ID Found in DNA

KF,

"Design is inferred on tested, empirically reliable signs of intelligence. (the 206 Ogham character challenge above is based on a simple version of such.)"

I'm still waiting for support for you claim. More failed analogies does not make you claim any more correct. You seem to be doing the same as Joseph. I ask for supporting evidence for you claims, you try to turn the burden of disproof on me, as evidence. Why can't you just show me the evidence instead of churning out these complicated assertions and analogies based on assumptions. Your claims still are no more than subjective. You can't compare computer code to genetics and expect me to take that seriously. comparing unlike things works well to help those who have difficulty in understanding particular concepts, but it does not make these comparison correct in anyway. Weather patterns and many other natural processes can easily be compared to an algorithm. There are programs that model many natural processes very well. This in no way means the weather or any other natural process has been created by an intelligent agent. As for my example of locals who claim scratches are Oghams, at least in their assertions they are comparing things two very like things, Actual Oghams scratched onto stone in Europe to scratches on stones in NE. The finding of the text require less imagination. Your claims on the other hand are of two completely different areas, applied completely differently, with no previous like eample to actaul measure it by. You claim requires many assumptions and stretches the imagination beyond its limits. KF, You can compare fine details of two things you seem to see likenesses in, but your conclusion also requires ignoring of all the things that make them completely different. ~GIMI GIMI

Joseph, I had said that it appeared you applied the silly idea that if someone cannot account for something, your claim must be correct, and stated thats not how science is done. You claimed,

" I never said, implied nor thought that.

Well let see what you said following that comment.

"Ya see the design inference is based on TWO things (at least)- one being that undirected processes cannot account...

Earlier on this thread, when I mention that you have produced no evidence outside of your claim to show that it is not pure subjective, what you shared with me as evidence is,

"As for meaningful info being in my mind (IDists minds) well again all you have to do is demonstrate that fact." When I ask how you claimed hypothesis on you blog is testable, you reply,

"Show that meaningful information can arise without agency involvement"

This one is extra special since you not only try use the burden of disproof (?!?) on me to validate your claim, though you still have not demonstrated the claim you made about the information you speak is not subjective. You need to provide objective evidence to support your claim first. Just because you made an observation that appears obvious to you, does not mean that you observation or analogy is correct.

"The design inference comes from observation and experience.

Basing a conclusion solely on observations compared to previous experiences, no matter how obvious it may appear to you, is completely subjective. You need to show supporting evidence for this claim. The fact that you are comparing things that are biological to things that are man made, reveals that you inference is based on assumptions not known facts. ~GIMI

GIMI

PS: have alphabet glyph-bearing butterflies been seen flying or resting in known natural formation spelling out a meaningful, 143+ character message? kairosfocus

Gimi: I await your Ogham script example. You seem to think this is a case where functionally specific, meaningful digital text strings of relevant length occurred by chance + necessity without intentional design. Okay, show us your 206+ member, 29-state per digit string, with the message that it is said to provide. Then, show us how it credibly originated by chance + necessity only. As for the Giant's Causeway and the like, these antedate the modern design theory, and are cases where for want of knowledge of natural regularities and of the crucial distinction between order and complex functional organisation, regularity -- i.e. order -- was attributed to design. Modern design theory -- building on the insights of Orgel, Yockey Wickens, Polanyi et al from the 1960's and 1970's on [cf discussion in Thaxton et al, in ch 8 of TMLO, the very first design theory technical work, of 1984] -- correctly and sharply distinguishes order from complex, information-rich specifically constrained organisation. Indeed, the first step of the per-aspect design filter is to mark out low vs high contingency situations: under generally similar initial conditions, do or do we not have a high diversity of outcomes. Then, high contingency is to be traced to one of two sources: {a} credibly undirected, stochastic contingency [chance] or [b] intelligently directed contingency [design]. Design is inferred on tested, empirically reliable signs of intelligence. (the 206 Ogham character challenge above is based on a simple version of such.) In the case of the Giant's Causeway [and similar features around the world, including here in Montserrat -- now buried under dozens of feet of ash], columnar jointed basalt crystals reflect order and complexity [cf snowflakes], but not functionally specific complex, information based organisation, especially in an algorithmic or linguistic context -- the particular contexts at the crux of the issue for both your claimed Ogham text and DNA. (I suggest you read the 101 level discussion here, and onward the Abel and Trevors paper -- duly peer reviewed -- here on three types of sequence complexity: order, randomness, algorithmic functionality-based. Pay particular attention to Figure 4 here in the T & A paper, and the associated discussion.) Having done so, you will be in a much better position to discuss on a basis of more accurate information and clearer conceptualisation. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

For EXAMPLE- people used to think that the "giant's causeway" was made by giants. They did so because it had this recognizeable pattern. Then science came along and demonstrated that agency involvement was not required. Joseph

I understand the context. What I am saying is that just because one or more people "think" they have something does not make it so. As for meaningful info being in my mind (IDists minds) well again all you have to do is demonstrate that fact. Show us nature, operating freely doing the things we say it cannot. Show us that biological function can arise without meaningful information or that the meaningful info that allowed for biological function can arise without agency involvement. As for people already explaining things to me- so far all I have read are bald assertions.

‘If you cannot account for this, then by default my claim is right’ is not how science is done.

I never said, implied nor thought that. Ya see the design inference is based on TWO things (at least)- one being that undirected processes cannot account for it and the other is a specified criteria that has to be met. The design inference comes from observation and experience. It can be tested. Now if you want to show how my thinking is flawed perhaps you could provide some examples from the anti-ID position. For without that all you have is whining. Joseph

AH!!! I messed up the Blockquote again. I need to do this stuff after work. It seems that my need to rush is becoming an issue. Anyway, everything after

"Ya see in order to refute what I said all one has to do is demonstrate that undirected processes can account for it."

is my words. Thanks! ~GIMI GIMI

Joseph, I think you are missing the context I am speaking of. I am referring to the view of the person making the unsupported claim. I think we agree that in the end, yes it does matter if it real or imaginary, but that does not change the fact that the person suffering from his own assumptions and misunderstandings may never be aware of this. That is my point. When you view the world with an expected result and refuse to produce more evidence to support your claims, your claim will not be considered valid. My point being that all I see is the same here. There is a claim of meaningful data that in your mind has a similarity to something that seems familiar, so it is assume that it must be of the same origins. The problem is that this very general comparison does not take into account that the things being compared do not operate in the same manor at all. It ignores everything that makes them extremely different. This is why more support is needed.

” You don’t seem to understand that and I doubt you understood what I posted on my blog.”

I understand you post. In time I will explain why it fails. You should know this by now since I am not the first to point this out to you. I really shouldn’t have to repeat what has already been explained to you, but maybe it wishful thinking on my part that my explanation will sink in.

” Ya see in order to refute what I said all one has to do is demonstrate that undirected processes can account for it.

Joseph, you’re sounding like you’re applying presuppositional Apologetics. ‘If you cannot account for this, then by default my claim is right’ is not how science is done. You need to make a valid argument in support of your claim. Why is it that all I seem to get from you is ‘You can’t explain this so ID is correct’? All I’m asking for is more evidence that an assumption based on an observation that is purely subjective. Anyway, All I need to do is show that what you claim is a valid hypothesis and how it is falsifiable is flawed, which will be done I good time Joseph. No whining here. I’m just still waiting for the evidence to validate your claims. I’ve been watching this blog and the general ID community for many years and have seen little to nothing changed in the argument and lack of evidence to support it. I’m not saying that you should not do the research or that the ID claims are defiantly wrong, I’m just voicing my concerns that some are still stuck on claims that are flawed and have been long refuted. ~GIMI

GIMI

KF:

If you were to look at strings of digits, you could not tell which come from deep inside pi and which from a random number generator.

If they came from within pie then they may have some filling left on them. ;) Or maybe even some crust. But anyway I understand what you are saying however it does not mean that Pi is a random string of numbers. Joseph

PS: As touching Ogham, we have 29 characters according to the unicode scheme. 1,000 bits corresponds to some 206 Ogham characters. Gimi claims a case of Ogham text with a meaning, disputed by some to be produced by plough scratches. Let's hear the text, let's see if it is in suitably old Irish, and let's hear of the translation. Then, let's hear the evidence that -- NB Ogham headstones date down to 1802 -- it was produced by chance and necessity (e.g. accidental plough scratches) beyond reasonable doubt, rather than by an Irish person or the like familiar with Ogham. kairosfocus

GIMI: Kindly provide a credible case of 143+ ASCII characters making up a contextually responsive, linguistically functional communication [including of course a program] that originated by chance + undirected mechanical necessity. THAT is the specific challenge. And, it has been clear enough for long enough that your resort to vague statements strongly suggests you are unable to meet it but do not wish to acknowledge its force. Now, therefore, kindly provide the evidence and the grounds for claiming it a valid case in point, or else you have conceded by default. Thanks GEM of TKI kairosfocus

GIMI:

How does it matter if its real information or not to those perceiving it as real?

The same way it matters if the voices in their heads are real or not. Imaginary information is, well imaginary.

I did mention that though there is no true evidence to support this delusion and a lot to refute it, the proponents of the Ogham text still assert they have support of the claim and deny the wealth of evidence against it.

Assertions are meaningless. Unless they can demonstrate the meaning they don;t have anything but a biased inference- that is if what you say is true.

So, You agree that some people can find meaningful information where it is not.

No they THINK they found it. Huge difference between that and actual meaningful info.

You seem to have narrowed it down to the point if the meaningful information is testable, and you claim my example is not.

Meaningful info is testable. Imagined info is not. People can make claims GIMI. The question is whether or not they can substantiate those claims. You don't seem to understand that and I doubt you understood what I posted on my blog. Ya see in order to refute what I said all one has to do is demonstrate that undirected processes can account for it. Whining won't do it and neither will bald assertions. Joseph

Sorry, "solely on recognized similarities or pareidolia, since they are a purely subjective. should say "solely on recognized similarities or pareidolia. Since they are a purely subjective more supporting evidence is required. ~GIMI GIMI

Kairosfocus, I got the point but that does not make it valid.

”A: Can you show us a case where 143 or more ASCII characters worth of contextually responsive English text originated by strict chance, or of a functional program?”

1) This is a non sequitur.

” B: can you show me cases of same that were created by intelligent designers? ”

2) This question is moot. (see answer #1)

”C: how can you tell the designed cases with reasonable reliability when you make a ruling? ”

3) That depends on what I am examining. I’d need more detail as to what the examples are. Keep in mind though, the examples would need to be more than things you are assuming are just like each other. With that said, I have demonstrated that people do find what they conclude is actual strings of text and words with meaningful content, from many different random natural sources. Their reasoning is the same I see here. It has meaning to them and they believe any other explanation is not correct, so it must be from an intelligent origin. The length of the individual examples may not contain 143 characters, but the quantity of examples just in New England is amazing. This illustrates very well how the human ability to find recognizable patterns can happen easily and often from many different stimulus, to the extent that it creates a complex belief form some people based solely on recognized similarities or pareidolia, since they are a purely subjective. So, this is why the point of, “it just like this so it must be…” means nothing. You need other evidence to support it. That’s some of the points I was getting at. ~GIMI GIMI

SuckerSpawn,

"Did our failure to understand Egyptian hieroglyphics mean they did not contain functional information"

Sorry, your comparing two completely different things. We had many forms of evidence to confirm that hieroglyphics was a form of written language long before we could read it. Molecular machines have no supporting evidence of being constructed from a "code or language" from and intelligent origin. The same applies to the other languages you mentioned and the music you linked. For all of them we have a previous knowledge and outside supporting evidence to show us they are all a form of written communication. Biological structures no matter how big or small have no cues. If you still do not understand why you examples fail to support your flawed point, then I can understand why you find it hard to grasp the flaws in reasoning I've already pointed out. Your flagellum comment falls too. Thats no better than saying an individual component in a 'Junk yard War' creation proves that they did not cobble the contraption out of available junk they could pervert for their needs. You need to look at an organism in the same context a point is made about it. ~GIMI GIMI

GIMI Did our failure to understand Egyptian hieroglyphics mean they did not contain functional information and are not the product of intelligence. Did the Egyptians follow our rules of grammar? Do the Chinese? Are you able to identify this as the product of intelligent design? http://richhorner.com/writings/8thquartet/Tchaik-6.jpg If you can look at the flagellum and compare it a Junk Yard Wars contraption you are only seeing what you want to see. suckerspawn

”Anyone can look at a bowl of alphabet soup and imagine acronyms to go with the letters.”

What I’m speaking of is not actual text, its random scratched made mechanically and naturally that are interpreted as actual Ogham text forming a readable message. You example does not apply.

”If, on the other hand, those letters spell out specific, functional information such as the designs of a machine superior to anything conceived by man, no rational person would say, “Wow, that was a fortuitous random event!” “

Unfortunately what ID speaks of does not spell out a detailed design in a know language following grammatical rules we are familiar with. Also since it involves a living organism, it does not even fall into the same category as a man made machine. As for being like a machine, its components would better be described as machines cobbled together on “Junk Yard Wars” where parts are adapted to do functions they were no originally constructed to do, and lots of unnecessary useless items. Not the work of an intelligent designer, more like the work of someone operating by trial and error with available items, or a natural unguided process involving an erroneous, self-replicating string of proteins. Speaking of genetics or molecular machines as letters, words or a language is a human construct so that we can understand it better and communicate ideas about it.

”Unless, that is, he has philosophical blinders that require him to ignore the obvious.”

You assume that if it appears obvious to you, it should to everyone. That is a horrible mistake I see made all too often. Also, just because you feel it looks obvious, does not mean it is correct. Its obvious is not a valid scientific claim. There are many things we’ve seen that are counter intuitive.

”Why bother searching for knowledge if we’re only going to accept the answer we like? Why go through the motions?

I search for what evidence is available. If it goes against my current understanding of the subject, I might be resistant and ask for more evidence to support it, but I do no eliminate the option. I just require the person making a claim to better support it with evidence. No matter how ridiculous I think a claim is, I support anyone who is willing to investigate it. Al I ask is that they follow the practices that any respectable scientist would. That is all I am doing here. If you truly believe ID is correct, feel free to invest as much money and time as you feel necessary to do the research and publish the results. Continue doing this and though it might be a rough ride, if you are correct, the truth will eventually be seen by all. Unfortunately all I’ve seen so far from the ID community is asking for a free pass and not be made to do the require work all other scientist have done. I encourage and look forward to any research done concerning ID. Like any other claim though, you need to show the support and research for the claim before it will get the respect and attention you seem to think it deserves. ~GIMI GIMI

Oops, sorry, I messed up on my blockquotes! everything after your comment,

”As I said the premise meaningful information is testable.”

Is my response. ~GIMI GIMI

Joseph,

”Of course it matters if it real meaningful information or not.” ”

How does it matter if its real information or not to those perceiving it as real? I did mention that though there is no true evidence to support this delusion and a lot to refute it, the proponents of the Ogham text still assert they have support of the claim and deny the wealth of evidence against it. The issue is often that those involved are not properly educated in the subject matter and matter.

”As I said the premise meaningful information is testable.”

So, You agree that some people can find meaningful information where it is not. Also, I get the impression that you do not doubt that some may still come to the same conclusion even in the event that it is all in their minds. You seem to have narrowed it down to the point if the meaningful information is testable, and you claim my example is not. Well you are incorrect, and this demonstrates you lack of understanding of subject. The claim of the Ogham text is testable and has been. This is why I know of no archeologist who takes these claims seriously. Each of these claims has been examined and refute long ago by a qualified expert. There are many lines of testing that can be done. There are many predictions based on these claims that can be made and tested. On the other hand, the amateur archeologists who make the claims believe they have ways of testing their own claims. Their tests are based on a flawed logic, assumptions and ignorance of the subject. With that being said Joseph, what I saw on your blog that you claim support ID and demonstrates the same flaws reasoning as with the Ogham proponents. ~GIMI

GIMI

Gimi: A: Can you show us a case where 143 or more ASCII characters worth of contextually responsive English text originated by strict chance, or of a functional program? B: can you show me cases of same that were created by intelligent designers? C: how can you tell the designed cases with reasonable reliability when you make a ruling? [Cf here and here as well as here.] That is the point being got at. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

Joseph: the sequence of digits in pi will be similar to the patterns of appearance of a flat random generator's o/p. If you were to look at strings of digits, you could not tell which come from deep inside pi and which from a random number generator: Sequence A: 03530185296899577362259941389124972177528347913151 Sequence B: 42523081770367515906735023507283540567040386743513 Sequence C: 41692405819305048734346524157704631491843929581776 Sequence D: 72675079812554709589045563579212210333466974992356 Sequence E: 99719360367427453901346430615789500575149397742403 Sequence F: 66660784434754570736654197748970831732371497023129 (ANS: A, B, D are pi, C, E, F are from a random table.] Trust that helps GEM of TKI kairosfocus

GIMI:

I forgot to mention that when i have a chance, I will give you a more detailed response as to why what you presented on your blog does not support your assertion that ID is a valid scientific claim that can be falsified. I will explain why what you offered is actually based on assumptions and wishful thinking and unsupported assertions.

Good luck with that. I am sure I will show your "refutations" to be nonsense. So there. :) Joseph

GIMI:

I have shown many examples where people find what they believe are meaningful information (supporting an intelligence origin) in random data from natural and mechanical processes. It does not matter if the information is actually meaningful or not.

Of course it matters if it real meaningful information or not. As I said the premise meaningful information is testable. Joseph

GIMI: My position is that what some people perceive as meaningful information that suggest an intelligent origin, is not that at all. Instead, it is a delusion caused by misunderstanding, miseducation, ignorance, wishful thinking, assumptions and many other possibilities I have not mentioned. Anyone can look at a bowl of alphabet soup and imagine acronyms to go with the letters. If, on the other hand, those letters spell out specific, functional information such as the designs of a machine superior to anything conceived by man, no rational person would say, "Wow, that was a fortuitous random event!" Unless, that is, he has philosophical blinders that require him to ignore the obvious. Why bother searching for knowledge if we're only going to accept the answer we like? Why go through the motions? ScottAndrews

Outside of what? suckerspawn

I'm sorry Suckerspawn, I misunderstood your question. I like how instead of actually offering an answer, you just turn it around to try to make it my responsibility. I'll throw in my 2 cents to help you better answer my question. I can come up with many reasons but they still would fall short. What we are dealing with here is not the same as those examples I offered, nor those offered by ID. Text on a blog is closer to the Mount Rushmore example ID supporter try to use. On the other hand the examples used buy ID supporters is more like my examples or the Old Man of the Mountain in the granite state. By that I mean very vague and open to many interpretations based on personal biases. Crudely etched Ogham text claimed to be found stones in New England is in no way the same as text posted on a blog. The Ogham text requires much more supporting evidence to be accepted. The same is for the like claims of Id proponents. Meaningful information claimed to be in cells and molecular machines, would require far, far more evidence to support it. You can't use apple Jolly Ranchers as an example when you're talking about oranges. Please show me outside evidence that supports the claim that the meaningful information you see in biology is by Intelligent cause. GIMI GIMI

suckerspawn, I never claimed there is actual evidence that these people offer. The claims of the people in New England I'm speak of and the evidence they use to support it has been long refuted. This does not stop them from continuing to make their baseless assertions with the greatest of confidence that it is a fact. ~GIMI GIMI

Joseph, I forgot to mention that when i have a chance, I will give you a more detailed response as to why what you presented on your blog does not support your assertion that ID is a valid scientific claim that can be falsified. I will explain why what you offered is actually based on assumptions and wishful thinking and unsupported assertions. ~Gimi GIMI

What evidence do we have that the information in #56 is from an intelligent origin? suckerspawn

Joseph, To satisfy your need, I will repeat myself. My position is that what some people perceive as meaningful information that suggest an intelligent origin, is not that at all. Instead, it is a delusion caused by misunderstanding, miseducation, ignorance, wishful thinking, assumptions and many other possibilities I have not mentioned. Since claiming the information seen is meaningful in the sense of supporting an intelligent origin is subjective, other evidence is needed to support the assertion. ~GIMI GIMI

Joseph,

”People who refuse to talk about their position are usually trolls. ”

Ad-hominems are not valid response in a civil discussion. Is this how you usually defend you assertions? I have stated my position in reference to the subject of this thread. There is no need to bring in any other points at this moment to cloud the topic. Again, please try to keep within topic or in reference to any claims made by those on this thread.

”I don’t like feeding trolls.”

This sounds more like an excuse for when you can’t support your own claims.

”Also I refuted your claim of meaningful information- it is NOT in the eye of the beholder. Meaningful information is NOT imagined information. .”

You still have not refuted my point. I have shown many examples where people find what they believe are meaningful information (supporting an intelligence origin) in random data from natural and mechanical processes. It does not matter if the information is actually meaningful or not. MY POSITION is that claiming that meaningful information alone alludes to an intelligent origin alone is not enough; you also need other evidence separate from the information to support the claim to. If you cannot produce outside evidence, then the claimed information found could be completely subjective, based on assumptions, a hoax, or a misunderstanding, to name a few. ~GIMI GIMI

Joseph, Cutoff point? Moseph

Site Admins, Have I been banned from the site then? I don't mind, but it'd be nice if you let the people still responding to me like Joseph know that I'm unable to reply to them. We would not want them thinking that I've got no comeback to their witty reply's would we? Moseph

What digits in Pi are random? Is the first digit (3) latched or can it change depending on the time? What about the decimal point? Is it always going to be after the first digit or is it floating- depending on the time and wind? (end sarcasm) But anyway I understand that the cutoff point picked can be random. IOW if we asked 1,000 people to give a value for Pi we could predict that they wouldn't all be the same. Joseph

Joseph: pardon. Since values of Pi and the rules of place value decimal nos do not correlate nicely [as pi is not just irrational but transcendental], we get an effective [pseudo-]random digit generator. That's like my dad's trick for getting random numbers out of digits in the phone directory, from the old days where random number tables were not easy to hand for statistics! (BTW: this is one way to get an effectively chance result, or at least one having the stochastic parameters of a chance result: clash two or more uncorrelated cause-effect streams. AKA, stage an accident -- what Plato discussed in the Laws Bk X, c 360 BC.) But of course, the digits of pi come from a perfectly determined algorithmic source, and we can generate it with any one of several classic series, to any desired degree of precision. (One reason not to use pi etc in your friendly local encrypting system! Go for sky noise, or compensated zener noise, and if you want you can then feed that through a seed of a pseudo-random no generator for a bit. And of course one of my little challeges to the chance folks is to get 1,000 bits of functionally specific algorithmic or linguistic info out of such a chance process. Y'know, write some Word files or a short Pascal pgm . . . ) GEM of TKI kairosfocus

Moseph, Pi is a mathematical CONSTANT. IOW it is far from random. Joseph

GIMI:

Why are you in such a hurry to get me to talk about my position?

People who refuse to talk about their position are usually trolls. I don't like feeding trolls. Also I refuted your claim of meaningful information- it is NOT in the eye of the beholder. Meaningful information is NOT imagined information. Joseph

Oops, I forgot to put my response to this Joseph. This was referring to my position.

” That way we could compare what I posted to that.

Why are you in such a hurry to get me to talk about my position? Right now I’m just talking about my position concerning thing said on this thread. Lets take care of what is currently on the table. You can comment on the things I have already said and will post in further comments. ~GIMI GIMI

” Then you have issues.”

Um, yes.

” That sounds like your position. .”

My position? I don’t think I clearly stated my position here. The topic here is meaningful information and the unsupported claims you’ve made on this thread. Let stick to the subject.

” Any time you want to come over and debate me, I will gladly oblige.”

We’re doing find here having a civil discussion. Why would we need to move to your blog, or engage in a debate over the matters?

” And it is very telling that you cannot provide a testable hypothesis for your position.

Speaking of telling, please tell me what my position is and point out as to where I stated it on this thread.

” That way we could compare what I posted to that.

Joseph, I noticed you also are from New England(NE) I’m from little ole RI but work in the Bay State. Which corner of NE do you come from? ~GIMI GIMI

One that living organisms are not reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity. Two that information- meaningful information- can arise without agency involvement.

And how would you suggest that those claims could be refuted?

The same way I have been saying for years. 1- Demonstrate that living organisms are so reducible 2- Show that meaningful information can arise without agency involvement A first-grtader could have figured that out. So what is you problem Moseph? But usually we look for well-traveled trails, scat, bedding, fur on branches, broken branches, moss scraped off of a stone- things that nature, operating freely couldn’t do.

So if nature operating freely can’t break a branch what can it do?

Nature, operating freely can break a branch. So can agencies. Both leave behind traces of their involvement. But someone like you couldn't tell the difference. Joseph

Moseph:

And what are your plans for testing your hypothesis?

Already tested. I even put the tests in the hypothesis. I included falsifivations. But anyway what are you plans to support you position? None whatsoever? Meaningful information is NOT what one person thinks he sees. It can be tested to see if it is really there.

Then a demonstration is called for.

OK I will meet you down the street in 10 minutes... Joseph

GIMI:

I follow the link you provided to your blog and do not see any valid support of ID and your claim that it is testable.

Then you have issues.

What I do see is unsupported assertions, assumptions and wishful thinking.

That sounds like your position.

You have not clearly thought things out before you posted them on your blog.

Any time you want to come over and debate me, I will gladly oblige. And it is very telling that you cannot provide a testable hypothesis for your position. That way we could compare what I posted to that. Joseph

Joseph, I follow the link you provided to your blog and do not see any valid support of ID and your claim that it is testable. What I do see is unsupported assertions, assumptions and wishful thinking. You have not clearly thought things out before you posted them on your blog. Instead of trying to show what you believe supports ID and demonstrates that it is a testable hypothesis, please direct me to the papers and the research done by scientist currently investigating ID that support what you claim. Thanks! ~GIMI GIMI

Joseph

Notice it has something you can’t provide- a testable hypothesis.

And what are your plans for testing your hypothesis? None whatsoever? I thought as much.

Meaningful information is NOT what one person thinks he sees. It can be tested to see if it is really there.

Then a demonstration is called for. Please go right ahead. Will this information be measured in FSCI, or if not what units will you be using? Moseph

GIMI, I have it from an authority that he uses his publications in YEC journals to satisfy his university's publication mandate. Strawman argumnets? 1- "ID says things are too complex and therefor must have been designed." 2- ID is Creationism (in a cheap tuxedo)

The arguments supporting ID have been few and well refuted, but I keep hearing the same ones like a skipping record.

People THINK they have refited some arguments. However upon closer inspection they did nothing.

It has been well demonstrated as to how information can accumulate through mutation and natural selection.

No it hasn't. Natural selection reduces variation. Which means it reduces information. Fossils cannot tells us anything about a mechanism. As Dr Behe said evidence for UCD is not evidence for the mechanisms. Also the vast majority of the fossil record is of marine inverts (>95%). Yet in that vast majority UCD is absent. Meaningful information is NOT what one person thinks he sees. It can be tested to see if it is really there. Supporting Intelligent Design Notice it has something you can't provide- a testable hypothesis. Joseph

Joseph

They are precisely calculated.

Prove it!

If someone plugged in random numbers for Pi do you think geometry would still be OK?

Depends what you mean by OK.

One that living organisms are not reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity. Two that information- meaningful information- can arise without agency involvement.

And how would you suggest that those claims could be refuted? In theory?

But usually we look for well-traveled trails, scat, bedding, fur on branches, broken branches, moss scraped off of a stone- things that nature, operating freely couldn’t do.

So if nature operating freely can't break a branch what can it do? Anything? Moseph

Moseph:

The digits of Pi are essentially random.

They are precisely calculated. If someone plugged in random numbers for Pi do you think geometry would still be OK? When the claims of ID are refuted I will fight to be the first in line to admit it.

What claims are those? There seems to be no “central” set of claims, it depends on who you ask. So what are the claims of ID you think could be refuted?

One that living organisms are not reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity. Two that information- meaningful information- can arise without agency involvement. That would be a good start. However I would settle for people like you just supporting your position. You could start with a testable hypothesis.

But fossils are the mineral remains of animal skeletons. I.E. biological evidence.

They were biological. Ya see there isn't any biological data that accounts for the transformations required. And I don't know of any trackers that use one footprint to track something. All one footprint can do is tell you something was there and it had a foot. We can also look at the depth and judge the weight. We can look at the print to see how fresh it is. But usually we look for well-traveled trails, scat, bedding, fur on branches, broken branches, moss scraped off of a stone- things that nature, operating freely couldn't do. Joseph

Joseph

Ya see there ain’t no meaningful information in random data.

It depends what you mean. The digits of Pi are essentially random.

When the claims of ID are refuted I will fight to be the first in line to admit it.

What claims are those? There seems to be no "central" set of claims, it depends on who you ask. So what are the claims of ID you think could be refuted?

When people are stuck with using fossils for a biological theory, there may be an issue with the biological data.

But fossils are the mineral remains of animal skeletons. I.E. biological evidence. While I generally think you are a very wise and deep thinker is this not like saying a forest tracker could not use a footprint to track his prey due to the "theory of animals" not needing to use a "non-organic mud based evidence of foot shape and direction of travel" theory? Moseph

Joseph, ”Peer-review is flawed. And the YECs have their peer-reviewed journals.” I’m sorry but that’s a lame excuse. There is no system that is perfect, and to compare compare repected Peer review journals to what YEC call one is ridiculous. Even before the YEC publication there were always journals that are no very respectable, but that does not mean there aren’t any that should be taken seriously. ”All they have are negative arguments-strawmen actually- against ID. .” Please give me an example of these strawmen arguments. The arguments supporting ID have been few and well refuted, but I keep hearing the same ones like a skipping record. If I am incorrect, please explain the supporting arguments and evidence ID currently has. ”How it formed for one. And what does the genetic data say about the transformations. .” It has been well demonstrated as to how information can accumulate through mutation and natural selection. If you are talking about how life was (Formed) started, that is abiogenesis not ToE. I could speak about that and evidence that supports it, but it would be off topic. ”We don’t have it yet.” Well, then you have nothing but an idea. I support exploring new ideas but to be taken seriously the ID camp needs to go back and do the work to find support, publish papers on their research and slowly win over the science community just like every other scientist has done. ”When people are stuck with using fossils for a biological theory, there may be an issue with the biological data. .” Please reexamine the evidence for ToE. Fossils are very telling concerning a biological theory, but they are far from the only source of evidence for ToE. Many different sciences came to the same conclusion concerning ToE or supporting Toe independently. The most recent Genetic evidence is very telling and strongly supports ToE. If you think Fossils are not appropriate, then the attempt to draw parallels between biology and programming to support ID is even sillier. ”I think that is correct however I don’t think I said it..” My apologies, you didn’t say that, Absolutist did. So you agree that what he said is correct? Though I have shown a few of many examples I know of where people find what they believe is meaningful information in sources produced by random natural process, you still think meaningful information must have an outside source other than the person recognizing it? ”You have the wrong idea of “meaningful information”. ” The examples I gave fit well with the discussion on this thread. Please elaborate as to what you would call meaningful information. ”Don’t you think that knowing what determines form is key to biology? ” Yes, and in many other sciences there are questions I find very important to answer, yet still haven’t been. Some things are very difficult to answer but that does not make the knowledge we have gained incorrect nor another valid. We are just beginning to really understand genetic, and I’ve seen nothing so far that supports ID. The only claim I see ID making is the “we can’t explain that so ID must be correct”: and that’s not science. ”People have been doing just that for millenia. It has become obvious that the only evidence some people will accept is a meeting with the designer(s). ” No matter how long its been going on gives it no support. You appear to agree that only arguing against the currently accepted theory is not the correct method to show scientific support for the new theory you offer. So I’ll ask again, could you please show the questions that ID does answer and what evidence you have to support these claims concerning ID. ~GIMI GIMI

GIMI, Peer-review is flawed. And the YECs have their peer-reviewed journals. But anyway, with respect to anti-IDists you said:

Such a negative term for those who support a ToE instead of ID.

All they have are negative arguments-strawmen actually- against ID.

What is the proper context you are eluding to,

How it formed for one. And what does the genetic data say about the transformations.

and what evidence do you have to support that it is the proper context to view the current data?

We don't have it yet. When people are stuck with using fossils for a biological theory, there may be an issue with the biological data.

You yourself had claimed in an earlier post: “Meaningful information necessitates an information giver".

I think that is correct however I don't think I said it. But anyway:

I have shown that often the ‘information giver’ is the mind of the person finding the information in random data.

You have the wrong idea of "meaningful information". Ya see there ain't no meaningful information in random data.

Lack of an answer for certain aspects of biology is not evidence that a particular theory is incorrect, nor another is correct.

Certain aspects? Don't you think that knowing what determines form is key to biology?

Instead of pointing out the questions that ToE doesn’t answer yet, it would be more productive to show those that ID does and what evidence you have to support it.

People have been doing just that for millenia. It has become obvious that the only evidence some people will accept is a meeting with the designer(s). IOW they ain't interested in science. They are part of the "Prove it" crowd I was mocking in another thread. Joseph

Joseph,

"I was pointing out that your point swings both ways."

I do not deny that people can draw flawed conclusions from the available data, no matter which claim they support. This is the purpose of peer review, which ID proponents appears to fail to recognize. Though peer review is not the end of the life of a failed claim, it only means you may need to rework your argument, and find more data to support it. I have not seen that in the ID camp. I've seen more money and time spent on PR than research and paper publication.

"Anti-IDists..."

Such a negative term for those who support a ToE instead of ID. Nope.

"I am sure/ hopeful once we view it in its proper context it will provide a wealth of meaningful information."

What is the proper context you are eluding to, and what evidence do you have to support that it is the proper context to view the current data?

"When the claims of ID are refuted I will fight to be the first in line to admit it."

You yourself had claimed in an earlier post:

"Meaningful information necessitates an information giver."

I have shown that often the 'information giver' is the mind of the person finding the information in random data. Are you willing to admit that you were incorrect, and you claim needs more support.

"Yet here we are 150 years after the publication of “On the Origins of Species” and we still don’t have any idea what determines form."

Lack of an answer for certain aspects of biology is not evidence that a particular theory is incorrect, nor another is correct. Arguments like that usually come from a god of the gaps camp. Instead of pointing out the questions that ToE doesn't answer yet, it would be more productive to show those that ID does and what evidence you have to support it. ~GIMI GIMI

GIMI, I was pointing out that your point swings both ways. Anti-IDists also "find" meaningful information where there isn't any. They also "find" patterns where there isn't any.

Are you claiming that no meaningful information can be draw from the fossil record?

Nope. I am sure/ hopeful once we view it in its proper context it will provide a wealth of meaningful information. That said- When the claims of ID are refuted I will fight to be the first in line to admit it. As I see it is the anti-IDists who lack evidentiary support and that is why they are forced to misrepresent ID. All I see is strawman after strawman when in fact if they would just support their claims ID would fall. Yet here we are 150 years after the publication of "On the Origins of Species" and we still don't have any idea what determines form. We know DNA influences it, but when we take a gene from a mouse and insert it into a fly, that fly does not develop mouse parts. Joseph

Joseph, You're taking my point out of context. I was speaking of 'meaningful information' in the sense that supports the claim of intelligent origin, to point out the fact that people often find it where it is not. Are you claiming that no meaningful information can be draw from the fossil record?

"sure at first glance people may tend to see things that really are not there. THAT is why we investigate.

Unfortunately there are those who still cling onto their misinterpretation though there is little to no evidence to support it, or the evidence is shown supports a different conclusion. Instead of searching for new evidence for their claim, they often continue to insist that their original claim is correct, though it has been long refuted. Though I've been following ID for many years, I see the support offerd for it functioning in the same manner as what the local New Englanders show concerning their pseudo-archeology. The difference I do see is that ID has done a far better job with PR to promote their claim. ~GIMI GIMI

Gimi- People finding meaningful imformation where it doesn't exist- the fossil record. People finding a pattern where none exists- again the fossil record. But anyway sure at first glance people may tend to see things that really are not there. THAT is why we investigate. We do so because we want/ need to find out the reality behind what it is we are observing. Joseph

absolutist,

” For example the theory of evolution which cannot explain consciousness will continue to be exposed as inadequate.

Making a claim like this is not very scientific. Just because there is no current explanation offered by ToE that is well accepted does not mean it cannot or will not, nor that it is inadequate.

” I suspect (I have not seen them) that the rocks don’t quite look like Mt. Rushmore but also aren’t just small scratches you would ordinarily see on a rock. Usually something extra-ordinary inclines people to advance theories.”

The marks vary in size, placement and clarity, just as one might expect from a random event that caused them.

"In this case you say that they do in fact point to intelligence in an indirect sense in that they were “random scraps made by plows and other farming tools over the centuries.”

You seem to miss the point of my comment. It was to show that people can and do find Meaningful information where it does no exist, when their assumptions and biases are so strong and they look for supporting evidence instead looking at the evidence and see what it supports. Though recognizing the farm tools being evidence of an intelligence misses my point, I'm glad you mentioned it. I only pointed out the markings from farm tools because they most frequently related to the comment concerning finding ‘Meaningful Information.’ There also are many examples these same people use that are dues to glacial scraps and natural weathering on the rocks. Some are said to be Ogham text and others are said to be messages/maps left by local Indians. There is also on an Island in off of Maine that is though to be related to a Pirate treasure, but upon close inspection can be seen to be from natural cause. I’ve only mentioned a few that are known across New England, but this is not limited to the North Eastern portion of America. Across the world and even our Solar System you can find many examples of natural and random man made markings and oddities that are thought to contain meaningful information, where there is none.

” One way or the other these markings must have been strange enough to warrant going through an explanatory filter."

Humans are great pattern finders. This is one of our greatest assets, which at times can be one of our greatest banes. Often a person can be so blinded by their assumptions that they suffer from pareidolia. Its quite amazing how even in a serious academic investigation, how much some people can see where there is nothing there at all. ~Gimi GIMI

GIMI, Thanks for reminding us of this absolute that is, Truth does not care what we think of it, it remains what it is. absolutist

GIMI, You are correct that meaningful to a few doesn't make it so. Your story proves the point. False theories which do not fit well with what we know to be true are hopefully deflated over time. For example the theory of evolution which cannot explain consciousness will continue to be exposed as inadequate. I suspect (I have not seen them) that the rocks don't quite look like Mt. Rushmore but also aren't just small scratches you would ordinarily see on a rock. Usually something extra-ordinary inclines people to advance theories. While strange markings on one or multiple rocks may not convey the content of a thought in a sentence, they do seem to provide some sort of meaningful information. In this case you say that they do in fact point to intelligence in an indirect sense in that they were "random scraps made by plows and other farming tools over the centuries." Farming tools imply intelligent tool makers. One way or the other these markings must have been strange enough to warrant going through an explanatory filter. absolutist

Pauln, Thanks for the response. I’m not sure what your point is concerning the quantity of meaningful information we observe daily as compared to the incorrect interpretation of random lines as actual intelligently inscribed meaningful information. I was just trying to show that people can easily lead themselves to misinterpret completely random lines as meaningful information (Ogham Text). In some of the examples I’ve seen, the people have been able to find not only various Ogham letters, but also meaningful text. What they claim is very obvious to the naked eye, appears to be no better than finding animals in the clouds. Only once someone points out what to look for, it become easier to find. Even in the best examples, I still see it as a stretch of the imagination to buy it. I believe these misconceptions are due to the fact that many of these people who interpret the scrapes incorrectly, seem to have already concluded that Celtic Monks did attempt colonize NE first. The misinterpretation of some colonial settlement oddies and other natural anomalies as Celtic origin help feed this belief. Though the evidence clearly points to the farming tools, they still believe their conclusion is the correct one, no matter how weak the evidence they have is. ~GIMI GIMI

P.S. I realize that "trillions" is most likely a vast underestimate. PaulN

Unfortunately GIMI, All you've done is displayed how on rare occasion someone's interpretation of meaningful information can be mimicked to a mere shadow of what we see meaningful information producing on the basis of trillions of times per day. Also may I ask what qualified the boulder scrapes to be meaningful? Were they able to find any coherent messages within the alleged Celtic markings? Or were they simply noted due to their visual similarities? PaulN

"...but wherever we find meaningful information it is inescapable to conclude that intelligence is behind it."

That is not necessarily true. In New England(NE) there are examples of marking on boulders that some believe are Ogham text. Those who believe in an earlier Celtic settling in NE have been able to find meaningful information in these markings. In most if not all case I am aware of, the markings have been found to be random scraps made by plows and other farming tools over the centuries. So, though it appears to be text with meaningful information to some people, the only actual intelligence behind the markings is in the minds of those interperting these markings as meaninful. ~GIMI GIMI

Mr Nakashima, Thank you for your post (#19). I've been trying to find out how many butterflies there are in the world. I haven't found the answer yet, but I understand that the total number of butterfly species worldwide is 15,000 to 20,000. From looking at this site , I understand that Monarch butterflies may number 50 million per hectare, and that Monarch butterflies may cover up to 20 million hectares of Mexico in a good year. That's 1,000 million million, or 10 to the power of 15. Worldwide, let's say there are 10 to the power of 17 (a very generous estimate). The Monarch is actually a very common butterfly species, but let's say there are similar numbers of all other species. Since there are about 20,000 butterfly species, so that gives us 2 x 10^21. Let's say that among all these butterflies, only ONE in the entire world has the letter B on its wings, only ONE has the letter Y and only ONE has the letter U. The probability that three randomly selected butterlies will have the letters B, Y and U is therefore very low - in the order of 10^63. That's still well above Dembski's universal probability bound. So the short answer to your question is: No. By itself, that's not proof of design. vjtorley

The “????” were Japanese characters (UD didn't like), we'll substitute other symbols, say "La nieve es blanca." absolutist

"Meaningful texts owe their meaning not to the physics and chemistry of ink on paper but to the infusion of semantic information. Likewise, life owes its origin not to the physics and chemistry of life's basic building blocks but to the infusion of biologically significant functional information." William Dembski and Jonathan Wells (Design of Life, 2008, p251)

absolutist

Mr Nakashima, While I grant you that the odds of finding what appears to be the single letters B, Y and U on separate butterflies are not insurmountable (looks like even butterflies can have bad hair days), finding all three butterflies flying together in the right order while spelling something meaningful becomes highly improbable apart from the activity of a designing intelligence. The letters that form the -BYU- pattern are designed because the letters -BYU- carry information and provide a short description of the pattern in question, namely: The three letter abbreviation for Brigham Young University, America's largest religious university located in Provo, Utah. Obviously here the news story also informs us that this is in fact the case, but wherever we find meaningful information it is inescapable to conclude that intelligence is behind it. Do you see that information is not the same as the characters that convey it? I can write to you "????" or "Snow is white" and while the meaning remains unchanged, neither set of letters is the same. Meaningful information necessitates an information giver. DNA and whatever other substance is responsible for the construction of a three-dimensional human being presents us with an insurmountable amount of specified complexity and information, naturalism simply cannot explain. absolutist

I'm sorry, I need to make a correction to my previous post. You can replace "Darwinian assumptions" with naturalistic assumptions, seeing as almost every IDer acknowledges natural workings to an observational extent, albeit to a much lesser theoretical extent than Darwinists. PaulN

Nakashima-san,

I’m holding them out as an example to see if different participants will agree or not with either of these positions, or with the evovlved by happenstance position.

Ah, I actually take kindly to your line of inquiry here. Seeing the discrepency between IDists who reason within Darwinian assumptions vs. those who reason within Design assumptions is an observation that everyone here could appreciate. PaulN

Are the letters on the butterfly’s wings obviously designed? What we may say for sure is that they do not give their bearers any "survival advantage". Or the other way around - they were not selected by "natural selection". One has just to go on summer meadow and observe all those butterflies there. Only a darwinist can claim that patterns on their wings are outcome of "natural" or "sexual" selection. Nothing support my claim better that so called polymorphic mimicry in butterflies. Non-mimetic morphs thrive often better than mimetic ones - putting the whole concept of "natural selection" on ice. It was Heikertinger, Punnet and Goldschmidt - and many others - who challenged neodarwinian explanation of butterflies' wings pattern and coloration. Goldschmidt even considered it as the cornstone of darwinian gradualism and wrote “Mimetic Polymorphism, a Controversial Chapter of Darwinism”. More on my blog. VMartin

Mr PaulN, I agree that someone holding to an extreme design position would of course say that the butterfly's wings were designed. Other less extreme design positions might say they were happenstance, a la The Old Man of the Mountain in New Hampshire (now deceased, or whatever). I'm holding them out as an example to see if different participants will agree or not with either of these positions, or with the evovlved by happenstance position. Nakashima

Nakashima-san,

Are the letters on the butterfly’s wings obviously designed?

With all due respect, I do believe this is what we're essentially arguing as far as whittling the evidence down to its logical conclusion. If DNA is a product of design, then yes, the patterns on the butterflies wings would also be a product of that design with a particular purpose or function in mind. I imagine someone writing an algorithm that produces colorful patterns within certain size-shape constraints that provide for aesthetic purposes, whether they be directly related to survival or not. Visualizations found in popular media players come to mind. PaulN

Mr Absolutist, If a lepidopterist pinned three butterflies in a row so that their wings read "BYU", could we infer design because of Mr Graham's reasoning, to wit The letters BYU are obviously designed because they serve absolutely no survival purpose for any organism, and we are very familiar with the process that produces such information, ie: our own language. Are the letters on the butterfly's wings obviously designed? Nakashima

Here is another example: http://www.physorg.com/news98542190.html Mario A. Lopez

Mr. Nakashima, Observing DNA or the BYU letters is like seeing all 26 butterflies you mention in the proper order all at once, not isolated butterflies on a cleverly composed poster. That's much different than watching clouds in the sky that look like Mickey Mouse. absolutist

An interesting thing for ID theorist happened in Bulgaria: Read more: The probability of this happening is about 4.2 million to one. Although this is possible, please notice that the police have been involve. Looks like ID at work to me. Kyrilluk

KF-san, Why do you always trot out this set piece? Every onlooker knows by now that it is based on random search assumptions, while nobody is arguing that random search is how RNA chains of >150 bases formed. Talk about a strawman! This is such a strawman I'm looking for Toto and Dorothy in ruby slippers to show up next. Nakashima

Mr Graham, The letters BYU are obviously designed because they serve absolutely no survival purpose for any organism, and we are very familiar with the process that produces such information, ie: our own language. May I suggest a visit to butterflyalphabet.com? Nakashima

ellazimm - I think you've misunderstood the argument about the Cambrian explosion. It isn't _necessarily_ that this is a point where someone stepped in and did all that (though some certainly think that). The point is that the massive radiation indicates that there was a different process in place than natural selection. Examples of possibilities: * Front-loading - the LUCA had all of the genetics of these organisms pre-coded into its genes. Then, during the Cambrian explosion, the organisms at that time radiated out and specialized based on the information they already had. * Pre-existence - in this, the organisms existed beforehand, but the conditions provided a unique opportunity for burial * Direct intervention - multiple acts of creation occurred during this time period. All of these, of course, themselves have many different sub-viewpoints, but they are the main ones. The point is that when organisms appear fully-formed, that indicates that the process to get there was an informational process, whether or not that information was put there at that time or beforehand. If you compare the Cambrian layers to today, you find that in the upper cenozoic, you hardly have even new genuses, but in the Cambrian layers you have entirely new phyla. Something happened there that is not happening today. As for your question, "did they use miracles?" Note that in the examples given in the post, the mechanism for creating the DNA in question is not detectable, despite the fact that the design is detectable. For example, in programming, I cannot tell the kind of keyboard someone used to type in their code, or even if it was a keyboard at all. That doesn't mean I go around wondering whether or not all of this code was designed or came about through natural selection. johnnyb

Graham, You've got to be kidding - we've had this conversation. What part sof DNA has been explained by "the usual evolutionary process"? What part? Upright BiPed

Neither side can get to a probability of 1.0 the wonderer

It still takes faith to believe God did it, when it comes to matters of origins. It takes as much, probably more faith to believe it just happened. I wish both sides would acknowledge this fact. Because Christian writings implore us it takes faith to be know God, I land on the side of Faith in an Intelligent Designer. the wonderer

Graham: The rest of the DNA has all been explained by the usual evolutionary process. And that explanation is...? These types of things are reported so often in the media that people begin to believe them. One columnist wrote that scientists can explain in detail how the eye evolved. Never mind that he was wrong - where did he "learn" something so obviously false? ScottAndrews

EZ: The problem isn't probability or lack of knowledge of relevant mechanisms. We pretty well know what dynamics would obtain in Darwin's warm little pond, or the comet-head or the undersea hot vent. None of these on the dynamics of physics or chemistry and chance circumstances would be able to credibly create a von Neunman replicator on the gamut of the observed universe. Remember, just 1,000 bits of stored information is about 150 bytes, far too little to code in blueprints for the machinery to self-replicate, much less carry out metabolic processes as well. And, 1,000 bits specified a config space such that the whole observed universe running from its generally credited singularity starting point, for 50 million times as long as we have on the standard 13.7 BY timeline would not scan through 1 in 10^150th part of the possible configs for 1,000 bits. [And that ignores the very very small fraction of atoms that would be in suitable environments.] In short, the search would be the next best thing to zero scope, so it is not credible, long before any particular models of probability calculation are brought to bear. Search resource exhaustion on the gamut of the observed cosmos, in sum. But we do have an empirically well- known causal factor that creates such functionally specific, code based algorithmic information on the relevant gamuts of complexity -- 600 - 1,000 k bits up -- all the time. Intelligence. And as far as the creation of cellular life as observed is concerned, the real issue is chance + necessity vs intelligence, not "natural" vs "supernatural." On inference to best explanation, intelligence works pretty well, absent the injection of dismissive prejudice via the now disdained tag: "miracle." We can then sit down and reasonably discuss what sort of intelligence was credibly implicated in the origin of life as we observe it on earth, and onward on what sort of intelligence was implicated in the creation of a cosmos that seems to be exquisitely and on dozens of key factors, fine-tuned to host such life. A priori imposition of materialism -- whether overtly or covertly as "methodological naturalism" -- as a show-stopper to block that line of consideration on the known implication of signs of intelligence, is becoming ever more threadbare. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

I don't know how life got started on earth. I have read some of the current theories and it seems some of them are gaining plausibility. In general, without some clear, unambiguous indication of an exterior intervention, I think we don't have much choice except to focus on a non-interventionist approach. I don't know what a miracle is. And improbability of one model is not an argument for another I'm afraid. We've only started, relatively speaking, to explore the possibilities and it's far too early to write off as failed the mainstream notions. Well, I think so anyway. :-) ellazimm

ellazimm, Yes, eventually ID might get into those areas, but this does not detract from the current valid design inference from the evidence we now have on hand. Tell me this - do you believe evolution required a miracle to get started - from the point of the origin of life? If not, how do you explain it getting started? Another question - let's assume that a designer such as a god or another vastly intelligent being did start life on earth - was it necessarily a miracle? Why? CannuckianYankee

Thats an intersting article. It is a really neat demonstration of the difference between what we would immediately identify as designed and what we would identify as a result of a natural process. The letters BYU are obviously designed because they serve absolutely no survival purpose for any organism, and we are very familiar with the process that produces such information, ie: our own language. The rest of the DNA has all been explained by the usual evolutionary process. Graham

"Did they use miracles?" I'd love to ask that question of the current ID paradigm. If the ID inference is true then how (and when) did the designer implement the design? Many people here seem to think the Cambrian explosion is more parsimoniously explained by the intervention of an intelligent designer. Then when specifically? How specifically? Those are scientific questions that the model eventually must be able to answer to ensure that the entire process, step-by-step, is understood. Yeah? ellazimm

I'm telling you, where is Eleanor Arroway when you need her? She's good at cracking codes. absolutist