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

gpuccio [34]:
The fundamental concept is very simple: specification is 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. Can we agree on this very simple and universal concept?
No. Its circular, vague, presumptive and useless (IMO).
So, let’s go to the sequence of 1s. Can that be a specification? Yes, because that kind of compressibility is easily recognized by a conscious intelluigent agent, but that kind of specification can seriously be considered as a mark of design only if we can exclude that a law of necessity is its cause, and if we are sure that it came out in a system where only true randomness or design could have created it. 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
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.
The same is true for Saturn’s rings: if theìr form can be explained by laws of necessity, there is no reason to think of design. It is very simple.
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."
In biology, as we all know, the important case is functional specification. I cannot understand why you and all other darwinists go on avoiding that concept.
Not speaking for Darwinists, but to use a term employed by Dembski, FCSI is "pretheoretic". (That's how he described the creationist concept of "organized complexity" in his response to Morris). Dembski would say his own work in CSI was not pretheoretic, and I think most would agree. Dembski's latest work involves Evolutionary Algorithms, and has nothing to do with FCSI. You can ask yourself why not. 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. ---------------------- kairosfocus [44]: Re: Plato and agency: Thanks for taking the trouble to hunt down those quotes from the Laws. I had previously done the google search 'Plato site:http://www.designinference.com', and Dembski does mention Plato in passing on numerous occasions.(Ironically at one point he puts Plato in a list of I.D. supporters down through history, but then elsewhere says the early Christian fathers thought Plato's concept of the cosmos was inconsistent with their concept of God.) But nowhere does he associate the concept of Agency with Plato. Nowhere does he say anything remotely like, "Even Plato understood the legitimacy of the concept of intelligent agency." It would seem apparent to me why he would not. He would be scoffed at. We can read Plato for the purposes of understanding sociology and culture. But no one in science today would appeal to any ancient Greek as an authoritarian spokesman. That's what they did in the Middle Ages: The history of medieval philosophy is traditionally divided into three main periods: the period in the Latin west following the Early Middle Ages until the twelfth century, when the works of Aristotle and Plato were preserved and cultivated..." -wikipedia IOW, the modern era began when we quit relying on these guys. 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. I haven't seen you quote him sense, so maybe you at least remember who it was. But agency is what Dembski has sought to legitimize in science. But he hasn't done so through arguments that were intended for scientists. (Other aspects of The Design Inference are, but not agency.) On agency his 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. There is none. He just says its the traditional viewpoint. And for the general public, that would be true. But science doesn't hold such a view of agency. So all he's trying to do on agency is pit the public against scientists - not actually make a case to science. (I'm referring to his treatment of agency specifically - not his entire work.) Just think about it - how is "Agency" some sort of immutable obvious sacrosanct, unassailable abstract concept to you all? Why should this just be obvious to everyone? (KF these most recent comment on agency are not directed specifically at you.) KF:
In the case of Saturn’s rings [and those of Jupiter . . . ] they are a known effect of gravitation, and especially the implications of the Roche limit . Thus, most of what is in such rings is a matter of known mechanical forces in action either breaking up or preventing accretion to form satellites, leading to discs in orbit around the main planet. There is variation in density, probably due to accident of particular circumstances, and the major gaps are “policed” by moons...
Yes, we know there is a mechanism that causes Saturn's Rings. For the record a lot of us could google "How are Saturn's Rings formed". What if you didn't know the mechanism (or couldn't find it in google)? I.D would say you would be justified in saying design. Does that sound right? And furthermore, that mechanism did not sound all that simple at all. There were alot of physical contingencies involved.
In context, a 1/0 is a binary choice, with one state demnoted 1. So, a long series of 1’s would be — under normal circumstances — a case where a highly contingent system, say n > 1,000 per argument, has 1,000+ 1’s in succession. this is a simple specification, on a contingent system that has 2^1,000+ configs. Since rthe statistical weights of the non-1’s set and the 1’s set are obviously rather divergent, then irt would be reasonable to infer tha tif we saw a physical situation with 1,000+ 1’s, it is most likely by agency; not chance.
O.K. You're on record - a very long series of 1's was caused by agency.
the infamous Caputo case .
What about my dinosaur case (in response to gpuccio above)?
PS: On encountering a long series of 1’s in nature. 1 –> 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. 2 –> 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. (Cf the story of Giant’s Causeway in Ireland, and the conclusion that this is columnar jointing of basalt. BTW, on the N side of the former E-W central corridor road here in M’rat, between SH volcano and Centre Hills, i recall seeing similar columnar jointed basalt, now covered by eruptive deposits since 1995. Yet another parallel from the emerald island of the Caribbean . . .)
JT_{February 22, 2009
February
02
Feb
22
22
2009
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

----JT: "Now go find what it is you’re talking about. The term “agent” doesn’t appear in it except a couple of times in a strictly legal context." JT, If you don't understand that art/chance/necessity= agency/chance/necessity= innovation/chance/necessity= then I can't help you. Further, this whole mess got started because you seemed to think that this triparte explanation begain with Dembski, or at least you demanded to know where it could be found in his work. I explained that the concept was over two thousand years old and could be found in Plato's laws. Rather than acknowledge your error, you simply shift the goalposts and start questioning the meaning of equivalent terms. All: I have decided that I am no longer going to go out of my way to honor Darwinists' requests for quotes unless the references are readily available. The exception to that rule will be for those who truly want information and are not playing games (an unlikely event since few Darwinists can resist the temptation). Since I have been on this site, I have never lied, made anything up, or tried to bluff my way through anything. So, when I state something as fact and I don't have a ready reference, I will ask onlookers and readers to accept my word based on my record of honest correspondence. If, as it turns out, I err, I will acknowledge the point and render an apology. Sometimes this is necessary because I can't always associate an important point with authors I may have read years back. In this age of the search engine, books still matter. Indeed, one problem we have is that too many of our adveraries are trying to build their education on Googling alone. That doesn't work. To amass thousands of facts without acquiring the means to process those facts into a hieracrhy of truths, is to fall prey to sophistry.StephenB_{February 22, 2009
February
02
Feb
22
22
2009
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus and all: I have said nothing at all about long strings of 1's. Please make a note of that. Someone attributed another's remarks to me, so I let it go. But since the error is compounding, I must call attention to it. I will accept apologies gracefully.StephenB_{February 22, 2009
February
02
Feb
22
22
2009
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

PS: On encountering a long series of 1's in nature. 1 --> 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. 2 --> 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. (Cf the story of Giant's Causeway in Ireland, and the conclusion that this is columnar jointing of basalt. BTW, on the N side of the former E-W central corridor road here in M'rat, between SH volcano and Centre Hills, i recall seeing similar columnar jointed basalt, now covered by eruptive deposits since 1995. Yet another parallel from the emerald island of the Caribbean . . .) 3 --> But if I see instead that the pattern is contingent, i.e. under similar triggering circumstances diverse outcomes are possible, then I would have to look to directed vs undirected contingency if I see an all-1's case of sufficient info-bearing capacity [about 1,000 bits worth]. 4 --> Once I see that the contingency is high, and the outcome under similar circumstances therefore largely unconstrained absent direction, the observed all- 1's outcome would count as CSI and would be inferred as most likely by intelligence. 5 --> And this shows how the explanatory Filter and FSCI or CSi are closely linked. GEM of TKI PS: Rob, JT, and/or JayM: your arguments against FSCI are already addressed in several previous, recent threads. Why are you insisting on repeatedly raising answered arguments in different contexts without first cogently addressing the serious answers where they are to be seen? [Repetition of assertions and argumentum ad Dembski circa 1998 on EF etc does not constitute a cogent answer. And yes, I believe SB made an error on his remarks on CSI in the case of a long string of 1's.]kairosfocus_{February 22, 2009
February
02
Feb
22
22
2009
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

Okay: The long series of 1's argument. In context, a 1/0 is a binary choice, with one state demnoted 1. So, a long series of 1's would be -- under normal circumstances -- a case where a highly contingent system, say n > 1,000 per argument, has 1,000+ 1's in succession. this is a simple specification, on a contingent system that has 2^1,000+ configs. Since rthe statistical weights of the non-1's set and the 1's set are obviously rather divergent, then irt would be reasonable to infer tha tif we saw a physical situation with 1,000+ 1's, it is most likely by agency; not chance. Why is that? not because of logical impossibility or physical impossibility, but by the overwhelming probability of unconstrained contingency settling about the 50-50 point; i.e. the utter bulk of hte binomial distribution near 50-50 overwhelms the set of outcomes on no direction. At risk of re-opening that long back -forth -- this is in fact the root of the discussion on the infamous Caputo case. If I encountered a highly contingent 1/0 situation of considerable scope, and saw an outcome of all 1's, I would -- for excellent reason -- infer to CSI and to agent action as the most credible explanation. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

