you plan to integrate the observations we’ve agreed upon into your simulation. I think it’s reasonable to expect at some point that overview might include such words are “representation” and “protocol” and the like – given that is what the conversation is about. Conversely, it would seem odd to acknowledge the observations of a phenomenon on the front side, then to attempt a simulation of that phenomenon without addressing those observations.
For that we needed an operational definition of both “information” and “Darwinian processes”. For the latter, I have operationalized “Darwinian processes “ as comprising of no more than Chance and Necessity. I haven’t done this formally, but I’ll do so now: “Chance” processes will be generated by a random number generator with a flat distribution, and will govern the movement of elements in my model, in a manner analogous to Brownian Motion. “Necessity” processes will govern the conditions under which the basic elements of my model bind and/or repel each other. These will be laid out at the start, and will not be changed during the running of the model – the “chemistry” of the system.
No problem.
Meyer’s account of Shannon information is … … So it seems that Shannon information supplies us with… …and is what Dembski calls… … Dembski, talks about … … But Meyer talks about…
Again, these things may be interesting on their own merit, but they have nothing to do with the conversation we have been having. These concepts were not required by Nirenberg, and they aren’t a requirement for us.
Two things were missing …
I have not seen this exchange between you and KF - but to my understanding of them, I agree with both points. To my mind, they speak to the same structural problem. If such a structure somehow existed in the genome, we would have never discovered the genetic code. There would have been no observations in which to discern it as we did. At the same time, we are not looking for a new way in which information can exist; we are looking for it as it does exist.
In my original plan, I was not going to attempt …
When recorded information is transferred from a medium it goes through protocol to its effect. See my comment #50
This is what I meant when I said DNA is not “inert” – its state at the beginning and end of the process is unchanged, but it undergoes a state change during the process.
We can talk about the backbone of DNA if you wish; it’s an extremely rare object that allows any of the four nucleotides to occupy any position along its length without influencing their order. But as interesting as it is, the sequence of nucleotides seems more interesting, given that it is where the information is. And that sequence doesn’t change as an observable effect of being unzipped for transcription.
Upright BiPed_{July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

Hi faded_Glory, Stonehenge, the Sphinx and Easter Island (specifically, the Easter Island statues) are not a product of wind, water and other forces of nature. That was the point. Like the cell, they were clearly fabricated. That the cell is capable of biological reproduction simply makes it much more difficult to fabricate than Stonehenge. It is certainly not your knowledge of prehistoric people that leads you to conclude that Stonehenge, the Sphinx and the Easter Island statues could not possibly have made themselves because it is plainly obvious that they were made. No, your knowledge of prehistoric people kicks in AFTER you've reached that conclusion. I'm not entirely convinced that our knowledge of "prehistoric people" can provide satisfactory explanations for these three things anyway but that's another subject. So, whatever it is that leads you to a certainty of Intelligent Design in these three things it is not the absence of biological reproduction nor is it your knowledge of prehistoric people. That which is plainly obvious about ID in these three things is even more plainly obvious about ID in the cell. Now then faded_Glory, we have already considered "the probability that [the cell] originated through (bio)chemical means given the known laws and mechanisms of biochemistry" and can correctly dismiss any possibility that the cell originated in such a manner. The more we learn about the cell, the more improbable naturalistic explanations become. For the sake of this discussion, it is totally irrelevant to ask of the cell, Stonehenge, the Sphinx or the Easter Island statues: were they man-made or God-made? We simply need to know that they were actually made: and eliminate the possibility that they could ever make themselves.Chris Doyle_{July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Chris Doyle, Some comments to your last post here: - Biology concerns itself with entities that reproduce. Clearly the examples you mention are not the product of biological reproduction but are either fabricated, or result from the activities of wind, water and other forces of nature. - This leads to the suggestion that Bayesian hypothesis testing would be far more useful when investigating these provenance questions than Fisherian testing. Given that we know of the existence of prehistoric people, and given what we know of how forces of nature can shape rocks, the probability of the things you mentioned being man-made will vastly outweigh the probability that they were formed by forces of nature (let alone by reproduction!). When it comes to the cell, we need to consider the probability that it originated through (bio)chemical means given the known laws and mechanisms of biochemistry, versus the probability that it was created by God given the existence of God. To compare these probabilities using Bayesian methods we need to know the probability of God. To you that would be 1, to an atheist that would be 0. This is why they end up with a different conclusion from you, yet their conclusion is very logical and reasonable given their assumptions. - If you assume that the probability of God is 1, have you ever considered whether it is more likely that God made Stonehenge, the Sphinx and the Easter Island statues, than that people made them? If not, why not? And yes, I do think that this is not an unreasonable question to ask a theist. fGfaded_Glory_{July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

Morning Lizzie, There is a big problem with this statement that you made: “A-theism is surely the default in the absense of evidence for a theos? I mean, I know you disagree about evidence, but the burden of proof is usually to those making the claim for the existence of something, rather than on those who do not accept the claim.” I think identifying this problem gets us closer to the question that we need to answer: if the basis for the atheistic worldview is neither rational, nor empirical, then what is it? You get way ahead of yourself Lizzie when you get preoccupied with questions about HOW Intelligent Design was implemented and by WHO. Front-loading, tinkering, aliens, the Creator: all interesting technical details but utterly irrelevant until you admit that Intelligent Design is the best, and only, scientific explanation for existence. After all, we are in complete agreement that everywhere we look and anything we look at is giving us the overwhelming impression of design. The only disagreement lies in the fact that atheists and evolutionists claim that this appearance of design is not real, it is only an illusion. Yet, atheists only ever employ this rather absurd line of argument when it comes to one thing: the Creator. In all other walks of life, they wouldn’t entertain it for a minute. Take three examples: 1. Stonehenge 2. The Sphinx 3. Easter Island Atheists never, ever say that the null hypothesis is that these things just made themselves. Atheists never say that the default position is that these things were put together by Chance and Necessity and that the burden of proof is on those who claim that these things required Intelligent Design. Atheists never say that people who reject purely naturalistic explanations for these things are Completely Missing The Point. Atheists would be the first to agree that the burden of proof lies COMPLETELY with anyone who claimed that Stonehenge built itself, that the Sphinx carved itself and that the Easter Island statues buried themselves. Atheists would have no doubt that anyone who advanced such absurd claims would have entirely irrational and non-empirical reasons for rejecting that which is plainly obvious. And yet, it is far more probable that Stonehenge made itself than that the cell made itself. It is much more obvious that the cell requires Intelligent Design than Stonehenge. There is no logic, no reason and no evidence to support the belief that Stonehenge made itself and that is even more true of the cell. It seems that atheists only ever reject arguments for Intelligent Design if there is a possibility that the Intelligent Designer might be the Creator (a point previously hammered home by Cannuckian Yankee). So it all comes back to, what is really going on with atheists? Why do they ignore science whenever science points to the Creator? Something emotional or cultural perhaps? If we can identify the true (no doubt, very personal) motivation behind atheism, we need not concern ourselves with trying to define our disagreement in the most acceptable terms: or even quibbling over the meaning of the term “information”.Chris Doyle_{July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @50. Well stated. One thing that must be present are potentialities. Necessity is the enemy of such. Another thing that must be present is communication. Chance [aka noise] is the enemy of such. Would you agree?Mung_{July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

I'm a lawyer, doncha know. I noes all them latin phrases.Mung_{July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

mia?Mung_{July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

mia culpa.Upright BiPed_{July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed, Null, I think you might have mis-posted from another thread. No, I was addressing comments made in this thread. I'm just coming in late.nullasalus_{July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply