WJM is on a Roll

_{Barry Arrington

October 22, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

In response to this post rich says:

It’s a bit like looking at a clock for a tenth of a second and lamenting you’ve witnessed no hours. Did you expect to?

To which WJM responds:

what I’m lamenting is not that we do not see hours pass on the clock, but rather, I’m lamenting the faith-based, infinite credulity and certitude expressed by those that have looked at “the clock” for a 10th of a second (as you say) and have extrapolated that into virtual certainty that “the clock”, over time, came into being by chance and natural forces and through those processes developed all the different kinds of functional, accurate time pieces found on Earth.

Even when there is no evidence obtained in that 10th of a second to believe that chance and natural forces are capable of creating a single clock.

And yet, that which is known to regularly create a wide variety of functioning clock-like mechanisms is dismissed out of hand.

That is what we call “selective hyper-skepticism” combined with “selective hyper-credulity”

Comments

Thorton #401, Recap of materialistic reasoning: - we look for an explanation of life. - we notice that life is chock full of chemistry - AHA! this we can explain! - natural forces causes chemistry and nothing else (as far as we know). - Therefore the inference to the best explanation is that the cause of life must be natural forces. Some problems: 1. Is chemistry the defining feature of life? Is life really just another chemical process? 2. How do we explain CSI? Where does the information come from? 3. Second law 4. How do we explain top-down causation? What keeps an organism from falling apart?Box_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

@RDF:
Does Fred have reason to believe that this entity is intelligent? Yes, of course he does. But as you’ve already guessed, the “entity” is a robot.
LOL! So what? You've provided a test to identify intelligence (obviously you have some operationalized definition of "intelligence" in mind). The entitty passed the test. Logical conclusion: the entity is intelligent. Do the other folks have the same definition of intelligence in mind as you?JWTruthInLove_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

@RDF:
So why does being designed disqualify the robot as an intelligent being, but not the human being?
What definition of "robot" are you using? According to VDI's (german engineering society) definition I'd say a human is not necessarily excluded from being a robot.JWTruthInLove_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

@RDF:
Second, archaeology doesn’t use “ID methodology” to infer that artifacts are from “intelligent agents”. They use knowledge about “human beings” to infer that artifacts are from “human beings”.
What will they infer, if they find something like Stonehege on Mars?JWTruthInLove_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

In order to help people here understand why we can’t scientifically attribute general intelligence to anything just because it produces complex mechanisms (like flagella or eyeballs)
...or narrow band microwave transmitters, right?Upright BiPed_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Box
The question is: can natural forces create CSI? Are they up to the task? If the simplest cell contains far more CSI than a Boeing 747, and we don’t believe that natural forces (e.g. a hurricane) can create a Boeing 747, why do we hold that natural forces can create life?
Beoing 747s weren't produced through a 3.5+ billion year iterative feedback process that caused the slow accumulation of working variations. You haven't show evolutionary processes can't produce your magic pixie dust, er, "CSI". No one has. All you've done is assert it over and over.Thorton_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Joke
LoL! @ throton- By CRICK’s definition of biological information, living organisms are chock full of CSI, you twerp. YOU even provided the definition.
Crick's definition doesn't mention complex or specified Joke. CUI disproves an intelligent designer. You can't show it doesn't.Thorton_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Tamara #389,
Your reply to point 1) suggests you are using “”decrease” and “increase” where you mean “degrade” and “enhance”. that is, you are referring to the quality not the quantity of information. If changing a single base pair destroys the ability to produce a protein then surely “specified information” must be lost.
Indeed, that's what I meant. Although it's probably more accurate to say that part of the information is lost; comparable with a missing page from a book.
Surely the lost information is necessarily “complex” even though only one base pair changes. And why then can’t the random reversal of this point mutation (even if it is a one in a billion chance) not recreate this imformation and increase (C)SI without intelligent input?
Interesting question. The possibility never occurred to me. So you are saying that if a random mutation repairs the code then the code is recreated without intelligence. I don't think that is true, because there is a difference between repairing and (re)creating. The lucky random mutation repairs the code - explains a part of the code - but isn't an explanation for the creation of the total code. IOW the random mutation repairs the code without intelligence, but doesn't constitute an (unintelligent) explanation for the code in its entirety. Same goes for the CSI, which is the total code - not a one base pair mutation.
How does the “intelligently designed” CSI differ from the randomly generated CSI in two otherwise identical strings of DNA?
There is no difference whatsoever. The question is: can natural forces create CSI? Are they up to the task? If the simplest cell contains far more CSI than a Boeing 747, and we don't believe that natural forces (e.g. a hurricane) can create a Boeing 747, why do we hold that natural forces can create life?Box_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

OK, folks, you really aren't getting this so I'll try something new - here is pretty killer argument if I do say so myself. In order to help people here understand why we can't scientifically attribute general intelligence to anything just because it produces complex mechanisms (like flagella or eyeballs), let's revisit this common error that ID people make: A blind person named Fred encounters an entity in a room. They have a short conversation: Fred asks the entity its name, where it comes from, what it does for a living, and what it thinks about the world series, and the entity responds appropriately. Fred asks the entity, "Are you designed?" and the entity replies "Why yes, I believe that anything exhibiting irreducible complexity and CSI is designed". They go on to enjoy a game of chess (the entity wins), and then play the home version of the game "Jeopardy" (the entity wins that too), and then the entity shows off some original, functional electronic circuitry that it had designed. The entity then explains that it has been working on proving some complex mathematical theorems, and is learning on its own to recognize texts in all different languages. Does Fred have reason to believe that this entity is intelligent? Yes, of course he does. But as you've already guessed, the "entity" is a robot. For some reason I can't understand, ID people typically say that while Fred is actually intelligent, the robot is not. The reason usually given is because the robot is "only doing what it is programmed to do" - in other words, the robot is designed. But of course ID folks believe that human beings are also designed. So why does being designed disqualify the robot as an intelligent being, but not the human being? Apparently there is supposed to be some difference between the way the Intelligent Designer makes human beings on one hand, and the way human engineers make robots on the other hand. What might that difference be? Does the Intelligent Designer add some secret sauce to human beings he so that we are actually intelligent, whilst human engineers who lack this secret sauce can't endow robots with actual intelligence? What is this sauce? How do we know it exists? How can we test something to see if it has this secret sauce (i.e. if it is actually intelligent) or not? Some ID people take another approach here, and deny that computers can even act intelligently. It would seem to most people that the robot Fred encountered was doing a lot of intelligent things, but there are certainly lots of things that human beings can do that robots cannot do: For example, robots can't really understand unrestricted natural language, and if you converse with them long enough this becomes glaringly apparent. But they can produce original designs, solve novel problems, invent novel proofs for mathematical theorems, construct complex machinery, and so on. So why doesn't that mean that they are intelligent? Fred walks into a different room, and finds all sorts of very complex mechanisms. Fred notes that these mechanisms have huge numbers of highly integrated components and perform recognizable tasks and functions - there's even a mechanism that assembles other mechanisms. In the corner are the raw materials that have been used to produce all of these complex mechanisms, and Fred (who is still blind) is told that standing before him is another entity, this one called "The Producer", that caused these complex mechanisms to exist. So here are the two questions for IDers: 1) Does Fred have reason to believe that The Producer is intelligent? (In order to be consistent, IDers would have to say "yes") 2) Does it matter how The Producer came to exist, or is that irrelevant to question #1? (In order to be consistent, IDers would have to say "no", it's not relevant to ask who designed the designer) But of course the Producer could turn out to be something operating strictly in accordance with physical law (no secret sauce), and lacking general human-like intelligence and signs of consciousness and natural language abilities. The fact that it may have been designed by something (such as a human) that was designed by something else (that may have been designed by something else that may have been designed...) is not relevant, because it isn't necessary to consider who designed the designer. These are the lessons we've learned here: 1) Being designed doesn't disqualify something from being intelligent 2) Not everything that produces CSI has the mental traits we associate with "intelligence" 3) The appearance of complex mechanisms does not necessarily indicate the existence of these mental traits 4) ID is not a valid scientific inference Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

LoL! @ throton- By CRICK's definition of biological information, living organisms are chock full of CSI, you twerp. YOU even provided the definition. Way to shoot yourself in the head. Unfortunately the bullet went right through because there isn't anything in there to slow it down.Joe_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Box
Recap of ID’s reasoning: - we look for an explanation of life. - we notice that life is chock full of CSI - AHA! this we can explain! - Intelligence causes CSI and nothing else (as far as we know). - Therefore the inference to the best explanation is that the cause of life must be intelligent.
Let me try that reasoning. I'll invent another vague undefined term: Complex Unspecified Information, CUI. - we look for an explanation of life. - we notice that life is chock full of CUI - AHA! this we can explain! - Intelligence never causes CUI (as far as we know) because it's inefficient and wasteful. - Therefore the inference to the best explanation is that the cause of life must not be intelligent. ID is refuted, you all can go home now.Thorton_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

Box
BTW Darwin based his theory on abductive reasoning:
RDF
First: Of course he did. Second: So what? You think Darwin was right about everything :-)
This response is so irrational and so disconnected to the point made that it doesn't even merit a response.StephenB_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

RDFish
First, I’ve explained to you before that to reject that computers display intelligence is to commit the “who designed the designer?” fallacy that you hate so much.
Bad logic. There is no relationship between the two. The computer is not a designer.
If some organic being displayed the same behavior that an advanced robot does, you would call it intelligent… and you could conclude that it was designed!!!
Bad logic. The similarity in behavior is not necessarily related to the cause of the behavior.
You are wrong about this because it is not “problems” but “novel problems” that indicate what we normally think of as intelligence, as I have previously explained:
Your previous explanation was incorrect. Intelligence can be defined as problem solving. Novelty is not necessary. Your perception about “what is considered” intelligence is irrelevant to the way it is defined.
I don’t even understand what you are saying here. Do you mean that your private religious experiences should count as evidence regarding the “scientific” conclusions of ID Theory?
No, I mean exactly what I said. Your argument is illogical. Evidence-based conclusions are not necessarily related to religious-based conclusions. SB: Bad Logic. The argument for intelligence is not assumed apriori.” It is concluded aposteriori.
No it isn’t. Otherwise you would actually tell me what the evidence is for the consciousness of the Designer, for example.
Bad logic. ID’s argument is aposteriori by definition. That can be proven by the flow chart (which of course you have never studied). Your perception of its worth is irrelevant to that fact.
Does the Designer say that It is conscious? Does the Designer recognize that the image in a mirror is It? Does the Designer have brain structures that are correlated with consciousness in humans?
Irrelevant to your argument. Wasted verbiage to create the illusion of substance.
Those are the tests that doctors and scientists give to people and animals on Earth to see if something is conscious. What test can you apply in the context of ID? (And of course even Dembski doesn’t think ID can infer consciousness!) Same goes for learning or solving novel problems and using natural language.
Irrelevant to the argument. Wasted verbiage in an attempt to create the illusion of substance.
[ID’s evidence] Hahahahahaha…. and you keep this evidence secret? Is it locked in a vault, revealed only to true believers?
No argument here. Just rhetoric.StephenB_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

Box: Fortunately for ID there is an abundance of positive evidence that intelligence can cause CSI. So, there is a healthy scientific ground for ID’s abductive reasoning.
RDFish: Everybody here keeps saying that, but oddly nobody actually lists the points of evidence. Hmmm.
We must be talking past each other. Every post on this forum is chock full with CSI. As is every designed object. I take it that you wouldn't want me to list them for you. - - - - Recap of ID's reasoning: - we look for an explanation of life. - we notice that life is chock full of CSI - AHA! this we can explain! - Intelligence causes CSI and nothing else (as far as we know). - Therefore the inference to the best explanation is that the cause of life must be intelligent.Box_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

RDFish:
We look at complex life and we want an explanation of how it came to exist, but that isn’t evidence of any particular mental traits of the process that caused it.
Exactly what we have been saying. And we don't have to know the answers to those questions BEFORE we determine intelligent design exists. The who, why, when, how are hopefully answered after we determine design and set about studying it and all relevant evidence. Intelligent Design is about the detection and study of intelligent design in nature. If something is intelligently designed and it is not examined as such it will never reveal its secrets and we will be hopelessly hopping down a one-way dead-end.Joe_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

RDFish:
Everybody here keeps saying that, but oddly nobody actually lists the points of evidence.
BWAAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Trick or TreatJoe_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

Hi Box,
Fortunately for ID there is an abundance of positive evidence that intelligence can cause CSI. So, there is a healthy scientific ground for ID’s abductive reasoning.
Everybody here keeps saying that, but oddly nobody actually lists the points of evidence. Hmmm. Say we found an alien being, and cognitive scientists set out to decide if it was an intelligent being (that is to say, is it conscious? can it learn? can it solve novel problems? can it use a generally expressive language?) They would use the tools of their trade - verbal tests, behavioral tests, and anatomical/physiological tests - in order to try and answer these questions. Even with all of these methods there may remain doubt regarding the consciousness or mental abilities of this alien being, but the evidence of these tests would help the scientists decide what sorts of mental traits this alien being possessed. None of these tests can be applied in the context of ID. We look at complex life and we want an explanation of how it came to exist, but that isn't evidence of any particular mental traits of the process that caused it.
RDFish: That is as unscientific as saying “True, there may be some intelligent being who set the values of the physical constants in our universe, however, until we have discovered this being, the best explanation for the physical constants is that we live in a multiverse”. BOX: This is not an apt comparison. You must do better.
No, it's a perfectly apt comparison of course.
BTW Darwin based his theory on abductive reasoning:
First: Of course he did. Second: So what? You think Darwin was right about everything :-) Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

RDFish: Everybody makes abductive inferences every day. But they are not scientific abductive inferences unless there is evidence to support them.
You are correct of course. Fortunately for ID there is an abundance of positive evidence that intelligence can cause CSI. So, there is a healthy scientific ground for ID's abductive reasoning.
RDFish: That is as unscientific as saying "True, there may be some intelligent being who set the values of the physical constants in our universe, however, until we have discovered this being, the best explanation for the physical constants is that we live in a multiverse”.
This is not an apt comparison. You must do better. BTW Darwin based his theory on abductive reasoning:
There is another compelling, if convention-dependent, reason to regard intelligent design as a scientific theory. The inference to intelligent design is based upon the same method of historical scientific reasoning and the same uniformitarian principles that Charles Darwin used in On the Origin of Species. The similarity in logical structure runs quite deep. Both the argument for intelligent design and the Darwinian argument for descent with modification were formulated as abductive inferences to the best explanation. Both theories address characteristically historical questions; both employ typically historical forms of explanation and testing; and both have metaphysical implications. Insofar as we regard Darwin’s theory as a scientific theory, it seems appropriate to designate the theory of intelligent design as a scientific theory as well. Indeed, neo-Darwinism and the theory of intelligent design are not two different kinds of inquiry, as some critics have asserted. They are two different answers—formulated using a similar logic and method of reasoning—to the same question: “What caused biological forms and the appearance of design to arise in the history of life?” It stands to reason that if we regard one theory, neo-Darwinism or intelligent design, as scientific, we should regard the other as the same. Of course, whether either theory is true or not is another matter. An idea may be scientific and incorrect. In the history of science, many theories have proven to be so. The vortex theory of gravity, to which I referred earlier, would be one of nearly countless illustrations. For readers who would like to consider more detailed responses to arguments about whether intelligent design qualifies as “science,” I recommend Chapters 18 and 19 in Signature in the Cell.31 In Signature, I respond in detail to other philosophical objections to the case for intelligent design. These include challenges such as: (a) intelligent design is religion, not science,32 (b) the case for intelligent design is based on flawed analogical reasoning, (c) intelligent design is a fallacious argument from ignorance, sometimes called the “God of the Gaps” objection, (d) intelligent design is a science stopper, (e) the famous zinger, popularized by Richard Dawkins, that asks “Who designed the designer?”33 and many others. [ Stephen Meyer, 'Darwin's Doubt', Chapter 19 - The Rules of Science ]
Box_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

Hi Box,
RD: But that is fallacious reasoning – other CSI producers may not be generally intelligent. BOX: No, it is not fallacious reasoning RDFish. It is an inference to the best explanation – abductive reasoning.
Everybody makes abductive inferences every day. But they are not scientific abductive inferences unless there is evidence to support them.
ID: True, there may be unknown CSI producers which are not generally intelligent, however, until we have discovered these unknown CSI producers, the best explanation for CSI is a cause that is generally intelligent.
That is as unscientific as saying "True, there may be some intelligent being who set the values of the physical constants in our universe, however, until we have discovered this being, the best explanation for the physical constants is that we live in a multiverse". Science doesn't work that way. You can't just conclude something because you like one answer and nobody else has a better answer. You actually have to have evidence that your answer is correct. Until then, all you have are competing hypotheses. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

Hi JWTruthInLove,
Hilarious!
Thanks - I thought it was pretty funny :-)
However, I would change “IDGUY” to “UD-IDGUY”. ID is indiffirent to materialism or non-materialism (e.g. archaelogy, movie “Expelled”, …). It’s just some UD-posters, who try to sell their religious ideologies as scientific truths. A condition your friends — the darwinists — also suffer from.
Two mistakes here. First - I am not a Darwinist. Second, archaeology doesn't use "ID methodology" to infer that artifacts are from "intelligent agents". They use knowledge about "human beings" to infer that artifacts are from "human beings". Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Hi FMM,
To be skeptical of “other minds” is to consign yourself to a very lonely existence.
We all solve the problem of other minds by a very strong inference: I know I am conscious, and other people say they are conscious (why would something unconscious lie about it?), and other people act so much like I do (recognizing my image in a mirror, displaying emotions, solving novel problems, and so on), and they have the same brain structures that I have that are known to correlate with consciousness. These are also the tests that doctors and cognitive scientists use to assess consciousness in humans and other animals. None of these sorts of tests can be applied in the context of ID. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
RDF: 1) We know that artifacts containing CSI can be produced without aspects of general intelligence. (There are examples of this in the animal kingdom, in cases of human savantism, and in the case of computer systems). SB: Incorrect. Computer systems cannot produce CSI without aspects of general intelligence. They must be intelligently programed.
You are wrong in two different ways. First, I've explained to you before that to reject that computers display intelligence is to commit the "who designed the designer?" fallacy that you hate so much. If some organic being displayed the same behavior that an advanced robot does, you would call it intelligent... and you could conclude that it was designed!!! But just because you happen to know who the designer was in the case of the robot (and because it's made of computer chips and software instead of flesh and blood and DNA) you reject that the robot is intelligent. Totally inconsistent! The second reason you are wrong is because you've ignored the other two examples: (1) animals (like termites) who build structures with CSI, but who do not have general intelligence, and (2) human savants who have highly developed abilities to produce CSI in some constrained area but lack general intelligence.
RDF’s definition of intelligence is flawed since it does not include problem solving abilities, which can, and has been, defined as intelligence.
You are wrong about this because it is not "problems" but "novel problems" that indicate what we normally think of as intelligence, as I have previously explained: (from @309): Regarding problem-solving, you’ve left out a critical component: It is not problem-solving, but the solving of novel problems that is typically considered as a requisite component of intelligence. The classic illustration of why this is so is the sphex wasp, which appears to solve complex problems in a thoughtful way until presented with a novel problem, at which point the apparent general intelligence is revealed to be rigidly sterotyped behavior that cannot adapt. In the context of ID, one could say that whatever caused biological systems solved the problem of producing biological systems (by definition). What we’d like to know, however, is for example could this cause of biological system solve other sorts of problems, such as verbal analogies? Or could it solve design problems other than producing the particular designs that we observe? If we assume that the cause of life was something with human-like intelligence, then the answer to these questions would be “yes”. But why would we imagine that something that was not at all human like (perhaps it didn’t even have a human-like brain) have human-like intelligence? In science you can’t simply assume your conclusions, you actually have to provide empirical justifications for them. So can we empirically demonstrate that the cause of life had general human-like mental abilities? The answer, of course, is no, we can’t.
RDF: 2) Whatever caused the first biological systems to exist was obviously not itself a biological organism of any sort, nor anything in our shared experience; it was something with unknown attributes. SB: Bad logic. The last statement in the sentence does not follow from the two statements that preceded it. The evidence that points to the designer’s attributes dpes not need to be a part of our shared experience.
I don't even understand what you are saying here. Do you mean that your private religious experiences should count as evidence regarding the "scientific" conclusions of ID Theory?
RDF: 3) Therefore, there is no a priori justification for assuming that some unknown process (or entity or system or being or mechanism or whatever) that resulted CSI-rich biological systems had any particular aspect of general intelligence. SB: Bad Logic. The argument for intelligence is not assumed apriori.” It is concluded aposteriori.
No it isn't. Otherwise you would actually tell me what the evidence is for the consciousness of the Designer, for example. Does the Designer say that It is conscious? Does the Designer recognize that the image in a mirror is It? Does the Designer have brain structures that are correlated with consciousness in humans? Those are the tests that doctors and scientists give to people and animals on Earth to see if something is conscious. What test can you apply in the context of ID? (And of course even Dembski doesn't think ID can infer consciousness!) Same goes for learning or solving novel problems and using natural language.
RDF: 4) Therefore, any claim that the cause of CSI in biology possessed any particular mental trait (consciousness, novel problem solving, natural language ability, and so on) would require empirical evidence; ID provides no such evidence. SB: Statement from ignorance. Just because RDF is not aware of the evidence does not mean that it doesn’t exist.
Hahahahahaha.... and you keep this evidence secret? Is it locked in a vault, revealed only to true believers? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

Hi Box Lets work on the first two points before moving on to the difficult stuff. Your reply to point 1) suggests you are using ""decrease" and "increase" where you mean "degrade" and "enhance". that is, you are referring to the quality not the quantity of information. If changing a single base pair destroys the ability to produce a protein then surely "specified information" must be lost. Surely the lost information is necessarily "complex" even though only one base pair changes. And why then can't the random reversal of this point mutation (even if it is a one in a billion chance) not recreate this imformation and increase (C)SI without intelligent input? How does the "intelligently designed" CSI differ from the randomly generated CSI in two otherwise identical strings of DNA?Tamara Knight_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

Hello Tamara #387,
1) What sort of changes would constitute an increase and what a decrease of “information”.
Let's say that the mutation affects a gene which codes for a protein. Now a "decrease in information" would be that the genetic code (information) is changed by the mutation so that the protein can no longer be produced. An "increase in information" would be that the mutation results in changing the genetic code so that a novel or improved protein is being produced. Arguably the latter event is unlikely beyond the extreme; Douglas Axe comes to mind.
2) How would I tell if this change in information is “complex” rather “simple”.
If we are dealing with the alteration of a single base pair then it is certainly not complex. Complex, in this context, would be an entire pattern of base pair alterations.
3) How could I tell if this change was to “specified” information or to “unspecified” information?
Terms like "complex", "specified" and "information" are explained here. From the article:
The meaning of the term specified is very important to understanding CSI. The term “specified” in a certain sense either directly or indirectly refers to a prediction. If someone deals you a Royal Flush, the pattern would be complex. If you’re dealt a Royal Flush again several consecutive times, someone at the poker table is going to accuse you of cheating. The sequence now is increasing in improbability and complexity. A Royal Flush is specified because it is a pattern that many people are aware of and have identified in advance. Now, if you or the dealer ANNOUNCES IN ADVANCE that they are gong to deal you a Royal Flush, and sure enough it happens, that there is no longer any question that the target sequence was “specified.”
Box_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

Box As a newcomer to ID, perhaps you could explain CSI for me in layman's terms. As an example, where an ovum carries an imperfect copy of half the mother's genome 1)What sort of changes would constitute an increase and what a decrease of "information" 2)How would I tell if this change in information is "complex" rather "simple". 3)How could I tell if this change was to "specified" information or to "unspecified" informationTamara Knight_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Only now I notice that in RDFish's imaginary discussion (see #365 or #358) the first and second ID answer are represented uncharitable by RDFish. Let me fix that for him:
RD: Why does ID think the cause of life was generally intelligent? ID: Because, most likely, anything that could produce CSI must be generally intelligent. RD: Why does ID think that anything that could produce CSI must be generally intelligent? ID: Because ~~humans produce CSI and humans are generally intelligent~~ generally intelligent causes are the only known producers of CSI. RD: But that is fallacious reasoning – other CSI producers may not be generally intelligent. ID: True, there may be unknown CSI producers which are not generally intelligent, however, until we have discovered these unknown CSI producers, the best explanation for CSI is a cause that is generally intelligent.
Box_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Again, from RDFish's #365:
RD: Why does ID think the cause of life was generally intelligent? ID: Because anything that could produce CSI must be generally intelligent. RD: Why does ID think that anything that could produce CSI must be generally intelligent? ID: Because humans produce CSI and humans are generally intelligent. RD: But that is fallacious reasoning – other CSI producers may not be generally intelligent.
No, it is not fallacious reasoning RDFish. It is an inference to the best explanation - abductive reasoning. From the FAQ: "Where CSI is present, design is inferred as the best current explanation for the relevant aspect; as there is abundant empirical support for that inference." So the ID answer should be something like:
ID: True, there may be unknown CSI producers which are not generally intelligent, however, until we have discovered these unknown CSI producers, the best explanation for CSI is a cause that is generally intelligent.
Box_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

@RDFish:
COP1: We got a dead guy with a knife wound in his back. IDGUY1: Ah! Let’s see… do you think this was due to any combination of deterministic law + chance? COP1: Excuse me IDGuy, we are trying to work a case here, could you please shut up with the philosophy for a minute?
Hilarious! And true! However, I would change "IDGUY" to "UD-IDGUY". ID is indiffirent to materialism or non-materialism (e.g. archaelogy, movie "Expelled", ...). It's just some UD-posters, who try to sell their religious ideologies as scientific truths. A condition your friends -- the darwinists -- also suffer from.JWTruthInLove_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

fmm, Allow me to rephrase my statement:
True, there may be unknown forces , distinct from intelligence, capable of producing CSI. However, until we have discovered those forces, the best explanation for CSI is intelligence.
Box_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

5th, in fact the game of trying to reduce mind to computation on refined rock, is inherently and inescapably self referentially incoherent. This is good reason to hold that mind is not wholly determined by matter, which opens up a world. But that is utterly alien to the evo mat agenda and it will fight tooth and nail to block it, never mind that it is inescapably self referentially incoherent and self refuting as linked. It is not even a valid view. But inescapable lack of warrant never has stopped ideologies form being powerful. KFkairosfocus_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 15 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply