Ideological Turing Test

_{Barry Arrington

November 29, 2016

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

To all of our friends who subscribe to materialist accounts of evolution:

Here is an interesting little test.

The Ideological Turing Test is a concept invented by Bryan Caplan to test whether a political or ideological partisan correctly understands the arguments of his or her intellectual adversaries. The partisan is invited to answer questions or write an essay posing as his opposite number; if neutral judges cannot tell the difference between the partisan’s answers and the answers of the opposite number, the candidate is judged to correctly understand the opposing side.

Now most folks in the ID movement can pass the test when it comes to materialist evolutionary theory. After all, it is the dominant paradigm, and it has been crammed down our throats all of our lives. Yeah, yeah, I know. Our opponents often insist that only someone who does not truly understand their theory can reject it. Let’s set that bit of self-serving question begging aside. It really is the case that I have never seen a fair summary of ID theory come from one of our opponents. Invariably we get some caricature like “ID posits that all complex things must be designed.”

So, here is my challenge to our opponents: Do you understand ID well enough to pass the Ideological Turing Test? If you think you do, prove it by giving a one paragraph summary of ID in the comments below.

Comments

Silver Asiatic, I wrote this in another* discussion thread, but wanted to rewrite it and extend it a little. I thought the extended version fits better in this discussion thread which seems more open beyond pure scientific debate. Whether the biological systems are designed or not doesn't depend on how much we know about it or how well we quantify, detect and infer design. Generally objective truth does not depend on whether we know it. I understand that the quantification method gpuccio uses to digitally measure the functional complexity of certain biological objects and thus infer design is limited to those objects only. The brilliant ideas my former supervisor at work had could not be easily quantified. However, they were design ideas. The software we developed to implement those brilliant ideas could have been quantified using gpuccio's method to infer design. Different control layers and procedural components of the designed biological systems may or may not be suitable for quantification in order to infer design. Each of them should be analyzed using different methods. Perhaps some of those methods don't exist yet or may never exist. We are dealing with an unfathomable designed system that is beyond anything we conscious beings have ever imagined, much less designed. However, every day researchers from wet and dry labs are producing enormous amounts of new data that shed more light on the elaborate cellular and molecular choreographies orchestrated within the biological systems. We ain't seen nothing yet. The best is still ahead. I don't count myself officially among the ID proponents, because I believe I know the Designer, and I want to declare it openly. ID is pure science, hence it does not get that far. That's why the ID proponents here in this blog come from a wide spectrum of philosophical and theological backgrounds. This friendly group is an eintopf on steroids. :) At the bottom of this we have the confrontation between the two most irreconcilable opposite sides of the spectrum: on one side the materialist atheistic worldview which rests on the belief that the ultimate reality is based on matter and energy only. On the completely opposite side we believe that the Ultimate Reality is defined in the first few verses of the Gospel according to the apostle John. In between those two irreconcilable opposite worldview positions we find myriad of shades of worldviews. It feels good to be on the winning side. But that also gives us the responsibility to be magnanimous toward those who disagree with us. We believe that we all were created in Imago Dei, hence we share the same dignity. Those of us who have been beneficiaries of Divine grace should enjoy being gracious toward others too! Let's enjoy learning from what serious science is discovering these days, specially in biology. Let's rejoice! Have a good week. PS. You did a good job heating up this* interesting discussion. :) We should test everything and hold only what is good. I think you helped to test some ideas here*. Well done! (*) here is the original post: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fixing-a-confusion/#comment-622064Dionisio_{December 11, 2016
December
12
Dec
11
11
2016
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

I'm sorry I could not respond to some really provocative comments here. I was away and not able to access the internet access which became our lifeline to the so call "world".Myself and my family will not use electronics all weekend.J-Mac_{December 9, 2016
December
12
Dec
9
09
2016
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: I thank you too for your very clear contributions to the debate. I am completely sincere when I say that I appreciate differences of thought. I owe you a brief answer to your last post. 1) We need not know anything about consciousness in the bees to infer design for the complex structure of the hive. We define design as the result of a conscious designer, but we infer design from the properties of the object. We only need to observe functional complexity in the object to infer that it is the result of some design process by some designer. As we apparently agree, there is no need to know anything about the designer to infer design from the designed object. At that point, we only know that some conscious intelligent being inputted functional information into the object. 2) So, we are certain: the hive is designed. Some conscious designer inputted the information to realize its structure. 3) But, now that we have inferred design, it is legitimate and necessary to ask: who is the deisgner? 4) At this point, to be scientific and consistent with our theory, we have to "follow the information trail". 5) So, the correct question is: when and where does the information come in? 6) I have offered many reasons to believe that at least the bulk of the necessary information must be in the biological structure of the bees as a species: genome, epigenome, or anything else that is physically passed from parents to offspring. My point is that that information, which IMO is the greatest part, has been designed, but not by any bee. It has been designed by the designer who is responsible of all the information that makes a bee a bee. IOWs, the biological designer or designers. It's a big problem, but it is the same problem as understanding who designed ATP synthase, or any other biological object. 7) You counter that bees can be conscious (I agree) and can be capable of independent design (I agree). However, their individual design would be responsible only of a minor part of the information necessary to build the hive: the specific choices of adaptation in specific contexts, for example. While the complexity of the hive is certainly very high, it is much more difficult to quantify the functional contribution of individual bees to the design of a specific hive. And part of that contribution could be itself adaptation, dependent on some genetic programming. 8) IOWs, I am not denying that animals can generate some functional information. But I doubt that they can generate huge quantities of original functional information, as humans do, and as the biological designer(s) has certainly done throughout natural history. 9) Because humans do generate tons of original complex functional information. Humans do not build hives (they could not, because with all their intelligence they don't know how to do that). But they build houses, and houses have always been different. And they build machines, and computers, and produce ever new language. No computer has ever existed on our planet, until humans built the first one. 10) The same is true of the biological designer(s). No ATP synthase existed on our planet, until someone conceived and implemented it in some of the oldest living beings. Each new protein, or biological structure, is a novelty in natural history. Proteins are not hives. They are houses, ever new. Each time a new protein or a new biological structure appears, there are tons of new, original, fresh functional information that appears on our planet for the first time. There is the intervention of a conscious, intelligent designer. The same cannot be said for each new hive that appears on the planet, because the basic information already existed. 11) A final, but important point. I define design as the result of the output of form from some conscious being to matter. Therefore, I would never mention the term design if not in connection to some conscious agent, the designer. But design is not always complex. While complex functional information is necessary to infer design from the designed object, there are many designed objects that show no complex functional information, becasue they are simple. A simple example will clarify the point. A child draws a square on a sheet of paper, as a very simple drawing of a house. Well, maybe the child tells us that he is drawing a house, so we know directly that the square is a designed object, because we are observing directly the process of design: a conscious agent (the child) who outputs a form to a material object (the paper sheet) starting form a personal conscious representation of meaning (a house) and a purpose (to draw the house). OK. But if we just see the square, and we know nothing of its origin, we cannot infer design. The square is too simple. Squares do exist in non designed systems (I am ignoring for the moment the complexity linked to the fact that the square is on a sheet of paper, and is made by a pencil: for our purpose, let's consider only its configuration). So, simple objects can be designed, but we cannot infer design from the object unless its functional configuration is complex. You can see how important it is to have an independent definition of design, which is not related to the functional complexity. That allows us to categorize all possible objects into 4 sets: a) Designed object with low functional complexity b) Designed object with high functional complexity c) non designed objects with low functional complexity d) non designed objects with high functional complexity Now, the whole point of ID theory is: - Objects in the a) set are common (the simple drawing of the child) - Objects in the b) set are common (most human artifacts) - Objects in the c) set are extremely common (practically the whole known universe, excluding human artifacts and biological objects - Object in the d) set simply do not exist in the universe as we know it (Just to be clear: I am not considering here the obvious possibility that the whole universe is designed, IOWs the cosmological argument for design. My reasoning here is only about finite objects in space and time.) Of course, biological objects are not classified here because their origin is exactly the controversial point. But, according to ID theory, reasoning on the above important fact, we can infer design for them, in the measure that they exhibit functional complexity (a very abundant measure indeed). So, to sum up: it is perfectly possible that animals are conscious, and that they generate some designed things. My point is simply that, in general, they cannot generate tons of new original complex functional information, like humans, the kind of information that we find only in human artifacts and in biological objects, including some complex instinctive animal behaviors. While consciousness can be enough to design things, some specific conscious experiences, in particular some refined experience of meaning, seem to be necessary to generate high quantities of original complex functional information.gpuccio_{December 4, 2016
December
12
Dec
4
04
2016
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

Seversky @101: Thanks for your thoughts. There are a couple of foundational logical problems with your approach, but since I have little time today, let me just flag one that jumped out at me on a quick read. Hopefully we can walk through others later. The first issue can be summed up in the question you posed as follows:
Why, then, should we think that their designs should resemble those of 19th/20th/21st humans who would not exist until billions of years into their future?
Part of the point of intelligent design is to flag indicia of design that are reliable indicators, independent of the designer we may be dealing with. Is our ability to identify indicia of design dependent at some level on our understanding and our experience and what we understand about design? Of course. We should be cognizant of that. But on this score your critique is no more meaningful than if we were to reflexively reject any other field of study. After all, we bring our experience, our prior knowledge, and our current level of understanding into any field of study. We don’t just throw up our hands and say, “Well it sure looks like X is the case. But we can’t infer X, because perhaps the only reason it looks like X is because we are familiar with cases like X.” Such an approach is illogical and fails at a basic level of practicality in our effort to do science and to understand the world. On the flip side, what about all the systems in biology that, nearly on a daily basis, are described by biologists as surprising, unexpected, or beyond our capabilities? Under your approach do we get to count all of them as evidence for intelligent design because they aren’t like any human design we have ever produced? ----- The observable fact is that many things in biology appear designed because they have indicia of design, not necessarily because they look like things humans have designed or are capable of designing. Some do. Some don’t. Furthermore, even if we were to accept your assertion that things in biology look designed only because they are similar to what humans have experience with, which conclusion is more rational: (a) something that looks designed and appears similar to known designed things is probably designed, or (b) something that looks designed and appears similar to known designed things is probably not designed, because . . . wait for it . . . it looks like things that we know are designed? Talk about a circular argument. Any rational person would immediately recognize that (a) is more rational than (b). It isn’t even a close call. Finally, let’s consider the alternative. In contrast to human-designed systems that are at least somewhat similar to biological systems, there is no purely natural mechanism that is known to produce the kinds of systems in question. Not even close. Billions upon billions of examples underscore that purely natural phenomena are incapable of producing the kinds of systems in question. Indeed, many, many natural processes, left to themselves, cut directly against what is required to produce and build complex, functional, integrated systems. And so the naturalistic explanation is left to plead vague stories about unspecified natural processes that allegedly might have occurred at some unknown point and in some unknown way in the deep past. Or to beg us to set aside what we do know about designed systems and instead rely on the forever-distant promise that some new law of chemistry or physics will someday be discovered that will be able to account for at least an inkling of what we see in biology. ----- We can talk about the probability issue another day.Eric Anderson_{December 4, 2016
December
12
Dec
4
04
2016
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

gpuccio I'll just offer this. You said:
About bees, we have no certainty [if they are conscious or not]. But they could well be.
In your view, if bees are conscious, then they are Intelligent Designers - what we observe from them is Design. If bees are not conscious, what we observe from them is not Design. So, ID would have to know if bees are conscious or not in order to determine if bee activity is intelligently designed by them. I see that as a problem because I don't see how science can determine if bees are conscious or not. We wouldn't know if a thing was intelligently designed unless we knew if the designer was conscious. This would be a problem for SETI, for example. In any case, many thanks for a productive debate. I will take some time to read the thread you posted -- and I appreciate your many thoughts here, as well as all your contributions to UD through the years!Silver Asiatic_{December 4, 2016
December
12
Dec
4
04
2016
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

GP, I usually sum up design in a phrase: intelligently directed configuration. Where, we are examples that demonstrate that intelligent designers exist (with objecting comments being self-referential examples of design . . . ), AND that we are secondary designers, starting from what is written in our DNA. On that experience and required capability, I would argue in terms of Plato's self-moved responsible and rational agent as a key aspect of design capability. I would argue that key features of our world indicate that its physics is designed, which is in the abstract realm, however that physics is instantiated. Just as, mathematics is an inherently abstract thing, the logic of structure and quantity; structure being quite abstract in this case, starting with sets of relevant type and related mathematical systems. Wigner on the relevance, power and effectiveness of mathematics in the physical realm speaks volumes. So does the astonishing, domain unifying Euler expression 0 = 1 + e^i*pi KFkairosfocus_{December 4, 2016
December
12
Dec
4
04
2016
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: OK, I would leave it at this, because the discussion would become too wide. Just as a clue, I will say that I cannot find any definition of "intelligence" that is indepedent from the problem of consciousness, and that I have always used a different concept of consciousness from what you seem to be using. For me, consciousness means: the existence of subjective experiences. In that sense, I am rather certain that a baby is conscious. About bees, we have no certainty. But they could well be. I certainly agree with you about the intelligence displayed by animals. Which could well be related to some form of consciousness in them. Instead, I don't believe that computers are intelligent in any real sense. They are machines, and the intelligence we see in them is only the intelligence of their designers, frozen in efficient algorithms that do exactly what they were designed to do. There is no subjective experience there, and therefore no new intelligence at all. But again, I would leave it at that. You say: "But if your view is correct then you’ll need to convince people and get definitions changed, etc." I don't want to convince anybody. I am here to defend ID, and I can defend ID in the only way possible for me: by using concepts and definitions that I believe to be true. If you give a look at my recent exchange with Bob O'H, here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fixing-a-confusion/ (post #4, and then posts #13-29, up to now) you can judge for yourself if and how much my approach works, especially when a serious interlocutor tries to attack it.gpuccio_{December 4, 2016
December
12
Dec
4
04
2016
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

gpuccio, Many thanks again for your contribution to the topic. I believe your view that design always requires a conscious agent is novel, and is not supported by the ID community in general. I could be wrong of course, I'm not a spokesman for ID as such. But if your view is correct then you'll need to convince people and get definitions changed, etc. The ordinary understand is that ID searches for design and then infers only Intelligence or an intelligent agent. ID has never said that it infers only a conscious agent. This would require analysis of whether some intelligences are conscious or not, and I've seen no ID studies on that. I take a classical view. Bees are intelligent agents. Some of their behavior is hereditary, just as with humans. But bees are more intelligent than flowers. Inherited traits in flowers are determinate - changing the shapes of leaves, color of blossoms, etc. But intelligence in bees is not reducible to heredity or genetics. To argue otherwise is materialism. Bees intelligence is not observed only in the structure of hives, but mostly in the processes that support the bee colony. Those process are driven primarily by very sophisticated information sharing - through complex language functions. We can consult with Upright Biped on this, but I'll say anyway - language functions or information networks are non-reducible to genetics alone. There is an immaterial quality to the knowlege-sharing that bees use. No, they do not do the same thing every time. They use complex strategies to find the best fields for pollen, communicating messages that change flight patterns. This is not something that is genetically coded - again, paraphrasing UB's work, the bees communication is "disoontinuous" with the medium of transfer (air, environment). Bees respond to stimuli and make choices on how to fly, how to defend the hive against predators, how to protect the queen, and even when to leave a hive and seek another. None of this is reducible to a determinate process - it is all sign of a Designing Intelligence. And with that, we don't find evidence that bees are conscious. As for repetition, even humans do many repetitive, hereditary (probably) behaviors. Yes, bees act by instinct and have limits. But your challenge is to measurably show how much behavior is hereditary and how much is from immaterial intelligence. It seems you're saying no bee activities are intelligent. How about human intelligence? How much is hereditary and how much immaterial. Dogs and chimps can actually innovate intelligently-designed behavior. We consider them more intelligent than insects, for example. Finally, computers can actually design by intelligence as well. There are different kinds of intelligence, animal, insect, machine, some would even say plants have some level of intelligence (can communicate signals among species). This is the best argument for ID in that we see some kinds of intelligence working in the world. Human is the highest form of intelligence we know, but there are other kinds. This leads to the inference that there can be a higher form of intelligence capable of designing what we see in nature. I do not see where your definition or the ID argument suffers at all from resorting to a more standard definition: Design: the output of form from an intelligent agent to matter. We do not know if the designer of the universe, for example, was necessarily conscious. We see evidence of intelligence. The universe could have been designed by an intelligent, non-conscious machine, created by another designer. ID has no way of studying that. In the weak arguments I quoted above there is this phrase:
Since [ID] studies only the empirically evident effects of design, it cannot directly detect the identity of the designer
Note what is implied. The designer (assuming the ultimate designer and not a secondary one, as with the 'machine' I presented, or even if angels created the universe - it's the Designer of all, again philosophically, not scientifically, assuming one Designer) ... cannot be empirically studied. Why? Because empiricism is directed towards "nature", which is really all that is contained with time, space, matter, energy, laws -- all "within the universe". So, empiricism (science) cannot study the Designer of all of that, since that Designer is outside of the reach of the universe or empirical studies. I would change that part of the Weak Arguments just adding "an Ultimate Designer", although I don't think ID as a scientific project can determine if the designer of the universe is one or many, in fact, what that designer is like in scientific terms, except by analogy. We see evidence of intelligence in the world, we infer an intelligent designer. Again, if a non-conscious machine created the universe, we would only observe evidence of intelligence, not of consciousness. It's like I said with a baby. Babies are not fully conscious, if at all. Can science measure how much? Can a semi-conscious person be a designing agent? I don't think ID does any analysis on whether designing agents are conscious or not. That's an idea that is unique to your view. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. On the contrary, I could be convinced that you're correct. But in so doing, it's evidence that we may not have the correct meaning or idea of what ID really is. That could be healthy growth for the project that we all support here.Silver Asiatic_{December 4, 2016
December
12
Dec
4
04
2016
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

BA77 @104-106: Thank you for that interesting information.Dionisio_{December 4, 2016
December
12
Dec
4
04
2016
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: Some more thoughts, in random order. I think we need an empiric definition of design. Otherwise, our adversaries will correctly object that our ideas are vague, contradictory, circular, and so on. My definition is empirical, and it has allowed me to counter all false accusations of circularity in my reasonings. If I had not beene able to refer to an explicit, empiric definition, I could never have done that. My definition is simply what design means and what design has ever meant: the output of form from a conscious agent to matter. My definition also allows an explicit rationale for the abolity of design to overcome probabilistic barriers that cannot be overcome by non design systems: the subjective experiences of understanding the meaning of things, and of having specific purposes, are the true responsible for the wonderful superior abilities of design systemcs versus non design systems. A non design system is any system where no subjective experience guides the evolution of the system. A design system is any syustem where subjective experiences of understanding and purpose intervene in the evolution of the system. For me, ID theory in a nutshell is very simple: non design systems can never generate new, original, complex functional information. Design systems, which include cosncious intelligent designers, can do that with amazing facility.gpuccio_{December 4, 2016
December
12
Dec
4
04
2016
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

KF: Thank you for your very interesting contribution. It seems that the point of (possible) difference is about beavers! :) Well, in brief my point is that the design process generates new original complex functional information. So, as detectives in crime novels use to "follow the money trail" to find culprits, so we in ID should "follow the information trail" to find the design process and the intervention of the designer. Now, about beavers, I am happy to agree with you about "our deep ignorance". I think that complex animal behaviors are still a mystery, and like you I would really welcome original inquiries in that field, especially if done from a design point of view. However, the "epidemiology" of dam building, of hive building, and of bird migration clearly points to a big hereditary component, even if we don't understand in detail the mode of implementation of the necessary information. In that sense, the informational part in dam building that is hereditary can be safely attributed to the designer of beavers, and not to beavers themselves, if we follow the information trail. Then there is certanly an adaptational part, that can be partially inherited (as adaptational potentialities of the species) and partially attributable to the intelligence of beavers (which I have no intention to deny, lest I lose all my beaver friends! :) ). It is really wonderful how complex animal features and behaviors (including for example mimetic abilities, which have been recently the object of an interesting post about mantis species) are integrated in systems of incredible complexity, that include also an active intelligence in the animal itself.gpuccio_{December 4, 2016
December
12
Dec
4
04
2016
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

GP & SA: I saw something at 108. Perhaps, it is time to look at ID in a micro sense and a macro/general sense -- a fashion that is now 100+ years old in the sciences, with Relativity as the leader (as is proper and fitting). The micro theory of ID is focussed on the design inference and its empirical/analytical warrant. This is the core, when can we with high and well warranted confidence, infer to design as process? (Not, to designers as causal agents, but to a process of intelligently directed configuration.) This, we have sufficiently in hand, that we may proceed to the big picture. From this, we traverse to the question raised by Sheldon, what is the scientifically grounded significance of directly expressed [coded] and implied [i.e. by description of functional organisation] information in the world of life and the cosmos as a whole? Not neglecting, the world of human society, past, present and future. For, in studying design in the world, we must start with ourselves and our cultural world. We then may study beavers in action (etc), and look at the world of life and cosmos. Thus, we come to see a highly significant phenomenon, information and linked organisation tied to configuration based function. This points to intelligence and intelligently directed configuration. We find that life is based on information-centred molecular nanotech, closely parallel to our informatics, computing, automata, control systems, cybernetics and mechatronics. Save, with far more elegant technique than we have attained. Indeed, von Neumann kinematic, molecular nanotech self-replicators are common, in the core technology of life -- the cell. In the cosmos, physics and configuration of the cosmos itself is fine tuned, setting up a world at a deeply isolated operating point for C-chemistry, aqueous medium, molecular nanotech, cell based, terrestrial planet life. A resonance peak standing in deep isolation, so to speak. From, the abundance of the first four most abundant elements: H, He, O and C on, with N close by (IIRC, in our galaxy, 5th). Stars, gateway to the rest of the elements, water and the basis for many rocky materials on terrestrial planets, the basis for the organic chemistry used in life, proteins. No wonder, Sir Fred Hoyle often spoke in terms of put-up jobs and monkeying with physics etc so there are no blind forces worth speaking of in the world. Coming back to beavers, like us, they are obviously secondary designers, reflecting design in the DNA. But, designers they are, their dams are adapted to stream conditions with astonishing technique. That degree of adaptability points to intelligence of some significant degree. Of course, no beaver went to engineering school so we speak of instincts. Revealing and concealing our deep ignorance in one word. (Why are we not studying beavers closely, probing for what it is is built in that enables their astonishing works?) All of this points onward to the issue of technological evolution and the theory of inventive problem solving [TRIZ]. Why not, reverse engineer the world of life, and look at the cosmos with at least that degree of insight? (Once, spoken of as thinking God's thoughts after him. Well, today, we can look at the design principles and patterns, then see what we can make of same for our own onward work.) My own suggestion is, we look at self replication and nanotech as gateways to industrial transformation that would open up development transformation. I point to Marcin Jakubowski and his global village construction set and the maker movement. key energy technologies such as pebble bed reactors, molten salt reactors and various possible approaches to fusion, too. (Is polywell fusion as was championed by Bussard et al, possible?) 100 - 200 years, development transformation of earth and solar system colonisation: Moon, Mars, asteroid belt, gas giant moons. Of course there are associated worldviews issues, which points to wider areas of academic stimulation, starting with philosophy. But obviously, those are not science and they are not ID as a scientific enterprise. though, they may be even more important, including for rescuing our civilisation from its obviously self-destructive folly. Which, is a bit of a concern. KFkairosfocus_{December 4, 2016
December
12
Dec
4
04
2016
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT}

F/N2: What about ID? Let me suggest as a starter, the outline in the UD glossary, publicly available c 2009 [cf. resources tab at the top of this and every UD page, noting also the ID definition and Weak Argument Correctives]:
Intelligent design [ID] – Dr William A Dembski, a leading design theorist, has defined ID as “the science that studies signs of intelligence.” That is, as we ourselves instantiate [thus exemplify as opposed to “exhaust”], intelligent designers act into the world, and create artifacts. When such agents act, there are certain characteristics that commonly appear, and that – per massive experience — reliably mark such artifacts. It it therefore a reasonable and useful scientific project to study such signs and identify how we may credibly reliably infer from empirical sign to the signified causal factor: purposefully directed contingency or intelligent design. Among the signs of intelligence of current interest for research are:
[a] FSCI — function-specifying complex information [e.g. blog posts in English text that take in more than 143 ASCII characters, and/or — as was highlighted by Yockey and Wickens by the mid-1980s — as a distinguishing marker of the macromolecules in the heart of cell-based life forms], or more broadly [b] CSI — complex, independently specified information [e.g. Mt Rushmore vs New Hampshire’s former Old Man of the mountain, or — as was highlighted by Orgel in 1973 — a distinguishing feature of the cell’s information-rich organized aperiodic macromolecules that are neither simply orderly like crystals nor random like chance-polymerized peptide chains], or [c] IC — multi-part functionality that relies on an irreducible core of mutually co-adapted, interacting components. [e.g. the hardware parts of a PC or more simply of a mousetrap; or – as was highlighted by Behe in the mid 1990’s — the bacterial flagellum and many other cell-based bodily features and functions.], or [d] “Oracular” active information – in some cases, e.g. many Genetic Algorithms, successful performance of a system traces to built-in information or organisation that guides algorithmic search processes and/or performance so that the system significantly outperforms random search. Such guidance may include oracles that, step by step, inform a search process that the iterations are “warmer/ colder” relative to a performance target zone. (A classic example is the Weasel phrase search program.) Also, [e] Complex, algorithmically active, coded information – the complex information used in systems and processes is symbolically coded in ways that are not preset by underlying physical or chemical forces, but by encoding and decoding dynamically inert but algorithmically active information that guides step by step execution sequences, i.e. algorithms. (For instance, in hard disk drives, the stored information in bits is coded based a conventional, symbolic assignment of the N/S poles, forces and fields involved, and is impressed and used algorithmically. The physics of forces and fields does not determine or control the bit-pattern of the information – or, the drive would be useless. Similarly, in DNA, the polymer chaining chemistry is effectively unrelated to the information stored in the sequence and reading frames of the A/ G/ C/ T side-groups. It is the coded genetic information in the successive three-letter D/RNA codons that is used by the cell’s molecular nano- machines in the step by step creation of proteins. Such DNA sets from observed living organisms starts at 100,000 – 500,000 four-state elements [200 k – 1 M bits], abundantly meriting the description: function- specifying, complex information, or FSCI.)

That might be a first place to ponder, duly noting the onward evolution of thought. KF PS: A second good place to look -- by sharp contrast with the sadly revealing persistent hatchet job at Wikipedia -- is NWE: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design PPS: ID is of course also relevant to cosmological fine tuning and other contexts. The theory of inventive problem solving [TRIZ, from the Russian] and linked views on technological evolution and institutional and/or cultural development are also relevant.kairosfocus_{December 4, 2016
December
12
Dec
4
04
2016
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT}

F/N1: I understand TSZ is trying to issue a mirror image challenge. I will not go there but we can simply settle the matter of the implied complaint that we of UD etc do not understand the theory of evolution:
Let me start with Wikipedia's one liner definition of evolution: "change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations," which is of course held to be due to non-foresighted chance variations and "neutral drift" etc [= CV] and associated differential reproductive success in niches [DRS]; then, it is held to account for every thing from minor changes in populations to the grand narrative of life and its body plans from the original ancestral form(s) up to now. This, by what Darwin termed "descent with modification." [ = DWM] Such, is held to have incrementally formed the tree of life (in whatever form is currently used) by unlimited branching tree evolution [UBTE], from microbes to man [BTOL]. By comonly used extension also (cf High School and College textbooks), it can be used to speak of chemical evolution, seen as leading up to the ancestral forms. There is also discussion of cosmological evolution and socio-cultural evolution of mankind as linked to this in a wider whole; evolutionary materialism is then often seen as the grand narrative of origins. The proposed mechanisms and dynamics for evolution of life can be summarised a la chemical equations, as I have often done here at UD; more or less: CV + DRS --> DWM [+ time] --> [U]BTE UBTE [+ deep time] --> BTOL
The pivotal issues are that a theory of certain incremental, small variations has been grossly extrapolated to account for origin of major body plans, missing the 10 - 100+ million bases etc required to account for novel body plans, and of course the associated presence of deeply isolated islands of function [a natural result of FSCO/I, which requires multiple, well matched, correctly assembled and coupled components to work] among the possibilities of AA sequence space, just to address proteins. That is, the theory fails to adequately account for the functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information [FSCO/I] required to account for body plans. Per the Newton vera causa principle, there is only one actually observed adequate cause of such FSCO/I, intelligently directed configuration. Addressing the root of the ToL (as do most High School and College textbooks), we see a deeper yet problem, accounting for the origin of the FSCO/I found in cell based life as we have observed it. Especially, starting in a Darwin warm salty pond or the like, or any other favoured pre-biotic environment, from volcano vents to comet cores to gas giant moons to whatever. There, forces of chemistry, physics and thermodynamics have to be faced, and the phenomenon of deeply isolated islands of function in configuration spaces beyond the scope of search of a solar system of 10^57 atoms or an observed cosmos of 10^80 atoms has to be addressed. it is therefore no surprise to see that the state of models and speculations regarding OOL is rather unhealthy. The solution is to cut the Gordian Knot, and accept that on both a trillion-member observation basis and linked analysis of search challenge [as opposed to debates on probabilities and implicit assumptions that exponentially harder searches for golden searches can be waved away], the only reasonable, observed, demonstrated adequate cause of FSCO/I is design. thus, to moral certainty, FSCO/I is a strong, empirically reliable index of design as credible cause. Thus, OOL and origin of major succeeding body plans from microbes to man should be seen as coming about by design. As to who did such and how, those are not currently answered but can be investigated. Where, Venter et al point to the possibilities of molecular nanotech labs. KFkairosfocus_{December 4, 2016
December
12
Dec
4
04
2016
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT}

GP, I have not been closely following this thread [busy juggling sharp knives in the real Caribbean world . . . AC, After Castro], could you let me know the issue? KFkairosfocus_{December 4, 2016
December
12
Dec
4
04
2016
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT}

Siver Asiatic: I can only be happy that my views can appear controversial. I love debate, both with ID critics and fellow IDists. :) You ask: "Where is it shown, scientifically, that the bulk of the animal’s information is hereditary or where, precisely that information can be found in the animal? Birds, with no training at all, know how to cross the continent and land in precise locations. Where in the genome is that information found?" Of course we don't know where in the genome is that information found. And so? Mendel published his studies about heredity in 1866. His concepts about heredity were refined by Fisher in 1918, and were used as the basis for the modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1930s. DNA was recognized as the vehicle of heredity in 1943 -1953. The genetic code, which allows to understand how proteins are coded in DNA, was discovered in 1961. As you can see, there is no need in science to know where some hereditary trait is written, or how it is written, to understand clearly its hereditary nature. In medicine, the epidemiology of a disease is often evidence of its hereditary nature, and that has always been true, even when we had no means to know the molecular basis of most genetic diseases. For example, the observable regularity with which some autosomal dominant traits can be observed in about 50% of the offspring is evidence of the hereditary nature of the trait. Now, bees build hives, and beavers build dams. Always in the same way, since they exist. How can you doubt that the information that guides their behavior is hereditary? Take the monarch butterflies migration, which involves many generations to be completed. I am not saying that animals cannot be intelligent, in some measure. I believe they are. The point is, all the best examples of complex functional information we can observe are human artifacts, and biological objects and systems. Some forms of animal behavior, like those you quote, are very complex, but they are essentially repetitive, and obviously guided by inherited information, even if we don't know where it is written (why are you surprised? we still don't understand where epigenetic procedures guiding cell development are written). Let's put it another way: when a computer performs a task for which it has been programmed, is it the designer? No, the computer is the designed thing. The information has been put there by the programmer. OK, the computer is not alive. So, let's see. When a group of construction workers build a palace according to the project of an engineer, are they designing the palace? No, the engineer is the designer. And yet, the workers are those who materially build the palace, and they are living beings, intelligent beings, and they certainly make many simple or even more complex choices during their work, which have some effect in the final form of the palace. But again, the bulk of the information for the palace is in the project designed by the engineer. You can also have a look at the famous Chinese room example by Searle, which shows how a conscious and intelligent agent can perform algorithms without understanding anything of their true meaning and purpose. I think there can be no doubt that the bulk of information for the complex animal behaviors you quote is hereditary. That's why those behaviors have always been called instinctive, that's why their essential form is always the same, that's why they are limited and specific. They are designed, but they are designed in the hereditary functional information inherent in the species. And they are performed each time by the individual animals, of course with many adaptations, most of which are probably based, however, on inherited abilities: as we know, adaptation is often a property of complex designed systems. By the way, KF is a great friend, and I usually agree with most of his views about ID theory. I can only be happy that, occasionally, I can disagree with some statement of his. That happens, in human thought! :) More in next post.gpuccio_{December 4, 2016
December
12
Dec
4
04
2016
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT}

gpuccio
Beaver dams Bee hives Bird migrations I certainly believe that those are examples of design. But the designers are not the beaver, the bee, the bird.
How do you vaildate that scientifically? We observe things that appear to be designed by intelligence - bee hives. We then observe the designers of those hives, bees. But you are saying that science tells us that bees are not the designers, some other agent is.
The source of the confusion is probably due to the fact that animals have some intelligence, and that they can adapt the instinctive information in them to slightly different environmental variables.
That's what is normally understood as "design by an intelligent agent". The animals are intelligent. We distinguish what they design from what non-intelligent forces can do. The animals can adapt designs to various conditions (birds can make nests using human artifacts like yarn or paper) - it's a 'non-determinate' process, thus design.
Therefore, no beaver dam is identical to another. So, there is some role of the animal. But there can be no doubt that the bulk of the information is hereditary. Have you noticed that bee hives do not show the great variations in time that characterize human architecture?
Where is it shown, scientifically, that the bulk of the animal's information is hereditary or where, precisely that information can be found in the animal? Birds, with no training at all, know how to cross the continent and land in precise locations. Where in the genome is that information found? But again, where all animal design fits certain limits, so also does all human design. Humans can speak of God, but no humans can manifest God's intelligence. There are limits. So, do we say that humans are not the designers of their own thoughts? That God is the designer of everything? How does science prove that?
There are neonatal reflexes which last for a few months, and then disappear. The Moro reflex is a good example. Are those reflexes designed? Yes, they are. Are they designed by the baby? No, no more than a hive is designed by the bees. No more than the path, procedure and strategy of long bird migrations is decided by the birds.
The birds make decisions along the way. They choose how to overcome obstacles. The goal remains the same, but the journey is different each time. A baby makes decisions also. We can distinguish the movements of a baby from those of a raindrop or a rock sliding down a hill. The one is from intelligence, the other from physical determinates. It seems you're saying that the baby is not capable of exhibiting any intelligent design because the baby is not conscious of designing anything, right?
One more thing: of course, I don’t agree that “ID stops when design is identified”. I never have.
Nobody else has chimed in here, but I would imagine you'd get some opposition to your view here. You believe (I've heard other IDists say it also) that ID does investigate who the designer is, the nature of the designer, and therefore the purposes, identity, processes and all other aspects of the designer. ID would then rule out some designers and favor others. Eventually, it would be possible for ID, using science alone, to identify who the designer is, even if the designer actually transcended all space, time, matter and human intelligence itself?
Many times here I have argued that not only ID implies the existence of a conscious designer (which is implicit for me in the definition itself of design), but that, once a designer is accepted as best explanation for what we observe, we have the scientific duty to understand as much as possible, from observed facts, about the nature, methods, timing, and so on of the designer and of the design process.
That is very clear and I think, controversial. You are saying that ID requires acceptance that the designer is a conscious agent, and that ID science can and has determined that. Beyond this, if the designer was God, ID science should investigate who God really is, what the nature of God is (mono-theistic or polytheistic for example) and how the nature of God (if a Trinity, doing things in nature by 3's) is demonstrated in nature. Why the designer included things that are evil, for example, in nature - ID science would tell us that? Again, this really would take ID beyond mere science, and beyond philosophy also. If "all matters of reality" are the proper subject of science (I disagree and actually think that is scientism itself), then science would necessarily be involved in every theological study. Sacred texts would be interpreted scientifically. ID science would necessarily have to include information from the Bible in analysis. Certainly, the Bible tells us something about "a Designer", so ID would have to sort that out and determine if the Bible is correct or not. Or ID science would have to tell us if the Koran is correct, or other teachings about various designers that have been proposed, or revelations received. Is Judaism correct or Christianity -- ID science would have to explore and answer that somehow. edit ... I just looked this up ...
Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design #22 Intelligent design theory seeks only to determine whether or not an object was designed. Since it studies only the empirically evident effects of design, it cannot directly detect the identity of the designer; much less, can it detect the identity of the “designer’s designer.” Science, per se, can only discern the evidence-based implication that a designer was once present.
That's the standard understanding I've had. ID seeks only to determine whether or not an object was designed. It doesn't attempt to understand the nature, identity, motives or methods of the designer. As for design only being possible by a conscious agent: I found this from kairosfocus:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/beavers-as-designers-are-they-intelligent/ This raises a significant question: are beavers designers? (The answer seems obvious: yes.)
Yes, I've always understood that, and I would agree "obvious, yes". Beavers are designers. They do not act from physical determination but make intelligent choices. We can distinguish their work as Design, from log-jams in the river as non-design (or product of determined, physical processes). I'll just say, I hope in a good way, gpuccio ... your views are very different and I'll call them controversial. But that could be a good thing. However, if you're right, most of us wouldn't pass our own Turing Test!Silver Asiatic_{December 3, 2016
December
12
Dec
3
03
2016
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

Tristan_MDecember 3, 2016 at 3:21 pm Alan Fox has issued a similar Turing Test over at The Skeptical Zone — this one on evolutionary theory. Denizens of UD are invited to come over to see if they can pass the test.
So far, it looks like evolutionists just debating each other. So I guess nobody could pass the test. Or better, everyone passes because each person counts as the neutral observer and thus declares his or her view correct. :-)Silver Asiatic_{December 3, 2016
December
12
Dec
3
03
2016
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

And following in Lakatos footsteps, Dr. Hunter has compiled a list of some of the major false predictions generated by evolutionary theory. False predictions that are fundamental to evolutionary theory, i.e. go to the ‘core’ of the theory, and falsify it from the inside out as it were using Lakatos’s demarcation criteria.
Darwin’s (failed) Predictions – Cornelius G. Hunter – 2015 This paper evaluates 23 fundamental (false) predictions of evolutionary theory from a wide range of different categories. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the nature of scientific predictions, and typical concerns evolutionists raise against investigating predictions of evolution. The paper next presents the individual predictions in seven categories: early evolution, evolutionary causes, molecular evolution, common descent, evolutionary phylogenies, evolutionary pathways, and behavior. Finally the conclusion summarizes these various predictions, their implications for evolution’s (in)capacity to explain phenomena, and how they bear on evolutionist’s claims about their theory. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/home
And here is a broader overview of the many failed predictions of naturalism/materialism, in comparison to the successful predictions of Theism, in regards to the major scientific discoveries that have now been revealed by modern science:
Theism compared to Materialism/Naturalism – a comparative overview of the major predictions of each philosophy – video https://youtu.be/QQ9iyCmPmz8
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77_{December 3, 2016
December
12
Dec
3
03
2016
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

And since Intelligent Design is mathematically based on the ‘law of conservation of information’, then that makes Intelligent Design very much testable and potentially falsifiable, and thus makes Intelligent Design, unlike Darwinism, a rigorous science instead of an unfalsifiable pseudo-science:
The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.” If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness The Origin of Information: How to Solve It – Perry Marshall Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community: “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer. A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 3 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research. http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/ It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk
Of related note: In so far as Darwinian evolution is dependent on the premises of reductive materialism, and regardless of whether Darwinists ever personally accept the falsification or not, Darwinian evolution is now empirically falsified by advances in quantum biology. Specifically, reductive materialism cannot explain the ‘non-local’ effect of quantum entanglement/information in molecular biology:
Molecular Biology – 19th Century Materialism meets 21st Century Quantum Mechanics – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCs3WXHqOv8 Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php
i.e. Quantum information is experimentally shown to be irreducible to reductive materialistic explanations. And as such, since Darwinian evolution is based on reductive materialistic premises, then Darwinian evolution is experimentally falsified as the scientific explanation for molecular biology:
The Scientific Method – Richard Feynman – video Quote: ‘If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY
Moreover, even if one tosses straight up empirical falsification out the window, and tries to use ‘predictive power’ as a demarcation for determining whether something is ‘scientific’ or not, (Imre Lakatos), then Darwinian evolution, even on that much looser demarcation criteria, fails to qualify as a science but is still more properly classified as a pseudo-science:
A Philosophical Question…Does Evolution have a Hard Core ? Some Concluding Food for Thought Excerpt: So basically, the demarcation problem is a fun game philosophers enjoy playing, but when they realize the implications regarding the theory of evolution, they quickly back off… http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/hardcore_pg.htm
Imre Lakatos, although he tipped toed around the failure of Darwinism to have a rigid demarcation criteria, he was brave enough to state that a good scientific theory will make successful predictions in science and a pseudo-scientific theory will generate ‘epicycle theories’ to cover up embarrassing failed predictions:
In his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[12] he (Lakatos) also claimed that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”. Almost 20 years after Lakatos’s 1973 challenge to the scientificity of Darwin, in her 1991 The Ant and the Peacock, LSE lecturer and ex-colleague of Lakatos, Helena Cronin, attempted to establish that Darwinian theory was empirically scientific in respect of at least being supported by evidence of likeness in the diversity of life forms in the world, explained by descent with modification. She wrote that “our usual idea of corroboration as requiring the successful prediction of novel facts…Darwinian theory was not strong on temporally novel predictions.” … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Darwin.27s_theory “In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture Here’s That Algae Study That Decouples Phylogeny and Competition – June 17, 2014 Excerpt: “With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony.” – Cornelius Hunter http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/06/heres-that-algae-study-that-decouples.html
bornagain77_{December 3, 2016
December
12
Dec
3
03
2016
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

Why Tornados Running Backward do not Violate the Second Law – Granville Sewell – May 2012 – article with video Excerpt: So, how does the spontaneous rearrangement of matter on a rocky, barren, planet into human brains and spaceships and jet airplanes and nuclear power plants and libraries full of science texts and novels, and supercomputers running partial differential equation solving software , represent a less obvious or less spectacular violation of the second law—or at least of the fundamental natural principle behind this law—than tornados turning rubble into houses and cars? Can anyone even imagine a more spectacular violation? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-tornados-running-backward-do-not-violate-the-second-law/ Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems – Andy C. McIntosh professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at the University of Leeds – 2013 Excerpt: ,,, information is in fact non-material and that the coded information systems (such as, but not restricted to the coding of DNA in all living systems) is not defined at all by the biochemistry or physics of the molecules used to store the data. Rather than matter and energy defining the information sitting on the polymers of life, this approach posits that the reverse is in fact the case. Information has its definition outside the matter and energy on which it sits, and furthermore constrains it to operate in a highly non-equilibrium thermodynamic environment. This proposal resolves the thermodynamic issues and invokes the correct paradigm for understanding the vital area of thermodynamic/organisational interactions, which despite the efforts from alternative paradigms has not given a satisfactory explanation of the way information in systems operates.,,, http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789814508728_0008
Moreover, empirical evidence itself tells us that “Genetic Entropy”, the tendency of biological systems to drift towards decreasing complexity and decreasing information content, holds true as an overriding rule for biological adaptations over long periods of time:
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Biological Information – Loss-of-Function Mutations (Michael Behe) by Paul Giem 2015 – video (Behe – Loss of function mutations that give an adaptive advantage are far more likely to fix in a population than gain of function mutations) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzD3hhvepK8&index=20&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ Can Purifying Natural Selection Preserve Biological Information? – May 2013 – Paul Gibson, John R. Baumgardner, Wesley H. Brewer, John C. Sanford In conclusion, numerical simulation shows that realistic levels of biological noise result in a high selection threshold. This results in the ongoing accumulation of low-impact deleterious mutations, with deleterious mutation count per individual increasing linearly over time. Even in very long experiments (more than 100,000 generations), slightly deleterious alleles accumulate steadily, causing eventual extinction. These findings provide independent validation of previous analytical and simulation studies [2–13]. Previous concerns about the problem of accumulation of nearly neutral mutations are strongly supported by our analysis. Indeed, when numerical simulations incorporate realistic levels of biological noise, our analyses indicate that the problem is much more severe than has been acknowledged, and that the large majority of deleterious mutations become invisible to the selection process.,,, http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0010 Genetic Entropy – references to several peer reviewed numerical simulations analyzing and falsifying all flavors of Darwinian evolution,, (via John Sanford and company) http://www.geneticentropy.org/#!properties/ctzx
And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper, testable, science, (in fact it is almost directly contradicted by the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. entropy), Intelligent Design does not suffer from such a disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ (Dembski, Marks, etc..) in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous science.
Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence – June 17, 2015 Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search — unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with “natural evolution.” ,,, Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab’s website states, “The principal theme of the lab’s research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems.” So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,, What Marks and Dembski (mathematically) prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can’t prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can’t derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/evolutionary_co_1096931.html
bornagain77_{December 3, 2016
December
12
Dec
3
03
2016
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

Methinks Seversky ought to first seriously worry about the fact that his preferred explanation, Darwinian evolution, does not even qualify as a real, i.e. testable, scientific theory in the first place rather than worrying about whether Intelligent Design qualifies as a real, i.e. testable, scientific theory or not.
“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.” Karl Popper – Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976) Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution By John Horgan on July 6, 2010 Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/
The primary reason why Darwinian evolution is more properly classified as a pseudo-science instead of a real science is because Darwinian evolution has no rigid mathematical basis, like other overarching physical theories of science have. A rigid mathematical basis to test against in order to potentially falsify it.
Deeper into the Royal Society Evolution Paradigm Shift Meeting – 02/08/2016 Suzan Mazur: Peter Saunders in his interview comments to me said that neo-Darwinism is not a theory, it’s a paradigm and the reason it’s not a theory is that it’s not falsifiable. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/john-dupre-interview-deep_b_9184812.html Peter Saunders is Co-Director, Institute of Science in Society, London; Emeritus professor of Applied Mathematics, King’s College London. Peter Saunders has been applying mathematics in biology for over 40 years, in microbiology and physiology as well as in development and evolution. He has been a critic of neo-Darwinism for almost as long. “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” – Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003 Evolution is Missing a Mathematical Formula Excerpt: Virtually all scientists acknowledge that mathematics is the real language of science. Every theory uses words to describe and postulate the theory, but the true test of a theory is numbers and mathematics. It is numbers and mathematical formulae that distinguish true science from hocus-pocus.,,, Every scientific theory that has been promoted to the status of being a scientific law has been quantified and/or embodied into one or more mathematical formulae that make accurate predictions. But no scientist has been able to derive any working formula from the Theory of Evolution and no one has been able to quantify its dictums. Millions of scientists have tried to quantify the Theory of Evolution and they have all failed to do so. http://darwinconspiracy.com/article_1_rev2.php
In fact, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian claims, mathematics constantly shows us that Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely. That is to say, as far as math is concerned, evolution is ‘statistically impossible’. Here is one example out of many examples:
“In light of Doug Axe’s number, and other similar results,, (1 in 10^77), it is overwhelmingly more likely than not that the mutation, random selection, mechanism will fail to produce even one gene or protein given the whole multi-billion year history of life on earth. There is not enough opportunities in the whole history of life on earth to search but a tiny fraction of the space of 10^77 possible combinations that correspond to every functional combination. Why? Well just one little number will help you put this in perspective. There have been only 10^40 organisms living in the entire history of life on earth. So if every organism, when it replicated, produced a new sequence of DNA to search that (1 in 10^77) space of possibilities, you would have only searched 10^40th of them. 10^40 over 10^77 is 1 in 10^37. Which is 10 trillion, trillion, trillion. In other words, If every organism in the history of life would have been searching for one those (functional) gene sequences we need, you would have searched 1 in 10 trillion, trillion, trillionth of the haystack. Which makes it overwhelmingly more likely than not that the (Darwinian) mechanism will fail. And if it is overwhelmingly more likely than not that the (Darwinian) mechanism will fail should we believe that is the way that life arose?” Stephen Meyer – 46:19 minute mark – Darwin’s Doubt – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg8bqXGrRa0&feature=player_detailpage#t=2778
The primary reason why no scientist has been able ‘quantify its dictums’ is because there are no known laws of nature for Darwinists to appeal to to base their math on. In other words, there is no known ‘law of evolution’, such as there is a ‘law of gravity’, within the physical universe for Darwinists to build a rigid mathematical basis on:
“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism – Casey Luskin – February 27, 2012 Excerpt: While they (Darwinian Biologists) pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli – http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/nobel_prize-win056771.html The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-evolution-of-ernst-in/ WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014 Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468
In fact, not only does Evolution not have any known universal law to appeal to to base its math on, as other overarching theories of science have, the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. Entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, almost directly contradicts Darwinian claims that increases in functional complexity/information can be easily had:
The Common Sense Law of Physics Granville Sewell – March 2016 Excerpt: (The) “compensation” argument, used by every physics text which discusses evolution and the second law to dismiss the claim that what has happened on Earth may violate the more general statements of the second law, was the target of my article “Entropy, Evolution, and Open Systems,” published in the proceedings of the 2011 Cornell meeting Biological Information: New Perspectives (BINP). In that article, I showed that the very equations of entropy change upon which this compensation argument is based actually support, on closer examination, the common sense conclusion that “if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is isolated, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable.” The fact that order can increase in an open system does not mean that computers can appear on a barren planet as long as the planet receives solar energy. Something must be entering our open system that makes the appearance of computers not extremely improbable, for example: computers. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/03/the_common_sens102725.html
bornagain77_{December 3, 2016
December
12
Dec
3
03
2016
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

gpuccio @92:
[...] the evidence for design in biological objects is well beyond 5 sigma [...]
Yes.Dionisio_{December 3, 2016
December
12
Dec
3
03
2016
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

In 2004, in an interview in Touchstone magazine, Paul Nelson was quoted as saying
Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem.
I think Nelson had a point. If we take the definition offered in the Resources page here on UD:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
That's a good statement of the claim for ID. I doubt there are many ID proponents who would disagree with it as stated although they might expand on it in different ways. The question is does a claim constitute a theory? One hallmark of a scientific theory is that it doesn't just make a definitive claim about what is observed, it also offers tentative but testable explanations of how the observed phenomena might have come about. As I see it, the claim for ID rests broadly on two legs. First, there are phenomena, processes and structures in living things that have the appearance of being designed. Why do we think they appear to be designed? Because they look similar to things we design. Second, these phenomena look to complex to have come about through natural - as opposed to artificial - processes. The problem with the first leg is excluding the possibility of pareidolia. Are we just getting false-positives from our innate pattern-matching capacity? If we assume that some alien intelligence was responsible for designing and seeding life on Earth, evidence suggests it must have been done billions of years ago by beings with knowledge, science and technology far beyond anything we can even imagine. Why, then, should we think that their designs should resemble those of 19th/20th/21st humans who would not exist until billions of years into their future? Do we have any reason to think that current human design is in any way a reliable standard for identifying design on a universal scale? The problem with the second leg is the Hoyle fallacy. Yes, the chances of a tornado assembling a complete Boeing 747 from a pile of parts in a junkyard is so remote as to be next to impossible. The same is true of the de novo appearance of a modern protein. But consider what is being said. A protein is a complex assembly of molecules. The number of possible permutations of the component parts is truly astronomical, so much so that, according to claims here, it would take longer than the lifetime of the universe - using the whole physical resources of the universe as a computer - to run through them all. It's the equivalent of a brute force approach to cracking a password, just try all the possible combinations until you hit the right one. In other words, it is saying that to be certain of hitting the right one you must be prepared to try them all. What it doesn't tell you is which try will turn out to be the right one. It might be the very last one but equally it might be the very first one, or the 154th one or the 2,345,967th one. There is no way to know other than by trying. The second point to consider is that evolution does not work with all possible permutations. It can only work with permutations that are available to it at any given time, which might well be a much smaller and more manageable number.Seversky_{December 3, 2016
December
12
Dec
3
03
2016
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

I have really enjoyed the conversation between SA and GP. Well done. Thanks.Upright BiPed_{December 3, 2016
December
12
Dec
3
03
2016
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

drc466 @85: Thanks for the sincere contribution. Good thoughts. Just a couple of quibbles, one of which relates to this:
Intelligent Design (ID) is the theory that the likelihood that any object is the product of either deliberate design by an intelligent source, or the product of random chance, can by scientifically and mathematically calculated from the properties of the object. These properties are often referred to as the Complex Specificity, or Functional Complexity, or other terms dealing with the amount of ‘Information’ and ‘Complexity’ exhibited by the object.
CSI is not, in my opinion, calculable in any precise, meaningful, purely mathematical way. C, yes. But not SI.Eric Anderson_{December 3, 2016
December
12
Dec
3
03
2016
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox has issued a similar Turing Test over at The Skeptical Zone -- this one on evolutionary theory. Denizens of UD are invited to come over to see if they can pass the test. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/take-the-evolutionary-turing-test/Tristan_M_{December 3, 2016
December
12
Dec
3
03
2016
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: Thank you for the comments. I think you have seriously considered and understood my points, and that is really good. My purpose is never to convince others, just to explain what I think. Just a few brief considerations, stimulated by your post. It is true that some ID proponents would not accept my definition of design, but I really believe that no other definition is possible. Indeed, those who avoid a definition based on the role of a conscious agent, never give any satisfying alternative definition of what design is. So, I really believe that, if ID wants to be empirical and clear, a definition of design like mine must be accepted. Using that definition, I have always been able to counter objections from ID critics, and to develop objective and operational definitions of functional complexity, of how to measure it, and of the reasons why it is the tool to infer design. Let's go to your three examples: Beaver dams Bee hives Bird migrations I certainly believe that those are examples of design. But the designers are not the beaver, the bee, the bird. Instinctive behaviors in animals are hereditary. Therefore, they are transmitted through the genetic-epigenetic-what else vehicle that allows specific information to pass from parents to offspring. That information is obviously very complex, and it is obviously designed. But the designer is not the animal. It's like saying that we are the designers of our nervous system. We are not. So. no doubt that it's the beaver that builds the beaver dam, and no doubt the building process is complex and designed. But the beaver is guided by information that is inside it. The source of the confusion is probably due to the fact that animals have some intelligence, and that they can adapt the instinctive information in them to slightly different environmental variables. Therefore, no beaver dam is identical to another. So, there is some role of the animal. But there can be no doubt that the bulk of the information is hereditary. Have you noticed that bee hives do not show the great variations in time that characterize human architecture? :) There is a lot of functional information in each living being. Most of it is about biochemistry, cell biology, body functions and structure, and so on. Part of it is about hereditary behavior. There are neonatal reflexes which last for a few months, and then disappear. The Moro reflex is a good example. Are those reflexes designed? Yes, they are. Are they designed by the baby? No, no more than a hive is designed by the bees. No more than the path, procedure and strategy of long bird migrations is decided by the birds. One more thing: of course, I don't agree that "ID stops when design is identified". I never have. Many times here I have argued that not only ID implies the existence of a conscious designer (which is implicit for me in the definition itself of design), but that, once a designer is accepted as best explanation for what we observe, we have the scientific duty to understand as much as possible, from observed facts, about the nature, methods, timing, and so on of the designer and of the design process. IOWs, we cannot be scientific halfway, and then stop. If we observe facts, and propose explanations for them, we must pursue those explanations as much as possible, always starting from facts and good inferences. Nobody can decide in advance that we have to stop at some point. If some knowledge is really beyond scientific inquiry (which is certainly possible), that conclusion must come from good scientific inquiry, and from nothing else. If I must really summarize what ID is for me, I would say: ID is the scientific theory that says that we can safely infer a design process for objects that have some observable properties (functional complexity). That implies that the functional complexity in those objects was inputted into them, at some time, in some place. That is something science must investigate. The input of information and organization into matter is certainly something that interests science. Any possible effort must be done to understand where, when, by whom, how and why that information was inputted. Scientifically. Maybe we can have scientific answers, partial or more complete. Maybe we can't. One thing is certain. Deciding in advance that we cannot find them is not a good scientific attitude.gpuccio_{December 3, 2016
December
12
Dec
3
03
2016
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

gpuccio 92 & 93 Thank you for such an excellent response! I appreciate the time you took on this complex, and important topic. That was very comprehensive, and I admire your clarity also. I hope to give an equally thoughtful reply, in time, but just for the moment I'd like to offer a quick response. First, bringing in the topic of this thread, we were looking at how do define ID. We asked our opponents to do this. wd400 came in later to say there is some dispute among ID advocates about the theory (implying that ID theory is not clear enough in itself for us to expect a clear definition from opponents). I tended to agree that not all ID proponents agree on what ID really is, but I also disagree that ID theory is not clear enough to be defined. I guess if a person accepts my understanding of ID, then it's pretty clear. :-) I'm only half joking there, but it's hard to reach an "official definition" of ID and there are some loose ends in the theory that I think we touched on. A key area where your response showed that was with regard to Methodological Naturalism. It's my view that ID is compatible with that philosophy. It's your view that ID is not. With that, I think it's fair to say, if you're correct that ID is not a "science project" alone, but is a "philosophical project" as well. In other words, ID opposes the view that science should be limited to natural, observable, measurable, physical, material, empirical phenomena. Science would need to be open to questions on the nature of God, for example, or the nature and power of angels, etc. The second area that indicates a dispute within ID is in this paragraph here:
“Design is a process where a conscious agent subjectively represents in his own consciousness some form and then purposefully outputs that form, more or less efficiently, to some material object. We call the process “design”. We call the conscious agent who subjectively represents the initial form “designer”. We call the material object, after the process has taken place, “designed object”.” Some ID thinkers, including maybe Dembski, avoid that kind of definition, probably because they think that referring to consciousness in a definition makes it less acceptable. If that is their reason, I don’t agree.
As you state, Dembski might disagree with your view. But even if not, I think many IDists would not agree that Design necessarily requires a "conscious agent" - or more especially, that ID makes that statement about the Designer - namely, that "the Designer of ID is necessarily concious". If you're correct, that's an essential part of ID theory - a part I disagree with. And therefore, I would flunk the Turing Test myself! Again, so what? I'm just an anonymous IDist who could be ignorant of such things. But I will say, in the 8 years of debate I've had on ID issues, I haven't seen that ID posits necessarily either that "The Designer is a conscious agent" or that "Design is only done by a conscious agent". Again you may be correct, but if so, that would kill off several common examples of design that I've used as analogy: Beaver dams Bee hives Bird migrations It's for that reason, we use the term "Intelligent Design" and not "Conscious Design". With "intelligence" we can see animals making choices to build things, but we don't normally think that animals are conscious and making purposeful decisions. The key to Intelligent Design is that Intelligence is "non-determinate" by physical, natural, material forces and effects. The characteristic of intelligence we focus on is the "freedom" - non-determined - aspect of the outputs. It's not something that randomness and natural (there's that word for us) laws produce. With "conscious", we have something quite different. Ok, I hope that's enough to get us started. I will go back over other matters. But again, I think your definition of Design, and therefore of ID, is a unique one, but I could be wrong of course. I also don't think that the ordinary way that science is done today, which is done under the philosophy of Methodological Naturalism, needs to change at all for ID conclusions to be valid and acceptable. I have seen many ID opponents, strict MN advocates, say that "yes, there could be a Intelligent Designer but there's not enough evidence for it". With MN, it's not that non-material causes can't exist or have any activity in the world, it's merely that science cannot investigate the nature of those causes. That's why we commonly say that "ID stops when design is identified" and that "ID says nothing about the nature of the designer". That is because a designer that is outside of "nature" would not be subject to scientific analysis. That's where we disagree and you offered a very interesting view on this subject. I have heard other IDists say bluntly, "no, ID does say something about the Designer". In your case, you're saying that "the Designer must be a conscious agent". I certainly don't want to reject that view. I just have not encountered it before, and that may simply be a result of my lack of knowledge about ID itself.Silver Asiatic_{December 3, 2016
December
12
Dec
3
03
2016
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Supplemental notes:
Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson September 22, 2014 Excerpt: Above, we noted that MN is a putative rule for biology -- "putative" (that is, supposed but not actual) insofar as the content and practice of the science exhibit the widespread use of theological concepts and categories. It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let's Dump Methodological Naturalism - Paul Nelson - September 24, 2014 Excerpt: "Epistemology -- how we know -- and ontology -- what exists -- are both affected by methodological naturalism (MN). If we say, "We cannot know that a mind caused x," laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won't include minds. MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn't write your email to me. Physics did, and informed (the illusion of) you of that event after the fact. "That's crazy," you reply, "I certainly did write my email." Okay, then -- to what does the pronoun "I" in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,, You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse -- i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss -- we haven't the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world -- such as your email, a real pattern -- we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,, some feature of "intelligence" must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we're back to physics versus physics, and there's nothing for SETI to look for.",,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set090071.html
And although Dr. Nelson alluded to writing an e-mail, (i.e. creating information), to tie his ‘personal agent’ argument into intelligent design, Dr. Nelson’s ‘personal agent’ argument can easily be amended to any action that ‘you’, as a personal agent, choose to take:
“You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t open the door. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t raise your hand. Physics did, and informed the illusion you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t etc.. etc.. etc… Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.” Human consciousness is much more than mere brain activity, - Mark Vernon - 18 June 2011 However, "If you think the brain is a machine then you are committed to saying that composing a sublime poem is as involuntary an activity as having an epileptic fit. ...the nature of consciousness being a tremendous mystery." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jun/17/human-consciousness-brain-activity
Dr. Craig Hazen, in the following video at the 12:26 minute mark, relates how he performed, for an audience full of academics at a college, a ‘miracle’ simply by raising his arm,,
The Intersection of Science and Religion – Craig Hazen, PhD – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xVByFjV0qlE#t=746s
What should be needless to say, if raising your arm is enough to refute your supposedly ‘scientific’ worldview of atheistic materialism/naturalism, then perhaps it is time for you to seriously consider getting a new scientific worldview?bornagain77_{December 3, 2016
December
12
Dec
3
03
2016
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply