Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Textbook wars: The fact that something evolved does not mean that Darwinism caused it

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A blog repeats a whole lot of stale stuff about Americans not believing in evolution, in support of a 2013 textbook, whose cover shows insects that look like leaves.

It’s a great cover, but what does it show? That Darwinism is true? Almost everyone crabbing about the fact that Americans do not believe in evolution means that Americans do not believe in Darwinism – the only theory of evolution ever developed explicitly to destroy the idea of design.

Somehow or other, looking five percent like a leaf was supposed to prevent the original forebears of these insects from getting eaten as often as their own forebears did. And the Darwinist’s usual response to any doubt about this explanation has been ridicule – and court cases, if ridicule doesn’t work.

Normal people push back.

By the way, an equally interesting example is the praying mantis that looks like dropped petals. It’s amazing. But it is not evidence for Darwin’s theory either.

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

Comments
Hi Gregory. Should I take your non-response to mean that you concede my critique of your comments, or just that you don't want to pursue the matter? Perhap you simply didn't notice them.Upright BiPed
March 23, 2012
March
03
Mar
23
23
2012
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT
---"Let it be noted that it was at UD that someone actually quoted Wikipedia against me on the topic of "reflexivity." Since you labor under the misconception that ID is science only in a “reflexive way,” I thought that you would benefit by knowing what the word “reflexive” actually means. The tone of my refutation was rather on the gentle side given the nonsensical nature of your affirmation and the number of times it was affirmed. ---"The above post is not in any way ‘illumimating’ about life’s origins. Instead it reflects ‘the scandal of the evangelical mind’ (1994), though that surely cannot be discussed here as this is a non-theological forum." This site does not shy away from theological discussions. In any case, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with some of the more basic elements of ID science by reading our Frequently-Raised-but-Weak-Arguments-Against- ID-section, found under "resources."StephenB
March 22, 2012
March
03
Mar
22
22
2012
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
Let it be noted that it was at UD that someone actually quoted Wikipedia against me on the topic of 'reflexivity.' The above post is not in any way 'illumimating' about life's origins. Instead it reflects 'the scandal of the evangelical mind' (1994), though that surely cannot be discussed here as this is a non-theological forum. You need new...Gregory
March 22, 2012
March
03
Mar
22
22
2012
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
----Gregory: "The only way ID could be currently called ‘scientific’ is in a reflexive, rather than a (neo-classical) positive sense." ID IS science and is NOT "reflexive" according to the traditional definitions of those terms. 1. "science: a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. [Concise Oxford, 1990] scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge [”the body of truth, information and principles acquired by mankind”]involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses." [Webster's 7th Collegiate, 1965] 2. "Reflexivity refers to circular relationships between cause and effect. A reflexive relationship is bidirectional with both the cause and the effect affecting one another in a situation that does not render both functions causes and effects." [Wikipedia] If you mean something different when you use these words, then you need to tell us exactly which meanings you have in mind. If nothing else, it will provide discipline, focus, and clarity to your thought process. --"Meyer demonstrates this regularly with his analogies to human minds and ‘effects of intelligence.’ What he hasn’t proven is that a non-human mind originated ‘biological information,’ including when, where and how." Does an ID inference to the best reasonable explanation constitute an attempted "proof?" If so, then explain why Meyer's inference is not a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. If not, then why do you use the word "proof" so recklessly? Moreover, given your failure to define science, you have no rationale for assuming that ID theory is required to demonstrate the "when" and "how" of information's origins. --"People see patterns, people have minds that perceive patterns (& maybe this is so because people are made imago Dei and thus created to see patterns)…therefore patterns ‘reflexively’ display design/pattern/plan/purpose/teleology/etc. We know this from experience (experiment)." There is a difference between [a] a top-down, apriori assumption of a non-human mind as a psychological motive for doing science (as was the case with the early modern scientists) and [b] drawing an bottom up, aposteriori inference from data to the presence of intelligence (as is the case with ID methodology). If [a] and [b] were understood as part of a singular reflexive process, no such thing as a scientific inference would even be possible, ruling out such things as big bang cosmology. Indeed, even the Thomistic proofs for God's existence would become meaningless and trivial. Sociological paradigms, such as social constructivism or "reflexivity," do not illumimate the scientific discussion about life's origins to any appreciable degree. "If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.?"--Abraham Maslow. You need new tools.StephenB
March 22, 2012
March
03
Mar
22
22
2012
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
"In my opinion ID proponents should be seeking to make headway in areas like the philosophy of science and philosophy of mind, rather than 'jumping the gun' straight into empirical sciences like biology." - CLAVDIVS Yes we are agreed. But moreso into anthropology, even philosophy of anthropology (human minds included). It's not as if 'empirical sciences like biology' exist as a funnel into which all legitimate research flows, is it? Or is that what authenticity makes CLAVDIVS? So many times, on multiple sides of the predominantly USAmerican 'debate' about ID, have I heard the 'natural/empirical-science-means-legitimate' perspective offered. It had seemed that CLAVDIVS was interested in agency, reflexivity, mindful interference in 'blind/undirected processes.' If it were only into 'biology' that his thoughts flowed, as if biology could carry any legitimate meaning for the most important features of human life, that would be a disappointment. It would be totally un-reflexive and uninspiring, as Eric Anderson has thus far preferred by his ID technique.Gregory
March 22, 2012
March
03
Mar
22
22
2012
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
Now you’re talking about the test involving the origin of reproducing entities.
That is what ID wrt bilogy is all about.
I absolutely agree — materialism, like ID, is not currently testable.
Strange that IDists have said how to test the design inference. As I said if we put RNA nuleotides in some warm solution (water) and see what forms- you can even heat and cool the solution to act like day and night. But anyway according to you the theory of evolution and abiogenesis need to be taken out of science classrooms- and I agree.Joe
March 22, 2012
March
03
Mar
22
22
2012
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT
Hi Joe @ 116
Tell me, when have you ever seen a result of X number of coin tosses replicate with variation on its own? As I told Elizabeth, the specified complexity Dembski is referring to is that which allows for reproduction and therefor the passing down of genes.
Joe, you keep making my point for me. You made the claim (at 41) that "ID makes the claim that blind and undirected processes cannot produce CSI". we've discussed a bit about blind/undirected and CSI as per Dembski's No Free Lunch. Now you're talking about the test involving the origin of reproducing entities. No wonder ID struggles to be recognised as science! As I said before, nobody's providing any clear, unambiguous, objective, empirically testable definitions of key terms in the proposed hypothesis, like "blind/undirected" and "CSI".
IOW if you are saying ID is untestable you are saying that materialism is untestable- a pity yes, but there it is.
I absolutely agree -- materialism, like ID, is not currently testable. There are many, many deep issues in the philosophy of science to be worked out before such profound questions can be resolved. Which is why I believe it's futile, at present, for ID proponents to claim ID is empirically testable, or has been tested. Scientific empirical methods at present are based on a reductionist/materialist methodology - of course this methodology cannot test for things that are not known to be reducible to matter and energy, things like consciousness, qualia, intentionality, semantics, etc. In my opinion ID proponents should be seeking to make headway in areas like the philosophy of science and philosophy of mind, rather than "jumping the gun" straight into empirical sciences like biology. CheersCLAVDIVS
March 21, 2012
March
03
Mar
21
21
2012
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
Hi ClAVDIVS- Tell me, when have you ever seen a result of X number of coin tosses replicate with variation on its own? As I told Elizabeth, the specified complexity Dembski is referring to is that which allows for reproduction and therefor the passing down of genes. That said Dr Behe has said exactly what type of experiment would do- and so have I. As for testing it- yes we can. If materialism cannot explain it and it meets our criteria, we infer design. IOW if you are saying ID is untestable you are saying that materialism is untestable- a pity yes, but there it is. The following is the Dembski reference which Elizabeth ignores- please pay attention to what Dawkins wrote:
Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems. Darwinist Richard Dawkins cashes out biological specification in terms of the reproduction of genes. Thus, in The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins writes, “Complicated things have some quality, specifiable in advance, that is highly unlikely to have been acquired by random chance alone. In the case of living things, the quality is specified in advance is…the ability to propagate genes in reproduction.”
Therefor when she starts with reproducing coin toss results she is starting with the very thing she needs to explain- the specified complexity that allows for reproduction.Joe
March 21, 2012
March
03
Mar
21
21
2012
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
Hi Joe @ 111
OK let’s see this mathematically rigorous definition of “good enough”- also rememeber that via copperation that not good enough will also get through. And your simulations demonstrate a LOSS of complexity. Not exactly the type of thing to call upon when you need an increase in complexity.
No, Joe, I think I'll pass. I've just read through the thread at Elizabeth Liddle's blog that you referenced above. Her coin tossing simulation seems like a perfectly okay test of blind/undirected processes to me. But I see you do not accept it as such, because - if I understand correctly - it does not deal with the origin of specified complexity. And this is what I've been saying all along: the fact that an experiment is set up by humans means it is "contaminated" by the intelligent design inherent in human activity, which was presumably bootstrapped into all living things at the origin of life. So any such test is either not a test of blind/undirected processes or it's not a test of the origin of specified complexity. Returning to Eric's question, this is why I believe ID is not regarded as scientific yet: there's currently no way to objectively and empirically test it. You state the test is to show blind/undirected processes producing specified complexity, but it appears at present such a test is both practically and in-principle impossible to perform. A pity, yes, but there it is. CheersCLAVDIVS
March 21, 2012
March
03
Mar
21
21
2012
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
The only way ID could be currently called ‘scientific’ is in a reflexive, rather than a (neo-classical) positive sense. Meyer demonstrates this regularly with his analogies to human minds and ‘effects of intelligence.’ What he hasn’t proven is that a non-human mind originated ‘biological information,’ including when, where and how.
Gregory, if I may add something here. You are completely equivocating on the term “information” as it relates to biological systems. The type of information you are referring to is physical information which is a completely anthropic entity requiring a human observer in order for it to even exist. It has no place outside of a physics classroom, where even there its limitations must be understood. But the information contained in DNA does not exist as physical information, it demonstrably exist as recorded information using arrangements of matter (codons) to operate as representations of effects within a system. That recorded information is decoded by a set of physical protocols (aminoacyl synthetases) which physically establish the arbitrary relationships between the representations and the effects they are to represent within that system. This is precisely the same objects and material dynamics as demonstrated in any other form of recorded information ever observed. One type of information is entirely an anthropomorphic invention created for the purposes of making matter calculable to human investigators, and the other is demonstrably semiotic which has nothing to do with human systems - other than the fact that human systems are also semiotic. Also, to suggest that such observations do not rise to the level of being “scientific” is absolutely absurd. If you don’t believe that a valid material case has been made regarding these observations, then I ask you to review the link given and please indicate where those observations do not follow the observable evidence. Thanks…Upright BiPed
March 21, 2012
March
03
Mar
21
21
2012
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
The only way ID could be currently called ‘scientific’ is in a reflexive, rather than a (neo-classical) positive sense.
Well the only way materialism can be called "scientific" is to totally redfone "scientific". But let's take a look- The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships-> it can be tested and either confirmed or refuted. What else does it require before you consider it to be scientific?Joe
March 21, 2012
March
03
Mar
21
21
2012
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
Time is short this week for dialogue at UD... "Yeah, information arises from intelligent agents. Agreed." - Eric I wouldn't say 'arises from' but rather 'is perceived by'. Note please the difference in ontology and epistemology by saying this. The information exists to be perceived vs. by personal perception information appears. The only way ID could be currently called 'scientific' is in a reflexive, rather than a (neo-classical) positive sense. Meyer demonstrates this regularly with his analogies to human minds and 'effects of intelligence.' What he hasn't proven is that a non-human mind originated 'biological information,' including when, where and how. People see patterns, people have minds that perceive patterns (& maybe this is so because people are made imago Dei and thus created to see patterns)...therefore patterns 'reflexively' display design/pattern/plan/purpose/teleology/etc. We know this from experience (experiment). It seems one difference between us, Eric, is that you are not asking for humanistic science, but for objectivistic science 'in nature'. This seems to be partly why CLAVDIVS is harping on 'subjectivity' and 'agency' as they interfer with supposedly blind/undirected processes. His position, whether or not he knows it, expresses what sociology, psychology and anthropology of science have discovered. Mind is unavoidably involved in doing science; however, that does not mean all science is done 'intelligently.'Gregory
March 21, 2012
March
03
Mar
21
21
2012
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
There has to be a definition of “good enough” for any system with selection, otherwise there wouldn’t be any selection.
OK let's see this mathematically rigorous definition of "good enough"- also rememeber that via copperation that not good enough will also get through. And your simulations demonstrate a LOSS of complexity. Not exactly the type of thing to call upon when you need an increase in complexity.Joe
March 21, 2012
March
03
Mar
21
21
2012
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
Hi Joe
With natural selection there isn’t any selecting- it is just a result. Whatever works “good enough” gets through the sieve. So how can we simulate that?
Yes, you're right Joe. "Selection" is just a metaphor: we aren't talking about an agent actually consciously selecting anything; we're talking about the application of mechanical rules. There has to be a definition of "good enough" for any system with selection, otherwise there wouldn't be any selection. Once "good enough" is defined, it can be "set in stone" and enforced by a blind, undirected process. Simulating a sieve in silicois easy. Create a virtual population of, say, 1000 pebbles with a random diameter from 1mm to 10mm. Create a virtual sieve with a hole diameter of 5mm. Then iterate through each pebble, and discard the ones whose diameter exceeds the sieve's hole diameter. It's the same with the planets (although computationally more complex). Create a virtual solar system with N planets. Allow them all to gravitationally accelerate through one orbit. Calcuate if any planets crash into the sun or another planet, or attain escape velocity from the sun, and discard them. Repeat the process until you are no longer discarding planets. Easy peasy - just the mechanical application of blind rules. CheersCLAVDIVS
March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
CLAVDIVS- With natural selection there isn't any selecting- it is just a result. Whatever works "good enough" gets through the sieve. So how can we simulate that?Joe
March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
Hi Eric @ 104
This does not mean that an appropriate test cannot be constructed. It does not mean that it is impossible “in principle” to ever perform a valid test.
My feeling is that -- if ID proponents do not believe a valid test of blind/undirected processes has been conducted yet (due to "smuggling in" information) -- then that is precisely what they should be working on. Whatever you may think of James Randi (pompous gasbag in my opinion) one thing he attempted to get right in his "million dollar challenge" is, before the test was conducted, he always got written agreement from contenders what would consitute a valid test, what would count as success, and what would count as failure; there was to be no subjective "judging", the success or failure should be visible and obvious to any observer. Accordingly, in order to move into the realm of science, ID proponents need to specify an empirical test in objective and unambiguous terms, such that a specific ID hypothesis would be falsified if the results of the test met particular critera. I'm sure there would be many outside the ID camp who would take up the challenge to try to meet the falsification critera. I do agree there are likely philosophical issues to overcome before this can be achived, as mentioned in my comment above. CheersCLAVDIVS
March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
Hi Joe @ 102
If someone takes RNA nucleotides and places them in some solution 9water), then heats it, any resulting RNA sequences would be the result of blind and undirected processes.
We all agree heating things and "million monkeys" tests are blind and undirected and won't produce anything interesting like specified complexity. What I'm interested in is testing a selection process that ratchets up specification or complexity. If you have selection you have to have a selecting rule, such as what we observe in nature in planetary orbits or natural sieves. If humans are conducting the test then we have to put the selecting rule in our test system. However, we can put a rule in place that mirrors a selecting rule we see in nature, and operates in a strictly mechanistic way e.g. with a computer function that removes an iteration from the test based on a calculated value. My question is - if we implement a test where a selection rule operates strictly mechanistically - are we testing a blind and undirected process? Or does the mere fact that an intelligent designer put the rule in place initially "contaminate" the test so it's not really a test of a blind/undirected process? CheersCLAVDIVS
March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
Hi Eric @ 104 For my part I feel this has been a thought-provoking and productive discussion; please do not accuse me of trying to twist anyone's words - nothing could be farther from the truth.
Just to make sure we understand your point, are you seriously taking the position that it is not possible for a researcher to set up a test that is consistent with natural processes?
No, I don't take that position. At 30 you said you were struggling to understand why ID would not be considered science. I was interested in discussing that issue. My suggestion is that the proposed test -- show blind/undirected processes producing specified complexity -- has not been defined rigorously and objectively such that it can be empirically tested. In this thread we've discussed the definition of blind/undirected processes and also discussed information. There has been little agreement and we have started to wade into rather deep philosophical waters along the way. I think this alone lends a little support to my suggestion. For me it's not a matter of blaming or finding fault with one side or the other. I'm looking at the broader picture where quite a number of people claim to have empirically tested blind/undirected processes and shown the development of specified complexity, and a lot of other people claim that these were not really tests of blind/undirected processes or that they did not produce specified complexity. To my mind the obvious solution to this situation is for all sides to establish mutually agreed definitions of these things. This has not yet occurred. I would like for ID to find support in the empirical sciences. However, I strongly suspect such support will not occur without precursor support in areas like philosophy of mind, neuroscience, and biosemiotics, to name a few. Your comments in this thread have tended in this direction so I think that's a positive sign. CheersCLAVDIVS
March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
Hi Eric @ 94
C: However, the information I am referring to is semantic i.e. it has meaning only to an intelligent agent. ... Accordingly, such information is inherently subjective. Having meaning to an intelligent agent does not mean it is inherently subjective.
In my view, semantic information has meaning only to intelligent agents, and therefore it's inherently subjective i.e. the phenomenon in question, "meaningfulness" of information, does not exist in the absence of intelligent agents. Dr Demsbki agrees - see post 62. That this phenomenon is subjective does not diminish it's significance; but it does make it kind of ineffable and difficult to test empirically. Your example with the rocks makes this clear -- different agents may perceive radically different amounts of meaningful information from the same physical signs; or perhaps none at all.
First, with a sufficiently long message, it is exceedingly unlikely that it would not be seen as information. Every time we’ve discovered an ancient language before we knew anything about what it meant, it was quite clear that it was some kind of information.
What I understand you to be saying is that there are some signals (i.e. arrangements of matter and energy) that every conceivable intelligent agent would recognise as having semantic content. I believe this would be very difficult to establish and I suspect it's not true. But even if we grant that this is true, you still have the problem that intelligent agents are known to infer semantic content from signals that were generated by purely blind/undirected processes e.g. the face on Mars -- in other words, false positives. This is a much bigger worry than false negatives, in my view. CheersCLAVDIVS
March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
Clavdivs @100: Evolutionary algorithms typically smuggle in design through the back door. It is in the programming. The fact that these algorithms fail to appropriately lay out a true test, yes, means they are problematic. We could even say in that sense they are "not scientific" as you do. This is the point that several of us have been making for some time about evolutionary algorithms to those who think they demonstrate the ability of natural processes to create complex specified information. This does not mean that an appropriate test cannot be constructed. It does not mean that it is impossible "in principle" to ever perform a valid test. I'll let Joe respond, but it appears to me that you are trying to twist Joe's words to say that: (i) evolutionary algorithms perform their functions in a manner that is "completely lawlike and mechanistic" and (ii) because evolutionary algorithms are designed to solve a problem it means they are not a test of a blind/undirected process. What you are missing is the logic between the two. Namely, an evolutionary algorithm that is designed to solve a problem is not necessarily functioning as a system that is "completely lawlike and mechanistic." It is performing a function as it was programmed to perform. -- Just to make sure we understand your point, are you seriously taking the position that it is not possible for a researcher to set up a test that is consistent with natural processes? Not in physics, or in medicine, or astronomy, or chemistry, or anything else? All those tests, performed every day around the world are not really testing natural processes, because the tests were set up by intelligent beings? I truly hope you are not taking that position. Tests have to be carefully, scrupulously, properly set up to avoid slipping intelligence in through the back door (this is a problem with most evolutionary algorithms and with much OOL research, for example). But there is no reason to think a proper scientific test cannot be set up to test the outcome of a natural process.Eric Anderson
March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
Eric Anderson: The more critical point here, however, is that you acknowledge the information exists. We can debate about how on top of things the recipient needs to be to recognize it; we can come up with less ‘subjective’ messages, more mathematical constructs, even drawings, pictures, whatever example is more comfortable. Regardless, the information exists. That is the important fact.
Let's say I write a book in a language that I invented. Nobody else knows the language but myself. When I die, what information does the book contain now that my brain has ceased functioning? (Laying aside such "Platonic" twists such as "God knows what information is there", etc.)mike1962
March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
Hi CLADIVS- If someone takes RNA nucleotides and places them in some solution 9water), then heats it, any resulting RNA sequences would be the result of blind and undirected processes.Joe
March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
Joe - The reference above to post 62 should instead be post 64. CheersCLAVDIVS
March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
Hi Joe @ 97
C: What’s the in-principle difference between the planetary scenario and an evolutionary algorithm applying a fitness function in a computer program, such that that former is an example of blind/undirected processes, and the latter is not? In a computer scenario there is an active search for a target. Genetic algorithms, for example, are designed to solve a problem. So when they indeed do solve it they solve it by design, not willy-nilly.
So it appears you agree that -- regardless of whether the selection mechanism or fitness function are completely lawlike and mechanistic -- the fact that the overall experiment was set up by an intelligent designer means it's not a test of blind/undirected processes. This was exactly my point (at 62): "... any test performed by humans would be automatically “contaminated” by intelligent design, and would not be a true test of blind/undirected processes." Thus, the proposed test is not, in principle, possible for humans to perform. And that's why such a test is not scientific. CheersCLAVDIVS
March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
Gregory @95: Glad to know we agree that (i) the information exists, and (ii) it need not be subjective. As for 'reflexive,' it sounds like you are saying there must be some kind of intelligent agent who is (what?) conscious, aware, able to exercise cognition? Yeah, information arises from intelligent agents. Agreed. Not sure if you had a separate point you were making . . .Eric Anderson
March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
CLAVDIVS- About your stable planetary orbits- this "selection" process reduces the amount of complexity in its system and it removes parts from the system. So unless you are starting with a living organism that has it all and then losses parts, your scenario isn't going to create a more specified and complex system. More specified, yes.Joe
March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
CAVDAVS:
What’s the in-principle difference between the planetary scenario and an evolutionary algorithm applying a fitness function in a computer program, such that that former is an example of blind/undirected processes, and the latter is not?
In a computer scenario there is an active search for a target. Genetic algorithms, for example, are designed to solve a problem. So when they indeed do solve it they solve it by design, not willy-nilly.Joe
March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT
Gregory- If you don't like the design inference, if you think it is subjective, then all YOU have to do is step up and demonstrate that nature, operating freely can account for what we say is designed, ir required a designer. IOW your position has all the power as the design inference arises by going through materialism. So if materialism could cut it, there wouldn't be any IDJoe
March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT
"the fact that the information has meaning to an intelligent agent does not make the information inherently subjective." - Eric It is not the information that is 'inherently subjective,' but the agent that (who) is 'inherently reflexive.' Without this key, ID falls apart. "The more critical point here, however, is that you acknowledge the information exists...the information exists. That is the important fact." - Eric Yes, of course, because ID needs 'information' to posit mind. What kind of mind? A reflexive one. Subjective vs. Objective doesn't cut the Gordian knot here.Gregory
March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT
Clavdivs:
However, the information I am referring to is semantic i.e. it has meaning only to an intelligent agent. Accordingly, such information is inherently subjective.
Having meaning to an intelligent agent does not mean it is inherently subjective. We don't have to use Shakespeare; we could have a mathematical equation, or the first 10 digits of Pi or something less subjective if that helps. It is possible that the recipient of the information doesn't understand it (which we'll address in a moment), but the fact that the information has meaning to an intelligent agent does not make the information inherently subjective. The more critical point here, however, is that you acknowledge the information exists. We can debate about how on top of things the recipient needs to be to recognize it; we can come up with less 'subjective' messages, more mathematical constructs, even drawings, pictures, whatever example is more comfortable. Regardless, the information exists. That is the important fact. -----
This means there are some situations where it may not be possible to tell whether the pile of rocks has more or less information content than the rocks arranged into a sentence – for example, to an alien intelligence with no clue about human semiotic conventions.
Two things: First, with a sufficiently long message, it is exceedingly unlikely that it would not be seen as information. Every time we've discovered an ancient language before we knew anything about what it meant, it was quite clear that it was some kind of information. SETI is founded on the idea that we can recognize an intelligent signal, even if we haven't a clue what it means. Cryptography uses the same principle every day. Second, notwithstanding the foregoing, yes, it is true that a recipient may not understand the information they see. Further, with a sufficiently short message they recipient may not even realize they are seeing information. ID does not attempt, it has never claimed, to be able to identify everything that is designed. So, yes, it is possible that something may be designed and not recognized as such. By limiting the design inference to complex specified information, there are of course designed things that will not be picked up. To those who have a personal wish that ID could detect everything designed, this fact will appear as an unfortunate limitation. To those who prefer to focus on clear signals of design and avoid false positivies, requiring both complexity and specificity is an important safeguard against false positivies. It does mean that some stuff may fall through the cracks and will not be recognized as designed even though it is. So be it.Eric Anderson
March 19, 2012
March
03
Mar
19
19
2012
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply