Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

L&FP, 55: Defining/Clarifying Intelligent Design as Inference, as Theory, as a Movement

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

It seems, despite UD’s resources tab, some still struggle to understand ID in the three distinct senses: inference, theory/research programme, movement. Accordingly, let us headline a clarifying note from the current thread on people who doubt, for the record:

[KF, 269:] >>. . . first we must mark out a matter of inductive reasoning and epistemology. Observed tested, reliable signs such as FSCO/I [= functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information, “fun-skee”] beyond 500 – 1,000 bits point to design as cause for cases we have not observed. This is the design INFERENCE.

A classic example of FSCO/I, the organisation of a fishing reel
A von Neumann, kinematic Self Replicator, illustrating how an entity with
self-replication reflects considerable additional FSCO/I, where
the living cell embeds such a vNSR
The metabolic network of a cell exhibits FSCO/I in a process-flow, molecular nanotech self replicating system
Petroleum refinery block diagram illustrating FSCO/I in a process-flow system
The design inference reduced to a flowchart, the per aspect explanatory filter

Note, inference, not movement, not theory.

Following the UD Weak Argument Correctives under the Resources tab, we can identify ID Theory as a [small] research programme that explores whether there are such observable, testable, reliable signs, whether they appear in the world of life and in the cosmos, whether we may responsibly — notice, how duties of reason pop up naturally — use them to infer that cell based life, body plans, the cosmos etc are credibly the result of intelligently directed configuration . . . and that’s a definition of design. This, in a context where the proposed “scientific” alternative, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity has not been observed to actually produce things exhibiting FSCO/I etc.

Logically, this is an application of inductive reasoning, modern sense, abduction.

Which is common in science and is commonly held to ground scientific, weak philosophical sense, knowledge. Weak, it is open ended and can be defeated by further analysis and evidence, warranted, credibly true [and so reliable] belief.

Going beyond, where we have further information, evidence and argument we may explore whodunit, howtweredun, etc.

Such is after all commonplace in technical forensics, medical research, archaeology, engineering [esp. reverse engineering], code cracking etc. I guess, these can be taken as design-oriented sciences. Going back to 4th form I remember doing natural science explorations of springs. Manufactured entities. So are lenses, mirrors, glass blocks, radio systems, lasers etc.

Beyond the theory, there is a movement, comprising supporters and friendly critics as well as practitioners consciously researching design theory or extending thinking on it and applying same to society or civilisation, including history of ideas.

The first major design inference on record in our civilisation is by Plato, in The Laws, Bk X:

Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos — the natural order], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity, contrasted to “the action of mind” i.e. intelligently directed configuration] . . . .

[[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them . . . .

Then, by Heaven, we have discovered the source of this vain opinion of all those physical investigators . . . . they affirm that which is the first cause of the generation and destruction of all things, to be not first, but last, and that which is last to be first, and hence they have fallen into error about the true nature of the Gods.

Cle. Still I do not understand you.

Ath. Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [[ = psuche], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul’s kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body?

Cle. Certainly.

Ath. Then thought and attention and mind and art and law will be prior to that which is hard and soft and heavy and light; and the great and primitive works and actions will be works of art; they will be the first, and after them will come nature and works of nature, which however is a wrong term for men to apply to them; these will follow, and will be under the government of art and mind.

Cle. But why is the word “nature” wrong?

Ath. Because those who use the term mean to say that nature is the first creative power; but if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise.

[[ . . . .]

Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second. [–> notice, the self-moved, initiating, reflexively acting causal agent, which defines freedom as essential to our nature, and this is root of discussion on agents as first causes.]

[[ . . . .]

Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it?

Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life?

Ath. I do.

Cle. Certainly we should.

Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life?

[[ . . . . ]

Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul?

Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things?

Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things.

Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer?

Cle. Exactly.

Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler?

[[ . . . . ]

Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.

Earlier in the same Bk X, he had noted just how old and how philosophically loaded evolutionary materialism and its appeal to chance and/or necessity are, drawing out consequences for law, government and community:

Ath[enian Stranger, in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos — the natural order], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity; observe, too, the trichotomy: “nature” (here, mechanical, blind necessity), “chance” (similar to a tossed fair die), ART (the action of a mind, i.e. intelligently directed configuration)] . . . .

[Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made . . .

We see the wider setting and the more specific themes.>>

U/D May 14, to promote from 470 below and onward, a summary of kernel ID theory as a cluster of postulates — based on clips from the UD Resources tab:

ID as a Postulates based Scientific Framework

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds

[–> key, evidence backed postulate, cf those of Newtonian dynamics and special then general relativity, thermodynamics and statistical thermodynamics, postulational cores can be brief but sweeping in impact]

that

[First, Evidence-backed Programmatic Postulate:] certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained [–> explicit reference to logic of abductive reasoning] 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.

In a broader sense,

[2nd, Operational Postulate:] Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose.

Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). [–> design oriented sciences. Signal to noise ratio in telecommunications is based on a design inference.]

[3rd, Empirical Warrant/Point of test or potential falsification postulate:] An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

[Evidence Corollary:] Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life . . . .

Intelligent design [ID] – Dr William A Dembski, a leading design theorist, has defined ID as “the science that studies signs of intelligence.” That is,

[4th, Designs and Signs Postulate:] 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. [–> definition of design, note, abductive inference from observed sign to signified cause.]

Among the signs of intelligence of current interest for research are:

[Supplement, on evidence:] [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 algorithmicsearch 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.)

[(f) evidence of the fine tuned cosmos.] . . . .

Thus, ID can be framed on postulates, and we may draw forth from such that cells using memory structures storing coded algorithms and associated execution machinery are strong evidence of the design of cell based life. With Drexler, we are looking a bit at nanotech issues.>>

Food for thought and for clarification. END

U/D May 8th, to allow another thread to return to its focus:

>>THE FOLLOWING COME FROM THE LEAK CASE THREAD:

F/N May 7: As tangential objections to the design inference have been taken up (in obvious subject switching) I pose p. 5 from Sir Francis Crick’s March 19, 1953 letter to his son:

Crick’s letter

And, here is the protein synthesis process in outline:

Protein Synthesis (HT: Wiki Media)

Together with a summary of the information communication system involved, as outlined by Yockey:

Yockey’s analysis of protein synthesis as a code-based communication process

F/N, May 8: As the tangent continues, it seems a further illustration is advisable:

It seems more is needed, so here is how this fits into protein synthesis and the metabolic network and how we see prong height coding:

In for a penny, in for a pound, here is a video:

Notice, we are actually dealing with a storage register. Say, each shaft with pins is set for five positions, four elevated, one on the ledge. This is directly comparable to GCAT, and as the video shows there are five digits:

| X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 |

The key is encoded to the correct string of digits that in combination will open the lock, say 13213. The resting fully locked position is of course 00000.>>

U/D May 14: As a side chain appeared in another thread that is more appropriate here, I cross post a footnote added there:

It being now an obvious tactic to sidetrack non technical UD threads into ID debates (even where there is a thread that is live on the topic with relevant information, graphics and video) I will augment basic correction below by adding here a chart showing tRNA as a Drexler style molecular nanotech position-arm device:

We may expand our view of the Ribosome’s action:

The Ribosome, assembling a protein step by step based on the instructions in the mRNA “control tape”

As a comparison, here is punched paper tape used formerly to store digital information:

Punch Tape

We should tabulate”

The Genetic code uses three-letter codons to specify the sequence of AA’s in proteins and specifying start/stop, and using six bits per AA

In Yockey’s communication system framework, we now can see the loading [blue dotted box] and how tRNA is involved in translation, as the AA chain towards protein formation is created, step by step — algorithm — under control of the mRNA chain of three base codons that match successive tRNA anticodons, the matching, of course is by key-lock fitting of G-C or C-G and A-T or T-A, a 4-state, prong height digital code:

Yockey’s analysis of protein synthesis as a code-based communication process

Further to this, DNA has been extended with other similar monomers, and DNA has been used as a general purpose information storage medium for digital codes, apparently even including for movie files.

The point of this is, for record, to expose and correct how hyperskeptical objectors have inappropriately tried to deny that D/RNA acts as a string based digital information storage unit, that it holds algorithmic code used in protein synthesis, and latterly that tRNA acts in this process in the role of a position-arm nanotech robot device with a CCA tool tip, CCA being a universal joint that attaches to the COOH end of an AA.

Speaking of which, AA structure, with side branches [R] and chaining links, i.e. NH2-alpha Carbon + R – COOH:

F/N, May 14, it is worth the while to add, regarding layer cake communication architectures and protocols:

Where, underlying this is the Shannon model, here bent into a U to show how layers fit in, this also ties to Yockey:

A communication system

We may then extend to Gitt’s broader framework:

Gitt’s Layer-cake communications model

As an illustration, the ISO model:

OSI Network “layer-cake” model

Similarly, here is a layer cake view of a computer (network ports can be added):

These layers, of course, are abstract, only the physical layer is hardware we can see directly. Even for that, we cannot easily see all the design details for compatibility and function.

These may be compared to Yockey, to draw out the framework of codes, protocols and communication requisites.

U/D May 21, on illustrating one aspect of cosmological fine tuning:

Barnes: “What if we tweaked just two of the fundamental constants? This figure shows what the universe would look like if the strength of the strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) and the value of the fine-structure constant (which represents the strength of the electromagnetic force between elementary particles) were higher or lower than they are in this universe. The small, white sliver represents where life can use all the complexity of chemistry and the energy of stars. Within that region, the small “x” marks the spot where those constants are set in our own universe.” (HT: New Atlantis)
Comments
LCD, there is of course a fit of codon to anticodon constraint and there is the transfer to P that opens up the site. As to how the right tRNA is ensured to approach the site, that is something not readily answered it seems. Perhaps someone has a handy reference? Apart from here https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/10062/how-are-the-correct-trnas-transported-to-the-ribosome and here https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Protein_translation.gif which point to a try the keys on the ring till one fits model. KF PS, notice https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14566331/ >>Aminoacyl-tRNAs (aa-tRNAs) are delivered to the ribosome as part of the ternary complex of aa-tRNA, elongation factor Tu (EF-Tu) and GTP. Here, we present a cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) study, at a resolution of approximately 9 A, showing that during the incorporation of the aa-tRNA into the 70S ribosome of Escherichia coli, the flexibility of aa-tRNA allows the initial codon recognition and its accommodation into the ribosomal A site. In addition, a conformational change observed in the GTPase-associated center (GAC) of the ribosomal 50S subunit may provide the mechanism by which the ribosome promotes a relative movement of the aa-tRNA with respect to EF-Tu. This relative rearrangement seems to facilitate codon recognition by the incoming aa-tRNA, and to provide the codon-anticodon recognition-dependent signal for the GTPase activity of EF-Tu. From these new findings we propose a mechanism that can explain the sequence of events during the decoding of mRNA on the ribosome. >> This too https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/j.febslet.2004.11.048kairosfocus
May 22, 2022
May
05
May
22
22
2022
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
I was looking for explanations how the ribosome(translation) identify and allow in site A the correct tRNA who bring the correct anticodon and the correct amino-acid.
"Because each of the 20 natural amino acids used in protein synthesis has a corresponding, or cognate, aminoacyl tRNA synthetase, there are 20 of these enzymes in each cellular compartment where proteins are synthesized. Each of them must distinguish its amino acid from all others and, at the same time, recognize the cognate tRNA that bears the anticodon corresponding to that amino acid." ( The encyclopedia of molecular biology /Thomas E. Creighton 1999)
But also I feel something is missing from this explanation. PS: I saved this article as pdf (for OP) exactly 300 pages (comments included) :)Lieutenant Commander Data
May 21, 2022
May
05
May
21
21
2022
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
PPPS, I have added the update. I also note the obvious again. The first inference archaeologists make is natural/archaeological, and then we see the inference that as a suitable candidate is humans, the inference is to human activity. However that would obviously extend to ET activity as SETI shows. A crashed ET ship on Mars would be studied with interest using the same basic principles. The thing is, we have an ET artifact, the coded algorithms in the cell. That seems to be what you cannot acknowledge and therefore cling to crooked yardsticks to dismiss.kairosfocus
May 21, 2022
May
05
May
21
21
2022
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
PPS, Astrophysicist and lifelong agnostic, Sir Fred Hoyle:
>>[Sir Fred Hoyle, In a talk at Caltech c 1981 (nb. this longstanding UD post):] From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? . . . I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has "monkeyed" with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. [F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16.]>> . . . also, in the same talk at Caltech: >>The big problem in biology, as I see it, is to understand the origin of the information carried by the explicit structures of biomolecules. The issue isn't so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties, which other orderings wouldn't give. The case of the enzymes is well known . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrange-ments that would be useless in serving the pur-poses of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link,it's easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. [ --> 20^200 = 1.6 * 10^260] This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be? This is, as I see it, the biological problem - the information problem . . . . I was constantly plagued by the thought that the number of ways in which even a single enzyme could be wrongly constructed was greater than the number of all the atoms in the universe. So try as I would, I couldn't convince myself that even the whole universe would be sufficient to find life by random processes - by what are called the blind forces of nature . . . . By far the simplest way to arrive at the correct sequences of amino acids in the enzymes would be by thought, not by random processes . . . . Now imagine yourself as a superintellect working through possibilities in polymer chemistry. Would you not be astonished that polymers based on the carbon atom turned out in your calculations to have the remarkable properties of the enzymes and other biomolecules? Would you not be bowled over in surprise to find that a living cell was a feasible construct? Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use: Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix. >> . . . and again: >> I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the [--> nuclear synthesis] consequences they produce within stars. ["The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12]>>
kairosfocus
May 21, 2022
May
05
May
21
21
2022
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
JH, at this point,
Falling back on the ‘scientists can’t explain it therefore God…oops… ID, argument.
. . . is -- sorry to have to be so direct -- an insistent lie and intended slander in the face of repeated correction; specifically, a red herring led away to an ad hominem laced strawman set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere to frustrate serious discussion. Thus, we know your arguments cannot stand on the merits. You know or should know better, so speaking in disregard to truth in hope of a rhetorical advantage is willful deceit. But of course, too many today (especially under ideological influences of worldviews that undermine acknowledging self evident first moral truths) refuse to acknowledge duties to truth, right reason, warrant and fairness. Thus, they become anti civilisational misanthropes. Somewhere no sane person wishes to end up. Kindly, stop it. KF PS, the design inference on tested, reliable sign is an inference to a causal process, intelligently directed configuration. As has been on the table since Thaxton et al in TMLO, 1984 [the first technical modern ID work] this does not imply a decision as to whether the source of the FSCO/I in cell based life is within or beyond the cosmos. As I have noted many times over years, a molecular nanotech lab several generations beyond Venter et al could account for what we see. Where the design inference is extracosmic, inevitably, is on the fine tuning of a cosmos that puts it at a deeply isolated operating point that supports C-Chem, aqueous medium, cell based life. I will shortly add a diagram to the OP that illustrates just one facet of that fine tuning. There is a reason why Sir Fred Hoyle went on record as will now follow.kairosfocus
May 21, 2022
May
05
May
21
21
2022
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
JHolo- Grow up. The design inference is based on our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships, as science demands. In over 150 years evolutionary biologists haven't been able to figure out determines biological form. They haven't been able to formulate a scientific theory of evolution. Vetner and his team synthesized a genome. WhoopsET
May 21, 2022
May
05
May
21
21
2022
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
KF: JH, there may be evidence of artifacts or possible artifacts indeed (think here geophysical scans), but that in itself implies a prior inference to art not blind chance and/or mechanical necessity.
No, it implies that we were looking for human artifacts in areas we expected to find them. Nothing miraculous about that, although some of the tools we use to do so are fairly ingenious.
Also, in the course of investigating a site, there often comes a point where certain parts are showing “natural” not “archaeology.”
Yes. In a previous comment I even provided an example of an instance where all the experts had concluded a human cause for a site (purported shell midden) only to be proven by a heavy partying undergrad who didn’t spend much time in the library that they were natural formations caused by differential water deposition.
I would suggest that if cosmonauts going to Mars should come across an inscription or remnants of a crashed spacecraft, they would use the artifacts to infer about archaeology of ET’s.
And if we found elves and candy-cane mountains at the North Pole, we could infer Santa Clause. But until that happens, the inference means nothing.
Oops, we actually have a solid wow signal, it is in the cells of our bodies.
Falling back on the ‘scientists can’t explain it therefore God…oops… ID, argument. However, if the ID scientists conducted any research into how the designer created DNA, and the cell, and the diversity of life, and how it changed over time, etc, as evolutionary biologists have done for the last 150 years, maybe ID can rise above the ‘re-branding of scientific creationism’ perception.JHolo
May 21, 2022
May
05
May
21
21
2022
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
JH, there may be evidence of artifacts or possible artifacts indeed (think here geophysical scans), but that in itself implies a prior inference to art not blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. Also, in the course of investigating a site, there often comes a point where certain parts are showing "natural" not "archaeology." And I would suggest that if cosmonauts going to Mars should come across an inscription or remnants of a crashed spacecraft, they would use the artifacts to infer about archaeology of ET's. Or even, if it was on earth, hence SETI. Oops, we actually have a solid wow signal, it is in the cells of our bodies. KFkairosfocus
May 21, 2022
May
05
May
21
21
2022
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
JHolo: But then ID is going to have to admit that their attempt at ID as a science starts with the presupposition of the existence of a designer (AKA God), not that the existence of a designer is the conclusion. ID does not require God. And we start with the presupposition that we can assess the evidence using our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships. Again, your ignorance is not an argument and all you have is your ignorance. Good luck with that.ET
May 21, 2022
May
05
May
21
21
2022
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Jholo- Archaeologists do NOT start with a conclusion. Your scientific illiteracy is showing, again. And your continued, cowardly equivocation just further proves that you are clueless. The fact remains that we have tried and true design detection methodologies. And only the scientifically illiterate say we cannot apply them to biology. There isn't any scientific theory of evolution. That's because evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is total untestable nonsense, unless you are discussing genetic diseases and deformities.ET
May 21, 2022
May
05
May
21
21
2022
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
KF: JH, first there is the inference, natural vs archaeological. KF
Sorry KF, but most archaeologists plan their digs in areas where they either know humans lived, or in areas they suspected that humans lived. They start their digs in search of evidence of HUMAN presence. The human factor is there first, not the inference. That comes second. Although, I guess you could argue that with ID, God comes first and that the inferences to His design come second. But then ID is going to have to admit that their attempt at ID as a science starts with the presupposition of the existence of a designer (AKA God), not that the existence of a designer is the conclusion.JHolo
May 21, 2022
May
05
May
21
21
2022
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
JH, first there is the inference, natural vs archaeological. KFkairosfocus
May 21, 2022
May
05
May
21
21
2022
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
KF: ET, we infer, first, design: archaeology not natural. Then, we further infer humans as best explanation on wider analysis. KF
There is not a single archaeologist in the world that is not keeping human manufacture as the primary focus of their investigation from day one. The attempt to compare the ID process to the archaeology process is lame at best. And motivation is at the heart of the difference. Archaeology never pretends to be about anything other that human history and our contrivances. Evolution is supported by a plethora of evidence from cladistics, genomic and proteomics comparisons, the fossil record, nuclear physics, geology and countless observations and experiments. ID, at its best, is ‘oh, that looks complicated. It must be designed.’ ID has never been about what it can demonstrate through observations and testing. It’s only tool has been to cherry-pick what evolution has been unable to replicate. ID picks on these because they know that, given the time involved, there is much of evolution we will never be able to directly observe other than the changes that can be observed over the short term and extrapolate from these. In this respect, evolutionary theory is similar to geology and cosmology. We have never observed a mountain form, or a planet, or a star. But we extrapolate from what we have observed, combined with other supporting evidence, to come to the most likely explanation. Darwin proposed a theory on how species diversified. Scientists since then have developed hypotheses on the possible mechanisms by which this may have occurred and then tested these hypotheses. This has resulted in modifications and expansions to Darwin’s theory. Modern ID is clearly a re-branding of scientific creationism, with no intention of conducting the research necessary to flesh out the mechanisms and processes used by the designer God to instantiate His designs. [tip of the hat to the authors of Of Pandas And People.]JHolo
May 21, 2022
May
05
May
21
21
2022
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
FH, Stonehenge and the like remind us that archaeology is a design-friendly science. Recall too, it speaks to cosmology which has turned out to be a design friendly science. That automatically means physics and chemistry are design friendly. The ambit of ID i/l/o its postulates, is different from that of current Macroevolutionary theory. KFkairosfocus
May 21, 2022
May
05
May
21
21
2022
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
ET, you are looking at ideology, defending the non-negotiable core. Ironically, design thinkers can take an evolutionary world of life in stride, that has no import on ontology of designer of life. As I have noted, that's in Thaxton et al and a molecular nanotech lab some generations beyond Venter could account for FSCO/I. It is the weight of evidence that drives a design inference on the world of life. To overturn it simply show on observation, successful blind needle in haystack search at 500 to 1,000 bits of FSCO/I. Far short of what is needed at the root of the tree of life. It is on cosmological origins that we look at where physics came from, the core of math is embedded in the logic of being of distinct possible worlds [which gives it great power]. We see a need for necessary being reality root and that such being must be adequate to account for rational, responsible, morally governed creatures, us. On impossibility of traversing a transfinite past, cosmos level time is bound in the past, but may be potentially transfinite in the future. These are well established. But we are in a day where evolutionary materialist scientism is today's dominant orthodoxy, with fellow travellers trying to accommodate to it. Ironically, at least since Haldane it has been published record that it is self-falsifying as it undermines rationality. But people are told, established fact, when in reality as Lewontin et al highlight, controlling a priori ideological assumption dressed in a lab coat. The pretence is, only the ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked question it, that this will destroy sci-tech and socio-political progress, that there is a grand conspiracy of christofascist totalitarianism with inquisitors waiting in the wings twirling their thumbscrews with racks and stakes for burning on call. We are all clever liars hoping to restore the middle ages. So, we see crooked yardstick polarisation and poisoning of the atmosphere. The more trollish objectors hardly pretend to interact with us, taking any excuse to refuse to read what we write or cite or link. They are here to expose us as fools and frauds, and maybe to have the sort of fun at our expense we see in ill managed school yards. The better sort have been programmed with the orthodoxy, and that makes it very hard for them to see what we have said. They have a narrative on the ID con game from trusted sources, and never mind that in reality it is slander. They won't even read much less take seriously the resources tab. Not a pretty picture but we must remember the wider silent audience, who often feel intimidated by trollish tactics. It remains so that SETI suceeded where it was not looking, the coded text in DNA, which now becomes the very first texts of history, texts in the context of a fine tuned cosmos sitting at a tight operating point for cell based life. That changes everything. KFkairosfocus
May 21, 2022
May
05
May
21
21
2022
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
kairosfocus- I just don't understand the fierce opposition to Intelligent Design. Obviously, we have methodologies to determine natural from artificial. And also, obviously, the claim that something is artificial can be falsified by demonstrating that nature is up to the task. ID opponents are upset because they can't falsify ID, which would only take their supporting their own claims. That has to hurt. And that butthurt leads them to attack ID with strawmen and pure scientific illiteracy.ET
May 21, 2022
May
05
May
21
21
2022
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
PPS, Likewise, with an established local value of g, the length of a 2 second period pendulum that beats at 1 second per narrow arc swing is just under 1 metre, which can define a given length in inches. In 1824 when Imperial measurements were standardised, that was used to define the yard, and standard artifacts were made. Then, they were lost in a fire forcing resort to a 1760 artifact, which is ultimately why US and UK yards diverged. Australia had some sort of error leading to a subtle error in inches. Worse, the UK yard was for some reason shrinking. Following Johannsen and his blocks, there was eventual agreement on a standard making 1 inch 2.54 cm precisely. We have now gone to a time standard for the metre. BTW, these meant that things made to allegedly the same standard in cases did not fit together to acceptable tolerance IIRC during WW2. Then, there was the bent column with the french standard fathom, the toise -- and that is a long story itself . Crooked yardstick is not just a silly phrase. Crooked yardstick thinking is at the heart of the great errors and polarisations of our time.kairosfocus
May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT
ET, we infer, first, design: archaeology not natural. Then, we further infer humans as best explanation on wider analysis. KF PS, Newton in Opticks, Query 31, lays out the inductive logic basis for scientific theorising, the recognisable source of the school level scientific method. This is a reason why theories are inferred best current explanations and are inherently weaker as knowledge claims than direct observation; especially, theories of origins beyond observation and reliable, generally accepted written record. (This is already a huge issue that is prone to be inappropriately derided and dismissed by too many objectors of various stripes around UD. NB the empirical reliability in a given range of a theory can be a fact of observation but does not entail truth, see Newtonian dynamics and its limitations.) Note, many instrumental and calculation based methods strictly speaking embed theories and cannot strictly be used in verification. As an example taught to me in 4th form physics, most electrical meters are based on built in Ohms law and extensions. The ladder of initial practical certainty required use of calibrated, uniform, taught wire against accurate scale potentiometers and Wheatstone bridges to get scalable voltage drops and centre zero galvanometers to indicate equality. The Weston Standard Cell was the yardstick of emf for such exercises. Currently that has been updated to the Josephson junction standard. The crooked yardstick issue and chain of warrant to what degree are pivotal.kairosfocus
May 20, 2022
May
05
May
20
20
2022
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT
JVL:
The point isn’t that one is different from the rest
That is the point.
the point is that there are a lot of them, they were constructed by the humans around at the time sometimes over long periods of time.
We just assume humans did it. Again, the only reason we "know" that humans were capable is that such things exist. So thank you for continuing to prove that you are incapable of following along.
Another point is: we don’t just study the stones themselves
That's what I have been saying! And you don't have any idea what Daniken did. You are just a strawman pusher.ET
May 17, 2022
May
05
May
17
17
2022
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
JVL & ET, it is obvious that archaeology first distinguishes "natural" from "archaeology." (The onlooker may find the Time Team series entertaining and informative.) That is a design inference, just as is signal vs noise in communications and electronics, leading to key quality metrics such as signal to noise ratio, noise figure/factor and temperature. Similarly, arson vs accident and accident vs suicide vs murder are important in forensic sciences. Pathology studies natural and artificial concerns. Detection of codes and steganography are there, and of course SETI was run for years by the same establishment that seemed deaf to the code identified in the cell; I suppose the message did not fit the narrative, but SETI success was already found in the cell! There is a whole science of inventive problem solving, TRIZ, that is now recognised in technological development. So, we see that the design inference is a routine part of sciences, many of which are design oriented. It may be personally interesting to debate the uniqueness or otherwise of Stonehenge, but the manifest point is these are readily recognisable from FSCO/I to be design, much as a fishing reel is, much as would be a crashed ET spaceship on Mars, much as SHOULD be the coded algorithms in D/RNA in the cell. It is obvious that objectivity has been taking a backseat to ideologies in science; which ultimately -- for cause -- is going to further undermine the credibility of science as an entrenched pattern of ideological manipulation becomes increasingly evident. So, these concerns are not those of a readily dismissed fringe; they go to issues central to the onward sustainability of our civilisation. KFkairosfocus
May 17, 2022
May
05
May
17
17
2022
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT
ET: As I said and you have proven, Stonehenge stands alone. Those other two are not like Stonehenge. Those other two? What? I linked to an article discussing standing stone circles in general and one discussing a specific stone circle which is bigger than Stonehenge. The point isn't that one is different from the rest; the point is that there are a lot of them, they were constructed by the humans around at the time sometimes over long periods of time. We can date the circles, we've found tools and burials which provide the human and technological context. Another point is: we don't just study the stones themselves, we look around for other data and evidence to tell us something about the design implementation. If we just looked at the circles themselves and said: gosh, those things are really big and we don't know how they were built therefore it must have been someone smarter than the humans around at the time is akin to what Erich Von Daniken used to do. Still does actually. It sells books, especially to those who don't know or don't acknowledge all the other evidence.JVL
May 16, 2022
May
05
May
16
16
2022
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
What is clear from the evidence is that groups of people invested huge effort over at least a millenium in constructing and redesigning Stonehenge.
We know this because of our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships. And everything we know about Stonehenge came by first determining that it was intelligently designed and then studying it and all relevant evidence. And we still don't know who, how or why. "Humans" are a what, not a who.
How this has anything to do with “Intelligent Design” is a bit of a puzzle.
You would have to be capable of following along, Fred. 1- Nature can produce the building blocks of Stonehenge. Yet nature cannot produce Stonehenge, a structure much more simple than any living organisms. 2- You cannot use biological reproduction to get around that because biological reproduction is the very thing you cannot account for. 3- Yes, how life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved. This has been explained to you many times. So, your willful ignorance is not an argument. 4- The fact remains that some people have asserted that Stonehenge is a natural, not artificial, formation. Are they conducting science by looking into that possibility?ET
May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
ET Every phenomenon, regarded spatially and temporally, is unique. What is clear from the evidence is that groups of people invested huge effort over at least a millenium in constructing and redesigning Stonehenge. How this has anything to do with "Intelligent Design" is a bit of a puzzle.Fred Hickson
May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT
I would like to thank JVL and Fred for proving my point that Stonehenge is unique when it comes to stone circles.ET
May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus JVL, I gave my judgement. I have also gone to the extreme of laying out in a diagram just how you may contact UD for assistance, through the About tab. Why don’t you follow that up? KF
KF, you forgot to tell him what is his name and his email so he could fill up the forms this year . :lol:Lieutenant Commander Data
May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
...gone to the extreme of laying out in a diagram...
???Fred Hickson
May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
JVL, I gave my judgement. I have also gone to the extreme of laying out in a diagram just how you may contact UD for assistance, through the About tab. Why don't you follow that up? KFkairosfocus
May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus: details on UD’s web master etc, whoever s/he is, would be little more than a troll’s hoped for targetting information. So, this site installs a WordPress plugin, WordFence, and when some commenters are blocked from commenting on some threads by WordFence and told to talk to the site admins if they think the blocks are erroneous but then this site makes it difficult to talk to the actual technical site admins and, in fact, are suggested to be participating in hacking behaviour . . . this sounds fair and above board to you? I'm told over and over again by participants in this site to think for myself, to act independently, to resist the herd mentality but, when the rubber hits the road everyone with any kind of responsibility on this site forgoes any kind of independence and defers to a single person who decides what gets considered and what doesn't. When you support an organisation at least be honest and knowledgeable about what you are supporting.JVL
May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
Relevant to the OP Stephen P. Meyer's ID argument:
Premise One: Despite a thorough search and evaluation, no materialistic causes or evolutionary mechanisms have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified or functional information (or integrated circuitry). Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified/functional information (and integrated circuitry). Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the specified/functional information (and circuitry) that was necessary to produce the Cambrian animals… In fact, the argument for intelligent design developed in Darwin’s Doubt constitutes an “inference to the best explanation” based upon our best available knowledge….[A]n inference to the best explanation …asserts the superior explanatory power of a proposed cause based upon its established — its known — causal adequacy, and based upon a lack of demonstrated efficacy, despite a thorough search, of any other adequate cause. The inference to design, therefore, depends on present knowledgee of the causal powers of various materialistic entities and processes (inadequate) and intelligent agents (adequate).
The reason natural causes are inadequate to explain the increase of information required for the Cambrian explosion:
"This book has presented four separate scientific critiques demonstrating the inadequacy of the neo-Darwinian mechanism, the mechanism that Dawkins assumes can produce the appearance of design without intelligent guidance. It has shown that the neo-Darwinian mechanism fails to account for the origin of genetic information because: (1) it has no means of efficiently searching combinatorial sequence space for functional genes and proteins and, consequently, (2) it requires unrealistically long waiting times to generate even a single new gene or protein. It has also shown that the mechanism cannot produce new body plans because: (3) early acting mutations, the only kind capable of generating large-scale changes, are also invariably deleterious, and (4) genetic mutations cannot, in any case, generate the epigenetic information necessary to build a body plan." (Darwin's Doubt: pp. 410-411)
Silver Asiatic
May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
Sounds like some of the comments here are a bit unhenged.Seversky
May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
1 2 3 18

Leave a Reply