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

AT 18. Call that a flat "tire"StephenB_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

-----Rob: "As JT said, Dembski’s CSI measure is inversely, not directly, proportional to the complexity of the pattern. All else being equal, a string of all 1’s has more CSI than a more complicated string. The “C” in CSI refers to the improbability of the pattern occurring (under some null hypothesis(es)), not the complexity of the pattern." 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 don't think it is fair for you to continue throwing thumbtacks along the highway hoping that someone will get a flat time. Somehow, you labor under the misconception that persistent mindless criticism of a proposition constitutes a refutation. It doesn'tStephenB_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

Borne:
However there is nothing complex about a string of 1’s.
If the string is long enough, then according to Dembski's definition of the "C" in "CSI", and under a uniform null hypthosis, it's complex.
And, while the rings of Saturn are complex they are not specified.
"Ring" is a simple description, and it's an identifiable shape. According to Dembski's definition, it's a specification.
There is no coded information in a string of 1’s, nor is there any algorithmic information.
CSI doesn't require coded information, and it's inversely proportional to the amount of algorithmic information. If you don't like this, you should take it up with Dembski.
Also, did it never occur to you that other definitions of CSI exist?
What definition were you using? And why weren't you using the definition published by the inventor of the term? JT was correct according to Dembski's definition of CSI. Why does he need to refine his notion of CSI just because your definition doesn't match Dembski's?
Where do you think Dembski got the term from? He did not invent it.
Yes he did. Obviously, the terms complex, specified, and information pre-existed Dembski's work, but the ID term CSI, with "complex" meaning improbable and "specified" meaning simply describable, is Dembski's invention.
Btw, CSI, by any definition, is not the end-all design detector.
Tell that to Dembski. He claims that it's the sole means for detecting design.
R0b_{February 21, 2009
February
02
Feb
21
21
2009
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Rob: "Your well-intentioned criticism is better directed at yourself." Thanks for the ill-intentioned criticism. I don't claim to be a world class expert on CSI. However there is nothing complex about a string of 1's. And, while the rings of Saturn are complex they are not specified. There is no coded information in a string of 1's, nor is there any algorithmic information. Also, did it never occur to you that other definitions of CSI exist? Where do you think Dembski got the term from? He did not invent it. Btw, CSI, by any definition, is not the end-all design detector. Design detection requires more than one tool.Borne_{February 20, 2009
February
02
Feb
20
20
2009
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

Yeah, yeah. Okay, I concide. But if you had been any less astute, you would have been impressed by my clever allegory.(tongue in cheek)alaninnont_{February 20, 2009
February
02
Feb
20
20
2009
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

It wasn't chance at all. The monkey was drawn by some of Dawkin's intelligent aliens when they seeded earth with life billions of years ago.Bantay_{February 20, 2009
February
02
Feb
20
20
2009
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

alaninnont, We know what you were trying to point out and we are pointing out that it's a poor argument. Snowflakes contain no information. This picture does contain information. Though it may be simple it is still saying something. No one who sees it thinks it happened by itself.ellijacket_{February 20, 2009
February
02
Feb
20
20
2009
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

Snow flakes are algorithmically simple - they do not contain semantic information and contain no information but that which describes what they are. Snowflakes carry no functional information. They just are what they are. There are no coded instructions in a snow flake - or crystals, or rocks, or
I was trying to point out that the message implied in the originally posted picture is not an absolute. There are instances such as the snowflake where organization is not the result of design.
alaninnont_{February 20, 2009
February
02
Feb
20
20
2009
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

The monkey is poorly designed, therefore there is no designer.angryoldfatman_{February 20, 2009
February
02
Feb
20
20
2009
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

Borne:
Actually no. A long string of 1’s is not CSI at all. It can be described with a very small set of instructions.
Borne, whatever you're describing, it is not the concept of CSI that Dembski invented. As JT said, Dembski's CSI measure is inversely, not directly, proportional to the complexity of the pattern. All else being equal, a string of all 1's has more CSI than a more complicated string. The "C" in CSI refers to the improbability of the pattern occurring (under some null hypothesis(es)), not the complexity of the pattern.
There is no mathematical equivalent to language, there are no instructions designating the steps for the assembly of anything. There is no coded information. There is no functionality. There are no transport, transcription, translation, cut/copy/paste, corrective mechanisms or anything at all of the kind that fit the CSI content of biological organisms. There are no machines insuring correct system state. See where this leads? I’m sort of describing what CSI isn’t so you can better grasp what it is. You need to refine your notion of what CSI is before trying to describe things that don’t contain any using it.
None of those are requirements for Dembski's CSI. Your well-intentioned criticism is better directed at yourself.R0b_{February 20, 2009
February
02
Feb
20
20
2009
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

JT :
And furthermore, just to remind everyone of what the problem with CSI is, it is that a very very long string of all 1’s would also be CSI, actually exhibit very high CSI. The reason is that it couldn’t be generated by coin flips. So the rings of Saturn also for example exhibit high CSI.
Actually no. A long string of 1's is not CSI at all. It can be described with a very small set of instructions. The rings of Saturn are not CSI either. Not in the least. They are entirely describable with a small instruction set. Random spreading of whatever they are actually made of being subjected to the laws of gravity and inertia. That is not CSI at all. There is no mathematical equivalent to language, there are no instructions designating the steps for the assembly of anything. There is no coded information. There is no functionality. There are no transport, transcription, translation, cut/copy/paste, corrective mechanisms or anything at all of the kind that fit the CSI content of biological organisms. There are no machines insuring correct system state. See where this leads? I'm sort of describing what CSI isn't so you can better grasp what it is. You need to refine your notion of what CSI is before trying to describe things that don't contain any using it. Strings of 1's don't fit CSI anymore than the rings of Saturn, snowflakes or rocks.Borne_{February 20, 2009
February
02
Feb
20
20
2009
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

alaninnont
How about posting a picture of a magnified snowflake. Designed by the snow gods or happened by chance?
Snow flakes are algorithmically simple - they do not contain semantic information and contain no information but that which describes what they are. Snowflakes carry no functional information. They just are what they are. There are no coded instructions in a snow flake - or crystals, or rocks, or ... DNA however, as an example of something designed, is orders of magnitude more specific and contains high algorithmically complex information. In fact mathematically equal to that of human language. Using snowflakes and the like is what shallow thinking folks tried to do years ago when attempting to refute design. Doesn't work at all for very obvious reasons.Borne_{February 20, 2009
February
02
Feb
20
20
2009
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

How about posting a picture of a magnified snowflake. Designed by the snow gods or happened by chance?alaninnont_{February 20, 2009
February
02
Feb
20
20
2009
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Correction: How do you make a sculpture of an elephant? Answer: Get a block of stone and carve away everything that doesn’t look like an elephant.JT_{February 20, 2009
February
02
Feb
20
20
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

[4]: First a riddle: How do you make an object of an elephant? Answer: Get a block of stone and carve away everything that doesn’t look like an elephant. Upon reflection, I think what evo theorists would say is that evolution isn't design because the process did not have a plan for a human in advance for example. The above riddle is instructive at least to me: Think about a sculptor that only knows about trunks. So give him a block of stone for example and he'll automatically carve a trunk on the end of it. Is it ruled out he couldn't carve an elephant by chance (i.e. without any forsight of creating an elephant?) No. What if the block of stone he was given already had everything comprising an elephant (just by chance) excluding the trunk, and our sculptor without any awareness of that fact stuck a trunk on the end of this (elephant-shaped) piece of stone. So here is one way a sculpture of an elephant occurs without foresight. However, what if reality is such that wildly fantastic things can be stumbled upon by blind chance. That tells you something about the nature of reality, and if you subsitute the term "reality" with "God" it tells you something about the nature of God. The above seems profound to me, but maybe because I wrote it.JT_{February 20, 2009
February
02
Feb
20
20
2009
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

@3 DallanCashley:I agree this doesn't prove anything. However you reading this proves humans are capable of design detection. Can somebody please tell me what this drawing represents? I see a monkey with a stick in his *** floating over a pyramid while making music with a string. The monkey is missing some fingers and toes and his tail is way to long. This was designed, but not by someone very intelligent.critiacrof_{February 20, 2009
February
02
Feb
20
20
2009
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

[3]: Proof that humans are intelligent and capable of designing complicated things is not proof that all complicated things are designed by something. Have you not read the thread from yesterday, where some evo biologist is calling for the term "design" to be abandoned? (BTW I can turn around and attack the I.D. position as well and will do so in a moment). But it seems to me that evolution advocates will often implicitly accept design as being transcendent and metaphysical and yet still a valid concept, in an argument like the one you've just made. If this is not the case then the argument you've made is meaningless. If design is just a physical process describable by laws, then its really no different from any other physical process such as evolution. Evolutionary theorists will more than occasionally talk abouth natural laws and evolution "designing" things. So the term "design" is not applicable to evolution only if design is a metaphysical concept. But to return to human design, in the case of this big monkey what we know is that the designer had something equating to the image of a monkey stored in his brain previously. Think of an equivalent scenario where some graphical image is stored in a computer's memory as perhaps a compressed or encrypted binary file. Such a file would bear no superficial or obvious relationship to the graphical image, and yet nevertheless it is algorithmically equivalent to that image. So a designed object implies the existence of something directly correlating to it that prexisted it, perhaps in a human's brain. But for any object, if there was a deterministic physical process of any sort that created it, then of necessity that process (together with all necessary prexisting conditions) would be a preexisting form of the object in question, would algorithmically equate to the resulting object, i.e. f(x) = y, so f(x) is just an alternate form of y that in fact equates to y. But lets look at design in an evolutionary context. First a riddle: How do you make an object of an elephant? Answer: Get a block of stone and carve away everything that doesn't look like an elephant. So a block of stone is random raw material. The intelligent designer is the carver. In an evolutionary context the block of random material would be mutations. The carver would be natural laws and the environment. But at any rate, if design is not a metaphysical process, there seems to be no reason that we cannot accurately characterize what evolution is said to do as "design" as well. So why some evolutionary theorists would implicity accept design as being a valid metaphysical concept (which they do when they distinguish it from evolution) is beyond me. Now to I.D. - At several points in the last few days I've seen I.D. advocates assert in this forum that we've move beyond CSI, and that the only thing relevant now is FCSI. However the monkey drawing and the other previous example today from DaveScot are only examples of CSI. And furthermore, just to remind everyone of what the problem with CSI is, it is that a very very long string of all 1's would also be CSI, actually exhibit very high CSI. The reason is that it couldn't be generated by coin flips. So the rings of Saturn also for example exhibit high CSI. And also let me remind everyone that CSI is inversely proportional to the complexity of the pattern.JT_{February 20, 2009
February
02
Feb
20
20
2009
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Given enough time... people will draw lines and pictures in the ground? Given enough time... populations will develop culture and agriculture? I understand, humans are intelligent, and we design things, but what exactly does this have to do with the "Theory of Intelligent Design"? Proof that humans are intelligent and capable of designing complicated things is not proof that all complicated things are designed by something. ...or did you guys think God drew this picture of a monkey by reaching down to the earth with a big stick and raking it through the mud?DallanCashley_{February 20, 2009
February
02
Feb
20
20
2009
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

Absolutely the result of random geo-mutations and unguided natural selection. How? Easy! Imagine a monkey shape sensitive spot on the ground. Or, could have been formed by natural causes - worms + gophers + wind + random artifacts of ancient plant growth + time. It's a designoid (Dawkins). Remember to keep reminding yourself that it isn't designed, it evolved. (Crick) So there's my just-so story and it's a fact!! No intelligence is allowed, and if you don't like it you're a stealth religious nut creationist wacko promoting pseudo-science and trying to force religion into the classroom!!Borne_{February 20, 2009
February
02
Feb
20
20
2009
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

Ok, now that is definitely NOT designed ...QuadFather_{February 20, 2009
February
02
Feb
20
20
2009
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply