Science and Freethinking

_{Gil Dodgen

September 23, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

Everyone has a religion, a raison d’être, and mine was once Dawkins’. I had the same disdain for people of faith that he does, only I could have put him to shame with the power and passion of my argumentation.

But something happened. As a result of my equally passionate love of science, logic, and reason, I realized that I had been conned. The creation story of my atheistic, materialistic religion suddenly made no sense.

This sent a shock wave through both my mind and my soul. Could it be that I’m not just the result of random errors filtered by natural selection? Am I just the product of the mindless, materialistic processes that “only legitimate scientists” all agree produced me? Does my life have any ultimate purpose or meaning? Am I just a meat-machine with no other purpose than to propagate my “selfish genes”?

Ever since I was a child I thought about such things, but I put my blind faith in the “scientists” who taught me that all my concerns were irrelevant, that science had explained, or would eventually explain, everything in purely materialistic terms.

But I’m a freethinker, a legitimate scientist. I follow the evidence wherever it leads. And the evidence suggests that the universe and living systems are the product of an astronomically powerful creative intelligence.

Comments

Re EL: Sorry, the relevant self replicators for cell based life are based on coded representations. As in von Neumann self replication. The evidence of spontaneous emergence of self replication required is of vNSRs. Something like crystallisation won't do, per bait and switch. KFkairosfocus_{September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

The atheistic nature of darwinism firmly ensnares it in religion. While the argument frequently is made that many scientists believe in God and Darwinism, this is a cloak of deception. Any time you listen to a debate about Macro-evolution, you constantly hear the loud prattle call by The Religious Icons of Atheism: Darwinists. Darwinist's feel they have conceptual dominion over matter, and that Science is a higher authority than God. They practice religion not in a church, but by exclusionary proprietorship. Darwinism is a belief system. It is a world view. It is every bit as religious as Catholicism, and far more fervent. God is organic.arthuriandaily_{January 2, 2012
January
01
Jan
2
02
2012
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Oh yes, please do point me to your description of how information arose in the genome as we find it. Do you not remember that you were going to build a simulation in order to show that it was even possible?
Yes, and, if you remember, I retracted my claim. However, I found that the first part had been already done (a population of self-replicators from non-self-replicators) - I'll try to find the link - so I thought at some stage I'd have a go at the second part (building in the intermediate step between sequence and useful product). I'll let you know if I do. Anyway, as I said, and you have the link, I've responded in detail to your post to Larry. I do hope you'll drop by, if only to link to a response you make here.Elizabeth Liddle_{November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

GB
Er..the physical force that cause chemical molecules to react and bind with one another to create new molecules is a mechanism. Just like genetic changes. When we have a genome altered by the empirically observed process of gene duplication plus point mutation, then we have witnessed new information brought into existence. Thanks for clarifying.
Let me help you, you seemed to have cherry picked around the issue. You stated:
Here is a simple chemical reaction: ammonia + hydrochloric acid => ammonium chloride also written as NH3 + HCl => NH4Cl Where did the information in the ammonium chloride come from?
To which I replied:
You are confused, or perhaps using a definition of information that is completely useless to the conversation. There is no information in an atom of ammonium chloride. The state of an object is nothing more than the state of an object. It only becomes information if it has been brought into existence by a mechanism.
Now you can either concede the point, or, you can admit that you are using a definition of information that is irrelevant to the conversation, or, you can show that ammonia and hydrochloric acid indeed contain information. The last time I checked, ammonia contained nitrogen and hydrogen in a specific trigonal arrangement, each with a certain arrangement of subatomic particles with certain elementary charges. Where is the information contained in it? Will I find it on the periodic table?Upright BiPed_{November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle,
I reject most of these assertions
Which of those assertions are you talking about? The one that I rewrote my descriptions by using definitions taken directly from Merriam-Webster in place of the words themselves? Or the part about describing the dynamics involved in information transfer by using three or four different systems and applying the same observations to each system without equivocation? Or are you saying the descriptions aren’t coherent, but you’ve just had a hard time expressing what is incoherent about them?
I didn’t say that a “phenomenon” was “the result of an emergent property”. I’m saying that “information” is an emergent phenomenon.
Great, now all you need to do is show the process of emergence by which it comes into being as we find it in the genome. You cannot do that. I know and you know. That is why “emergence” has a bad rap around here – materialist use it as a shield when they cannot justify their position empirically, just as you did.
You say that the information we have been discussing is not “something that cannot be accounted for by systems of lower level processes.” Yet all you have to do is describe what those processes are. Calling them “emergent” without offering the slightest description of their emergence is not a description at all – it’s obfuscation.
Of course I’ve described them! Which bit do you think I’ve left undescribed?
Oh yes, please do point me to your description of how information arose in the genome as we find it. Do you not remember that you were going to build a simulation in order to show that it was even possible?
But I’ll stop there. We are, as I’ve said before, UBP, divided by a common language.
That is utter hogwash. In the face of observable evidence which is contrary to your worldview, you often wheel out this fabricated “hands in the air, whatever could he be talking about” line of defense. You’ve done it before while awaiting a convenient reprieve in the conversation. It’s as disingenuous as it could possibly be, but be my guest.Upright BiPed_{November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

GinoB:
You claimed that modern English was designed by humans. Designed from scratch, not modified.
No, I did not make that claim. Your twisted little mind may say that I made that claim but that is something you have to deal with, not me. I said: People designed the modern English language or do you think that blind, undirected processes didit? I never said HOW we did it or how we didn't do it. And I see you are still anti-scientific evidence. You are a twisted anti-science evo- which is shared trait with your "kind". :)Joseph_{November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

Joseph
The design of the English language is an ongoing process- artificial selection of variants. Artificial selection is a design mechanism.
Who specifically is doing the selecting? Give us the names. We're not talking about the evolution or modification of the language. You claimed that modern English was designed by humans. Designed from scratch, not modified. Talked yourself right into another corner, didn't you Mr 'whales once had four fins". :)GinoB_{November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

The design of the English language is an ongoing process- artificial selection of variants. Artificial selection is a design mechanism.Joseph_{November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

Joseph
GinoB: "Which people, and when, and how did they do it? Please be specific." We don’t have any of that for Stonehenge- when is a guess, how is a guess and the people- no idea.
You were asked about your claim that people designed modern English, not Stonehenge. Quit evading the question.
GB: "Every linguist on the planet thinks modern English evolved over time through blind, undirected processes." Reference please- your word means nothing here.
Burden of proof is on you to find one anywhere who agrees with you that modern English was designed. It's your claim, you support it.
And I would love to see any language arise without agency involvement.
Involvement doesn't equal design Joseph. I can be involved in growing tomatoes but that doesn't mean the tomatoes were designed. Now where is your evidence that modern English was designed?GinoB_{November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed
The state of a object is nothing more than the state of an object. It only becomes information if it has been brought into existence by a mechanism.
Er..the physical force that cause chemical molecules to react and bind with one another to create new molecules is a mechanism. Just like genetic changes. When we have a genome altered by the empirically observed process of gene duplication plus point mutation, then we have witnessed new information brought into existence. Thanks for clarifying.GinoB_{November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

Well, I think you are confused, UBP. You are failing to distinguish between high-level and lower-level description, and falling into the trap of thinking that a high level description (“information”) is something separate and mysterious that cannot be accounted for by systems of lower level processes.
I have described for you the individual parts of the system as well as the system itself. Each object has been described by what it is, by what it does, and its individual dynamic relationship within the system causing the system function as a whole. To simply assert that I am ‘confusing the lower with the higher’ is to say anything at all in order to have anything at all to say. This is nothing but a poor extension of your too-long-in-the-tooth objection regarding definitions (which has become unsustainable). A set of coherent descriptions has been provided to you, these descriptions are congruent with the observations and with the standard definitions of the words used. If you want to be an empiricist, you’ll have to allow yourself the ability to accept coherent descriptions of observed effects, even if/when they interfere with your preconceived ideas.
I reject most of these assertions, which are, in my view, unsupported, UBP. But I refer you to my post over at TSZ, which I think you have read. Simply telling me that you have already told me I am wrong does not convince me that I am. I require an actual well-argued rebuttal.
I notice that a lot of people here pooh-pooh the concept of “emergent” properties. It’s a shame, because it’s a useful concept. But even if we eschew the term, it should be very clear that systems of parts have properties that are not possessed by the parts; nonetheless all those parts may be both necessary, and, collectively, sufficient, to generate the whole system and its properties.
I have no problem with emergent properties, and I doubt that most people here do. In fact, I have a good working understanding of some emergent properties, having taken the known emergent properties in one domain and applied them across several similar domains, describing them in detail, and publishing the work for others in those domains.
Good.
“Detail” is the issue Dr Liddle. When someone claims a phenomenon is the result of “an emergent property” but cannot supply the detail of that emergence, then it’s nothing but smoke and mirrors. An emergent property without detail, or without even the analogies to offer a description, is nothing but a political placemat having nothing whatsoever to do with empirical pursuits.
I didn't say that a "phenomenon" was "the result of an emergent property". I'm saying that "information" is an emergent phenomenon. And far from avoiding detail, I have gone into considerable detail (possibly in posts on other threads, however) - I think there are a great many instances of information generation, transfer, and storage in biological systems, all using different processes.
You say that the information we have been discussing is not “something that cannot be accounted for by systems of lower level processes.” Yet all you have to do is describe what those processes are. Calling them “emergent” without offering the slightest description of their emergence is not a description at all – it’s obfuscation.
Of course I've described them! Which bit do you think I've left undescribed?
Dr Liddle, you have been given a logically coherent description of the material and dynamic observations surrounding information transfer. The words used in that description are specifically tied to their standard definitions, as has been evidenced within the conversation. There are no internal contradictions being made. No circularity. No unsupported assumptions. Why is it, being an empiricist, you fail to recognize this fact?
Because it isn't a "fact", Upright BiPed. None of those things are "facts". I am sure they are your opinions, but that doesn't make them "facts".
I think it comes from a misunderstanding of “reductionism” (which is a very misleading term IMO). Wholes cannot be “reduced” to parts without loss of key “information” about the whole. Rather, system of parts can often by “reduced” to wholes, so that instead of describing a person in terms of the incomprehensibly complex interactions of their parts, we can “reduce” them to the elegant concept of a purposeful conscious, empathetic agent with freedom of informed choice. Much more coherent. But not at all at in conflict with lower-level descriptions of how a person works.
I am sure this is a fascinating observation in some context, but it has nothing to do with the issues at hand.
Well, a fair bit, IMO. But I'll stop there. We are, as I've said before, UBP, divided by a common language. However, I did find the essay you wrote to Larry Moran helpful, hence my post about it at TSZ. If you find time, it would be interesting to read your comments.Elizabeth Liddle_{November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

GinoB at 49.3.2.1.3,
Here is a simple chemical reaction: ammonia + hydrochloric acid => ammonium chloride also written as NH3 + HCl => NH4Cl Where did the information in the ammonium chloride come from?
You are confused, or perhaps using a definiton of information that is completely useless to the conversation. There is no information in an atom of ammonium chloride. The state of a object is nothing more than the state of an object. It only becomes information if it has been brought into existence by a mechanism.Upright BiPed_{November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Well, I think you are confused, UBP. You are failing to distinguish between high-level and lower-level description, and falling into the trap of thinking that a high level description (“information”) is something separate and mysterious that cannot be accounted for by systems of lower level processes.
I have described for you the individual parts of the system as well as the system itself. Each object has been described by what it is, by what it does, and its individual dynamic relationship within the system causing the system function as a whole. To simply assert that I am ‘confusing the lower with the higher’ is to say anything at all in order to have anything at all to say. This is nothing but a poor extension of your too-long-in-the-tooth objection regarding definitions (which has become unsustainable). A set of coherent descriptions has been provided to you, these descriptions are congruent with the observations and with the standard definitions of the words used. If you want to be an empiricist, you’ll have to allow yourself the ability to accept coherent descriptions of observed effects, even if/when they interfere with your preconceived ideas.
I notice that a lot of people here pooh-pooh the concept of “emergent” properties. It’s a shame, because it’s a useful concept. But even if we eschew the term, it should be very clear that systems of parts have properties that are not possessed by the parts; nonetheless all those parts may be both necessary, and, collectively, sufficient, to generate the whole system and its properties.
I have no problem with emergent properties, and I doubt that most people here do. In fact, I have a good working understanding of some emergent properties, having taken the known emergent properties in one domain and applied them across several similar domains, describing them in detail, and publishing the work for others in those domains. “Detail” is the issue Dr Liddle. When someone claims a phenomenon is the result of “an emergent property” but cannot supply the detail of that emergence, then it’s nothing but smoke and mirrors. An emergent property without detail, or without even the analogies to offer a description, is nothing but a political placemat having nothing whatsoever to do with empirical pursuits. You say that the information we have been discussing is not “something that cannot be accounted for by systems of lower level processes.” Yet all you have to do is describe what those processes are. Calling them “emergent” without offering the slightest description of their emergence is not a description at all – it’s obfuscation. Dr Liddle, you have been given a logically coherent description of the material and dynamic observations surrounding information transfer. The words used in that description are specifically tied to their standard definitions, as has been evidenced within the conversation. There are no internal contradictions being made. No circularity. No unsupported assumptions. Why is it, being an empiricist, you fail to recognize this fact?
I think it comes from a misunderstanding of “reductionism” (which is a very misleading term IMO). Wholes cannot be “reduced” to parts without loss of key “information” about the whole. Rather, system of parts can often by “reduced” to wholes, so that instead of describing a person in terms of the incomprehensibly complex interactions of their parts, we can “reduce” them to the elegant concept of a purposeful conscious, empathetic agent with freedom of informed choice. Much more coherent. But not at all at in conflict with lower-level descriptions of how a person works.
I am sure this is a fascinating observation in some context, but it has nothing to do with the issues at hand.Upright BiPed_{November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

GinoB:
Which people, and when, and how did they do it? Please be specific.
We don't have any of that for Stonehenge- when is a guess, how is a guess and the people- no idea.
Every linguist on the planet thinks modern English evolved over time through blind, undirected processes.
Reference please- your word means nothing here. And I would love to see any language arise without agency involvement.Joseph_{November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

Joseph
People designed the modern English language
Which people, and when, and how did they do it? Please be specific.
or do you think that blind, undirected processes didit?
Every linguist on the planet thinks modern English evolved over time through blind, undirected processes. Since you are the only one who claims it was purposely designed, please provide your evidence of the intelligent design.GinoB_{November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

People designed the modern English language or do you think that blind, undirected processes didit?Joseph_{November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

GinoB, Consider the context. If you feel that a living human comprised of living cells comprised of amino acids can be reduced to a simple chemical reaction, then perhaps you could try getting all of the components, mixing them together, and seeing if you get a person. Even something as simple as a small piece of furniture requires information in addition to its components to arrive at a successful assembly. That such information is both required and targets a specified outcome indicate that the final assembly is a product of deliberate, intelligent intent. When you wish to show what can be produced by combining elements without information, notice to what trivial examples you are limited. You demonstrate the difference between what can and cannot be accomplished without intelligent design. (Remember the colored cichlid fishes? A consistent pattern forms.)ScottAndrews2_{November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

Eugene S
Information processing systems are not just molecules, Elizabeth. For they include: 1. Common alphabet. 2. Common language. 3. Common semantics. Credibly, these 3 points are a result of design. It is nowhere that we can provably point to those three spontaneously evolving.
Eugene, who intelligently designed the modern English language? Can you walk us through the process of how the design was done, and when?GinoB_{November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews2
If reducing the wholes to parts loses information, can parts be assembled to wholes without information? If so, how?
Here is a simple chemical reaction: ammonia + hydrochloric acid => ammonium chloride also written as NH3 + HCl => NH4Cl Where did the information in the ammonium chloride come from?GinoB_{November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth,
Wholes cannot be “reduced” to parts without loss of key “information” about the whole.
Taking an example - you used persons, which can be viewed as parts or wholes - if the "whole" equals the parts plus information, then what is the source of that information? If reducing the wholes to parts loses information, can parts be assembled to wholes without information? If so, how? By your own logic, information in addition to the parts is required to make a whole of them.ScottAndrews2_{November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth:
or it might be information accumulated over many generations of self-replicators replicating within a hazardous environment with limited resources.
There you go with your bald assertions again. Please demonstrate self-replicators replicating within a hazardous environment with limited resources can increase in information- specified information.Joseph_{November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

Well, I think you are confused, UBP. You are failing to distinguish between high-level and lower-level description, and falling into the trap of thinking that a high level description ("information") is something separate and mysterious that cannot be accounted for by systems of lower level processes. I notice that a lot of people here pooh-pooh the concept of "emergent" properties. It's a shame, because it's a useful concept. But even if we eschew the term, it should be very clear that systems of parts have properties that are not possessed by the parts; nonetheless all those parts may be both necessary, and, collectively, sufficient, to generate the whole system and its properties. I think it comes from a misunderstanding of "reductionism" (which is a very misleading term IMO). Wholes cannot be "reduced" to parts without loss of key "information" about the whole. Rather, system of parts can often by "reduced" to wholes, so that instead of describing a person in terms of the incomprehensibly complex interactions of their parts, we can "reduce" them to the elegant concept of a purposeful conscious, empathetic agent with freedom of informed choice. Much more coherent. But not at all at in conflict with lower-level descriptions of how a person works.Elizabeth Liddle_{November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

Yet again you are confusing the origin of life question with evolutionary theory, and injecting a heavy dose of misunderstood evolutionary computation. You have been corrected on this so many times I am starting to thing this is a deliberate tactic - a red herring designed to distort and distract ... ... etc ...DrBot_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT}

so you are trying to distract attention and polarise the atmosphere by making accusations against design thinkers. Those are marks of someone who has no case on the merits.
That looks like an accusation against a non-design thinker intended to distract and polarize the atmosphere. Why do you always do that KF, why can't you keep things civil, or is it that you don't have a case to make on its merits?
You do not have a right to redefine words as you please.
Neither do you yet you are happy to do it when it suits you. Latching, psuedo-latching, semi-latching, quasi-latching ...DrBot_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT}

Petrushka: If you want to think the dictionary determines the history of an object, be my guest If you want to redefine the terms of a discussion each time you are wrong, be my guest. That kind of impropriety is one of the reasons darwinism is irrelevant. It was you who quoted the dictionary (dictionary.com) in your post 89.1 (everyone can easily check), to answer and, supposedly, refute my definitions of design (which were not taken from a dictionary, but were my scientific and operational definitions). It was me who pointed out that in your definitions (or at least, the ones you proudly quoted) the word "design" was not at all connected only to "form", as you wrongly assumed (perhaps you shoul read what you quote, before posting it), but was strictly connected to a history including a conscious designer. Just for the record.gpuccio_{October 12, 2011
October
10
Oct
12
12
2011
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT}

PS: Evolutionary algorithms, so-called are designed, and work by implementing carefully tuned hill-climbing processes. They are a design method, not a demonstration that accumulated lucky accidents via incremental trial and error can create a microbe, them turn the microbe into Mozart. The requisite empirical demonstration for such a claim is still missing. After 150 years.kairosfocus_{October 12, 2011
October
10
Oct
12
12
2011
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

P: You do not have a right to redefine words as you please. Design does have a commonplace, technical meaning which is rather close to the dictionary usages GP has pointed to. What comes across is that the normal meaning does not suit your agenda, so you are trying to distract attention and polarise the atmosphere by making accusations against design thinkers. Those are marks of someone who has no case on the merits. Please, do better than that. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 12, 2011
October
10
Oct
12
12
2011
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

If you want to think the dictionary determines the history of an object, be my guest. That kind of science is one of the reasons ID is irrelevant. The fact is that evolutionary algorithms design all kinds of commercial products. So if design is an indication of intelligence, then evolution is intelligent. The simple fact is that design does not have to have a goal or target programmed in. All it needs is a metric to compare two or more variants. ID proponents are continually assuming that what currently exists is an end product rather than a process.Petrushka_{October 12, 2011
October
10
Oct
12
12
2011
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

Well, in case someone wonders, in the previous post it should have been "form", and not "worm" :)gpuccio_{October 12, 2011
October
10
Oct
12
12
2011
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: These are all common usages among English speaking people. They refer to form, not history. ????????? From the definitions you yourself provided: "an outline, sketch, or plan, as of the form and structure of a work of art, an edifice, or a machine to be executed or constructed" "organization or structure of formal elements in a work of art; composition". "the combination of details or features of a picture, building, etc.; the pattern or motif of artistic work: the design on a bracelet. Well, obviously there is no reference to history in concepts such as "work of art", "machine", "to construct", "composition", "picture", "building", or "bracelet". In your world, obviously, none of these things bears any relationship with a conscious designer. It's only a question of worm, how can we doubt it? Everybody knows that works of art daily emerge as properties of matter, and that bracelets are naturally found in caves as the result of erosion and other forces. You still can surprise me, Petrushka. My compliments.gpuccio_{October 12, 2011
October
10
Oct
12
12
2011
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 23 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply