Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

If You Want Good Science, Who Better to Ask Than Barret Brown?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Barrett Clown, oh pardon me, Barrett Brown, thinks he makes an argument against ID by humor and satire alone here at The Huffington Post. He is, after all, to be taken deadly seriously, he’s written for National Lampoon for goodness sakes and written a book about Dodo birds. Not really, Dodo birds were really just straw men, or, more accurately, scare crows. If satire counts for argument, then my blog post has done the same job that Barrett’s has. Revel in the irony that Barret would write about “bits of information” to prove his point;

Bits of information are no longer compartmentalized like so many scattered VHS tapes and gothic rock album liner notes, which is why Dembski and company can’t get away with trying to portray ID as a scientific theory with no religious intent while having already admitted that same religious intent to sympathetic Biblical literalists. But that crowd doesn’t seem to understand this fundamental aspect of the Internet, that Google waits in watch of dishonesty. And thus it is that Dembski’s blog Uncommon Descent is among the most interesting things that the Internet has to offer.

Barrett, you want to discuss information theory? I reckon a good penchant for satire gives all the credentials necessary. No, certainly not, you are right, bits of information are no longer compartmentalized like so many scattered VHS tapes and gothic rock albums liner notes, they are compartmentalized in the DNA sequence in such a way that no VHS tape or liner note, however organized, could ever accomplish. No intelligence here folks, I mean, with Barrett, that is. Seriously, he is seriously serious in his satire, which is really just a way to be covertly passive/aggressive, nothing insincere here folks. If this counts for argument, then I am arguing by the same, and this post should be counted as just as valid. I’m intentionally avoiding much real argument and focusing on satire to prove a point, and the point is to expose the absurdity by being absurd in the same way. This guy cracks me up like we were in highschool. Except, I never liked guys like him in highschool, and have even less patience with them now.  Hey Barret, try to dig up some stuff on me buddy, for nothing proves an argument more than mockery and character assassination.

Comments
Lamark, I would like to stress this point: Quantum mechanics tells us that wave collapse is "centered" on each observer, whereas 4-D space-time cosmology tells us the universe is "centered" on each individual observer,,,a rather interesting congruence in science, between the large and small, I would think!bornagain77
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed, You state: There are no chemical bonds along the linear chain of DNA that causes nucleic acids to form in any pattern whatsoever, so from a purely physical standpoint, each base is just as likely to appear next in the chain as any other. This is, of course, absolutely incorrect. The nature of DNA replication means the sequence, based on physio-chemical properties of the bases, retains a pattern. Now, you are right in saying that when the pattern is broken any base is likely to appear. This is just what is seen and referred to as random mutation. If your speaking of the 'first' DNA chain, well, we obviously don't know enough (anything?) to make such claims and likely never will. The proteins that make life possible are not made up of nucleic acids themselves – however, it is the arrangement of nucleic acids as symbols within the DNA chain that causes proteins to be created and coordinated within the cell. No, proteins are not made up of amino acids, but they get there pattern due to the physio-chemical interactions between mRNA, tRNA, ribosomes, and others. TAG means something physically and chemically in the ribosome in order for translation to stop. When one looks at the actual process all that is observed are physical occurrences in a material world.Winston Macchi
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
Lamark, this may be of interest to from what is now established by quantum mechanics: This following video and article give deep insight into what the image formation on the Shroud signifies for reality: A Particle Physicist Looks At The Turin Shroud Image - 4:25 minute mark of video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgvEDfkuhGg A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection? http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847bornagain77
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT
Lamark you may find this interesting in relation to the spooky world revealed by quantum mechanics: In The Presence Of Almighty God - The NDE of Mickey Robinson - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRpbNgBn8XY i.e. not only is reality "deriving" from higher dimensionality "logos', reality is "tailor-made" for each individual "observer"... i.e.: COBE - WMAP Satellites - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huaS_iSITQs Earth As The Center Of The Universe - image http://universe-review.ca/R02-16-universe.htm the whole universe could truthfully be said to be "centered on" a single person. Thus, much contrary to the mediocrity of earth and of humans, brought about by the heliocentric discoveries of Galileo and Copernicus, this finding of a "4-dimensional space-time" for our universe is in fact very comforting to Theistic postulations in general, and even lends very strong support of plausibility to the main tenet of Christianity which holds Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God.bornagain77
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
StephenB (92), "Yet, plenty of people in the New Testament observed miracles, and eyewitness testimony constitutes good evidence." Not really - eyewitness testimony is not usually "good" evidence, it's notoriously unreliable. I was once one of three independent witnesses to a street crime, and whilst we all reported the overall impression of the event much the same (and within about twenty minuts of its end) the details - description of the perpetrator, duration of the event - were remarkably different. That is quite usual. Accounts in the New Testament have a further problem - they were not usually (and maybe not at all) written by those who observed the "events". We need to bear in mind this was a time and society where literacy was rare. Often the accounts were written decades after, when memories become unreliable (keep a diary and you'll know about this only too well). In short, they are often second-hand (or more remote even) accounts written years afterwards, and often for political/theological purposes. "So, if you think miracles are “absurd,” that is only because your ideology prompts you to reject them apriori." I'd use the phrase "extremely unlikely" rather than absurd.Gaz
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT
Cabal (111), Mine's much the same except instead of your 3 I have "cause presently unknown". Calling it "magic" is a bit of a cop out, whereas calling it "unknown" at least allows for the possibiltiy that better information will come along to give the cause.Gaz
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT
Cabal: Closing off for now. Parting thoughts. I observe your 111: 1 --> this is a 605 character string of ASCII text in contextually responsive English, i.e it is functionally specific. [Think about what random letter changes would rapidly do to it.] 2 --> Its characters are plainly not a matter of mechanical necessity; they are contingent. 3 --> There are two well known, empirically observed causes of highly contingent outcomes: chance and choice. 4 --> Now, the configuration space of 605 128-state characters is: 128^605 ~ 7,28 *10^1,274. Converting the observed cosmos as a whole into a search engine running for its lifetime would allow scanning ~ 10^150 states, or ~ 1 in 10^1,124 of the space. 5 --> This is not a significant franction of he space, rendering islands of fucntion as described beyond rthe available search resources of he cosmos. 5 --> Choice, not chance aptly explains it, and it is well known that intelligence is capable to such degrees of choice: in this case ~ 1,300 binary choices in sequence, a much more feasible target. 6 --> Now, of course intelligence and mind are "magical" to a worldview committed to evolutionary materialistic explanations -- it can only get to mind by the poofery of "emergence." [Cf my remarks here on the problems of the lucky noise model for creating intelligently functional outcomes.] 7 --. for the rest of us, being intelligent beings ourselves, i tis intuitively and empirically credible that we may explain by reference to law of necessity, chance contingency and choice contingency, differentiating the latter two by noting how choice gets us to specified complexity and related manifestations of mind in action. __________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT
More generally, given an event, object, or structure, we want to know: 1. Did it have to happen? 2. Did it happen by accident? 3. Did an intelligent agent cause it to happen? Given an event to be explained, the first thing to determine is whether it had to happen. If so, the event is necessary . . . Not all events are necessary . . . .
Funy to observe how different people have widely differing opinions about how the universe works: My approach to events is 1. Investigate and determine cause(s). 2. If cause(s) can be determined, file under 'caused'. 3. If cause(s) cannot be determined, file under 'magic'.Cabal
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT
Clive: Great! UB: Dead right. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT
Stomp, Stomp, Stomp your feet!
Where is your inference coming from? Upon what scientific facts is ID based?
This question is a snap. Firstly, the nucleic sequences in DNA (which makes all life possible) utilizes a symbol system of encoded information that is physico-dynamically inert, meaning; there are no material forces that cause it to exist as it does, and hence, no material causes to explain its existence (in other words, for an explanation to be offered, it must first be said to exist, but it doesn’t). There are no chemical bonds along the linear chain of DNA that causes nucleic acids to form in any pattern whatsoever, so from a purely physical standpoint, each base is just as likely to appear next in the chain as any other. In fact, if it were physically ordered by its chemical properties, it would be fundamentally incapable of functioning as it does (and must). These are empirical facts which are not even in question. Secondly, there is the issue of the symbol system itself. Think of this in terms of seeing an apple and saying the word "apple". In reality, when you say "apple" it is not an actual apple that comes out of your mouth, but a symbol of an apple. That symbol is the word "apple" (in another language the symbol/word would be something else). And, the only way in which we can communicate what the word "apple" means is by a non-physical agreement between us as to what the symbol represents. So the symbol is not bound by physical law (there are no laws that say it must be represented by the word "apple") it could be anything as long as we agree to it. It is instead bound by a non-physical mapping of what the symbol means. This is exactly what is taking place inside the cell with DNA. The proteins that make life possible are not made up of nucleic acids themselves – however, it is the arrangement of nucleic acids as symbols within the DNA chain that causes proteins to be created and coordinated within the cell. For instance, the nucleic acid Thymine, followed by Adenine, followed by Guanine means "terminate the addition of amino acids" during the process of protein synthesis, yet, there are no physical properties in any of these chemical compounds (Thymine-Adenine-Guanine) which actually means "stop". How could they? Yet this is exactly what they map to within the symbol system in DNA. This again, is an observed fact which is not even in debate. These are the physical facts. They are not ID facts or otherwise, they are simply the scientific observations readily available to anyone who wants to know them. It is then a rational line of investigation that (based on the empirical evidence) life exist by virtue of selection for function at the level of information (the actual sequencing of nucleotides that organizes living tissue). The fact of the matter (and the ultimate reason by which this debate takes on its typical ugly tone) is that this evidence (and others like it) is intractable to any purely material explanation. This is what Polanyi stated in 1968 when he posited that the very existence of an immaterial communications system within the body was a falsification of purely material explanations. It is also what Dembski alluded to when he showed that the specified complexity within the system was outside the probabilistic resources of the universe. It is also what Behe highlighted in the observed manifestation (the end product) of such phenomena within the irreducible molecular structures in the cell. And it is also what Abel has shown by his qualitative analysis of the mechanisms at play in bringing such a system into a functional state. The same thing goes for Thaxton, and Denton, and Kenyon, and Durston, and Trevors, and Axe, and Chiu, and Meyer, etc, etc, etc. "Materialism" as a tool of investigation will certainly be every bit as useful as it has been in the past, but materialism as a dogmatic ideological worldview has been falsified on its face - falsified by its own empirical evidence. It is not a matter of what we do not know, but of what we already know to be true. Consequently, materialists ideologues are left only to attack the motives of others, to misrepresent their arguments as something they are not, and to make special pleadings for unknown material forces which are not even in observation.Upright BiPed
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, I'll ask him.Clive Hayden
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT
PPS: Clive: A SUGGESTION: Can we get Dr Demski's permission to post the 1999 Touchstone article here st UD, with perhaps an introduction that sets in context and follows up [or, in he case of the EF, slightly updates by focussing attention on the particular aspect in view] its contents? [I think this will go a long way to dissipating the sorts of slanders above; as will a link to the SM history of ID and the review on the truth about the Wedge document that I linked above.] --> I would also love a link to the 2009 Abel review article on Chaos and Complexity, as to have built up a series of foundational peer reviewed articles that now warrant a survey like tat is a further significant milestone in the Design revolution.kairosfocus
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT
PS: re DM @ 104: It’s very clear to any unbiased observer why some people here never appear on any forum other than Uncommon Descent. Thanks for your hospitality while it lasted, Clive! --> Slamming the door on the way out of the room; having failed to deal with the matter cogently on the merits.kairosfocus
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT
Cont'd: >> . . . . Patterns that are specifications cannot simply be read off the events whose design is in question. Rather, to count as specifications, patterns must be suitably independent of events. I refer to this relation of independence as detachability, and say that a pattern is detachable only if it satisfied that relation . . . . The complexity-specification criterion is exactly the right instrument for detecting design. To see why, we need to understand what makes intelligent agents detectable in the first place. The principal characteristic of intelligent agency is choice. Even the etymology of the word "intelligent" makes this clear. "Intelligent" derives form two Latin words, the preposition inter, meaning between, and the verb lego, meaning to choose or select. Thus, according to its etymology, intelligence consists in choosing between. For intelligent agent to act is therefore to choose from a range of competing possibilities. This is true not just of humans, but of animals as well as of extraterrestrial intelligences . . . . Given this characterization of intelligent agency, the crucial question is how to recognize it . . . . Actualizing one among several competing possibilities, ruling out the rest, and specifying the one that was actualized encapsulates how we recognize intelligent agency, or equivalently, how we detect design. Experimental psychologists who study animal learning and behavior have known this all along. To learn a task an animal must acquire the ability to actualize behaviors suitable for the task as well as the ability to rule out behaviors unsuitable for the task. Moreover, for a psychologist to recognize that an animal has learned a task, it is necessary not only to observe the animal making the appropriate discrimination, but also to specify the discrimination . . . . In general, to recognize intelligent agency we must observe an actualization of one among several competing possibilities, not which possibilities were ruled out, and then be able to specify the possibility that was actualized. What’s more, the competing possibilities that were ruled out must be live possibilities, and sufficiently numerous so that specifying the possibility that was actualized cannot be attributed to chance. In terms of complexity, this is just another way of saying that the range of possibilities is complex . . . >> _______________ We can immediately see from this excerpt that Dr Dembski, from the outset, dealt with the issues in a responsible, history of ideas based context, and has summarised his rationale for why complexity + specification are credible and even routinely used criteria for detecting design and recognising the presence of intelligence; not just in ordinary life and in the business of keeping science honest, but in the substance of sciences pure and applied. Further to this, it will soon be utterly clear that Ms Forrest et al quote-mined Dr Dembski's article, by ignoring context and detaching the closing line from the quite clear enough discussion that specifies its significance in that context. This was plainly dishonest, not merely incompetent or uncharitable; taking advantage of a common prejudice based on Lewontinian a priori materialism to demonise Dr Dembski's work. For, a simple reading of the context would have made the matter abundantly clear to a reasonable and unprejudiced person, much less a professor of philosophy. As to whether testifying in Judge Jones' kangaroo court -- which was plainly driven by the same prejudices and on the general design issue made a patently unjust and indefensible, materialism agenda- serving ruling based on simply copying a post trial submission by the ACLU that was utterly tendentious and riddled with even gross errors of fact -- would have made Dr Dembski's remarks more credible to the prejudiced and slanderous, I think -- especially in light of how we have seen in recent weeks here at UD how Dr Behe's remarks int eh trial were twisted by the ACLU-instructed Judge in his decision -- the ordinary unprejudiced mind can see enough to recognise the game that is afoot already. But, we need to see the conclusion that Dr Dembski drew based on the above. This, in toto: ______________ >> Design, Metaphysics & Beyond Where is this work on design heading? Specified complexity, that key trademark of design, is, as it turns out, a form of information (through one considerably richer than Claude Shannon’s purely statistical form of it). Although called by different names and developed with different degrees of rigor, specified complexity is starting to have an effect on the special sciences. For instance, specified complexity is what Michael Behe has uncovered with his irreducibly complex biochemical machines, what Manfred Eigen regards as the great mystery of life’s origin, what for cosmologists underlies the fine-tuning of the universe, what David Chalmers hopes will ground a comprehensive theory of human consciousness, what enables Maxwell’s demon to outsmart a thermodynamic system tending toward thermal equilibrium, and what within the Kolmogorov-Chaitin theory of algorithmic information identifies the highly compressible, non-random strings of digits. How complex specified information gets from an organism’s environment into an organism’s genome will be one of the key questions at an upcoming Santa Fe Institute symposium, "Complexity, Information & Design: A critical Appraisal" (October 1999). Shannon’s purely statistical theory of information is giving way to a richer theory of complex specified information whose possibilities are only now coming to light. [Cf Abel's 2009 review article on the current state of that transformation, based on a string of ID-supportive, foundational peer reviewed articles.] A natural sequel to The Design Inference is therefore to develop a general theory of complex specified information. The primary challenge, once the broader implications of design for science have been worked out, is therefore to develop a relational ontology [thus he is now projecting on trends of matters philosophical and metaphysical . . . defining IMMEDIATE CONTEXT for what follows] in which the problem of being [the key subject matter of ontology] resolves thus: to be is to be in communion, and to be in communion is to transmit and receive information. [inter alia this points to a major addressing of the classic problem of the one and the many, and hints at the solution of redemptive, Trinitarian Christian Theism: the one and the many are grounded in the Triune Godhead] Such an ontology will not only safeguard science and leave adequate breathing space for design, but will also make sense of the world as a sacrament [thus, his context is now explicitly theological as well]. The world is a mirror representing the divine life. The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. [Puts forth a comparative advantage of a theistic over a materialistic ontology] Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory. [ontologically and theologically remarks on the significance of empirically grounded scientific findings on the key role of information in the core of existence of a life-friendly fine-tuned cosmos and cell based life rooted in information storing DNA; in light of a correlation to a foundational Christian theme found in jn 1:1 ff: "1In the beginning was the [Logos -- 'Word" -- information, communication, reason/rationality Himself], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men . . . "]>> _______________ As the WAC 7 notes, in so committing the Christian faith to a rational, information grounded ontology, teh elder John exposed that faith to a searching empirical test. One that had it turned out instead that the foundation of all things was chaos, not cosmos, would have been used by opponents to vex adherents of the Christian form of the Judaeo-Christian worldview. So, it is entirely appropriate for a Scientist who is also qualified in Philosophy and Theology to draw forth on the matter, especially in an article in a Christian Magazine [and later a book; since the magazine issue was so popular]. Ms Forrest et al knew, or should have known this, and it was plain to one with a modicum of background knowledge, much less a qualified philosopher. So, the quote-mining exercise she and others indulges was and remains inexcusable. +++++++++++ Mr Burnett, sadly, you are lending your name to a slander. You need to do something about that. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT
Mr Burnett: I see your:
Has Dembski ever testified under oath about this? If he hadn’t avoided testifying at the Dover trial, he might have a bit more credibility in some circles.
Why are you lending your name to an obvious slander? Why are you willing to infer that Dr Dembski is guilty unless proved innocent to your satisfaction and in the teeth of easily accessible corrective evidence? Do you not see that you have a duty of care to the truth and to the reputation of others, if we are to have a civil society? For instance, above, at no 84, the actual context of Mr Dembski's remarks was given, and (unsurprisingly) it is precisely as was written about in WAC 7 above. To make the matter abundantly clear, let us now excerpt in more details from the actual article of 1999. [Onlookers, see who is providing substantiating facts and who is making ad hominem laced assertions without properly warranting such serious accusations and poisonous insinuations.] First, the main argument in the 1999 article, so that the facts can speak for themselves: ______________ >> Intelligent design examines the distinction between three modes of explanation: necessity, chance, and design. In our workaday lives we find it important to distinguish between these modes of explanation. Did she fall or was she pushed? And if she fell, was it simply bad luck or was her fall unavoidable? More generally, given an event, object, or structure, we want to know: 1. Did it have to happen? 2. Did it happen by accident? 3. Did an intelligent agent cause it to happen? Given an event to be explained, the first thing to determine is whether it had to happen. If so, the event is necessary . . . Not all events are necessary . . . . Events that happen but do not have to happen are said to be contingent. In our workaday lives we distinguish two types of contingency, one blind, the other directed. A blind contingency lacks a superintending intelligence and is usually characterized by probabilities. Blind contingency is another name for chance. A directed contingency, on the other hand, is the result of a superintending intelligence. Directed contingency is another name for design . . . . Philosophers and scientists have disagreed not only about how to distinguish these modes of explanation, but also about their very legitimacy . . . . Modern science has also struggled with how to distinguish between necessity, chance, and design . . . . Since Laplace’s day, science has largely dispensed with design. Certainly Darwin played a crucial role here by eliminating design from biology. Yet at the same time science was dispensing with design, it was also dispensing with Laplace’s vision of a deterministic universe (recall Laplace’s famous demon who could predict the future and retrodict the past with perfect precision provided that present positions and moments of particles were fully known). With the rise of statistical mechanics and then quantum mechanics, the role of chance in physics came to be regarded as ineliminable. Consequently, a deterministic, necessitarian universe has given way to a stochastic universe in which chance and necessity are both regarded as fundamental modes of scientific explanation, neither being reducible to the other. To sum up, contemporary science allows a principled distinction between necessity and chance, but repudiates design . . . . But was science right to repudiate design? My aim in The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press, 1998) is to rehabilitate design. I argue that design is a legitimate and fundamental mode of scientific explanation on a par with chance and necessity . . . . [S]uppose we lay aside a priori prohibitions against design. In that case, what is wrong with explaining something as designed by an intelligent agent? Certainly there are many everyday occurrences that we explain by appealing to design. Moreover, in our daily lives it is absolutely crucial to distinguish accident from design. We demand answers to such questions as, Did she fall or was she pushed? Did someone die accidentally or commit suicide? Was this song conceived independently or was it plagiarized? Did someone just get lucky on the stock market or was there insider trading? Not only do we demand answers to such questions, but entire industries are also devoted to drawing the distinction between accident and design. Here we can include forensic science, intellectual property law, insurance claims investigation, cryptography, and random number generation—to name but a few. Science itself needs to draw this distinction to keep itself honest. As a January 1998 issue of Science made clear, plagiarism and data falsification are far more common in science than we would like to admit. What keeps these abuses in check is our ability to detect them. If design is so readily detectable outside science, and if its detectability is one of the key factors keeping scientists honest, why should design be barred from the actual content of science? . . . . It’s [the] worry of falsely attributing something to design (here construed as creation) only to have it overturned laterthat has prevented design from entering science proper. This worry, though perhaps understandable in the past, can no longer be justified. There does in fact exist a rigorous criterion for discriminating intelligently from unintelligently caused objects. Many special sciences already use this criterion, though in a pretheoretic form (e.g., forensic science, artificial intelligence, cryptography, archeology, and the Search for Extra-Terrestial Intelligence,[SETI]). In The Design Inference I identify and make precise this criterion. I call it the complexity-specification criterion. When intelligent agents act, they leave behind a characteristic trademark or signature—what I call specified complexity. the complexity-specification criterion detects design by identifying this trademark of designed objects . . . . the basic idea is straightforward and easily illustrated. [He uses the example of Contact to introduce the idea that is formally justified es=elsewhere, as he also states.] . . . . Whenever we infer design, we must establish three things: contingency, complexity, and specification. Contingency ensures that the object in question is not the result of an automatic and therefore unintelligent process that had no choice in its production. Complexity ensures that the object is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance. Finally, specification ensures that the object exhibits the type of pattern characteristic of intelligence . . . . In a design inference, the reference class, the pattern, and the event are linked, with the pattern mediating between event and reference class, and helping to decide whether the event is due to chance or design. Note that in determining whether an event is sufficiently improbable or complex to implicate design, the relevant improbability is not that of the precise event that occurred, but that of the target/pattern. Indeed, the bigger the target, the easier it is to hit it by chance and thus apart from design . . . . When called to explain an event, object, or structure, we have to decide: are we going to attribute it to necessity, chance, or design? According to the complexity-specification criterion, to answer this question is to answer three simpler questions: Is it contingent? Is it complex? Is it specified? Consequently, the complexity-specification criterion can be represented as a flowchart with three decision modes. I call this flowchart the Explanatory Filter. [He gives an earlier form, c. 1999; cf WAC 29 and 30 and this discussion on how it has recently been refined on aspects of objects and phenomena.] ( START ) | | [CONTIGENCY]--no-->(NECESSITY) | yes | [COMPLEXITY?]-- no-->(CHANCE) | yes | [SPECIFICATION]--no--> (CHANCE) | yes | (DESIGN) [ . . . ]kairosfocus
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT
deadman,
I stated that I wouldn’t be debating you here because of good reasons that I gave. Your reaction, StephenB, was to offer up one bogus excuse and vapid non-responses. So, I can always go back to my usual haunts and enjoy the proceedings from afar. You can read them at that site which cannot be named.
You have no good reasons whatsoever. Admit it. Go lurk in the back corner with the rest of those mockers at the sight which should not exist.Clive Hayden
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT
At 81, I wrote: “Yet, Dembski is not lying nor is he attempting, in any way, to peddle religion as science.” ----Paul Burnett: "Has Dembski ever testified under oath about this? If he hadn’t avoided testifying at the Dover trial, he might have a bit more credibility in some circles. Dembski did not make the statement, I did. So, perhaps you should ask me why he didn't lie. On the other hand, I have already explained that. So, the question for the day is this: Why did you quote my opening sentence, which constitutes the claim, and then ignore the rest of the paragraph that justifies it?StephenB
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT
----deadman-932: “Presuppositions” in one arena (religion or lack thereof) don’t amount to potential bias that affects “inferences” made in another (science). This is particularly significant when the “scientist” in question has stated that one of the very reasons for the formulation of his “methodology” was to support a particular worldview in opposition to what he viewed as a more pernicious one: “Godless Darwinism” (and yes, I’m paraphrasing here).” Who, in your judgment, formulated a methodology to oppose “Godless Darwinism?” Cite the scientist and the specific methodology that you have in mind. . ---“I stated that I wouldn’t be debating you here because of good reasons that I gave. Your reaction, StephenB, was to offer up one bogus excuse and vapid non-responses. So, I can always go back to my usual haunts and enjoy the proceedings from afar. You can read them at that site which cannot be named.” I am sure that you will be missed.StephenB
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT
deadman,
Keep in mind that I had asked for rational responses, StephenB. Keep in mind that the only prospectively rational one you offered turns out to have a large flaw in it. With that in mind, either try again or perhaps just say you really can’t handle any focused two-person debate.
I think it's pretty obvious that it is you that cannot handle any debate, otherwise you wouldn't keep bringing up total irrelevancies like the above.Clive Hayden
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
StephenB (#81) wrote: "Yet, Dembski is not lying nor is he attempting, in any way, to peddle religion as science." Has Dembski ever testified under oath about this? If he hadn't avoided testifying at the Dover trial, he might have a bit more credibility in some circles.PaulBurnett
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT
StephenB writes:
Yes, you have made it clear that you will not be debating me here. On the other hand, you just invested 22 paragraphs to explain why.
The above claim is factually incorrect, StephenB. I can think of a number of reasons why you may have made this false claim, but none of them are good, in the long run. StephenB writes (in response to my point about dedicated threads at TWeb):
I appreciate what you are saying, but I am communicating primarily to onlookers. My adversaries are not open to my views; most of them are impervious to reason. My task is to expose their irrational posture, which is evident when probed.
If all potential onlookers are *really* your concern, StephenB: Alexa.com is one of a few stat-gathering sites available on the web. If you check there, you'll find that Theology Web has more web traffic and more unique users per day than Uncommon Descent. Beyond saying something about the limited reach of Uncommon Descent, it also means that you'd have a larger group of "onlookers" to be dazzled by your use of various ploys -- such as your unqualified claim that I'd devoted 22 paragraphs to explaining why I wouldn't debate you here. When I look through your responses to my reasons for wanting to get you in a one-on-one debate at TWeb, in a dedicated thread...that "onlookers" bit was the only cogent one you could muster, StephenB. The rest were glib avoidances like "Yes, people have been telling me that I need to get out more." and "Oh the trials we must bear." Keep in mind that I had asked for rational responses, StephenB. Keep in mind that the only prospectively rational one you offered turns out to have a large flaw in it. With that in mind, either try again or perhaps just say you really can't handle any focused two-person debate. --------------------------- StephenB writes:
Why not just try “grounding a fact in my face.” You may just find that I am quite open to facts and reasoned arguments.
Minor point: there's a distinction to be made between "grounding" and grinding. If you were to have a fact ground in your face by me -- at that time I'd be grinding it. StephenB writes:
I provided the diagnosis, so my critics should take the medicine. In this case, the medicine would consist of understanding the meaning of “context,” learning the difference between a presupposition and an inference, and grasping the distinction between motives and methods.
Except that I grasp all of those things fully well, StephenB. In fact, I appreciate the reality-based detail and nuance of them to a greater degree than you appear capable of. So, your "medicine" can be inserted by you into any of your orifices that you choose -- mouth, ear, nose, whatever. Just try to affect your brain this time, so that you'd be able to grasp how silly it is to use basic fallacies that you employ so frequently (as with your substitution of moral absolutes with absolute truths). (1) My response regarding your initial query "how do you extract religion from 'irreducible complexity'" was to point to various forms of bias (there are more than just ordinary selection bias). I'd hoped you'd grasp what others on this site and in this very thread have repeated many times: that presuppositions in one dearly-held arena -- that serve as core identity-markers of who individuals believe themselves to be -- can influence significant aspects of what they do in another arena. (2) Your response was to point to Dembski's "methodology" and imply --then assert, without demonstrating it -- that this methodology served to sufficiently mitigate the possible influences of bias. I don't find that persuasive in the least, because as far as I can tell, the "methodology" of Behe and Dembski is to simply use a thin veneer of pseudoscience to cover the rotted core of "We know it when we see it." So, that's where we stand in that regard, StephenB. In response to me stating that I'd like to explore YOUR interpretation” of the science/math and methodology behind irreducible complexity, you state
" I often provide them right here."
but when, earlier in the thread, I asked you, in so many words, to show me the methodology that you claim sufficiently mitigate bias/presuppositions from coloring those same methodologies...you declined to answer in any meaningful terms. Here is the exchange:
Deadman_932: “Some people (you, StephenB?) may *claim* that it is possible to (1) reliably eliminate preexisting bias and then (2) reliably demonstrate that some irreducibly complex structure has some “more likely correct” inferred origin in an “Intelligent Designer” but I have yet to see that demonstrated.” StephenB: "Where have you looked? In precisely what way does the inference fail in your judgment? You are not being very specific or informative."
I was referring to your claim about methodologies (context, StephenB!). I was being specific in stating I had yet to see it demonstrated. That fact remains, despite me reading your "FAQ," jack, along with the facile major works of Behe and Dembski (although I didn't pay for them, and wouldn't do so, ever). Anyway, StephenB, you sure haven't managed to do anything to alleviate that, but use your standard fallacies, category errors and other ploys to pretend that : "Presuppositions" in one arena (religion or lack thereof) don't amount to potential bias that affects "inferences" made in another (science). This is particularly significant when the "scientist" in question has stated that one of the very reasons for the formulation of his "methodology" was to support a particular worldview in opposition to what he viewed as a more pernicious one: "Godless Darwinism" (and yes, I'm paraphrasing here). It's even more amusing when that argument -- that "worldview" biases affect a godless Darwinian scientist's ability to see the clear, clean utility of "irreducible complexity" methodology as a guide to Intelligent Design -- is used CONSTANTLY on this site, and mentioned at least twice in this very thread by ID proponentsists. So, StephenB (1) If it is true that the "methodology" of Irreducible Complexity as formulated by Behe and elaborated on (moving the goalposts) by Dembski is one in which presuppositions/bias are reduced to any meaningful degree... (2) AND it is true that the vast majority of the world's scientists who have examined such mehodologies and found them lacking in rigor or utility are (3) claimed to have been "blinded by bias" by your fellow ID-ers (including Cornelius Hunter and a flock of others) (4) what does that say about the ability of ID "methodology" in mitigating bias in users of said methodology? Or all researchers who simply find ID claims on the matter lacking in rigor and substance...are all those people, including other theists, so pervaded by bias that they fail to see what you claim to see? Project much? ------------------------------------------- I'd like to add this bit: If one reads through all of my posts here, I have not stated directly that I know Dembski to be a liar in any way. What I have said is that I remain unpersuaded that any methodology of determining "Irreducible Complexity" can convincingly mitigate against bias and presuppositions in one area of human cognition leaking into another. I'll go further and state that since I don't see any verifiable, reliable means of eliminating false positives in "Irreducible Complexity" detection, that inferences will be further subject to biased interpretation. I'll leave this discussion at that, StephenB. I stated that I wouldn't be debating you here because of good reasons that I gave. Your reaction, StephenB, was to offer up one bogus excuse and vapid non-responses. So, I can always go back to my usual haunts and enjoy the proceedings from afar. You can read them at that site which cannot be named.deadman_932
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
Lamark, I'm going to bed right now but look forward to fleshing this out in more detail,,, The take home point for me right now from this experiment, is that this experiment has removed the last vestige of hope materialist had in forging any coherent basis for the foundation of reality, and as such Theism is free to elucidate the overriding structure of this reality to ourselves and to the "logos" of God,,,this may sound a bit brash, but as far as I see it, if all the other horses have dropped dead in a horse race that pretty much settles the matter. Also key to understand is "information", "logos", is conclusively shown to be its own independent entity in the experiment.bornagain77
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT
camanintx, "Not hardly. ID goes well beyond just explaining biological life and attempts to describe properties of the designer." Well the science itself doesn't do that of course. Materialist evolution and abiogenesis are both sub-fields of the science of materialism with the same end-goal.lamarck
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
"Bornagain77" (#87) wrote: "It is also interesting to note that a Compact Disc crammed with information weighs exactly the same as a CD with no information on it whatsoever." Like wax cylinders or vinyl records' master discs or floppy discs or hard disks, nothing is removed from a CD (or DVD) when it is recorded upon. So what?PaulBurnett
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
BA77, From what I gather this article is saying matter doesn't exist at the smallest levels without the intervention of thought or intention; or at least the act of multiple measurements happening at the same time. And this is now proven because the only way to measure a small particle is by stopping looking for even smaller particles of matter, and instead measuring multiple aspects of it at once. Otherwise it disappears or defies measurement in some other way. If I have it right here, then this would mean many things. Do you know enough to say if I've interpreted it right? I'd have a couple questions if so.lamarck
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
I feel the question is moot,,,to the point of "proving" the Theistic foundation for reality and falsifying the materialistic postulation,,,i.e. this falsification of materialism is accomplished in this experiment.... Refutation of the "hidden variables" argument that is used by materialists in trying to explain quantum phenomena Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show In comparison to classical physics, quantum physics predicts that the properties of a quantum mechanical system depend on the measurement context, i.e. whether or not other system measurements are carried out. A team of physicists from Innsbruck, Austria, led by Christian Roos and Rainer Blatt, have for the first time proven in a comprehensive experiment that it is not possible to explain quantum phenomena in non-contextual terms.....Quantum mechanics describes the physical state of light and matter and formulates concepts that totally contradict the classical conception we have of nature. Thus, physicists have tried to explain non-causal phenomena in quantum mechanics by classical models of hidden variables, thereby excluding randomness, which is omnipresent in quantum theory. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm reference earlier post and subsequent if need bebornagain77
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
----MeganC: The reason being is that believing in God necessitates believing in talking donkeys(amongst other absurdities mentioned in the Bible) and I think you would agree that talking donkeys are not part of a rational universe." OK, I got it. Well, I consider a talking donkey in that context to be a miraculous event, inasmuch as God is reported to "open the donkey's mouth," which is symbolic, of course, for providing it with the extraordinary gift of speech. So, the relevant question would be this: Do miracles violate the rational nature of the world. The obvious answer is no, since it is only by means of the world's rational nature that we can recognize a miracle. By the way, if the universe wasn't rational, and, if you didn't sense that it was, in spite of your protests, you would not be scandalized by a talking donkey, since there would be no reason for being scandalized. On the contrary, it is becaused you think that talking donkeys violate the rational order of the world that you raised the issue. At the same time, it is clear that you reject in principle the possibility that miracles could occur in any context. Yet, plenty of people in the New Testament observed miracles, and eyewitness testimony constitutes good evidence. So, if you think miracles are "absurd," that is only because your ideology prompts you to reject them apriori.StephenB
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
I, for one, remain agnostic regarding whether or not donkeys can talk. But if in fact they can, I'm confident that their speech abilities are a product of design.Hedge
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
MeganC The virgin birth is still, in this day and age of artificial insemination, regarded as being outside the realm of possibility. Open your mind. Please.IRQ Conflict
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
MeganC,
The point I wanted to make about the talking donkey as part of a rational universe is that I always laugh out loud when somebody tries to make the argument that believing in God means you believe in a rational universe. The reason being is that believing in God necessitates believing in talking donkeys(amongst other absurdities mentioned in the Bible) and I think you would agree that talking donkeys are not part of a rational universe.
And it's somehow normal that you should talk? I don't think you understand the gravity of the peculiarity of existence itself. It's no stranger that a donkey should talk than a parrot, or us for that matter. You could only take it for granted that you talk, but thinking that it is some necessity of nature that you should talk, is only to not really understand what you mean. The fact that there is a donkey at all is no less strange than that it should talk. They are both baffling phenomena, the one no less than the other. You have no reason to assume one (donkey's existing at all) as normal, and the other (donkey's talking) as strange; you've only gotten used to the one and convinced yourself that you can then make a comparison as to what constitutes normality and strangeness. But there is no logical (that is, rational) reason, outside of repetition of experience, to make this claim. So you've confused yourself that you understand more than you do, and think that you can make a comparison between two black riddles as if they together make up a white answer. They don't. Not when you really come to understand the situation of existence for what it is, and on that we must remain agnostic, for we have no insight into nature of the sort required. We can only measure effects and record repetitions, but these are descriptions, not explanations of Nature. And you're confused if you mistake them for explanations, and then think you can use descriptions against other questions of explanation in Nature by comparison. You cannot. Clive Hayden
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
1 5 6 7 8 9 10

Leave a Reply