JT: Re Plato's Laws, Book X, relevant lines:
Ath[enagoras]. . . . we have . . . lighted on a strange doctrine. Cle[anthes]. What doctrine do you mean? Ath. The wisest of all doctrines, in the opinion of many. Cle. I wish that you would speak plainer. ************** Ath. The doctrine that all things do become, have become, and will become, some by nature [phusis, i.e. natural regularities tracing to in-built forces; cf below {**} ], some by art [i.e. design], and some by chance [I think this may be rendered "accident" in other translations]. *************** Cle. Is not that true? Ath. Well, philosophers are probably right; at any rate we may as well follow in their track, and examine what is the meaning of them and their disciples. Cle. By all means. Ath. They say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art, which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . . . fire and water, and earth and air, all exist by nature and chance . . . 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 . . . . Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [i.e. mind], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul's kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? . . . . if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise. [Emphases added]
In short,JT, it would be wise to learn a lesson of humility from the Greeks, who often said in effect: "as we go out in any direction, we meet Socrates, Plato and Aristotle on the way back." notice, Plato here sees these ways of thinking as immemorial in his day; including the idea that chance + necessity accounts for the creation around us, and that art then is only that which rearranges what has long since been put there by phusis and chance. he then posits that in fact the soul is before the body, and sets up the following context for discussion -- for 2350 years now. Quite a respectable achievement for someone thinking circa 350 BC, nuh? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT}

Jerry & Colin: FSCI is discussed in the glossary, and in the WACs linked at the top of the column on the right of this page. In the case of Saturn's rings [and those of Jupiter . . . ] they are a known effect of gravitation, and especially the implications of the Roche limit. Thus, most of what is in such rings is a matter of known mechanical forces in action either breaking up or preventing accretion to form satellites, leading to discs in orbit around the main planet. There is variation in density, probably due to accident of particular circumstances, and the major gaps are "policed" by moons. Thus, on the gross structure level, this is a low contingency situation [I exclude here the accidents of the trajectory of each and every rock as irrelevant to the issue.] CSI -- and the relevant subset, FSCI -- only applies where there is high contingency, per the explanatory filter. high contingency may be credibly either directed or undirected, and it is the former, when the information capacity is sufficiently high, that is CSI. in the case of FSCI, the specification is by function, especially information content related function. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT}

StephenB [40]: Here's Plato's Laws. Now go find what it is you're talking about. The term "agent" doesn't appear in it except a couple of times in a strictly legal context. Also do a search on blood-letting, humours and ancient greeks. And don't call me silly as I'm not the one engaging in inane behavior. You have a lot to live up to - Jerry thinks you're the greatest debater at UncommonDescent.JT_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT}

Colin, FCSI or FSCI depending on how you spell it is complex information that specifies something else that has a function. The best example is language where the letters and words, complex information, specifies something else that has a function. Namely the concept in your head as you read or hear the words. Nouns specify objects or actions etc. Verbs specify actions or states etc. Adjectives, adverbs and other parts of speech modify the actions and objects etc. Another example is computer software, where a line of code, the complex information, specifies a hardware and software step, that has a function. For example, print this page of information causes an electronic stream of data to go to the printer and cause the printer to create an image on a piece of paper.. The third example is DNA, the complex information, that specifies a protein through a transcription and translation process. And these proteins have a function. These are the only three examples known to us. The first two are of human origin. The third is of unknown origin. No place in nature does this phenomena happen except for life and the two human examples. So what is the origin of the FCSI of the DNA? Nature does not exhibit the power to generate this type of information. Intelligence does have the capability and has done this for probably millions of years. So the conclusion is that the origin of DNA likely has an intelligent origin. The Darwinist claim that the origin of DNA absolutely has a natural origin and that an intelligent origin is impossible. Something they might justify if there was just one example of this happening in nature. But there isn't any. Such an absolute claim seems unwarranted given the lack of empirical evidence. I am sure this could be expressed better but it is a simple and easily understood concept. As I type this FSCI is happening both in terms of language and computer software which creates the image on the screen. As gpuccio says, the Darwinist don't like it because of what it means and they have no answer for it. The dumb ID rubes have got the super smart Darwinists boxed into a corner with logic and facts and they don't know how to get out of it.jerry_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT}

----JT: "The example Dembski always uses is that French philosopher. I would have remembered if I had seen the Plato example, so chapter and verse on that would be great as well. But then Plato probably believed in humours and blood-letting too." JT, your statements are getting sillier and sillier. Now read the statement that I made in the previus post word for word: "Plato’s commentary in the “laws” contains the first reference to the law/chance/agency paradigm. For over two thousand years philosophers and scientists have assumed that no other possible cause is likely, making it one of the safest best in the history of Western thought." Do you see Dembski's name in there anywhere?StephenB_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT}

Collin [37]: You were the first one to mention the word "penny" in this thread and I can't remember ever having an occasion to mention that term in the entire time I've been posting here. But you certainly find very long repetitive patterns in nature (along with other types of patterns) as any I.D. advocate would agree. I do remember a couple of weeks ago pointing out that the design inference says that if you see a long series of 1's and no mechanism is apparent to you to have caused this, then you were justified in infering design, and it seems clear it does imply that, not that I agree with it (Nor do I agree with an ontological distinction between design and any other physical process.)JT_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

I think that one of StephenB's mistakes is assuming that a long series of 1s and the rings of Saturn could not be evidence of design. I mean, I don't know, but if it does fit the definition of CSI then maybe there is a chance they are evidence of design. I would like to know more about this FCSI concept tooCollin_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

JT and ROb. I wish that you would please give me the context that these 1s are coming from. One of you (I think JT) mentioned that if it were from a penny then it would probably be evidence of design. But where in nature do you find this long series of 1s? Maybe having a long series of 1s is evidence of design.Collin_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

Plato’s commentary in the “laws” contains the first reference to the law/chance/agency paradigm The example Dembski always uses is that French philosopher. I would have remembered if I had seen the Plato example, so chapter and verse on that would be great as well. But then Plato probably believed in humours and blood-letting too.JT_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

StephenB: Dembski does not accept the third category “uncritically.” Quite the contrary, he has made allowances for the possibility that “he could be wrong” using those exact words. I have never seen anywhere him make such a statement. You're going to have to provide the full context.JT_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

R0b and others: Again the discussion about CSI and FSCI, and again the Denbski paper! Well, R0b, I think that the concept of FSCI must be really uncomfortable for you and for all darwinists, if you insist to find refuge in the usual useless criticism of the concept of CSI. Let's try to be simple, and leave Dembski out of this discussion for a moment. I have already stated that many darwinists seem to be more Dembski dependent than any of us in the ID field. The fundamental concept is very simple: specification is 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. Can we agree on this very simple and universal concept? So, let's go to the sequence of 1s. Can that be a specification? Yes, because that kind of compressibility is easily recognized by a conscious intelluigent agent, but that kind of specification can seriously be considered as a mark of design only if we can exclude that a law of necessity is its cause, and if we are sure that it came out in a system where only true randomness or design could have created it. 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. But a very long sequence of 1s can well be generated by a system based on necessity: if a coin is such that it can only give 1, and not 0, than any sequence will be a sequence of 1s. That would be the result of necessity. The same is true for Saturn's rings: if theìr form can be explained by laws of necessity, there is no reason to think of design. It is very simple. Let's go to analogic specification, like specific forms in drawings, Mount Rushmore, and so on. Nobody has ever denied that those analogic forms can be specifications. If they are well recognizable as specific forms, they are specifications. But the analogic nature of the form makes more difficult both the strict definition of the specification (how defined the form should be) and the computation of the complexity. That's the main reason why here wqe are not so interested in analogic specifications. Another important reason is that analogic specifications are not so important in biology. In biology, as we all know, the important case is functional specification. I cannot understand why you and all other darwinists go on avoiding that concept. Indeed, I think I understand even too well. That concept is comnpletely simple and powerful, and that's why you don't like it. Go to Uniprot, or to any other protein database, and look at the section: "Function", for any known protein. You will find one, or more than one function, listed for each protein which has been studied enough to know it. Functions. Proteins have functions. And it's not IDists who say that. We are not the authors of Uniprot. It's biologists who say that. Functions. And functions are specifications. They are easily recognized by conscious intelligent agents, and they can easily be conceived as the teleological product of a design process by another conscious intelligent agent. That's what functions are in the world of human artifacts: machines, language, software programs. Except... except, it seems, in living beings, in the biological world: we see a lot of functions there, but just thinking that they are really intended as functions is not allowed, it is a fundamental sin. Better avoid even the word "design": it is corruption personified. And so, better not discuss the obvious FSCI that is everywhere in the biological world: in DNA, in proteins, in biological machines, and so on. Because, you see, that information has too many simple characteristics: it is digital, it is symbolic, it is functional, it is computable... so, why discuss it? It is probably an abstute trick created by religious fanatics, better avoid discussing it. So, let's go back to the safer discussions about sequences of 1s, and compressibility, and mathemathics, and so on: after all, even if we reach no final certainty, those issues are by far more comfortable, regarding things which have no immediate relationship with biology. After all, protein genes are not sequences of one nucleotide, and they are not compressible. So, let's just forget that they are functional and complex, and the trick is done.gpuccio_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

JT: What gives @26. You write, “The core problem, is his (Dembski) uncritical acceptance of a third category of causality which can be appealed to. Just that category by itself is invoking the supernatural, which makes large portions of his presentation superfluous (if everyone already agrees this supernatural category of causality exists as he implies).” That comment is so misguided, that it is hard to believe that you are not doing a Darwinist parody. Every prepositional and participial phrase contains an error. How did you do it? [A] Dembski does not accept the third category “uncritically.” Quite the contrary, he has made allowances for the possibility that “he could be wrong” using those exact words. Have you ever heard Darwinists qualify their remarks that way? Of course not. It isn’t in their “selfish genes.” [B] The possibility that a fourth category exists is so remote that it is scarcely worth considering, except in the spirit of admitting that science is always provisional. Plato’s commentary in the “laws” contains the first reference to the law/chance/agency paradigm. For over two thousand years philosophers and scientists have assumed that no other possible cause is likely, making it one of the safest best in the history of Western thought. Indeed, it is humorous to watch Darwinists deny agency, which is obvious, and affirm a fourth mystery category as an alternative that has no basis in anything and which can't be imagined with sufficient clarity to be described even as a fantasy. [C] Once again, you invoke the “supernatural,” characterizing all agency independent of law and chance as “supernatural,” as if a human agent could not produce CSI, a typical Darwinist blunder. That you would make such a statement at all is problematic, but to do it immediately after the FAQ on the natural/supernatural dichotomy suggests a firm resolve on your part to misrepresent the ID paradigm for as long as you can get away with it.StephenB_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

OK Rob, here is your retraction. I am not one to extend an exercise beyond its normal life expectancy. I did not mean those things I said @18, which, of course, means that I did not consider your comments to be mindless in any sense of the word. For my part, your comments are always welcome. My purpose was to take you through an exercise of CSI detection, nothing more. JT and I went through the same exercise last night, and I prodded him with about the same degree of irritation. He was a good sport, and I hope you will be too. The point of it all should be clear: We can easily distinguish between natural events and human agency, and we all do it every day. Two things are clear: The post cannot be explained either by “natural causes,” nor does it make any sense to characterize it as a “supernatural” event. It was what is was—a human agent generating design, causing things to happen that could not have happened otherwise. The CSI was there complete with about 700 bits of complex specified information. You separated the agent cause from natural causes, drew an inference to design, and called me to task.StephenB_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

----Rob: "StephenB, the thread is still young, so you have plenty of time to justify my faith in your integrity" Rob, let me assure you that I think those comments @18 were nothing short of outrageous. For my part, your comments about CSI on this thread have reflected a careful reading of Dembski's latest foray into CSI and you have every right to assess the value of his arguments. It is in that spirit that I assure you that I don't know what happened @18. I can only conclude that natural forces generated the posting and arranged the texture and sequence of the words. I truly regret that it worked out that way, and, frankly, I don't understand why you don't believe me.StephenB_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

Their only problem is that the other commentators know that there are external judges of the contest who will decide who has won.
Like Judge Jones? :-) I'll gladly cede StephenB the victory in any blogging debate. How is ID doing in the forums that matter? On which basis are funding and curriculum choices made: the blogosphere or the scientific literature?R0b_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

StephenB, How you win a argument is if you have the last comment. Then the author of the last comment can say to himself that they have no answer to my latest mindless dribble so I have won this argument. They can go proudly off to where ever it is they proclaim their victory and celebrate. Their only problem is that the other commentators know that there are external judges of the contest who will decide who has won. StephenB, you seldom lose.jerry_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

StephenB, the thread is still young, so you have plenty of time to justify my faith in your integrity.R0b_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

----Rob: "Being the honorable fellow that he is, I’m sure that StephenB will tell me what I said that he disagrees with, or retract his charge of “mindless criticism”. I agree that the charge of "mindless criticism" is grossly unfair and borderline rude. As it turns out, though, I did not make that charge nor did I write that post @18. I noticed those comments as well, but I have no idea how they appeared there or how they arranged themselves into such an insulting formulation. Please stop accusing me of that which I did not do.StephenB_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

Rob: "And just to make my position clear, I don’t have that intention either." Quite right. My comments were directed more at the general audience here rather than you specifically. The way I tend to restate his ideas makes them seem kind of stupid, (because simple patterns are all over nature) and I do hold out hope occasionally that I'm missing something. The core problem, is his uncritical acceptance of a third category of causality which can be appealed to. Just that category by itself is invoking the supernatural, which makes large portions of his presentation superfluous (if everyone already agrees this supernatural category of causality exists as he implies). But I think all of the above has been generally understood for a long time. But that there are certain things that pure randomness simply cannot achieve it seems to me he has made a pretty coherent case for.JT_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

JT:
I have not intention of labelling Dembski and idiot or charlatan which would certainly not be accurate.
And just to make my position clear, I don't have that intention either. I described CSI exactly in accord with Dembski's writings, and StephenB said that I don't even begin to grasp CSI. So I completed the syllogism by concluding that Dembski doesn't understand CSI either. Reductio ad absurdum. Being the honorable fellow that he is, I'm sure that StephenB will tell me what I said that he disagrees with, or retract his charge of "mindless criticism".R0b_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

[22] I've had that same paper out this morning. I have not intention of labelling Dembski and idiot or charlatan which would certainly not be accurate. In other posts I believe I clarified where the paper seems to me to have value. I continue to look at the paper from time to time, with the thought, that somehow, I truly am missing something crucial , and that buried deep in some piece of text that I perused to quickly is the one sentence that is going to open my eyes. But on the subject of a string of all 1's for example: On page 16 begins the formal section of the paper: "This intuitive characterization of specification now needs to be formalized..." The very first example he alludes to in this formal section of the paper, on the very next page, is a binary string of all 1's. The next example given is the bacterial flagellum, i.e. "bidirectional rotary motor driven propeller". The next examples are of card hands, "single pair" "full-house" "royal-flush" etc. Then in the 1st addendum he makes the following remark: "With specifications, the key to overturning chance is to keep the descriptive complexity of patterns low." There is another question (unrelated to others expressed in this thread) reagrading the above. What if a royal flush for example wasn't recognized as anything special in poker. Then there would be no simple term for it (as it had no meaning to humans) and thus no simple description. Its description would be presumably something like 25 words not 2. So how could whether or not it occured by chance be contigent on whether it had a simple description to speakers of the English."JT_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

Rob @21 and 22, there must be some misunderstanding. I said nothing at all about your references about Dembski, nor did I comment about your grasp of CSI. With as much humility as I can muster, I can only say that I don't know what you are talking about? I have written no posts today.StephenB_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

BTW, StephenB, this paper, which Dembski calls his "most up-to-date treatment of CSI", is all you need to read. If, after reading it, you think that I've mischaracterized Dembski's ideas in any way, then please quote the offending statement from me.R0b_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
Rob, is it clear to me that you do not even begin to grasp the concept of CSI, let alone it’s subset FSCI.
I'm glad that the UD glasnost is such that everyone can offer their opinion. I mean that sincerely. Unfortunately, StephenB, everything I said about CSI comes straight from Dembski, as you can readily verify by reading his work. Who's going to break the bad news to him that he doesn't understand CSI?R0b_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

Here is another interesting little quote from Intelligent Design 101. "For example we know that intelligent agents use funcitonal components to work in different systems. An everyday example might be the use of wheels on both cars and airplanes. This is explained by design theorists Jonathan Wells and Paul Nelson. "An Intelligent Cause may resuse or redeploy the same module in different systems, without there being any material or physical connection between those systems. Even more simply, intelligent agents can generate identical patterns independently. Intelligent Design may lead us to expect that functioning parts, such as genes, might appear in different organisms." INTELLIGENT DESIGN 101Platonist_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply