Nazca lines in Peru (circa 200 BC)

_{Mario Lopez

February 20, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Given enough time…

Comments

JT, I thank you for your honest and straghtforward exposition at @75. It is my policy to reward frankness and transparency by refraining from issuing heavy challenges asking lots of pointed questions. In any case, I don't think I have ever heard of a belief system composed of such an amalgamation. Would it be fair to classify you as a Christian materialist? ------@76: "Also I haven’t been able to reconcile absolutely everyting I said in the previous post with the Bible yet, nor that is something I’m comfortable with, so everything is tentative." You do indeed have a lot of tweaking to do, especially on the matter of free will.StephenB_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

-----Rob: “Where did I say that I know that “the paragraph did NOT happen as a result of law and chance”?” I was hoping that you would clarify that point. Either you think that [A] the paragraph happened solely by law and chance, [B] it did not happen solely by law and chance. Which position do you take? ----“ I infer that coherent, responsive English text is written by humans because I know of lots and lots of humans who can write such text, and I know of no non-human object that can do so. (Nothing has passed the Turing Test, as far as I know.) The inference to intelligent agents follows because humans fall into that category, as I understand it.” So, do you believe that these human agents who write the paragraphs are “natural causes?" Did these paragraphs generated by humans happen by necessity, by chance, or by choice? If all "non-supernatural" causes are "natural causes," including humans, how do you differentiate between those natural causes that can generate paragraphs and those that cannot.StephenB_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
One again I am not begging the question
Your talk of "distinguishing the agent from law and chance" only makes sense if agents are not themselves instances of law and chance. Do you agree? Since the phrase "distinguishing the agent from law and chance" is premised on an assumption that I don't accept, how is it not begging the question? StephenB:
Explain to me how you know that an intelligent agent wrote the paragraph and how you know that the paragraph did NOT happen as a result of law and chance.
That's two requests. The latter begs the question: Where did I say that I know that "the paragraph did NOT happen as a result of law and chance"? In regards to the former, I infer that coherent, responsive English text is written by humans because I know of lots and lots of humans who can write such text, and I know of no non-human object that can do so. (Nothing has passed the Turing Test, as far as I know.) The inference to intelligent agents follows because humans fall into that category, as I understand it.R0b_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

everythingJT_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

A couple of other things: Even if theories of evolution and lifes's origin are still woefully incomplete and only isolated bits and pieces of the process have been identified, is beside the point. It doesn't turn agency into a coherent alternative from a scientific standpoint, IMO. Also I haven't been able to reconcile absolutely everyting I said in the previous post with the Bible yet, nor that is something I'm comfortable with, so everything is tentative.JT_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus: I have reviewed most of your most recent comments but I don't have time to debate them at the moment. It would be easier however, (or rather it would be more productive at this juncture I believe) for me to briefly review my own personal philosophical stance for you. If possible I would hope to disabuse you of the notion that I am a secular humanist, a "sock-puppet" for Panda's Thumb (I've only been there a few times - so now I've alienated a whole other group), or engaging in a cynical and devious ruse to undermine the True and Right view of the cosmos, reality, nature, and God (O.K. that last part was rather snide). First of all I do not think randomness is an explanation for anything. I do not think you will get the works of Shakespeare by rolling dice, typing Monkeys, etc. HOWEVER, Darwinists are also quick to point out that they ALSO do not subscribe to chance or randomness alone as an explanation. THEREFORE, the challenge is not to make people understand the randomness does not accomplish anything. RATHER, it is to show how various mechanisms proposed by evo theorists largely EQUATE to randomness, IF INDEED THIS IS THE CASE. (OK, getting carried away with the caps, I'll stop that.) Consider random mutations and natural selection. If someone had proposed, "I believe humans evolved through mutations." You might respond, "OK, Mutations... and what else?", Response "Nothing else: - just random mutations." That person would be espousing pure randomness as an explanation. Of course it wouldn't be an explanation at all. The added ingredient to make it all seemingly work for evolution is natural laws (and also the environment). So its mutations plus natural laws. (Not saying you don't realize this, but for the sake of clarity...) Now there has always been a lot of handwaving regarding exactly what those natural laws are and how complex they are. Many presume and imply that those laws are extremely simple. We can of course envision simple laws that would simply not work at all. Imagine if these simple laws equated (in some sense) to "If the next mutation makes the binary string B an even number then accept it, else reject it." Obviously such natural laws would be powerless to do anything and would for practical purposes be no better than random. However what if the natural laws were, "If the next mutation gets me closer to an eye, then accept else reject". Obviously such natural laws could accomplish quite a lot. And please let us all understand: Regardless of what Plato said or believed, it would not require an "Intelligence" or Agency operating outside of law to discern whether or not a mutation got you closer to an eye. All it would require is some internalized template of what an eye was. But of course the idea of Natural Laws having a goal of an eye would be an anaethema to evo theorists. But it was merely to point out that we can imagine some set of laws at work that could accomplish quite a lot with mutations. In regard to agency: I am a Christian, that's for starters. I believe that would be relevant to you. I do not believe the concept of Agency as something distinct from Law and chance is a coherent idea. I sincerely do NOT believe that humans are agents in this sense. I think that we operate via complex physical and chemical processes. However unsettling the determinism of such a scenario is to you or anyone and however threatening it is too someone's sacrosanct concept of "Free-Will is irrelevant. It is ironic how many people who claim to believe the Bible COMPLETELY DISREGARD its clear and continual teachings regarding the sovereignty of God. It talks about people who "are born to be caught and destroyed." I could list 100 passages here if it were appropriate. But I mention all this because of the number of I.D. advocates who think somehow that they're getting the idea of "Free-will" from the Bible. This is just to emphasize for you: I sincerely do not believe in your concept of Agency. I don't care what Plato thought. Why is invoking Plato in this forum any more relevant than invoking the Bible? But back to natural law and mutations- First a digression: Imagine some primitive culture that said, "Clearly a baby was intelligently designed" And they did not have the technology to pursue that subject further. But someone came along said, "You know, I think that a baby came into existence via a gradual mindless mechanical process." I think the applicability of this scenario to the current debate should be evident. Both sides in the above could be correct. And yet, it would only be the second point of view that could potentially lead to actual knowledge of the process. Why could not conditions in the prelife universe equate in a logical sense to an embryonic human cell. Of course the complicating factor for evo-theorists is that according to them at least a substantial percentage of the genome came into existence by blind chance. Let me return to my elephant riddle: "How do you create a statue of an elephant? Answer: Get a block of stone and carve away everything that does not look like an elephant." Suppose the "natural laws" (i.e. the carver or the "intelligent designer") were quite extensive. Suppose that whatever piece of stone (mutations) you gave the carver (the natural laws) the carver would carve a trunk, big floppy ears, and a ridiculously small tail on that piece of stone. So the rule employed as cuts were being made to the stone would be, "If a cut gets me closer to a trunk (and so on) accept, else reject. (I'm starting to be inconsistent a little with the analogy, admittedly.) (And once again, it does not require "Agency" to recogize a trunk, floppy ears or a small tail.) But even with such very complex natural laws, to get an actual eleplant, then we're still leaving A LOT for the random mutations by themselves (that is the piece of stone) to accomplish on its own. To get an an elephant the stone would already have to have correct elephant legs and feet, correct elephant toenails, correct elephant eyes and mouth and so on. So it seems that evo-theorists as well will always be requring A LOT for random chance to accomplish on its own. And if we accept there are inherent and true limitations to what randomness can accomplish (which I believe everyone does), than evolution is in a real bind it would seem. Dembski talks about compressible strings being an incredibly minute perecentage of all strings. I think everyone understands you're never ever going to get some describable pattern characterizing a string of 1000 coin flips. Everyone understands you won't get a 1000 heads, or any other kind of discerenable pattern (much less Romeo and Juliet). You could conceivably get it, but the chances of doing so are absurdly small and can be ruled out (So needless to say, WE AGREE on that point.) So this would imply that the designer, that is the natural laws, the carver, had an extremely large percentage of elephant knowledge to begin with. "But wait a minute," the evo-theorists would counter, "The carver has to have an encoding as well. You have to consider the probablity of the carver occuring by chance." Not exactly. The carver could have ALWAYS EXISTED, and did not have to be created. Mutations OTOH are DEFINED as coming into existence at a point in time for no reason at all. [At this point, I may be affriming what many of you in I.D. already believe, which is good I guess.] So it looks bad for the evo-theorists at the moment. But let me take a direction which may change that picture. There is another well-known prominent scientist who takes a decidely different approach to I.D. than what is typically espoused in this forum. I am unfortunatly pretty bad with names, but everyone will know who I'm talking about in a moment. This particular individual has an extremely long list, thousands of items actually, of all the requirements for life. It is quite ridiculously and minutely detailed: "Life requires x% of nickel in the planets crust, it requires a sun that is x miles from the planet surface, etc. The list goes on and on and on. First of all, Let me note in passing that he is giving what amounts to a detailed phyisical spefcification for life, and more specifically human life. For those of you who fail to note this, the approach he is taking directly implies that human themselves are a complex physical process. (This isn't my main point which I will get to in a moment). The idea of a human being being a complex physical process flys directly in the face of all esoteric notions of nonmaterial agency. What is the point of life being a complex physical thing, if it isn't really relevant to what is special about humans. But anyway, to my main point: The next step for this individual is to go through the ridiculously long list of physical elements and assign a probability to each of them. He is quite vague about how he has actually derived these enormous numbers of probabilities. Furthermore, the probabilites are constantly changing (and new items are being constantly added to the list). Well the point of this whole exercise is to show that the probablity for getting a human being ostensibly exceeds the probabilistic resources of the physical universe. This to him indicates a nonmaterial intelligence is responsible to magically make up for the probablisitic deficit. It is not a compelling argument to me at all. The planet earth is an incredibly minute portion of the universe -ridiculously small. Let's assume that man does assume a supreme position in creation. I am taking a drastic turn admittedly to talk in these terms, but for a large percentage of I.D. advocates (for example those that believe the Bible) this should be a natural point of view. The question would be, why would a humongous universe be created if its really good for nothing? What seems intuitive to me is that the universe is as large as it is and contains as much energy as it does, so that its probablistic resources COULD be exploited. If no one in I.D. can truly see the inherent reasonablenss in such an assumption, then I am truly at a loss. The self-serving efforts to compute probabilites with a foregone conculusion in mind (that there had to be something outside of the universe to account for life) completely dodges the obvious question as to why then does the universe even exist. So, from that vantage point, it seems clear how randomness MUST HAVE played a large role in our creation. The way I personally tend to look at of late, is that God ultimately would be an infinite source of passive information, but creation (i.e. the universe and life) would have been tapping into this source of information in a completely random and chaotic fashion. Some configurations resulting from such a process (for example some of those in biological life) do not prove to be ultimately viable. They exist for a while, then go extinct, and are never heard from again. But some do not die off - some in fact eventually attain immortality. I would personally tie Jesus into the whole picture at some point. And I think how the randomness of the universe eventually results in man and then immoratality, has something to do with God making a point to demons concerning His own Sovereignty. That is, God is ultimately sovereign over the seemingly random affairs of nature, just as the Bible says he is Sovereign over the affairs of men. (I've left a lot of question unanswered, and probably lost people on both sides of the argument now.) But to return specifically to the domain of science. If Man is a complex physical process, then the reasonabless of seeing him as resulting from complex physical processes in the universe becomes much more apparent. And this would be the appropriate domain of science -an explanation for man in terms of things that could be physically observed and quantified. To look at that vast universe out there and not be able to see how there could be preexisting phyiscal conditions that correlated to man, seems to me an incredible form of blindness. And to reiterate what I've said multiple times, that shouldn't be a threat to anyone because you're just pushing back what needs to be explained. IOW, if f(x) results in man, then f(x) is just man in a previous form. Just einstein as a baby is pretty incedible, or einsein as an embryonic cell, or take the physical picture back as far as you care to. So, now it should be apparent how my own views start to converge with many of those here at I.D., except on this concept of nonmaterial agency, which from a standpoint of science, I will continue maintain is an incoherent notion.JT_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

PS: Let's boil it down. Some days back, i had occasionto go to the Wikipedia articles on ID, there finding an icon of a pocket-watch, doubtless on the strawmannish accusation that ID is simply Paley's argument recycled. Well: WE HAVE FOUND AN AUTONOMOUS, NANOMACHINE-BASED COMPUTER AT THE HEART OF THE CELL. We are being told that his is the product of chance + necessity, never mind what we know about searching for needles in haystacks, and what we know about the routine cause of such information- rich functional organisation. Where do computer architectures ROUTINELY come from? information for operating and applying them? Algorithms? Data structures? Coded programs? Computer languages? Interfaces? Has it ever been observed that such originate by chance + necessity, with no directed contingency, i.e without design? Why then is it suddenly "un-/ anti- scientific" to infer -- as, say, Newton did -- that "like causes like"? Could this imposed worldview have something to do with it:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [Lewontin, 1997, cf recent pronouncements by the US National Academy of Sciences, etc., that seem o have made this "official" now]
We the "sheeple" had better wake up fast! GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Following up: First, let me paraphrase Jefferson, echoing Socrates, on debate: >>. . . that wicked art, that makes the worse appear the better case; being therein abetted by rhetoric, the art of [deceptive] persuasion, not demonstration>> >> That -- and it saddens me to have to highlight it -- is precisely what we do not need, JT. So, let us -- reluctantly -- start with the issues raised by Plato and Cicero. For, while it will not do to let the thread get utterly distracted by running after all of JT's red herrings dragged out to strawmen soaked in oil of ad hominem and ignited to cloud and poison the atmosphere for discussion, enough needs to be exposed that the reasonable reader may see for him-/her- self just why the evo mat advocates are now forced to resort to fallacies instead of addressing the matter on the issues, and relying on the strength of their case on the merits: 1] Causal factors as a trichotomy It has been aptly said that when we go in any direction, we meet Socrates, Plato and Aristotle on the way back. (This is because when really core questions are at stake, the reasonable major worldview options in light of our conscious mental and moral existence are few and the implications are evident. The issue is, which basic answer makes for the most reasonable view, in light of comparative difficulties.) Now, JT has decided to try to discredit it the quite evident reasonableness of the trichotomy of causal factors across [a] chance, [b] law- like mechanical force of necessity and [c] intelligence or art as first seriously documented by Plato, by pretending that to advert to that history and to the associated remarkable anticipation of current debates 2350 years later -- and I use that word with its full negative connotations in mind -- is to advert to discredited medieval scholasticism. So, JT wishes to squeeze my remarks in 57, point 7 into the strawman, "because Plato said it “we can be fairly confident” its true." [68] (Onlookers may easily confirm that this is grossly false and at minimum utterly irresponsible, by simply scrolling up.) What I actually have said is:
Plato is cited to show that the chance/ necessity/ intelligence trichotomy of causal factors was immemorial 2,350 years ago . . . .we see that if after over 2,000 years no clearly identified “fourth factor” (as materialistic Darwinists under pressure often appeal to) has emerged, we can be fairly confident that the three factors are a reliably useful way to look at causal factors. And, that the burden of proof to show otherwise rests on those who object — one they are plainly unwilling to take up. (Onlookers, no prizes for guessing why.) Moreover, this trichotomy as presented by Plato already explicitly shows that 2350 years ago, the materialistic account of origins was already on the table, and (cf Democritus’ and Lucretius’ failure) lost the battle on the merits for preferred explanation of the cosmos . . .
Now, too, we can think about the inner logic involved (which would be more profitable than futile exchange with one who resorts to strawman tactics), AGAIN using the familiar dropped and tumbling die example that JT and Rob so obviously struggle to understand:
a --> Sometines, events unfolding under fairly similar initial circumstances happen in [a] a regular, predictable way; and at other times, [b] they may vary considerable and even strikingly. b --> Under the first, and as exemplified by classic Newtonian dynamics and associated calculus of differential equations, we speak of natural, law-like mechanical forces of necessity that once initial conditions are set up, produce a naturally regular outcome due to forces of change, inertia and rates and accumulations of change. For instance, a dropped heavy object naturally falls. On earth at its surface, under a force of 9.8 N/kg. c --> Now, too, in the latter case of quite dissimilar outcomes, sometimes the contingent outcome is credibly undirected and stochastic; i.e. it may be seen as fulfilling the terms of mathematical randomness in alignment with models of such chance behaviour. E.g. if the just dropped object is a fair die, it tumbles and spins upon edges and sides [i.e. sensitive dependence on initial conditions] and unpredictably [that starts with tiny divergences in initial conditions . . .] coming to rest reading 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6 with probability 1 in 6 per side. (Note, too that the mechanism of getting to this classic illustration of chance is to make multiple, uncorrelated chains of cause-effect collide unpredictably. Rather like how in my dad's day, statistics departments used to use telephone directories -- most definitely NOT a random matter -- to generate random numbers,) d --> But perhaps the die is loaded instead, i.e. it has been art-fully manipulated to shift away from those fair dice odds. That is, we deal now with DIRECTED contingency, i.e. design. [Observe too, how this shows that both chance and design may be at work in a situation, on different aspects -- a clever cheat will not make the die give the "right" outcome all the time . . . .] e --> Thus we see observation/decision forks:[i] lo/hi contingency, and [ii] directed [i.e. controlled] vs undirected contingency. In the low contingency, natural regularity case, we infer to necessity. In the case of credibly directed contingency, we infer to design. In the case of credibly undirected contingency, we infer to chance. under the EF, we revert to chance if in doubt, to make sure that when we do infer to design, it is with high reliability. f --> And since such and investigation is of course empirical, the assignment is more or less well-warranted but provisional. As is all serious scientific work.
It will be a bit hard to squeeze in a fourth causal factor there, I think. As to the idea that we may "reduce" design to chance + necessity, and perhaps onward chance to necessity, that would have to be SHOWN, not assumed or simply brazenly asserted. In any case,w e see that C, N and D are established as empirically well warranted. This brings us to the second stage, and to the cite from Cicero raised in 57, point 8, in response to an ad hominem laced strawman: 2] FSCI as a sign of design, per the needle in a haystack challenge Now, as I pointed out above, Cicero raised the thought experiment that >>a great quantity of the one-and-twenty letters, composed either of gold or any other matter, were thrown upon the ground>> then suggested a physically and logically possible outcome where such could spontaneously form FSCI: >> they . . . fall into such order as legibly to form the Annals of Ennius [a classical Latin poem]>> He then retorted: >> I doubt whether fortune could make a single verse of them. >> Thus, he has posed from 50 BC a classic -- and unanswered to this day -- challenge to materialists who incorporate Lucretius' random swerve to account for non-deterministic outcomes: how do you find the needle of FSCI in the haystack of non-functional configurations, within the reasonable search resources of our observed cosmos? And, how does JT answer that challenge? By trying to change the subject, to make out that Cicero proposed ideas that are not credible today so we can dismiss all that he had to say. He did that months ago, and he is now citing that again. So, let my answer from 57 stand in first rebuttal:
Cicero . . . used the case of getting to intelligible digital information of sufficiently complexity by chance as his example of the absurdity of the concept of chance + necessity spontaneously creating the cosmos as we see it. In short, his diagnosis of the problem is spot-on. His suggested alternative explanation, shaped by his pagan environment, was wrong. But that is irrelevant to the force of the above cited. Namely, that 2050 years ago, it was well understood that a search space challenge as evolutionary materialists today assume can be easily surmounted, was known to be insuperable to the point of absurdity.
Onlookers will note that after the smoke of burning strawmen clears, we find that I have not signed up to Cicero's worldview or his use of whatever is translated as "gravitation" but on the material issue, nowhere a serious engagement of the challenge that Cicero posed to those who would extract serious information from lucky noise, and which is still on the table; unanswered. 3] But FSCI is not a clear, coherent, measurable etc concept . . . There is a certain agitprop tactic, by which a falsehood, trumpeted repeatedly, is perceived as if it were the truth. Its refutation - once we have equal access to the forum of discussion [and the tactics of censorship and expulsion against ID are thereby exposed for what they are . . . ] -- is quite simple. Contrast:
[a]jwehgiqwyht8024wjtfgq3uihjioawehgasbnfgvq239rfh3hiq2gfwrfu9wrfio0ery9fghqwruofgiowuyhfg9qwrhfgioweryht80guw3rtgrertyejdowujrshlkdckshfwpf4i9jejgyp [b] gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg [c] This is a coherent, complex sentence with sufficient number of ASCII characters that a reasonable observer will see that it is an example of FSCI; i.e. it exceeds 143 ASCII characters of contextually responsive English.
As has been discussed previously, a text string of ASCII characters in excess of 143 has in it 2^1000+ configs of binary digits. that is more than ten times the SQUARE of the number of quantum states of the atoms of our observed cosmos, across its credible lifespan. So, the cosmos acting as search engine would not be able to sample as much as 1 in 10^150 of the config space. (And BTW, Dembski and Marks in their latest work are further exploring the needle in the haystack search problem that is a key component of the FSCI concept. The insistently reiterated falsehood that "Dembski has abandoned CSI and functionally specified CSI" mantra is another willful distortion in service to an agenda that cannot stand on the merits. So is the fallacious argumentum ad Dembski. [FYI, evo mat advocates, as my always linked page will show; I am an independent ID thinker, and have come to my own views in light of fairly obvious implications of even basic level information theory and related statistical thermodynamics].) Now, too, unicellular life forms capable of independent existence, start out at 300 - 500 DNA base pairs, or 600,000 bits. Such DNA has an observed function that is vulnerable to perturbation, i.e is functionally specified; and, per deep isolation in an enormous config space, is complex. Since it is the heart of an info storage and processing system, it is information. Thus, to a high degree of confidence we may conclude that DNA, as FSCI, is a designed object. And, with that conclusion, the Darwinian evolutionary materialist account of origins of life and body-plan level biodiversity, collapses. Never mind the Darwinist rhetorical distractions and obfuscations designed to confuse the issue. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 24, 2009
February
02
Feb
24
24
2009
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

Well, I have just discovered that number 8 plus a ")" becomes a smile with black glasses... I will remember that for my long lists!gpuccio_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT}

Just a note: the smile in the previous post was not intended: it just had to be number 8) of the list. :-) (this smile is intended)gpuccio_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT}

JT: About your #65: interesting post. A few brief comments: 1) "even a rock is describable by a Turing machine". Correct, but as you say immediately after, one thing is to be "describable", another thing is to "describe". Symbolic information describes. 2) "Well there are sets of instructions bees give other bees, right? Their dances signify that the pollen is in this or that position relative to the sun, or whatever. That’s symbolic information. Its a set of instructions, a program." Correct, but the point is that we usually assume that such kinds of information (like all instinctive behaviours in animals) are in some way coded in the genome of the species. In that sense, they are further astounding evidence of the FSCI in biological beings. I can agree that the instinctive behaviour of animals is really astounding. But the point is that it is repetitive, and does not change. It can be FSCI, but it is always the same FSCI, and that points to some kind of information written somewhere (although I could not say how and where). On the contrary, humans generate new FSCI all the time, and it changes all the time. That's one of the main differences between animals and humans, and, I suppose, the cause of what we call human cultures. 3) "Even grass itself can be a program. To a hungry cow, its not just some meaningless green matter. Seeing the grass elicits some sort of emotional response in the cow - excitement, relief, anticipation. That grass has a symbolic meaning to that cow" Partially correct. Again, you switch the program and the thing described. There is a program here, but it is in the cow. The instinctive program in the cow gives a symbolic meaning to the grass, and connects it to feeding. So, we are again in the scenario of point 2. 4) "I would say a program is any complex physical object P that effects some other object C in some complex way." Partially correct. You are, meaningfully, avoiding the functional aspect. Programs, like machines, are functional. It is not enough that P effects C in a complex way: it is necessary that such effect be functional, in other words, that it may be recognizable as connected to some definable purpose. Your approach is typical of all those who, in order to stick to a purely materialistic view of reality, purposefully ignore all the conscious aspects of it. But consciousness and purpose are observable facts: you cannot ignore them. 5) "Would it be the contention in I.D. that a computer program could itself not write another program?" Absolutely not. But the computer program is just utilizing the information which was inputted in it, including the information about how to elaborate that information. The program has no purpose in doing that, but it is passively effecting the purpose of the intelligent agent who designed it. 6) "If you tell a program ” I want to go to the closest Pizza Hut in DesMoines Iowa, and it gives you a complex series of directions, That’s a program it just wrote [If it hasn't been clear previously I'm interpreting FCSI as "complex symbolic program"]." Have you noticed that programs do not create any new significant language? If they answer you in english, you may be sure that those words are already there, maybe a little bit reshuffled. It is not the program which is answering you, but its programmer. When you play at a digital soccer game, and hear the recorded (and variously reshuffled) comments to what happens, do you really believe that it's the program which is speaking and commenting? 7) "But once again this begs this question that humans and intelligence or whatever caused them shouldn’t be considered part of nature." I am completely neutral abou the word "nature": it means everything one wants it to mean. I have no problem to consider humans and intelligence as part of nature, or as supernatural: it just depends on how you define "nature". Let's say here that they are part of nature. That just means that they are real and observable, but it does not mean that you can explain them by the same principles which you successfully use for other parts of nature, like matter. If you believe you can do that, you have to show us how you can do it. Otherwise, you have to accept them as unexplained parts of nature, or define other kinds of principles in nature (which is exactly what ID does with the concepts of conscious intelligent agent and of design). 8) "I will grant you this: The complexity of a program says something about the complexity of whatever program created it. Usually the creating program will be much much more complex. So imagine the most complex series of directions the program mentioned above might be called upon to provide. We can bet that the program itself is much more complex than that.So it would seem that the complexity of humans says something about the complexity of nature." Here you are, IMO, mistaken. It's not programs which write programs, but conscious intelligent agents (let's call them CIAs). A program written by a CIA can be complex enough to be able to write another, simpler program, but that's not the point. You imply that: a) CIAs can write programs because they are more complex than the programs they write. b) Nature (whatever it is) can write CIAs because it is more complex than them. Well, I don't agree with a): as I have stated many times, humans IMO can generate CSI because they are conscious and intelligent, and consciousness and intelligence cannot be explained only as a product of the complexity of the program (brain). But, obviously, that's debatable and would bring us to discuss strong AI theory, which is probably not appropriate here. But b) is obviously false. Even if you are a strict darwinist, you cannot believe that the complexity of, say, humans, is the product of a higher complexity in nature, as though it were "embedded" in nature somewhere somehow. Darwinists and materialists indeed do believe in the astounding theory that the complexity in humans arises "of itself", through RV and NS, and did not exist before. Now, those mechanisms can be in some way embedded in nature, but not certainly the complexity they supposedly create. But, obviously (at least for me), the point is that the complexity in biological beings is not created by those mechanisms: like all other designed things, it is the product of a conscious intelligent agent (that's, indeed, the ID theory, which we are debating here). However, if you believe that nature is so complex that it can administer that complexity to less complex things like living beings through a simple mechanical process of reshuffling information, then you are not a materialist, but a TE. No problem if you are, but I have little hope that I can really discuss constructively with a strict TE; they just believe in things which are completely beyond my ability even to conceive. But in the end, I suppose, I will try to discuss just the same, even if with little hope.gpuccio_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT}

-----Rob: "And I have never disputed the reality of inferring design. Can you quote anybody who has? But that is not “the same as conceding … the possibility of distinguishing the agent from law and chance.” As we’ve been over many times, that begs the question of whether intelligent agents are reducible to law+chance." One again I am not begging the question, you are avoiding the question. Explain to me how you know that an intelligent agent wrote the paragraph and how you know that the paragraph did NOT happen as a result of law and chance.StephenB_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus [57]:
[JT]: Imagine a moment in dinosaur history. Let 1 correspond to a live dinosaur and 0 to a dead one. Now the asteroid hits. All 0’s.
This is simply your ex-post facto assignment of 1 = live and 0 = death. In short, you have painted the target after the fact.

[KF 50]: If i were to see a large pattern of “1’s” that is repeated strongly in a credibly “natural” context, I would first suspect a force, similar to crystallisation. I would hen try to experimentally replicate that aspect of the phenomenon, and if I see that there is a mechanical framework that reliably triggers the chain of 1’s, I would seek explanation per the underlying 4 dynamical forces of nature.
So please explain why you wouldn't apply the same vague dismissive asessment to your own example above. (Wait... Please don't explain.)
Moreover, your example cites a case in which the assignment of 1/0 fulfills no information-functional role — and FUNCTIONAL specification is the one that is relevant.
Functional information as vaguely conceived of late in I.D. circles plays no part in Dembski's work, the context in which the illustration of a long series of 1's originated. Are you saying a long series of 1's in your crystal are functional? Would you likewise ascribe functional information to the atomic weight of various natural elements. As far as crystals, I guess this implies that snowflakes are intelligently designed.
] This is where this argument from ignorance enters in I.D. “If you know about a mechanism that caused something, then the cause is a mechanism. If you don’t its design.”.
Not at all. You have fallen into selecticve hyperskepticism, as the design inference is doing nothing beyond the ordinary for scientific explanations; which are inherently (but often implicitly) provisional. For, we already KNOW per massive experience that chance, necessity and agency are three possible and well-known causal factors. So, if we infer on best current explanation , that a particular aspect is best explained by intelligence per reliable signs thereof, that is an empirically based explanation in light of an empirically established pattern.
Whatever explanation anyone has come up with for anything at any time in history, is the best they could evidently come up with. (I have to say here, that if I don't answer something of KF's its likely because it was not worthy of comment. Whatever his virtues may be, everyone must admit that in all cases he favors quantity over quality.)
<5] Dembski’s latest work involves Evolutionary Algorithms, and has nothing to do with FCSI.
Not so! [Marks and Dembski in their recent work are further refining the challenge of finding targets in large configuration spaces, and have introduced the idea that effective search requires active information, e.g. the use of oracles that broadcast warmer/colder messages.)
Yes, that's not FCSI. Also I think you're just invoking the word oracle because I used it previously. Furthermore, Dembski has not shown oracles are necessary to accomplish natural processes.
[JT:] nowhere does he [Dembski] associate the concept of Agency with Plato . . . , no one in science today would appeal to any ancient Greek as an authoritarian spokesman
Twisted and caricatured beyond recognition, then knocked over with a convenient reference to medieval [hints of "fundy dummy . . ."] scholasticism’s alleged blind following of “authorities.” JT — as you know or SHOULD know — Plato is cited to show that the chance/ necessity/ intelligence trichotomy of causal factors was immemorial 2,350 years ago. Thus, we see that if after over 2,000 years no clearly identified “fourth factor” (as materialistic Darwinists under pressure often appeal to) has emerged, we can be fairly confident that the three factors are a reliably useful way to look at causal factors. And, that the burden of proof to show otherwise rests on those who object — one they are plainly unwilling to take up. (Onlookers, no prizes for guessing why.)
You must throw a torrent of verbiage out even when you don't actually have an argument. Notice you did not refute my contention that Dembski does not invoke Plato to defend the concept of Agency. Basically all you done is affirm that because Plato said it "we can be fairly confident" its true.
[JT:]Up until maybe a year and half ago, you use to refer to some ancient greek as the father of I.D. I pointed out to you where in his own writings he said that the only reason that planets could stay precisely in their orbits is that they were sentient beings
An unworthy ad hominem, and based on tendentious distortion of the facts in an exchange not accessible to the casual onlooker. I still cite — it still heads my online note that is linked in every comment I make here at UD — and have cited the Roman, Cicero, on the subject that he inferred that the random shuffling of digital characters is unlikely to get to an intelligible communication. Namely:
Is it possible for any man to behold these things [the complex and orderly cosmos], and yet imagine that certain solid and individual bodies move by their natural force and gravitation, and that a world so beautifully adorned was made by their fortuitous concourse? He who believes this may as well believe that if a great quantity of the one-and-twenty letters, composed either of gold or any other matter, were thrown upon the ground, they would fall into such order as legibly to form the Annals of Ennius. I doubt whether fortune could make a single verse of them. How, therefore, can these people assert that the world was made by the fortuitous concourse of atoms, which have no color, no quality—which the Greeks call [poiotes], no sense? [Cicero, THE NATURE OF THE GODS BK II Ch XXXVII, C1 BC, as trans Yonge (Harper & Bros., 1877), pp. 289 - 90.]
Evidently you aren't even able to parse the above correctly. He says he can't image solid and individual bodies moving by their natural force and gravitation. I did find my previous comment on this: So according to Cicero, it is impossible that planets move merely by the force of gravity. More words of wisdom from Cicero: the world has virtue, and it is also wise, and consequently a Deity. XV. The divinity of the world being now clearly perceived, we must acknowledge the same divinity to be likewise in the stars I cannot, therefore, conceive that this constant course of the planets, this just agreement in such various motions through all eternity, can be preserved without a mind, reason, and consideration;and since we may perceive these qualities in the stars, we cannot but place them in the rank of Gods His fourth cause, and that the strongest, is drawn from the regularity of the motion and revolution of the heavens, the distinctness, variety, beauty, and order of the sun, moon, and all the stars, the appearance only of which is sufficient to convince us they are not the effects of chance; as when we enter into a house, or school, or court, and observe the exact order, discipline, and method of it, we cannot suppose that it is so regulated without a cause, but must conclude that there is some one who commands, and to whom obedience is paid. It is quite impossible for us to avoid thinking that the wonderful motions, revolutions, and order of those many and great bodies, no part of which is impaired by the countless and infinite succession of ages, must be governed and directed by some supreme intelligent being. The first point, then, says Lucilius, I think needs no discourse to prove it; for what can be so plain and evident, when we behold the heavens and contemplate the celestial bodies, as the existence of some supreme, divine intelligence, by which all these things are governed? Were it otherwise, Ennius would not, with a universal approbation, have said, Look up to the refulgent heaven above, Which all men call, unanimously, Jove. This is Jupiter, the governor of the world, who rules all things with his nod…
[JT:]On agency his [Dembski's] argument is basically, “Everybody already agrees that agency exists.” (He doesn’t do this by referring to Plato, because the medieval connection would be to blatant, IMO.) Point out to me any where a logical or scientific argument for agency exists in his works.
Fallacious argumentum ad Dembski, AGAIN. JT, assuming you are not lucky noise mimicking intelligible signals — cf Cicero’s rebuke to such as think that chance gets us to functional text strings — YOU are the counter-example that shows that agency is real.
I notice that again, you respond with some sort of heated verbiage, but don't challenge the actual point: Dembski makes no actual logical or scientific argument for the existence of Agency.
Are you or are you not a rational, verbalising, deciding animal? Onlookers: in short, we are here at reductio ad absurdum on the part of evolutionary materialism: its advocates cannot consistently reason their case while adhering to their premises. (Even the pagan thinkers of 2,000+ years ago knew better than that.)
Yet again, this idea that agency, distinct from law or mechanism, as defined by Plato, is necessary for rational thought to take place.JT_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

correction "So everything in nature is characterizable as a program. " should read "So everything in nature is characterizable by a program. "JT_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

correction "But P would be symbolic in that the states that it could be in did not have some sort of intrinsic connection to P." should read But P would be symbolic in that the states that it could be in did not have some sort of intrinsic connection to C.JT_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

jerry [55]:
The label [FCSI] does not make the concept but the concept as you say is unique is not correct. We see it elsewhere in two places both with humans. Language and computer software are similar. In each patterns of information which is complex specify something else which is functional.
I remember reading once before that even a rock is describable by a Turing machine. So everything in nature is characterizable as a program. But the contention would presumably be that DNA is itself a program, encoding symbolic information, and is also very complex. Are there any other programs like this in nature aside from human artifacts (and DNA)? Well there are sets of instructions bees give other bees, right? Their dances signify that the pollen is in this or that position relative to the sun, or whatever. That's symbolic information. Its a set of instructions, a program. No one's claiming its as complex as human programs can be, and here we're back to the degree vs. kind debate. Of course ID, would want to say its different in kind. But it seems the nature of science is to always search for some set of metrics by which we can quantify differences. Even grass itself can be a program. To a hungry cow, its not just some meaningless green matter. Seeing the grass elicits some sort of emotional response in the cow - excitement, relief, anticipation. That grass has a symbolic meaning to that cow . But I guess we should try to think of programs that are more complex than grass. I would say a program is any complex physical object P that effects some other object C in some complex way. It is important that C and P be generally considered as different distinct objects. Such a distinction would be a matter of convention, but nevertheless crucial. Object P would have to be something that could assume a number of possible different states, such that these different configurations elicited different sort ofs behaviors in C. But P would be symbolic in that the states that it could be in did not have some sort of intrinsic connection to P. So for example think about a tornado C, and the sorts of things that could be external to it, not properly considered part of the tornado itself, things that could exhibit a number of different configurations and effect how the tornado behaved. So landmasses, bodies of water etc would would be a "program" that caused the tornado to behave in a certain way. Stated in another way, landmassed and bodies of water would serve to program how the computer behaved. Of course in this last statement we're using "program" as a verb implying action on the part of these entities external to the tornado. Would it be the contention in I.D. that a computer program could itself not write another program? Clearly that's not the case. If you tell a program " I want to go to the closest Pizza Hut in DesMoines Iowa, and it gives you a complex series of directions, That's a program it just wrote [If it hasn't been clear previously I'm interpreting FCSI as "complex symbolic program"].
Therefore humans or intelligence could be a source for the origin of DNA. Nature has never produced anything similar as far as we know but we could eventually find something.
But once again this begs this question that humans and intelligence or whatever caused them shouldn't be considered part of nature. I will grant you this: The complexity of a program says something about the complexity of whatever program created it. Usually the creating program will be much much more complex. So imagine the most complex series of directions the program mentioned above might be called upon to provide. We can bet that the program itself is much more complex than that.So it would seem that the complexity of humans says something about the complexity of nature. If the term intelligence is applicable to a physical process based on the sort of behaviors it exhibits, or the sort of output it can produce, then anyone that wants to call nature intelligent go right ahead.JT_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

Surely, you don’t think intelligent agents can use the electronic forces of nature to design insults or to rearrange the letters so as to cause offense. That would be the same as conceding the reality of a design inference and the possibility of distinguishing the agent from law and chance.
Actually, I do think that intelligent agents can design insults and rearrange letters. And I have no problem detecting that the comments on this site are written by intelligent agents, namely humans. And I have never disputed the reality of inferring design. Can you quote anybody who has? But that is not "the same as conceding ... the possibility of distinguishing the agent from law and chance." As we've been over many times, that begs the question of whether intelligent agents are reducible to law+chance.R0b_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

@62 make that, "rearrange the letters [of the alphabet]."StephenB_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

----Rob: "If I sound condescending, I apologize. I’ve certainly been on the receiving end of much worse on this forum. (Evidence available on request.)" Why should that be an issue. If you received any abuse, it undoubtedly happened as a result of "natural forces." As you have taught us, there is no way to know whether intelligent agencies can be distinquished from the forces of nature. So, why would you be offended at the prospect of those same natural forces playing out as they will. Surely, you don't think intelligent agents can use the electronic forces of nature to design insults or to rearrange the letters so as to cause offense. That would be the same as conceding the reality of a design inference and the possibility of distinguishing the agent from law and chance.StephenB_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

----JT: "Respectfully, that’s a cop out. ----I’m looking up quotes continually." So, do I. That doesn't mean I won't share a fact with someone even if I can't find immediate references. Quotes are important, but understanding what they mean and placing them in a fair context matters more. I will be kind to you here and refrain from alluding to some recent events. On another front, I recently had to point out to someone that 95.8% of evolutionary biologists are atheist/agnostic. At the time, I didn't have access to the study. Since I knew I was telling the truth, I didn't hesitate to share the information. I read at least one book every week, and most of them are not on my shelf. Should I hesitate to pass along information found in them simply because I can't provide a page number? I don't think so. Only those who have built their entire education through Googling can provide references for everything they know. On yet another occassion, a Darwinist alluded to the language in the "Treaty of Tripoli" as evidence that the Founding Fathers did not accept and promote Christian principles in government. I knew that this treaty was an anomaly because it was written in decidedly diplomatic language to appease Muslims and avoid a crisis, meaning that they expunged some of the triniatrian references that they normally used. So, I went ahead and listed five other treaties from memory knowing that all of them contained Christian references and, as best I could, summarizine what was said. Darwinists are very good at uncovering novel facts and applying them out of context in order to promote falsehoods. I try not to let them get away with it. (I now have those treaties on record, but I needed to make the point in a timely way even though I didn't have the references available.) Reading books provide benefits that Googling on the internet cannot match. Most of us don't keep every book we have ever read in our library. Does that mean that we shouldn't draw from their wisdom? In that same spirit, I have read Dembski's own words to the effect that he admits he could be wrong about some aspects of ID science, and he has said that more than once. That was a display of humility that I thought worth sharing. Your reaction was that I would have to provide the quote word for word before I could be believed. I was not and am not inclined to take extra time out to track it down. Onlookers know that I always tell the truth. That is good enough for me. If you are going to go after my credibility, you will have to do better than that.StephenB_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

borne:
Well, Dembski did not invent the CSI term.
Yes he did. If you don't believe me, ask him. CSI and "specified complexity" are not the same term, although the the terms are used interchangeably. Furthermore, Dembski's concept that he labels "specified complexity" is not the same concept that Orgel previously labeled with the same term. Dembski invented both the concept and the term CSI, unless you count the prior "Crime Scene Investigation" usage.
In any case. A string of 1’s has no complexity in statistical terms.
How do you measure complexity in statistical terms, and what does that measure have to do with the complexity measure in CSI?
You cannot calculate the probability of a string of 1’s separate from a given context (sample space).
Absolutely, and I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that the sample space in question is any binary string. We also need to know the distribution conferred by the null hypothesis, which is why I'm careful to state "under a uniform null hypothesis". But the fact is that Dembski and other ID proponents often talk about CSI quantities without stating the distribution, and a uniform distribution is almost always assumed.
What I don’t like most though is your tone of arrogant self-assurance and condescendence, and that without evidence or clear data.
If I sound condescending, I apologize. I've certainly been on the receiving end of much worse on this forum. (Evidence available on request.) I'm happy to back up anything I've said with evidence and clear data. All you need to do is challenge something specific.
Also, Dembski’s a great scientist imo, but that doesn’t mean he has understood CSI himself completely. It’s still clear to the mind because it’s intuitive, but put it in mathematically form is not easy.
So much for the supposed rigor of Dembski's work.R0b_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

BTW, I've been to Nazca, Peru (in spanish, spelled Nasca) and seen the lines first hand. Amazing thing is that we don't know the Designer(s), only that they belong to a group of people we've called the "Nazca Civilization." But their culture is surrounded by questions and the little that we know about them we have had to gather from physical artifacts, which lead us to infer the existence of a designing civilization from relics. In much the same way, ID doesn't need to identify the Designer(s) of biological systems to infer design or know much about them, other than what group they belong to (Intelligent Agents) and we can then infer their existence from relics (similar to how we infer the existence of the Nazca culture by what they left behind.) And yes, we have Nazca mummies and bones, but this is a side issue. Bones would only tell us that Nazca people existed. They would not tell us that Nazca CULTURE existed; only relics that bear signs of intelligence can do that. AtomAtom_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

gpuccio and KF, I was going to jump in as I started reading this thread, but as usual you two cut straight to the point and answered the criticisms soundly. No need to correct anyone, as you've already pointed out what I was going to (contingency vs. necessity.) Anyway, good work you two. AtomAtom_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

Ah: A target rich environment this morning! But first: Stephen, my apologies on misattribution . . . Now: 1] JT, 50: Its [the concept of "specification" in CSI or FSCI] circular, vague, presumptive and useless Does DNA fulfill as function? Does contextually responsive ASCII text in English? Do source code and object code in computers? Does an engineer's written or drawn description of a design? The answer is obvious, and so your objection is plainly specious, and sadly revealing. 2] Imagine a moment in dinosaur history. Let 1 correspond to a live dinosaur and 0 to a dead one. Now the asteroid hits. All 0’s. This is simply your ex-post facto assignment of 1 = live and 0 = death. In short, you have painted the target after the fact. And, you are refusing to address the Explanatory Filter (as addressed to aspects of a situation), an integral part of the framework: the situation, if the reconstruction of the past circa 65 mn years ago is basically correct -- is evidently a product of chance + necessity. Moreover, your example cites a case in which the assignment of 1/0 fulfills no information-functional role -- and FUNCTIONAL specification is the one that is relevant. (Algorithmic compressibility is also useful, cf. Trevors and Abel on OSC, RSC and FSC; cf App 3 my always linked.) Contrast, too, the Caputo case, as identified and linked. In that case, R and D are inherently functional and are not an after the fact target painting exercise. 3] This is where this argument from ignorance enters in I.D. “If you know about a mechanism that caused something, then the cause is a mechanism. If you don’t its design.” Not at all. You have fallen into selecticve hyperskepticism, as the design inference is doing nothing beyond the ordinary for scientific explanations; which are inherently (but often implicitly) provisional. For, we already KNOW per massive experience that chance, necessity and agency are three possible and well-known causal factors. So, if we infer on best current explanation, that a particular aspect is best explained by intelligence per reliable signs thereof, that is an empirically based explanation in light of an empirically established pattern. Scientific inferences aim to be empirically anchored, reasonable and reliable, not to be true beyond all possible future revision. 4] FCSI is “pretheoretic”. In scientific reasoning, descriptions of observed facts and key features of the world are -- for excellent reason -- prior to and even more important than the theories or models that seek to explain them through abduction [cf above linked]. So, why are you trying to rhetorically turn an epistemic virtue into a perceived epistemic vice? FSCI is a key fact of our world, one that per empirically based explanation has one observed cause: intelligence. (Onlookers, observe how despite much struggle, the objectors to the concept cannot find a reasonable counterexample.) 5] Dembski’s latest work involves Evolutionary Algorithms, and has nothing to do with FCSI. Not so! [Marks and Dembski in their recent work are further refining the challenge of finding targets in large configuration spaces, and have introduced the idea that effective search requires active information, e.g. the use of oracles that broadcast warmer/colder messages.) And, this ignores the works of Durston, Chiu, Trevors and Abel etc, as published 2005 - 2007. Look up OSC, RSC and FSC, starting with the article linked at WAC no 27 above. Onlookers: observe, the number of researchers EXPLICITLY working on ID is growing, including an emerging new generation of researchers whose qualification is in ID. The attempt to kill ID before it can so reproduce itself, has failed. Durston, I predict, will join the top tier of ID researchers. (All that NCSE et al have managed to do is to push that out of the US -- KD is studying in Canada. So, since ID has fairly obvious implications for cryptology and for reverse engineering, that is suggestive that the evo mat magisterium has done American science a grave disservice that will come back to haunt your nation on security and economic progress.) 6] It is patently obvious to everyone (Darwinists included) that biological organisms encode information in a way we haven’t seen elsewhere Grossly false. DNA encodes digital data strings that are implemented in an algorithmic, physically instantiated, code-based process. Such is routinely instantiated, and is as close as your friendly local PC and Internet. And, that familiar example also illustrates aptly the known source of such entities. Multiply by the search-space challenge to get to functional configurations in such entities and you will see why the other main source of highly contingent outcomes, chance, is not a credible explanation. So, on inference to best explanation, the best explanation for the DNA-ribosome-enzyme system, and thus also the proteins of life function, therefore cell-based life itself is design. 7] nowhere does he [Dembski] associate the concept of Agency with Plato . . . , no one in science today would appeal to any ancient Greek as an authoritarian spokesman Twisted and caricatured beyond recognition, then knocked over with a convenient reference to medieval [hints of "fundy dummy . . ."] scholasticism's alleged blind following of "authorities." JT -- as you know or SHOULD know -- Plato is cited to show that the chance/ necessity/ intelligence trichotomy of causal factors was immemorial 2,350 years ago. Thus, we see that if after over 2,000 years no clearly identified "fourth factor" (as materialistic Darwinists under pressure often appeal to) has emerged, we can be fairly confident that the three factors are a reliably useful way to look at causal factors. And, that the burden of proof to show otherwise rests on those who object -- one they are plainly unwilling to take up. (Onlookers, no prizes for guessing why.) Moreover, this trichotomy as presented by Plato already explicitly shows that 2350 years ago, the materialistic account of origins was already on the table, and (cf Democritus' and Lucretius' failure) lost the battle on the merits for preferred explanation of the cosmos, as Plato outlined:
[the philosophers hold that] The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them . . . After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and 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 . . . .
Why did it lose? Let Wiki's summary of Lucretius' The Nature of Things tell us why:
The poem opens with a magnificent invocation to Venus, whom he addresses as an allegorical representation of the reproductive power, after which the business of the piece commences by an enunciation of the great proposition on the nature and being of the gods, which leads to a grand invective against the gigantic monster religion, and a thrilling picture of the horrors which attends its tyrannous sway. Then follows a lengthened elucidation of the axiom that nothing can be produced from nothing, and that nothing can be reduced to nothing (Nil fieri ex nihilo, in nihilum nil posse reverti); which is succeeded by a definition of the Ultimate Atoms, infinite in number, which, together with Void Space (Inane), infinite in extent, constitute the universe . . . . The problem that arises from an entirely deterministic and materialistic account of reality is free will. Lucretius maintains that the free will [My NB: which includes freedom to reason, communicate and decide for oneself] is possible through the random tendency for atoms to swerve (Latin: clinamen).
But, as the ancients well knew, randomness is no more rational than blind mechanical forces acting on matter that happens to be as it is. So, on the grounds that we all know -- pre-theoretically even -- that we are rational animals, Lucretian materialism [which more than anticipates the modern evolutionary materialistic view on its key points . . .] is patently self-referentially absurd. Just so, we are not citing Dembski or Plato as blanket authorities, but to show the history of ideas, and to show why the materialism of our day has always been an explanatory failure. [It is dominant today only because we have not learned to think as clearly as men thought 2,350 years ago! Regress, not progress . . . ] 8] Up until maybe a year and half ago, you use to refer to some ancient greek as the father of I.D. I pointed out to you where in his own writings he said that the only reason that planets could stay precisely in their orbits is that they were sentient beings An unworthy ad hominem, and based on tendentious distortion of the facts in an exchange not accessible to the casual onlooker. I still cite -- it still heads my online note that is linked in every comment I make here at UD -- and have cited the Roman, Cicero, on the subject that he inferred that the random shuffling of digital characters is unlikely to get to an intelligible communication. Namely:
Is it possible for any man to behold these things [the complex and orderly cosmos], and yet imagine that certain solid and individual bodies move by their natural force and gravitation, and that a world so beautifully adorned was made by their fortuitous concourse? He who believes this may as well believe that if a great quantity of the one-and-twenty letters, composed either of gold or any other matter, were thrown upon the ground, they would fall into such order as legibly to form the Annals of Ennius. I doubt whether fortune could make a single verse of them. How, therefore, can these people assert that the world was made by the fortuitous concourse of atoms, which have no color, no quality—which the Greeks call [poiotes], no sense? [Cicero, THE NATURE OF THE GODS BK II Ch XXXVII, C1 BC, as trans Yonge (Harper & Bros., 1877), pp. 289 - 90.]
In short, Cicero was addressing the same issue that we find in Plato, and used the case of getting to intelligible digital information of sufficiently complexity by chance as his example of the absurdity of the concept of chance + necessity spontaneously creating the cosmos as we see it. In short, his diagnosis of the problem is spot-on. His suggested alternative explanation, shaped by his pagan environment, was wrong. But that is irrelevant to the force of the above cited. Namely, that 2050 years ago, it was well understood that a search space challenge as evolutionary materialists today assume can be easily surmounted, was known to be insuperable to the point of absurdity. An absurdity that JT evidently rejects, as the JT seems to be short for "Junkyard Tornado" -- a reference to Hoyle's point that a tornado in a junkyard in Seattle is utterly unlikely to assemble a 747. (JT, do you seriously believe that on the gamut of the observed cosmos, the 21 letters of Roman script assembled by randomly dropping on the ground (= chance + necessity) will get to a verse of Ennius, and/or that a tornado in Seattle will get to a 747 assembled by forces of chance + necessity? Why?) 8] On agency his [Dembski's] argument is basically, “Everybody already agrees that agency exists.” (He doesn’t do this by referring to Plato, because the medieval connection would be to blatant, IMO.) Point out to me any where a logical or scientific argument for agency exists in his works. Fallacious argumentum ad Dembski, AGAIN. JT, assuming you are not lucky noise mimicking intelligible signals -- cf Cicero's rebuke to such as think that chance gets us to functional text strings -- YOU are the counter-example that shows that agency is real. Are you or are you not a rational, verbalising, deciding animal? Onlookers: in short, we are here at reductio ad absurdum on the part of evolutionary materialism: its advocates cannot consistently reason their case while adhering to their premises. (Even the pagan thinkers of 2,000+ years ago knew better than that.) 9] Saturn and physically instantiated LONG strings of 1's. Now, onlookers, JT has been here long enough to know that I am a physicist. So he knows or should know that I would be aware of something as significant as the Roche limit for satellites. His dismissive remark on googling is out of order. Next, again by implicit fallacious argument to Dembski, he presistently refuses to engage the fact that the explanatory filter is a key part of the design inference. For instance, in the form that explicitly addresses aspects of phenomena [cf my discussion here] i.e. . . .
(i) it first asks about the case of lawlike necessity, then . . . (ii) asks on chance then finally (iii) on design. (iv) then, having examined the cluster of key aspects and their credible causes/explanations, (v) it synthesises an overall narrative account of the phenomenon in question.
In 1998, Dembski (understandably) directly focussed on the aspect at stake without specifically addressing the need to first isolate relevant aspects of a phenomemon for particular study, a key step in all scientific work. (Do you worry about the colour of the bob or the string on a pendulum when you do a conical pendulum timing experiment, providing the same are visible?) In so doing, as can be seen from the discussions in WAC nos 29 - 31 [and in the linked UD thread], he did not fully appreciate how the integration of diverse aspects in a common situation accounts for how chance, necessity and agency all can appear as causal factors in a given situation. This oversight has been exploited rhetorically by ID opponents, who have been too busy trying to discredit ID to take time to see that Dr Dembski has here addressed a significant point. But, with rather minor tweaking, the EF approach very powerfully allows the generic scientific method to explicitly address the full range of known causal factors [cf the above glossary item on scientific methods in light of the design approach]. Similarly, when we see a strong of at least 1,0000 physically instantiuated 1's, we are dealinfg with a specified, complex outcome that is so utterly improbable on the scope of our observed cosmos, that the best explanation is intelligence, absent specific disconfirming EMPIRICAL data. And, onlookers: note how we search in vain for such empirically observed counter-examples. All we see are thought experiments that address what is not in doubt: it is logically possible for 1,000 coins to be tossed at random and end up all heads. Just, the relative statistical weight of macrostates is such that the utterly most likely outcome of a random toss is a cluster nearish to 50-50 in no particular meaningful order. (We don't expect to see a string of coins tossed at random giving binary code for the ASCII text for an 18 word English sentence either.) 10] 54, it presumes the existence of what really is most open to question, “conscious intelligent being” as a seperate ontological category from other physical phenomenon. It is vague because of the usage of the term “possible”. JT, that there are conscious intelligent beings who reason and decide is not a presumption: it is an observation. What is open to discussion is the source and nature of that rational animality. (And it is to be addressed on inference to best explanation without censoring possibilities as the Lewontinian materialists in the NAS etc do.) One way to initially address that is to ask: what are reliable signs of intelligence at work. this is what ID has done. FSCI, an observed phenomenon, is in all known source cases, traceable to intelligence,and it is further known that chance + necessity are utterly unlikely to get to FSCI. So, we have a well-grounded, but provisional inductive inference. Next, we see that in the heart of cell-based life, FSCI is present, starting with DNA and associated molecular processing machinery. So, we have good -- but of course falsifiable in principle -- grounds to infer that DNA-based cellular life is the product of intelligence. Going further, we see that the cosmos in which such cell-based life exists, is fine-tuned to facilitate the particular kind of FSCI-rich life we observe. So, it i is further quite reasonable to infer that the cosmos was designed to be a home for cell based life, up to and including ourselves. Onlookers: observe, that no a prioris on what the cosmos is or where it comes from have been made. We are simply building an inferential ladder based on empirical observation and reliable observations on the well-known sources of FSCI and fine-tuned functional physical systems. And, we have refused to allow Lewontinan materialism and the NAS as magisterium to block us from thinking for ourselves across all live options. The conclusion is that it is consilient with current science to believe in light of say having personal, life-transforming encounter with God in the face of Christ, that an intelligence formed the cosmos to facilitate cell based life, and then formed life within it, up to and including intelligent life such as we manifest. In any era but our own that would have been not only a reasonable but a welcome conclusion. In short, we have smoked out the problem: the evidence does not point in the way that our friendly local materialistic magisterium wants to go. Too bad for them. GEM of TKI PS: GP great as usual. SB, good stuff, Jerry adn Borne, significant points too.kairosfocus_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT}

JT (#54): "It is vague because of the usage of the term “possible”" The usage of the word "possible" has a very definite meaning here, just the opposite of a vague one: it means that a conscious intelligent being can recognize patterns which "appear" as designed, but still needs a definite methodology to be reasonably sure that they are. That's one of the fundamental premises of the science of design detection, which you seem to ignore. Therefore, "possible" is exactly the word which makes the statement precise. "According to you, a specification would be any pattern where its possible that some being with some unspecified level of intelligence might identify it, correctly or not, as being something created by some other being of unspecified level of intelligence." Why unspecified level? I was obviously thinking of intelligence as we see it in human beings. I understand not all human beings are equally intelligent, and maybe I am not intelligent enough to understand your arguments, but let's consider human intelligence as a mean, as an order of magnitude if you want. "You might as well say, “I am a conscious intelligent being and something is a design because I say it is.” “Whatever I say might be designed is a specification.”" No, I say: I am a conscious intelligent being and something "can be" a design if I recognize in it the same formal properties as in the things that I (and my fellow beings) design: "apparent" organization, "apparent" purpose, "apparent" symbolic functionality, and so on (you see, don't you, that I am insisting on the "possible"? "Or possibly your defintion implies that “conscious intelligent beings” is an exclusive club with their own secret language." It's a club in a sense, or at least a very definite set. And they do have their language, which is secret only to those who do not understand it, which is apparently a prerogative of all languages. "And that language is designs and one person in this club can merely look at something and know intutively it is a design, i.e. created by one of his kind," Let's say that intelligent agents have many languages, and that all of them are designed. And yes, the recognition of one language lets us know (maybe intuitively, but that would require further discussion) that what appears as a language we know "can" have been created by one of our kind (in the sense of one who understands that language as we do). What is difficult in that? Please, note that the concept of "design" is broader than the concept of any specific language, being applicable to anything which exhibits the above cited properties (organization, purpose, functionality). But all languages are designed. "and people in this club don’t have to justify to outsiders their secret language of design and how they can identify designed objects" Why they don't have to justify? they have and they can do it. I am exactly trying to do that with you here. If I am insisting in the role of the concept of function, it's because I am trying to justify with you how specification patterns can be recognized. But it is obvious that I cannot justify that to unintelligent beings, who have no idea of what a function could be, or just have no ideas. The concept itself of "justifying" implies that we are dealing with conscious intelligent beings. "they just can and consensus within this special club is unanimous, and outsiders just won’t get it" That is a good description of how we know things through thoughts and representations logic and inference and so on: consensus is unanimous, and outsiders (non intelligent things) just won't get it. How would you explain principles like identity and non contradiction to a rock? "I guess what I meant by circular is that the most relevant attribute of the design arguement is the idea that there might be entities manfiesting special non-physical types of casuality, “intelligent agents”. And by assuming their existence to begin with it seems circular." From Wikipedia: ""That begs the question" is an appropriate reply when a circular argument is used within a syllogism. That is, when the given argument depends on what it is trying to support, and as a result, the proposition is being used to prove itself." And it is interesting to cite here one of the examples of circular reasoning which are given there in the wikipedia page: ""The impossibility of evolution is irrelevant; you're here, so obviously it happened."" On other words, the concept of circular reasoning is a very definite logical fallacy, and applies to any argument which appears to be a logical argument, but is not. So, in no way it applies to my statement, which was not a logical argument, but only an empirical definition of functional specification. Moreover, I am not supporting "the idea that there might be entities manfiesting special non-physical types of casuality, “intelligent agents”. I am simply saying that intelligent agents exist (are you denying even that?) and that they use to originate designed things by a process called design. Are you denying that? Maybe I miss your point here: again, probably, lack of intelligence on my part. "And by assuming their existence to begin with it seems circular. (Circular is something of a vague term itself admittedly)" I can't see how acknowledging the existence of conscious intelligent agents (a very well established empirical fact) may be circular in any possible way. And yes, your use of "circular" is certainly vague. And this is not a vague statement at all. Finally, your "side note" appears very interesting, but I am not sure to understand exactly what you are speaking of. Could you please elaborate on that? I am sincerely interested.gpuccio_{February 23, 2009
February
02
Feb
23
23
2009
12:34 AM
12
12
34
AM
PDT}

"It is patently obvious to everyone (Darwinists included) that biological organisms encode information in a way we haven’t seen elsewhere. How does giving it a new label (FCSI) establish the I.D concept of intelligent agency as the explanation." The answer is that it doesn't and no one ever says it does. The label does not make the concept but the concept as you say is unique is not correct. We see it elsewhere in two places both with humans. Language and computer software are similar. In each patterns of information which is complex specify something else which is functional. So you are wrong in that it is unique. Now the two instances that are similar to DNA are human based or intelligence based. No where in the universe has anyone seen anything similar arise from nature. So ID says that the origin of DNA could have been by an intelligent source and as I said elsewhere last night the construction of life or something similar from scratch may be within the capability of humans shortly. Therefore humans or intelligence could be a source for the origin of DNA. Nature has never produced anything similar as far as we know but we could eventually find something. So the logic says the explanation could be intelligence and is probably not natural. That is the ID position. It is not an absolute position and could change with new information. Is this so hard to understand and it is definitely not an argument from ignorance but an argument from reason and logic. Why you do not understand this is amazing because it has been all over this site in the last two weeks.jerry_{February 22, 2009
February
02
Feb
22
22
2009
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

gpuccio [51]:
“No. Its circular, vague, presumptive and useless”
I will leave out presumptive and useless (you are entitled to your opinions), but why circular? and why vague? What is circular and vague in “any pattern which can be recognized by a conscious intelligent being as a possible product of design, of the teleological activity of another conscious intelligent being”?
If it were circular it would not be a matter of opinion that it was useless. Its presumptive in that it presumes the existence of what really is most open to question, "conscious intelligent being" as a seperate ontological category from other physical phenomenon. It is vague because of the usage of the term "possible". But let me just try to parse it further: According to you, a specification would be any pattern where its possible that some being with some unspecified level of intelligence might identify it, correctly or not, as being something created by some other being of unspecified level of intelligence. You might as well say, "I am a conscious intelligent being and something is a design because I say it is." "Whatever I say might be designed is a specification." Or possibly your defintion implies that "conscious intelligent beings" is an exclusive club with their own secret language. And that language is designs and one person in this club can merely look at something and know intutively it is a design, i.e. created by one of his kind, and people in this club don't have to justify to outsiders their secret language of design and how they can identify designed objects, they just can and consensus within this special club is unanimous, and outsiders just won't get it. I guess what I meant by circular is that the most relevant attribute of the design arguement is the idea that there might be entities manfiesting special non-physical types of casuality, "intelligent agents". And by assuming their existence to begin with it seems circular. (Circular is something of a vague term itself admittedly) -------------------------- Just as a side note, there are classes of algorithms where no known implementation for them exists without an "oracle" postulated to magically provide the correct answer for some crucial portion of the problem before the algorithm terminates. So one approach to identifying humans as "intelligent agents" would be to show how they routinely solve one of these types of intractable problems, which would imply they can only do so by virtue of a magical oracle. (Just a thought). I read your other points. (re: Dinosaurs, arguments from ignorance) I don't have anything to respond at the moment. I would say if you think about what I was saying a little longer you might come to see what I was saying. RegardsJT_{February 22, 2009
February
02
Feb
22
22
2009
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

Well, Dembski did not invent the CSI term. I don't trust wikipedia on anything related to origins; nevertheless they have this to say,
"The term "specified complexity" was originally coined by origin of life researcher Leslie Orgel to denote what distinguishes living things from non-living things: In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.[7] The term was later employed by physicist Paul Davies in a similar manner: Living organisms are mysterious not for their complexity per se, but for their tightly specified complexity"
Orgel saw it one way, others see it differently - a question of definitions and understanding. Understanding a given definition is far more important. Any discussion depends on all parties agreeing on one definition for the sake of that discussion. In any case. A string of 1's has no complexity in statistical terms. You cannot calculate the probability of a string of 1's separate from a given context (sample space). A string of ones does not point to design (as it always must if you're interpretation were right) any more than a string of anything - unless we have a specified context (sample space) against which to measure the probability involved. What I don't like most though is your tone of arrogant self-assurance and condescendence, and that without evidence or clear data. Also, Dembski's a great scientist imo, but that doesn't mean he has understood CSI himself completely. It's still clear to the mind because it's intuitive, but put it in mathematically form is not easy. For the future I suggest we all stick to the basics as described by DaveScot here : https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/complex-specified-information-its-not-that-hard-to-understand/ Whatever.Borne_{February 22, 2009
February
02
Feb
22
22
2009
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

JT (#49): Briefly: "No. Its circular, vague, presumptive and useless" I will leave out presumptive and useless (you are entitled to your opinions), but why circular? and why vague? What is circular and vague in "any pattern which can be recognized by a conscious intelligent being as a possible product of design, of the teleological activity of another conscious intelligent being"? We recognize those patterns all the time. And what is circular in a recognition? Sometimes it seems that darwinists just want to pretend that they live in a completely imaginary world, where things which in the true world happen every day should not exist. And you are always ready to label as circular things which are not circular at all. This is not the first time, and it will not be the last. "Imagine a moment in dinosaur history. Let 1 correspond to a live dinosaur and 0 to a dead one. Now the asteroid hits. All 0’s." And so? If you choose to attribute 0 or 1 to dead or living dinosaurs, it's your choice. And if all dinosaurs die for a mechanism of necessity, they are dead. What has that to do with "In a system which seems truly random, only a conscious intelligent agent who interferes with the system could create a very long sequence of 1s"? Could you please stick to more conventional examples, like the toss of a coin? This is the first time I hear of dinosaurs as a random system. Compliments for your creativity, but I still can't see your point. "This is where this argument from ignorance enters in I.D. “If you know about a mechanism that caused something, then the cause is a mechanism. If you don’t its design.” I am really tired of such trivial (and I am being very respectful and polite) arguments about arguments from ignorance. To say that in an apparently random system like the toss of a coin a long sequence of 1s is extremely unlikely unless there is some mechanism of necessity at work is not an argument from ignorance: it is just a true statement. To be more clear, there is no reason in the world to believe that the laws of biochemistry, as we know them can in any way give rise to the sequence of a functional protein in a non random way, that is by necessity. You can say that maybe sometime we can discover new laws of biochemistry which could do exactly that: such a statement, while not strictly impossible, is completely unlikely and unsupported by any current knowledge. For all practical reasons, it can and must be dismissed. It is, in other words, just an argument from blind and silly hope. "It is patently obvious to everyone (Darwinists included) that biological organisms encode information in a way we haven’t seen elsewhere. How does giving it a new label (FCSI) establish the I.D concept of intelligent agency as the explanation." I am happy that darwinists can still see, occasionally, some obvious things. The problem is not with labels. FSCI is a subset of CSI. The only difference is that the specification is functional: the target is defined as the set of proteins which have a specific, measurable function, with a specific, quantitative threshold. That said, all other considerations about CSI and the reason why it is a mark of design apply to FSCI as well. The difference is only in the kind of specification, which is the function, and not some intrinsic formal property of the sequence, like compressibility. Is that so difficult to understand?gpuccio_{February 22, 2009
February
02
Feb
22
22
2009
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

StephenB [48]: Respectfully, that's a cop out. I'm looking up quotes continually.JT_{February 22, 2009
February
02
Feb
22
22
2009
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply