Intelligent Design

Still No Bomb

Spread the love

I posted my No Bomb After 10 Years post on October 23 and left for vacation the next day, and I’ve had very limited access to the internet since then. I am back and I am amazed at the energy that has gone into responding to that post (1,608 comments!). I have had a chance to go over the comment thread and can report that there is still no bomb.

Amusingly, keiths insisted that he had posted a bomb over at The Skeptical Zone that proved that Darwinism is “trillions” of times better at explaining the data than ID. His argument failed at many levels. Yet, even more amusingly, he kept on insisting he had debunked ID after his so-called bomb had been defused by numerous commenters. See, e.g., here and here for just two examples.

Keiths’ unwarranted triumphalism is just the latest example of a phenomenon I have seen countless times over the last 10 years. Many Darwinists seem to be literally unable to see past their ideological blinders, and this makes them blind to errors in their arguments that are obvious to those who don’t share their metaphysical commitments. I expect keiths to continue to go on ranting about how his bomb is waiting to be defused. Let him. At the end of the day, neither he nor I get to decide. We write for the lurkers.

Let me end with this. As I’ve said before, I will abandon ID, shut down this site, and become a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinist just as soon as chance/law forces are demonstrated to have created complex specified information. [As always, question begging not allowed] keiths purported takedown did not even address this question, far less resolve it.

109 Replies to “Still No Bomb

  1. 1
    News says:

    So the trolls do not yet have the Bomb?

  2. 2
    Alan Fox says:

    Exactly, Barry. You don’t get to decide. All you can do is watch from the sidelines. Science that works, proves useful, will survive and develop. Ideas that prove wrong will be discarded. Perhaps when ID eventually comes up with a genuine e testable theory it can be tested in the crucible of science.

  3. 3
    Axel says:

    Your comment is somewhat ironical, Reynard, in the light of the survey reported on here, in which all the scientists polled stated that Evolution had never figured in any of the work they had performed during their professional life. Indeed, risibly ironical would hardly be overstating the matter.

  4. 4

    I’ve seen generally three things.

    1) It just *has* to be true.

    2) All the cool kids believe it and I don’t want to be stupid, fringe, etc.

    3) Employ a presupposition where design can’t be even considered. Related to 1).

  5. 5
    Alan Fox says:

    You forgot to include a link, Axel.

  6. 6
    Barry Arrington says:

    Alan, do you have anything of substance to say? As I have often said before, sneers are poor substitute for an argument. For example, perhaps you can point me to the peer reviewed paper where chance/law was demonstrated to have created CSI.

  7. 7
    Axel says:

    No, I didn’t forget, Alan. I have many better things to do with my time than to preserve every article and post that comfirm the ineluctable truth of theism, as attested by the non locality observed in QM experiments.

    Well, it’s true generally, although a few are noteworthy enough to preserve for future links.

  8. 8
    Alan Fox says:

    Barry,of course I can’t point out a s identification paper discussing CSI. CS is an undefined, unscientific term. Can you point me to the scientific theory of ID?

  9. 9
    Alan Fox says:

    Scientific. Darned smartphones!

  10. 10
    humbled says:

    “Science that works, proves useful, will survive and develop. Ideas that prove wrong will be discarded. ”

    In a perfect world Alan, this would be true but it isn’t, far from it unfortunately.

    Darwinian evolution is not useful, it has been proven wrong countless times, it has a mountain of failed predictions, and yet the outdated silly Victorian idea still plagues the world with true believers just not willing to let go.

    There is no bomb only fundamentalist Darwin believers who aren’t mature enough to accept their cherished theory sounds more ridiculous with each new scientific discovery.

  11. 11
    Rich says:

    Welcome back Barry. I was a little worried.

    Denyse, defining those who disagree with you as “Trolls” may be politically convenient, but that’s about it.

    In the first link, KF clearly has no grasps of the entailments of either theory. William the same. I suppose you could argue for a prankster designer who is trying really hard to make evolution look real, or accept evolution and focus on abiogenesis – again, ID is jello .. ” The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection” but I guess by calling out natural selection you can’t hide behind the vagueness that is “some features”.

    It went *so* badly for ID when there is a fair exchange of views that they (KF) closed comments on both threads. ID has a lot of work to do before its ready for prime time.

    Denyse also pulled up some research that destroyed the “islands of function” argument. *High Five* Denyse!

  12. 12
    Rich says:

    Barry, I think the CSI dog is dead. No-one is using it, or calculating it, or measuring it. You can’t even agree amongst yourselves what it is or if its calculable. It has been found out as a rhetorical device and no-one is buying that bluff any more.

  13. 13
    Andre says:

    Let’s see if Rich can help……

    Rich can you show us how unguided processes created a guided process to prevent unguided processes from happening?

    Anything?

    Please help me shutdown UD!

  14. 14
    Rich says:

    Andre, you’ve got a whole PCD thread of your own where world class biologist Joe Felsenstein is ready to continue your education. What are you doing here, asking me?

    You do highlight that there is no real substance to ID, just anti-evolutionary flailing, so I think your post was still useful, though.

  15. 15
    Alan Fox says:

    Andre,

    Why don’t you ask Barry to let you author a post on, presumably, programmed cell death if yo think it is a killer argument? How about it, Barry?

  16. 16
    Andre says:

    Rich

    I read the posts and there is just nothing….. Not even Joe knows how PCD came about by unguided processes ask him……

    I asked you…. anything?

  17. 17
    Rich says:

    Why don’t you go and ask him directly?;)

    You sure love banging your drum. Don’t be afraid that there may be a better drummer.

  18. 18
    Enkidu says:

    Axel

    Your comment is somewhat ironical, Reynard, in the light of the survey reported on here, in which all the scientists polled stated that Evolution had never figured in any of the work they had performed during their professional life. Indeed, risibly ironical would hardly be overstating the matter.

    How many scientists use the theory of plate tectonics in their day to day work? How many use the germ theory of disease?

    The validity of a scientific theory is not dependent on how many people directly use it.

  19. 19
    Alan Fox says:

    The soma vs germ-line has been pointed out to you, Andre.

  20. 20
    Andre says:

    Guys

    It is really easy, show us how unguided processes can creaty stablity control mechanisms, with backup stability control mechanisms and you win……..

    Which state is the show me state?

  21. 21
    Andre says:

    Alan Fox the germ line says absolutely nothing on how the process was created by unguided processes… Show us Alan.

  22. 22
    Rich says:

    Like KF, Andre is stuck in a defensive cycle. He has his “Evolution can’t!” soundbite, but doesn’t want to discuss it with actual experts in case…. evolution can?

  23. 23
    Axel says:

    Tut! Tut! That is a plain, old-fashioned non sequitur, enkidu. You are comparing what is touted as an all-encompassing biological paradigm with examples of narrow fields of research.

  24. 24
    Enkidu says:

    Rich

    Like KF, Andre is stuck in a defensive cycle. He has his “Evolution can’t!” soundbite, but doesn’t want to discuss it with actual experts in case…. evolution can?

    I’ve noticed that’s a rather common phenomena here at UD. Almost every question that starts “What is the ID explanation for…?” is answered with a reply that starts “Evolution can’t!”

    If ID had something useful to offer to science I’d expect much better answers. I’d at least expect some answers.

  25. 25
    Axel says:

    Oh, and Evolution is ‘established science’ as well…?!?!

  26. 26
    Andre says:

    Guys

    Defensive? Hahahahaha, I’m just asking you to prove your point…..

    You say unguided processes are the best explanation for the diversity of life, I’m asking you to show me…. None of you have.

  27. 27
    Rich says:

    Uh huh, Andre. If I was offered the opportunity to quiz a world class ID expert, I’d jump at the chance. I’d be hoping to learn a thing or two. I certainly wouldn’t keep mumbling my comfort phrase from my pillow fort. 😉

  28. 28
    Enkidu says:

    Axel

    Tut! Tut! That is a plain, old-fashioned non sequitur, enkidu. You are comparing what is touted as an all-encompassing biological paradigm with examples of narrow fields of research.

    Plate tectonic theory and the germ theory of disease aren’t “narrow fields of research”. Plate tectonics is the main underlying paradigm for all of geology. The germ theory of disease is the main underlying paradigm for all of medicine.

    If you’re going to criticize one scientific theory for not being used every day you need to criticize them all.

  29. 29
    Alan Fox says:

    Andre

    We’ve been over this. PCD is uncontroversial and well understood. That I can’t give you a blow-by-blow account of its evolution will make no difference to the fact that ToE is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

    There is no ID explanation.

  30. 30
    Andre says:

    Endiku

    I have not used ID to defend my position on PCD. I’ve only used established and proven science. Would you like to show me how an unguided processes created a guided process to prevent unguided processes from happening?

    Do I just take your word for it or can any of you show me?

  31. 31
    Andre says:

    Alan

    I’m dissapointed, we might understand how PCD works but it says nothing on how it came to be……

    Try again….

  32. 32
    phoodoo says:

    Enkidu,

    I have noticed that NOT A SINGLE evolutionist here has been willing to say what the so called Theory of Evolution is.

  33. 33
    Box says:

    Barry: I will abandon ID, shut down this site, and become a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinist just as soon as chance/law forces are demonstrated to have created complex specified information

    Darwinists show us the evolution of one single instance of CSI – a protein, genetic code, a molecular machine (e.g. the flagellum)! Take your pick!

    *** crickets chirping ***

  34. 34
    Andre says:

    Alan

    Perhaps you don’t really understand the issue, or you are willfully ignorant.

    PCD is the unguided evolution stopper…. get it? And since it is vital in single and multi cellular organisms and is evolutionary conserved you must be able to show how it originated to be able to stake your claim.

    Can you?

  35. 35
    gpuccio says:

    geoffrobinson at #4:

    That’s a very good summary. My compliments.

    I suppose that 3) is the most fashionable, at present.

  36. 36
    Andre says:

    This tiff reminds me of an argument I once had with an evo that sickle cell is a good mutation….. After many to and fro tussles he realized that mutations that kill you is not really a good thing, he abandoned the whole idea but still insisted evolution created everything….. It emerged…..

    What a cool word in biology, its like the word pre-owned what does it really mean?

  37. 37
    Rich says:

    LOL@Andre. In one room moaning how no-one can explain PCD, afraid to go into the next room where the expert is.

    That’s ID in a nutshell. Great viewing, though.

  38. 38
    Andre says:

    To make my point, in the PCD OP, how many swear words? TSZ is a vile place, on principle I won’t comment there. Lastly I never asked for an OP did I?

    I just asked you to back your claim.

  39. 39
    Rich says:

    And then we have “tone!” and the clutching of pearls. Such priceless theater!

    That Jesus guy I’ve read about. He’d have rolled his sleeves up and got in there I think. (Just in case he informs your belief system.)

  40. 40
    bornagain77 says:

    keith s in post 1599 of the other thread
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-524834
    you claimed that this,,,

    “You are not God, i.e. you do not have infinite knowlege, and thus you cannot make that judgement (in regards to the existence of evil being good or bad).”

    ,,,is a ‘irrational argument’. I beg to differ. You believing that you are God, i.e. that you have the omniscience necessary as make a judgement in regards to the existence of evil being good or bad, is what is completely irrational. Indeed I would hold you thinking you are as smart as God to be not only illogical but to be a completley insane position.
    Moreover, keith s your argument is not based on logic since you must presuppose the existence of objective good in order for evil to exist, i.e. your argument defeats itself in its presupposition. I can go on about this failure in your logic, but let’s focus on the real isssue you have.
    Your argument is an emotional argument. Let’s call it the ‘it’s not fair’ argument. When something precious is torn from our lives we want to shake our fists at God and scream ‘it’s not fair’. How dare you do this to me.
    But keith s you are far from the only person that has ever struggled with tragedy in our personal lives and in the world. Every person alive, every time a loved one dies or some seemingly senseless act of violence happens in the world, struggles deeply with these questions, trying to make sense of it. From our finite perspective there can seemingly be no sense to the tragedies.
    In that regards, just this morning, as I was thinking over your argument from ‘the problem of evil’, wondering how I should more succinctly address it, and I happened to watch this following video this morning with a dear friend of mine who had recently lost his beloved sister.

    Dr. Mary Neal’s Near-Death Experience – (Life review portion starts at the 13:00 minute mark) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=as6yslz-RDw#t=787

    ,,, Amazingly, the problem of evil, and our reaction to tragedy in our lives, was almost central to Dr. Neal’s entire talk. ‘Miraculously’, (at least in my worldview), at around the 16:00 minute mark, Dr. Neal spoke directly on why God allows evil in the world and how our limited perspective clouds our judgments in our reactions to those tragedies.
    I really think this video is ‘meant for you’ and would be of a ‘healing’ nature to you keith s.
    If you don’t have time to watch the whole video, I hope that you at least have time to watch a few minutes around the 16:00 minute mark of the video.

  41. 41
    keith s says:

    Reposting this from the original ‘bomb’ thread:

    With 1600 comments in this thread, now is a good time to pause and take stock.

    Barry started things off with this:

    To tell the truth, when I first started debating origins, I assumed not only that there was a very good chance that I was on the wrong side of the debate, but also that one or more of those highly educated, credentialed, intelligent professionals would come along and drop a science bomb on me that would destroy my naïve belief in ID…

    And I think it is safe to assume also that at least one of those 40,000 individuals is the highly educated, credentialed, intelligent professional who, if they could, would drop a science bomb on me that would destroy my naïve belief in ID.

    Ten years later, 40,000 commenters later. No bomb. I’m beginning to think that maybe there isn’t a bomb. Maybe my confidence in ID is not naïve after all.

    Oops. Within hours of posting that, Barry was already faced with a bomb he could not defuse. A bomb showing that ID is trillions of times worse at explaining the evidence compared to unguided evolution.

    UDers have been trying, and failing, to rebut my argument ever since.

    Barry took a weak stab at it:

    Your article consists of sneers and theological arguments about how a designer “woodna dun it that way.”

    That’s wrong, of course. My argument makes no assumptions about how the designer “wooda dun it”. That’s precisely the problem for IDers — they have to explain why, out of the trillions of possibilities, a designer would do things in a way that makes it look exactly as if unguided evolution were responsible. It’s bizarre.

    After refuting Barry, I challenged him:

    I’ve placed the bomb in front of you, Barry. Can you defuse it? Will you run for safety and let someone else deal with it? Or will you allow it to explode, and then stagger out of the smoke, dazed and singed like Wile E. Coyote, while insisting that there was no explosion at all?

    The spotlight’s on you, Barry.

    That was on October 24th. I haven’t heard from him since.

    Meanwhile, others have tried, with similar results.

    Those attempts can be seen in this thread and also here.

    KF’s response was to post yet another of his “FYI-FTR” threads, with comments turned off, of course, to prevent open discussion. At around the same time, he appears to have turned off comments on the thread that WJM started to discuss my argument.

    The argument clearly has IDers spooked, and no wonder. Once you’ve seen that ID is losing the game by a score of trillions to one, there is no rational reason to continue believing in ID.

    IDers desperately need a refutation. Can anyone defuse the bomb?

  42. 42
    keith s says:

    Rich:

    Denyse also pulled up some research that destroyed the “islands of function” argument. *High Five* Denyse!

    Rich is referring to this thread:

    Evolution driven by laws? Not random mutations?

    More bad news for ID.

  43. 43
    Andre says:

    Just show us guys

    How do unguided processes create a guided process to prevent unguided processes? Do this and UD is shutdown……

    Anyone?

  44. 44
    Andre says:

    Keith S

    If you can’t show us one example of unguided evolution creating anything, where does the trillion number come from?

    I wonder………

  45. 45
    Rich says:

    The most impressive thing is how Andre keeps banging his drum and putting his fingers in his ears at the same time.

    Do worry Andre, A lot of ID is like that. You want to have an objection, but don’t want to research it thoroughly.

    Joe is waiting for you, and he’s very gentle.

  46. 46
    Barry Arrington says:

    Barry in OP

    I expect keiths to continue to go on ranting about how his bomb is waiting to be defused.

    Prediction confirmed @ comment 41.

    Who says ID proponents can’t make successful predictions!!

  47. 47
    Andre says:

    I’ve been all ears on a paper, or person explaining how PCD was created, yet nothing…… I really am not worried I must say the only people worried here are you guys claiming victory for nothing. Keith S is the one with his fingers in his ears, I’m on ignore remember….. And all he has to do is show us…….

  48. 48
    Andre says:

    Nice one Barry….

    Perhaps if you ask for anything on PCD they might have something…… Perhaps I’m too low on the ladder to be given answers….

  49. 49
    Andre says:

    Rich

    It is of course completely lost on you that I have not inferred ID for PCD. All I’ve done is given you proven science, that it is not the result of unguided processes…..

    If it is conserved, which really is a problem for your unguided fairy tale!

  50. 50
    Rich says:

    Andre: ” Perhaps I’m too low on the ladder to be given answers….”

    Or perhaps you have a whole thread on it ready to roll with a world class expert at your disposal?

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=5099

    Honesty, Andre. Strive for it.

  51. 51
    Andre says:

    Rich

    In my native tongue we have a saying…

    “Meng jou met die semels dan vreet die varke jou op.”

    Look it up. TSZ is not on any of my wish lists……

  52. 52
    keith s says:

    Barry,

    If my bomb is such a dud, you should be able to defuse it easily, in your own words.

    How about it?

  53. 53
    Andre says:

    Keith S

    What bomb? You did not have anything…… it is a dud…….

  54. 54
    Rich says:

    Well I’m sad that the debate is too robust for fragile petals such a yourself, Andre.

    🙁

    Ask WJM about his “big boy pants” tailor and maybe one day you can get a pair and rejoin the debate.

  55. 55
    Axel says:

    ‘If you’re going to criticize one scientific theory for not being used every day you need to criticize them all.’

    It wasn’t a matter of evolutionary theory not being used by them every day, enkedi, or even frequently, but never! A Just So Story in the real scientific world.

    Surely, germ theory IS used every day, and I suspect, plate tectonics, too, though I believe such shifting of tectonic plates and seismic activity can’t be predicted with much confidence with our current scientific understanding.

  56. 56
    keith s says:

    While we wait for Barry’s refutation, here are the closing paragraphs of my OP:

    This is a big problem for IDers. They concede that unguided evolution can bring about microevolutionary changes, but they claim that it cannot be responsible for macroevolutionary changes. Yet they give no plausible reasons why microevolutionary changes, accumulating over a long period of time, should fail to produce macroevolutionary changes. All they can assert is that somehow there is a barrier that prevents microevolution from accumulating and turning into macroevolution.

    Having invented a barrier, they must invent a Designer to surmount it. And having invented a Designer, they must arbitrarily constrain his behavior (as explained above) to match the data. Three wild, unsupported assumptions: 1) that a barrier exists; 2) that a Designer exists; and 3) that the Designer always acts in ways that mimic evolution. (We often hear that evolution is a designer mimic, so it’s amusing to ponder a Designer who is an evolution mimic.) Unguided evolution requires no such wild assumptions in order to explain the data. Since it doesn’t require these arbitrary assumptions, it is superior to ID as an explanation.

    Here’s an analogy that may help. Imagine you live during the time of Newton. You hear that he’s got this crazy idea that gravity, the force that makes things fall on earth, is also responsible for the orbits of the moon around the earth and of the earth and the other planets around the sun. You scoff, because you’re convinced that there is an invisible, undetected barrier around the earth, outside of which gravity cannot operate. Because of this barrier, you are convinced of the need for angels to explain why the moon and the planets follow the paths they do. If they weren’t pushed by angels, they would go in straight lines. And because the moon and planets follow the paths they do, which are the same paths predicted by Newton on the basis of gravity, you assume that the angels always choose those paths, even though there are trillions of other paths available to them.

    Instead of extrapolating from earthly gravity to cosmic gravity, you assume there is a mysterious barrier. Because of the barrier, you invent angels. And once you invent angels, you have to restrict their behavior so that planetary paths match what would have been produced by gravity. Your angels end up being gravity mimics. Laughable, isn’t it?

    Yet the ‘logic’ of ID is exactly the same. Instead of extrapolating from microevolution to macroevolution, IDers assume that there is a mysterious barrier that prevents unguided macroevolution from happening. Then they invent a Designer to leap across the barrier. Then they restrict the Designer’s behavior to match the evidence, which just happens to be what we would expect to see if unguided macroevolution were operating. The Designer ends up being an unguided evolution mimic.

    The problem is stark. ID is trillions of times worse than unguided evolution at explaining the evidence, and the only way to achieve parity is to tack wild and unsupported assumptions onto it.

    If you are still an IDer after reading, understanding, and digesting all of this, then it is safe to say that you are an IDer despite the evidence, not because of it. Your position is a matter of faith and is therefore a religious stance, not a scientific one.

  57. 57
    Joe says:

    keith s- Your argument has been shown to be garbage and your ignorance has been exposed.

    Now the only question is why are you so proud of that?

  58. 58
    drc466 says:

    So, to sum up:

    keith s has decided that a subjective, statistical analysis of incomplete, contrary cladograms “proves” evolution. While ignoring the flaws of his argument, and all the statistical analyses of orders of orders of magnitude higher improbabilities that “disprove” evolution.

    Alan Fox has decided that ID must be wrong because it is comprised primarily of showing that Evolution “can’t do” something. While being unaware of the fact that his only response to these arguments is an unsubstantiated Faith that Evolution “can do” them, and that throughout history the primary method of disproving hypotheses is showing how they fail to meet observed or calculated results (aka “can’t do”).

    Rich’s posts lack any substantive argument.

    Meanwhile, empirical evidence of chance/law producing CSI/novelty/macro-evolution/whatever you want to call it still remains absent. To which the evolutionist’s only response is to deny there is a difference between complex/simple, specified/unspecified, up/down, add/subtract, new/old, live/dead, sandcastles/piles of sand.

  59. 59
    keith s says:

    Barry has opened a new thread, so I will respond to drc466 there.

  60. 60
    Alan Fox says:

    drc466 writes:

    Alan Fox has decided that ID must be wrong because it is comprised primarily of showing that Evolution “can’t do” something.

    Not quite. ID is not wrong; it is non-existent as a scientific theory. And it fails in criticising evolutionary theory because its proponents unfailingly misunderstand and misrepresent evolutionary theory.

    Remember Barry upthread asked:

    For example, perhaps you can point me to the peer reviewed paper where chance/law was demonstrated to have created CSI.

    knowing full well that CSI is a bogus concept that cannot be defined with anything like the rigour necessary to quantify it. He knows full well that the scientific community do not discuss, write about or employ the concept. It is a vapid concept.

  61. 61
    Mapou says:

    its proponents unfailingly misunderstand and misrepresent evolutionary theory.

    LOL. Where have seen this lame canard before?

  62. 62
    Alan Fox says:

    Louis asks:

    Where have seen this lame canard before?

    Swimming in a circle?

    Talking about searches for solutions, talking about islands of function, talking about needles in haystacks.

    Challenging people to disprove a bogus concept like CSI.

  63. 63
    Mapou says:

    ID predictions:

    Intelligent design, as we know it from observing intelligent beings design various things, predicts that the evolution of complex objects designed over a long period of time forms a mostly nested hierarchy. However, lateral (multiple) inheritance (horizontal gene transfer in biology) is also a well-known design technique. Ask any computer software engineer. Guess what? This is precisely what is observed in nature.

    Darwin, by contrast, predicted a strictly nested hierarchy enforced by common descent. This has been proven false many times over. It’s embarrassing, to say the least. The only thing that is keeping Darwinism alive is politics and a bunch of brain-dead dirt worshipers.

    IDists : 1
    Darwinists: 0

  64. 64
    notstevestory says:

    Holy Cow! Dembski’s new book is $105?????? Who in the world would buy that????

  65. 65
    keith s says:

    notstevestory:

    Holy Cow! Dembski’s new book is $105?????? Who in the world would buy that????

    Amazon has it for $31.46.

  66. 66
    Alan Fox says:

    Holy Cow! Dembski’s new book is $105?????? Who in the world would buy that????

    As he already got a $100,000 advance for it in September 1999 from the Templeton Foundation, maybe sales aren’t so important.

  67. 67
    notstevestory says:

    Ah, so it’s just Creationist Welfare. Got it. Is Dembski still ‘teaching’ at that college where they made him sign a statement that he did too believe in Noah’s Flood?

  68. 68
    Alan Fox says:

    Louis writes:

    Intelligent design, as we know it from observing intelligent beings design various things, predicts that the evolution of complex objects designed over a long period of time forms a mostly nested hierarchy. However, lateral (multiple) inheritance (horizontal gene transfer in biology) is also a well-known design technique. Ask any computer software engineer. Guess what? This is precisely what is observed in nature.

    Who was doing the designing? When? How? Presumably this disembodied designer had to cross from the imaginary realm to do the tinkering. Where are the fingerprints?

  69. 69
    Alan Fox says:

    Ah, so it’s just Creationist Welfare. Got it. Is Dembski still ‘teaching’ at that college where they made him sign a statement that he did too believe in Noah’s Flood?

    I think he’s just on the Discovery Institute payroll these days.

  70. 70
    Joe says:

    Alan Fox:

    knowing full well that CSI is a bogus concept that cannot be defined with anything like the rigour necessary to quantify it.

    And yet it has. Relative to anything unguided evolution has CSI is in the most rigorously defined.

    Who was doing the designing? When? How?

    That comes AFTER, Alan. What, are you 5?

  71. 71
    Mapou says:

    notstevestory:

    Ah, so it’s just Creationist Welfare.

    Amazing how Darwinists love to accuse others of what they themselves are blatantly guilty of. Dembski does not receive any money from the public trough for his book. Why do you want to act like a jackass?

    Darwinists, by contrast, have managed to convince themselves and some others that theirs is not a religion just so they should get free money from the government. They don’t need to convince the government since they ARE the government. Just Big Brother pretending to be your friend. It’s the state religion whether you like it or not. Never mind, of course, that this is against the law of the land.

    The day will soon come when the impostors will be kicked out and discredited. I’ll be watching the whole thing unfold with a grin on my face, a bag of cheetos in one hand and a beer in the other. 😀

  72. 72
    Mapou says:

    Alan Fox:

    Who was doing the designing? When? How? Presumably this disembodied designer had to cross from the imaginary realm to do the tinkering. Where are the fingerprints?

    Fox, go eat your own feces, jackass. I ain’t your bitch. LOL.

  73. 73
    notstevestory says:

    “The day will soon come when the impostors will be kicked out and discredited.”

    Item #36 on the Crackpot Index:

    “40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.”

    Any day now, guys…

  74. 74
    notstevestory says:

    Let me just catch up on all the latest ID research by reading all this year’s back issues of PCID.

    Done! Because there aren’t any. That was easy!

  75. 75
    notstevestory says:

    They have started a new fake science journal, Inference, but something tells me it’s going to be even less successful than PCID. I predict more book reviews by Casey Luskin and review articles by whoever, but no actual scientific problems solved by actual research.

  76. 76
    Astroman says:

    Alan Fox said: “knowing full well that CSI is a bogus concept that cannot be defined with anything like the rigour necessary to quantify it.”

    Joe said: “And yet it has. Relative to anything unguided evolution has CSI is in the most rigorously defined.”

    Alan Fox said: “Who was doing the designing? When? How?”

    Joe said: “That comes AFTER, Alan. What, are you 5?”

    Joe, if calculating CSI is such a rigorously defined and useful tool as you claim it is then you should be able to demonstrate it by accurately calculating the CSI in a variety of things in nature and be able to define the CSI within those things in a coherent and relevant way.

    What that means is that you should, at the very least, be able to accurately and reliably calculate the CSI or lack thereof in a variety of things in nature (and no, not murders, deliberately set fires, artifacts made by humans, or anything that is already known to be designed) that are designed and not designed so that the differences are measurably shown, and you must also show the relevance of the calculations and differences in regard to the claim that a supernatural designer or a particular supernatural designer is responsible for the CSI or lack thereof, and if you claim that the supernatural designer is not responsible for the lack thereof you must show how you determined that, explain who or what is responsible, and explain how CSI is or could be lacking in anything in a universe that was/is allegedly designed and fine tuned by a/the alleged supernatural designer.

    And since you ID proponents claim to have already reliably, accurately, and certainly determined and demonstrated design (including fine tuning) in most or all things in nature (the universe) you shouldn’t be avoiding the who, when, and where questions.

  77. 77
    Astroman says:

    That should be the who, when, how, and where questions.

  78. 78
    Astroman says:

    Look at Mapou’s comment number 72, and at Joe’s comments in this thread and others.

  79. 79
    Learned Hand says:

    As I’ve said before, I will abandon ID, shut down this site, and become a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinist just as soon as chance/law forces are demonstrated to have created complex specified information.

    When does this ever happen? I cannot think of a real-world example of a person abandoning (much less completely reversing course on) a dearly-held belief because they suddenly decide a particular argument proved them wrong.

    I have a very hard time believing that any single argument could persuade you, or any other committed ideological believer. You would have to not only “abandon ID,” but conclude that you you wasted a decade passionately, angrily advocating for intelligent design and spitting on mainstream science. In other words, you’ve heavily invested your time and identity in intelligent design, and you aren’t likely to walk away from that investment on the basis of simple arguments. I don’t consider that a character flaw, just part of being human.

    This shouldn’t surprise anyone, since it’s basic and ubiquitous human nature. I doubt you intended your promise to be read literally. But consider the implications: you have a huge, heavy incentive to disregard arguments that would devalue your investments in intelligent design. Are you capable of objectively determining whether a “bomb” exists? Perhaps the impossibility of walking away from your ideological commitment led you to issue a specific challenge that can’t be met, given the elusive and subjective nature of CSI calculations.

    I think the structure of your challenge is interesting in that regard. You’re asking for proof that something can create CSI, even though it’s been tacitly admitted that the concept doesn’t work in the real world. ID has been toying with the concept for years, and has refused to ever test the concept. It seems to me that even IDists don’t believe they can do anything with CSI, or show in practice that it comes from design but not natural forces. Asking for scientists to disprove a fringe theory that’s never worked properly, when it would require a rigorous calculation of something that can’t be rigorously and objectively calculated, is a very safe bet–you’ll always be able to find an out that protects your cherished beliefs.

    If ID intends to make actual progress, why not advance some new and powerful arguments? In particular, it would be very difficult for scientists to ignore ID (as mathematicians, computer scientists, and philosophers do as well as biologists) if its proponents could actually use it to detect design in the real world.

    Having declared loudly, furiously, and stridently for years that their tools can distinguish designed from undesigned objects, I don’t understand why IDists suddenly become so terribly shy when the subject of testing their claims comes up.

    That is, I don’t understand how IDists justify their shyness to each other. My own theory, as stated before, is that it’s quite clear to everyone who is capable of following Dembski’s work that it just doesn’t work in the real world. Else, why not show it by performing some blinded tests? That would be a bomb.

  80. 80
    R0bb says:

    Barry:

    As I’ve said before, I will abandon ID, shut down this site, and become a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinist just as soon as chance/law forces are demonstrated to have created complex specified information.

    And as I responded when you said it before, you can look to ID’s own Winston Ewert for such a demonstration.

    You never addressed this directly, but you did say, “There is no need to form any hypothesis whatsoever to meet the challenge.” Since Dembski defined CSI in terms of a chance hypothesis, you must be speaking of a concept other than the one that Dembski developed. So what is your definition of CSI?

    To disambiguate the term, you need only refer us to an example of CSI assessment. That is, simply fill in the blanks in the following sentence:

    According to ______________’s calculations, ______________ has _____________ bits of CSI.

    Once you fill in the blanks, we can see what method the assessor used to calculate CSI. We can then apply that same method to various objects that are known to be produced by nature, and if the result is always less than 500 bits, then your challenge stands.

    Are you willing to allow us to put your challenge to the test? If so, simply fill in the blanks in the sentence above.

  81. 81
    Joe says:

    Look at astroman’s comments- nothing but lie, cowardice and ignorance.

  82. 82
    Joe says:

    R0bb, The point of CSI is to see if it is present or not. We do not expect an exact number. However Thurston, et al. gave it a go in a peer-reviewed paper that has been linked to many times.

  83. 83
    Joe says:

    Astroman:

    Joe, if calculating CSI is such a rigorously defined and useful tool as you claim it is then you should be able to demonstrate it by accurately calculating the CSI in a variety of things in nature and be able to define the CSI within those things in a coherent and relevant way.

    CSI is better defined and utilized than anything your position has to offer. I see that bothers you.

    We have told you how to calculate it. You choked. We provided a peer-reviewed paper that does so wrt biology, you choked.

    Your position has nothing to offer and that bothers you.

    Sweet

  84. 84
    Alan Fox says:

    It’s Durston and CSI is not mentioned there. Functional sequence complexity =/= CSI.

  85. 85
    Upright BiPed says:

    When does this ever happen? I cannot think of a real-world example of a person abandoning (much less completely reversing course on) a dearly-held belief because they suddenly decide a particular argument proved them wrong.

    Anthony Flew

    …and frankly, what a stupid thing to say. You don’t think people change their minds? Perhaps that says something about you.

  86. 86
    Joe says:

    FSC = CSI- and only a complete moron couldn’t see that, Alan.

    CSI is based on Crick’s definition of biological information and so is Durston’s FSC.

    Grow up, Alan

  87. 87
    Joe says:

    I would love to see try to make his case that CSI and FSC are different. Then I will make my case, as has already happened, and we can compare.

    Alan will never do that, though. He would rather just spew stuff without having to support it.

  88. 88
    bornagain77 says:

    R0bb at 80 you state:

    “Once you fill in the blanks, we can see what method the assessor used to calculate CSI. We can then apply that same method to various objects that are known to be produced by nature, and if the result is always less than 500 bits, then your challenge stands.”

    R0bb there is one huge blank that needs to be filled by atheists/materialists. There are no known examples, ‘in nature’, nor in laboratory experiments going back 40 years, of unguided Darwinian processes producing a single protein (Behe: The First Rule). In fact, if you remove ‘directed mutations’ that are implemented via sophisticated molecular machinery on the genome (J. Shapiro), such as in immunity responses and epigenetic adaptations, and only include purely random mutations, there are no known examples of random mutations and natural selection doing much of anything useful at all. What random mutations do excel at is breaking things and reducing genetic information.
    Yet we do have evidence of intelligence, albeit through extreme effort, creating novel proteins.
    As you can see, that is a fairly big blank that needs to be filled in before the materialist’s can claim that ‘nature’ has produced information.

    Of related interest, at bottom ‘nature’ already is information (Wheeler Zeilinger, Dembski), not matter-energy as materialists presuppose. i.e. as quantum telepotation has now shown energy-matter both ulitmately reduce to a information basis.
    So in reality R0bb is asking for evidence that information can produce information on top of its already producing energy and matter.

    Conversations with William Dembski–The Thesis of Being as Communion – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYAsaU9IvnI

  89. 89
    Mapou says:

    Joe:

    FSC = CSI- and only a complete moron couldn’t see that, Alan.

    Fox is not just a moron. He is fiendishly stupid, kinda like a chicken.

  90. 90
    Rich says:

    Mapou, do you think FSC=CSI?

  91. 91
    Mapou says:

    Why argue with a chicken?

  92. 92
    Rich says:

    I’m just asking a very simple question.

    You can say “I don’t know” – which you don’t, but you like to pretend that you look like you do 😉

  93. 93
    Mapou says:

    Rich, I rarely get into discussions of complexity, not because I think IDists don’t know what they are talking about, but because I don’t think it’s the kind of subject that will capture the public’s imagination.

    Personally, I think any kind of pattern, be it the orbit of the planets or the curvature of the earth, and even something as ubiquitous and taken for granted as motion, is an unmistakable sign of intelligent design. The design was there long before the arrival of living organisms and human beings.

  94. 94
    Rich says:

    And opinions are fine, but not science.

    So I’ll put you down as a “I don’t know if CSI=FSC”?

  95. 95
    Mapou says:

    Rich @94, all I was trying to tell you is to kiss my asteroid orifice. You’re just like Fox, a stupid chicken. Fiendishly stupid.

  96. 96
    Rich says:

    So, you don’t know if FSC=CSI.

    I like your little dance, though.

  97. 97
    Joe says:

    No rich, he is saying that you are not worth responding to.

  98. 98
    Learned Hand says:

    Anthony Flew

    …and frankly, what a stupid thing to say. You don’t think people change their minds? Perhaps that says something about you.

    That’s very uncharitable, Upright Biped. Did you read my comment and honestly walk away with the impression that I “don’t think people change their minds”? Of course they do, and of course I know that they do. I tried to be specific: I’m skeptical that people change their minds on cherished beliefs because one killer argument (a “bomb”) convinces them that they have been wrong all along.

    Thanks for the pointer to Flew. I haven’t read his first-hand accounts, but he seems to fit the bill more or less. Although his conversion seems to be slow, as opposed to Arrington’s offer of an instant sea change, he did identify one or two very specific arguments he found persuasive.

    I think this is tangential to my point, which is that such conversions are painful and scary. People tend to refuse them, and accordingly we’d expect a challenge like Arrington’s to be hollow. I think that’s what we see here. He’s asking for people to essentially use CSI, which IDists haven’t been able to do, in an objective way, which he admits in a later post is impossible.

    I’ll respond further in that later post.

  99. 99
    Astroman says:

    Are you guys referring to this Durston?

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyn.....stortions/

    http://thestochasticman.wordpr.....eationist/

    And Joe, why don’t you dig up Crick’s remains and ask them if they agree with you (that Crick’s definition of biological information equals your definition CSI)? By the way, what is your definition of CSI?

  100. 100
    Joe says:

    Astroman, Just read the literature. It is spelled out in black and white. They tried not to use too many big words so you may be able to understand it.

  101. 101
    Astroman says:

    Barry Arrington said: “Alan, do you have anything of substance to say? As I have often said before, sneers are poor substitute for an argument.”

    Denyse O’leary sneered: “So the trolls do not yet have the Bomb?”

    Andre sneered: “Perhaps you don’t really understand the issue, or you are willfully ignorant.”

    Andre sneered: “TSZ is a vile place, on principle I won’t comment there.”

    bornagain77 sneered: “Indeed I would hold you thinking you are as smart as God to be not only illogical but to be a completley insane position.” (Keith S never made any such claim)

    Barry Arrington sneered: “Prediction confirmed @ comment 41. Who says ID proponents can’t make successful predictions!!”

    Andre sneered: “If it is conserved, which really is a problem for your unguided fairy tale!”

    Andre sneered: “Meng jou met die semels dan vreet die varke jou op”

    Andre sneered: “What bomb? You did not have anything…… it is a dud…….”

    Joe sneered: “keith s- Your argument has been shown to be garbage and your ignorance has been exposed. Now the only question is why are you so proud of that?”

    Mapou sneered: “LOL. Where have seen this lame canard before?”

    Mapou sneered: ” It’s embarrassing, to say the least. The only thing that is keeping Darwinism alive is politics and a bunch of brain-dead dirt worshipers.”

    Joe sneered: “That comes AFTER, Alan. What, are you 5?”

    Mapou shattered irony meters everywhere: “Amazing how Darwinists love to accuse others of what they themselves are blatantly guilty of.”

    Mapou sneered: “Why do you want to act like a jackass? Darwinists, by contrast, have managed to convince themselves and some others that theirs is not a religion just so they should get free money from the government. They don’t need to convince the government since they ARE the government. Just Big Brother pretending to be your friend. It’s the state religion whether you like it or not. Never mind, of course, that this is against the law of the land. The day will soon come when the impostors will be kicked out and discredited. I’ll be watching the whole thing unfold with a grin on my face, a bag of cheetos in one hand and a beer in the other.”

    Mapou sneered: “Fox, go eat your own feces, jackass. I ain’t your bitch. LOL.”

    Joe sneered: “Look at astroman’s comments- nothing but lie, cowardice and ignorance.”

    Joe sneered: “I see that bothers you. We have told you how to calculate it. You choked. We provided a peer-reviewed paper that does so wrt biology, you choked. Your position has nothing to offer and that bothers you. Sweet”

    Upright Biped sneered: “…and frankly, what a stupid thing to say.”

    Joe sneered: “FSC = CSI- and only a complete moron couldn’t see that, Alan. […] Grow up, Alan”

    Joe sneered: “Alan will never do that, though. He would rather just spew stuff without having to support it.”

    Mapou sneered: “Fox is not just a moron. He is fiendishly stupid, kinda like a chicken.”

    Mapou sneered: “Why argue with a chicken?”

    Mapou sneered: “Rich @94, all I was trying to tell you is to kiss my asteroid orifice. You’re just like Fox, a stupid chicken. Fiendishly stupid.”

    Joe sneered: “No rich, he is saying that you are not worth responding to.”

    Joe sneered: “Astroman, Just read the literature. It is spelled out in black and white. They tried not to use too many big words so you may be able to understand it.”

    Yet according to Barry, “sneers are poor substitute for an argument”.

  102. 102
    Learned Hand says:

    Yet according to Barry, “sneers are poor substitute for an argument”.

    He’s right, although he is illustrating the biased punctuation of conflict.

  103. 103
    Axel says:

    ‘Fox, go eat your own feces, jackass. I ain’t your bitch. LOL.’

    Mapou, you missed the last bit out. Hunter S Thompson said it better …. investing it with a certain aesthetic balance:

    ‘It’s a strange world. Some people get rich and others eat shit and die.

    However, I concede that your imprecation, ‘jackass’, is a more than worthy coda to that most memorable philosophical musing.

    Hope you read this ‘bon mot’ of Hunters, Silver Fox.

  104. 104
    Mapou says:

    Yet according to Barry, “sneers are poor substitute for an argument”.

    Sneers are great when talking to chickens, especially the fiendishly stupid kind. 😀

  105. 105
    william spearshake says:

    Astroman @101(which is not Barry’s IQ): “Yet according to Barry, “sneers are poor substitute for an argument”.”

    You have sensed the hypocrisy? But at least Barry changed it from “scoffing” to “sneering”. That should allow him a little more mileage. But if you really want to see hypocrisy, check out Gordon’s posts and comments. Barry is an amateur by comparison.

  106. 106
    Axel says:

    No No No No, learned hand. UDers’ sneering is purely supplementary to the reasoned arguments they vainly proffer. Only yours are substitutes for arguments.

  107. 107
    Mapou says:

    I got two rubber chickens hanging upside down on my front door. I used a marker pen to write ‘Darwinist’ on it. The other says ‘Physicist’. I’m not sure which one I like the most. I’m thinking of adding a third one that says ‘Materialist’ on it. It’s developing into a hobby. 😀

  108. 108
    Mung says:

    keiths:

    UDers have been trying, and failing, to rebut my argument ever since.

    What argument?

  109. 109
    Joe says:

    LoL! @ Astroman- We sneer because you don’t have an argument- we are sneering at your constant insipidity.

    You are so unaware it is pathetic.

Leave a Reply