Yes, KN. It Is a Literal Code

Mark Frank (#194), You wrote,

You provide examples of natural explanations or theories which have been rejected but they have not been superseded by accepted supernatural explanations based on repeatable mutual observation. This is not a coincidence.

I agree that the null hypothesis is invalid here. The question is, which alternate hypothesis most adequately accounts for the data? Your hypothesis is,

It is woven into the definition of supernatural that it cannot be based on repeatable mutual observation.

I find that hypothesis to be improbable. Apparently supernatural events can be repeated often enough so that they come to be expected; for example, the healing miracles of Jesus. People expected them enough to seek after them. Of course, if one starts out knowing that Jesus could not perform miracles, then these could not have been reproducible events. But that is assuming naturalism, which I am not willing to do a priori. It seems to me that one must be open to all possibilities, at least at the start. What I see instead is that people have worked backwards from naturalism. Sometimes this led them to claim that they had solved a supposedly supernatural event that, in their mind, had a naturalistic explanation. And sometimes supernaturalists agreed. I doubt you will find any educated Westerners that deny that lightning and thunder are electrically based phenomena. And there are some believers in naturalism (I will call them naturalists* to distinguish them from those who study nature regardless of their belief in the supernatural, who can also be called naturalists) that will never admit that a supernatural explanation is really the correct one. If they did, they would not believe in naturalism, now, would they? They do occasionally switch (see Antony Flew), but most simply manage to avoid the implications of the evidence. But being a naturalist* does not mean never having to say that you were wrong. Sometimes a puzzle has to go from "solved" to "unsolved" for naturalism, and the evidence itself may turn out to be much more compatible with supernaturalism than the previous naturalistic model. So in practice, the one-way ratchet fails. Let me give one more example that is not in the article. The story of the invasion of Judah by Sennacherib is recounted in Isaiah 36 and 37. The miracle is recorded in Isaiah 37:36. It is also repeated in 2 Kings 18:13-37 and chapter 19, the key verse being 2 Kings 19:35, and in a shorter version in 2 Chronicles 32:1-23, with the key verse being verse 21. The theist story was, Sennacherib was invading Judah, and his spokesman, presumably at his command, insulted God. God caused 185,000 of his troops to die overnight, and Sennacherib left Judea without taking Jerusalem. Of course, that story is incompatible with naturalism. So a solution was sought by naturalists*. They thought they had solved the problem by declaring that the story was made up. There was no independent evidence that such a campaign had been undertaken, and the whole 185,000 soldier story was a myth. (In fact, there was independent evidence, from Herodotus, and from Berossus, quoted by Josephus, but the latter was written off as coming through a known theist and therefore unreliable, and the former came from someone who would repeat fables and the account was therefore unreliable. It is a classic example of how one can insulate oneself from data that would destroy one's pet theory. One simply finds ways to deny the validity of the data, because they would otherwise undermine the pet theory.) When Sennacherib's annals were found, it turned out that Sennacherib had invaded Judah, took Lachish and 45 other cities and towns, and for unclear reasons, shut up Hezekiah in Jerusalem like a bird in a cage, but did not conquer him [uncharacteristically of Assyrian monarchs], and instead had accepted tribute and left. (Note that the tribute was given/taken before the invasion according to the Biblical story.) One has to be careful with the monuments, as they spin and sometimes lie (Sargon II did not conquer Samaria, even though his monuments claim this--of course, our government never does this, cough, cough, gulf of Tonkin, cough). But it does seem that there is some basis for believing the Biblical record on this, and more than there used to be.

You will not be surprised to learn that I am not very familiar with the Bible

I recommend that you change that. It could be enlightening.

but the fact that medicine was wrong about the spleen being functional doesn’t meant that medicine now thinks it was put there by God.

That statement may very well be wrong, as most physicians are theists, but the comment misses the point. It was at one time widely believed that the spleen was vestigial. Vestigial organs were the model for the "junk DNA" argument. Vestigial organs have turned out to be a bad argument. The theist is much more comfortable believing that the spleen has a function, and therefore may have been deliberately designed to be there, than that it is useless junk whose only function is to prove evolution true. Naturalists* should be uncomfortable (but probably won't admit it) that one of their prize arguments has been shown to be erroneous. In the arena of real-life beliefs, naturalists* have sometimes been forced to backtrack. The ratchet does not just work one way when considering present beliefs that are thought to be backed by evidence. Paul Giem

Upright BiPed:

I was trying to keep my email addy off the spider’s radar

I suspected as much. I just completed the book, What Darwin Got Wrong, and in my opinion it's worth the read. They raise substantive issues. Mung

PG: I hear your concern. I suspect, however, that it is not coincidental that this focus on the threat from the right is at a time when the progressivist statist left is generally ascendant and/or militant, especially in the academy. I also find that there is a strong tendency in much of this, and in things that do not SOUND so militant, to present a one-sided litany of the sins of Christendom, without reckoning with contributions to the rise of science and modern democratic self government, or the ending of major abuses such as slavery and child labour, and oth4er good that has flowed from 1 - 2,000 years of Christian influence on our common civilisation, etc. I find myself quite concerned that almost whenever one points out such, one is angrily or snidely pounced on and denounced, with a piling on of attacks on the Christian faith, history, and people. Yes, I have little doubt that any good cause can and will be perverted by fallen men with power agendas. I think this is the real focus we should have, the dangers of out of control power. Right now, in the academy, the courts and the parliaments as well as major media houses, that is coming from the secularist progressive left and its fellow travellers on the whole. In that context, I take strong exception to the projection of a patently false conspiracy narrative that singles out design theory thinkers and supporters, willfully falsely (cogent correction is accessible) equates them to creationists and onwards to an imagined vast right wing theocratic totalitarian tyrannical treasonous push in the making. This is slander, and given the common erroneous equation right wing Christian theocratic agendas = nazism, this is blood libel, frankly. And in that context, I take serious exception to how, when this libel was presented at TSZ, it went over without a peep of protest; taken as a self evident fact. Warning bells should be going off bigtime. On the strength of that libel, millions, on their core identity [not for demonstrated toxic and destructive behaviour . . . ], were equated to "enemies of humanity," primary the alleged ringleaders [which would include men like Meyer, whose book was just unjustly panned by TSZ], and secondarily their imagined dupes. There is a clear and present danger, let us confront it as what it is -- the boiling over front burner issue. The onward possibility of a right wing authoritarian backlash, let us bear in mind but that is frankly a back burner, fringe group issue. In the case of the US, I frankly could not see a right wing totalitarian theocratic takeover save after civilisational and population collapse though bloody and massively destructive defeat that sweeps the military and policing forces off the board as a bloc, leading to small, struggling successor entities among traumatised survivors. Maybe you can come up with a credibly plausible scenario otherwise, though I find one hard to conceive in which the substantially intact USA becomes a theocratic Church of America whole. (And while I am at it, I should note that there are established churches aplenty in Northern Europe, but I do not see the sort of totalitarianism that has been so luridly painted. Russia is the closest I can imagine, but that simply underscores my collapse point, and that was a collapse of a tyranny.) But, I am not going to feed a major fallacy and scapegoating game by pointing out the danger on the right [such as Prussianism was], when the real clear and present danger is -- again, for the third major time in 100 years: Fascism, communism, now radical secularist, scientistic evolutionary materialist progressivism and its fellow travellers -- on the left. For the very excellent reason that if you want to push an agenda through across a state, the easiest way to do so is to seize control of the government's key organs or at lest the institutions that shape its thinking and deciding, and widespread ideologies that legitimise such in our time, now tend strongly to be statist and beyond internationalist/ one-world/ new world order. Yes, we must be aware that he back burner can boil over if neglected, but the front burner is boiling over right now. KF kairosfocus

Paul You provide examples of natural explanations or theories which have been rejected but they have not been superseded by accepted supernatural explanations based on repeatable mutual observation. This is not a coincidence. It is woven into the definition of supernatural that it cannot be based on repeatable mutual observation. You will not be surprised to learn that I am not very familiar with the Bible - but the fact that medicine was wrong about the spleen being functional doesn't meant that medicine now thinks it was put there by God. Mark Frank

KF (#172), I am in substantial agreement with most of your post. I do have one concern, though. There are a few people in the United States that in fact wish to create here what could reasonably be called a theocracy. It is true that this is not the majority, and I certainly do not see it controlling the Discovery Institute. It is also true that it is easier to see the left as dictating bondage to a false religious idea at present. My concern is that if the left tries and loses, many on the right will see this as justification to restrict religious liberty for the left and their allies, and the final status could be a poorly supported Christianity dictating again. It has happened before. The Christian church in the middle ages did some things it has had to repent of, and the newly minted Protestant churches sometimes forgot the lessons of their birth and persecuted such groups as the Anabaptists. I still think that the religious right is better than the religious left, especially when those on the right keep in mind Jesus' words that "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews. But now is my kingdom not from hence." But if the left is destroyed, especially after excesses, the right could become corrupted. The seeds are there. Paul Giem

Mark Frank (#170), In my article, I mentioned multiple cases where the naturalistic consensus (usually self-identified as the consensus consistent with science, as opposed to those who persisted in the old superstitions) had to be abandoned in favor of a position originally supported by conservative religious belief. One can argue that the progressives were not respectful enough of ancient historical documents, and never had the actual experimental support that they thought they had. But they did think they had it, and this can be a cautionary tale for us. Just to give an example, it was argued, reasonably enough from their perspective, that Daniel could not have prophecy, that Daniel 10 and 11 were too accurate to be luck, at least until the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and that therefore this part of Daniel must be second century BC (or BCE for the politically correct--the original authors used the original designation). They coupled this with the observation that neither Daniel nor his three friends were mentioned in the extant Babylonian records, nor for that matter, was Belshazzar. They thought it was reasonable to conclude that the whole story was a myth (tall tale, whatever your favorite label) without any basis in fact. The last part turned out not to be repeatable, as not only has Belshazzar been identified, but Daniel and his three friends (see the notes in the article). But at the time, if you had asked the skeptics, they would have told you in no uncertain terms that their view was supported by evidence. More recently, when I was in medical school, and for some time thereafter, the common belief was that the spleen was completely unnecessary. This was based on the fact that spleens could be removed from accident victims with no obvious decrease in their quality of life. This supported the idea that spleens were an evolutionary leftover, or vestigial organ. This was enough consensus that if the spleen was ever ruptured, or even had a subcapsular hematoma that could rupture, it was routinely removed. This was thought to be based on scientific data. In a certain sense it was, but incomplete data that has since been superseded. One can still argue that the ratchet operates only one way. But not only have we not established that it will eventually explain all disputed points or mysteries naturalistically, we have not even established that the current consensus will never have to be abandoned in favor of a position that is more compatible with supernaturalism. Paul Giem

...and you are right. Ludicrous. Upright BiPed

Mung, Very interesting stuff, thank you. When I was researching semiosis I read up on the von Frisch experiments, and I think I remember reading something akin to this as well, but I have yet to read What Darwin Got Wrong. In any case, I could have read more closely, I let RB catch me somewhat out on bounds on the bee's dance when I was on TSZ. Nothinng substantive though. Again thanks, I will make a pact to read the book. (By the way, you weren't being dense; it was me. I was trying to keep my email addy off the spider's radar by leaving off the "at" symbol and the dot com). Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed, I'm being particularly dense at the moment, or something. I can't figure out if you're giving me an email address or telling me where to go to find one. But who cares, here's the text:

Optimal foraging strategies: the honeybees As von Frisch had taught us, at the start of a foraging period some individual honeybees go out foraging on their own ('proactive' search) and some ('reactive' searchers) stay in the hive awaiting information from returning foragers that is conveyed by the famous 'bee dance' (von Frisch, 1967). The issue to be solved was: which optimal percentage of individuals should go out and forage and which correspondingly optimal percentage should wait for information? Clearly, it can't be the case that all searchers are reactive; so the question arises whether there is an optimal percentage of proactive to reactive searcers (as a function of colony size and the availability of perishable food). Researchers (Dechaume-Moncharmont et al., 2005) combined measurements of actual foraging behaviours with a mathematical model of he energy gain by a colony as a function both of the probability of finding food sources and of the duration of their availability. The key factor is the ratio of proactive foragers to reactive foragers. Under specifiable conditions, the optimum strategy is a totally independent (proactive) foraging for all the bees, because potentially valuable information that reactive foragers may gain from successful foragers is not worth waiting for. This counter-intuitive outcome is remarkably robust over a wide range of parameters. It occurs because food sources are only available for a limited period. But their study emphasizes the importance of time constraints and the analysis of dynamics, not just steady states, to understand social insect foraging. The predictions of their model for optimal foraging, often quite coutner-intuitive, have been confirmed both in the wild and in laboratory conditions (Dechaume-Moncharmont et al., 2005). The bees appear to be 'sitting' (so to speak) at the optimum of the curve of the possible ratios of proactive versus reactive foragers in a variety of situations. Once again we want to raise some key issues for the theory of evolution: it's not possible that all sorts of foraging strategies have been tried out at random over the aeons, and that natural selection determined that only the optimal foraging bees left descendants. Maybe no neo-Darwinian wishes today to suggest this kind of crude hypothesis. A somewhat more plausible picture is that, once some change in foraging strategies has occurred, the range of further changes beyond that will have changed completely. The subset of possible further small changes around the present behavioural phenotype is constrained; as suggested by Richard Lewontin, the metaphor is rather one of finding one's way through a maze, with no possibility of wandering back to the starting point. The population, or the species as a whole, is committed to certain downstream passages. Every evolutionary change constrains to some subset, and new sub-subsets of possible further mutational effects at the next step. It's hard, at present, to to beyond such metaphors. However, the picture of a blind search winnowed by selection is utterly implausible. Multiple stepwise canalization of variants, under the kinds of physical-computational constraints suggested by Cherniak et al. must have eventually led to an inbuilt computation of the optimal ratio of proactive and reactive foragers, somehow encoded in the interaction between genes, development, and the actions of some laws of form. The question here involves multiple individualsd an their behaviour, and the solution will in due time turn out to be more complex than that of the individual canaries. Once again, nobody today really has a clue to a solution of these problems. These issues need to be raised nonetheless. We have seen examples where it seems that only physico-chemical and geometric constraints can explain the narrow canalizations that natural selection must have explored. The case of the bees, and two more that we are going to see (just a sample among many more in the recent literature) are such that, once more, the space of possible solutions to be explored seems too gigantic to have been explored by blind trial and error. The inference appears to be that a highly constrained search must have taken place. Accordingly, the role of natural selection may have been mostly just fine-tuning. Or less. Fodor, Jerry and Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo. What Darwin Got Wrong. pp 84-86

This strategy seems to be optimal. That the strategy could have been found by blind search is ludicrous. Mung

Alan Fox:

I prefer a God who can get it right first time.

So you're a deist then? Alan Fox:

I prefer a God who can get it right first time.

And you decide what's right? Alan Fox:

I prefer a God who can get it right first time.

I prefer to look at the evidence before deciding what sort of God I prefer. Alan Fox:

I prefer a God who can get it right first time.

Alan, have you ever studied the Bible in order to investigate the ways in which God is pictured? For example he planted a garden. For example he planted a vineyard. etc. "Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed." (I wonder in which day God planted the garden, and whether all the trees were fully formed when first planted, etc., etc.) Mung

Alan Fox:

I am using “niche” in the ecological sense to emphasize the point that organisms can inhabit very tightly limited spaces or micro-environments. Habitats, if you will.

That's right Alan, and that's the only relevant sense of the word given the context. It's about ecology, not environment. Ecology != environment. Your first statement was pure nonsense. Now, should you decide to show back up some day, please do read What Darwin Got Wrong first so that we won't waste time in the future going back over this same ground.

Habitats, if you will.

Habitats have, well, inhabitants. Inhabitable places don't. Please do try to not engage in question-begging when it comes to defining your "niche habitats" and their occupants and explaining one in terms of the other. Good luck. Mung

That was Friday, but Sunday was coming . . . kairosfocus

AF: Still dodging the bouncers? You'll score no runs that way. You proposed niches as designers. You were called on it. Obviously, you have no answer or you would not be trying to change the subject so hard. As it is, while cosmological fine tuning considered in light of the logic of necessary being does get us to the point where a sovereign God is a reasonable worldview, that is independent of issues tied to the world of life. If I were simply looking at theism and phil, I would stop there, after all a fine tuning God could set up a cosmos to unfold thereafter. But that is not the problem. The real issue is that life happens to be chock full of FSCO/I and there is but one known causal process observed as capable of causing FSCO/I. Design. So, there is reason to infer design on FSCO/I as sign. And oddly, that by itself does not actually point to God as designer of life, just to design which is for good reason habitually associated with designers. As design theorists have pointed out freely since Thaxton et al in TMLO c 1984. (So there is a grand red herring to strawman loaded with ad hominems and set alight chase in the usual rhetoric emanating from NCSE et al. But those who want to poison the atmosphere we all have to breathe, have no regard for truth.) Further, niches -- a special case of differential reproductive success -- simply have no empirically warranted powers of design. That leads us to the other half of the darwinist body plan origination mechanism: chance variation. But oops, that has no observed power to originate FSCO/I either. Mechanism, proposed, fails coming out the starting gate. A mechanism adequate for minor adaptive variations, is grossly unwarranted to originate body plans requiring 10 - 100+ millions of bits of FSCO/I. Dozens of times over. Gross and unwarranted extrapolation bites the dust again. The science issue is over. Show observed cause for FSCO/I produced by blind chance or mechanical necessity, or else stand having your bluff successfully called. What about theological debates on notions regarding what is or is not beneath the dignity of God? The God I believe in warns that pride goeth before a fall, was willing to suffer betrayal at the hands of scheming manipulators, being mocked, spat upon and slapped in cruel mockery, plus a crown of thorns, on the way to hanging in shameful and distressing agony -- to be Saviour (that was Friday, but Sunday was coming . . . ) and condescended to make fresh wine for a wedding where the couple could not afford enough. Do you think such a God would give ha'penny for rhetorically loaded notions as to what is or is not beneath his dignity? It is time to drop the silly tangential talking points and address the substantial issue, the source of the FSCO/I in the genetic code and associated molecular machinery. KF kairosfocus

Red herring, and strawman distractive from the issue you put on the table (which I responded to on what design is about), and attempting to shift the burden of warrant.

Feeble response; could do better. God creates the universe and everything else unfolds. He doesn't need to tinker because, being omniscient, he gets it right first time. Or is your Goid not omniscient and needs to add the odd touch on the tiller? I prefer a God who can get it right first time. Alan Fox

Red herring, and strawman distractive from the issue you put on the table (which I responded to on what design is about), and attempting to shift the burden of warrant. KF kairosfocus

By designing niches god designs organisms! Refute that, KF! Alan Fox

AF, are you asserting that niche environments conceive goals and make plans to configure components taking advantage of the materials and forces of nature to achieve these ends, which are then effected? When was this observed to create systems or structures beyond the FSCO/I threshold of 500 bits? (Or is this yet another case of emphasising differential reproductive success that subtracts less successful varieties, rather than the chance variation that we are told creates body plans incrementally, which requires incremental writing of 10 -100+ mn bits of fresh genetic info. When was such observed?) KF kairosfocus

Ah mung the merciless, those penetrating questions. You are indeed remorseless. I am using "niche" in the ecological sense to emphasize the point that organisms can inhabit very tightly limited spaces or micro-environments. Habitats, if you will. Alan Fox

"I forgot to mention one other category of designer: the niche environment." - Alan Fox What on earth is a "niche environment"? Mung

"How can you discuss a concept so utterly vague and unconstrained in any meaningful way." - Alan Fox You mean like "niche"? Mung

Ah mung the magnificent! Please explain! Alan Fox

Well, Alan, you don't seem to know the difference between environment and niche, so perhaps you should start there. Mung

Alan Fox (#64) I have a hard time calling a niche a designer, but don’t think it is worth the trouble to argue the case.

Well, I’m not proselytising for the theory of evolution but niche adaptation, effectively a population of organisms being shaped by the dynamics of the particular niche it occupies, is an important element.

I have mentioned that the origin of life (at least life as we know it) requires long complex specified (good enough for life) strings of DNA. You have read the argument. Your comeback seems to be, do we have any independent evidence of such designers? Design-assisting factories? Visual sightings? The non-human designers we do know don’t seem to have enough capability to pull this off, and there is no evidence that they existed during (or before) the required time period.

There are some viruses that function with RNA rather than DNA, so I am not sure your assertion is correct. Nobody knows what the minimum requirements might be for self-sustaining self replicator are or what the first living cells for which there is evidence (stromatolites) were like in detail.

My first reply would be, what if for multiple events, a designer seems to be required? Would that not make a designer a unifying hypothesis? Supposing that for the origin of long complex DNA strings it appears that we need a designer. Then supposing that for the origin of the universe we also appear to need a designer, and furthermore that the Cambrian explosion, and the origin of complex mechanical devices like the ATP generator, the flagellar motor, etc. we appear to need a designer, and finally, for the onset of human consciousness, we appear to need an intelligent designer. Does it at some point make sense to say, maybe the objection that there is no independent evidence of such a designer isn’t such a strong one after all?

I don't follow the logic. You seem to be assuming a "designer" by default. "Designer" is an empty concept.

Once that point is conceded, I would be happy to discuss deductions about the nature of the designer from the designs left behind. But it hardly makes sense to discuss the nature of a designer with someone when he/she doesn’t even believe that there is evidence for design.

But you know absolutely nothing of the nature of the designer. How can you discuss a concept so utterly vague and unconstrained in any meaningful way. I agree it doesn't seem likely to be fruitful. You seem to want me, as apparently all ID proponents do, to subscribe to an evidence-free, imaginary entity as the default rather than, as I prefer to acknowledge, we don't yet know. Alan Fox

Alan Fox (#64), I have a hard time calling a niche a designer, but don’t think it is worth the trouble to argue the case.

Well, I'm not proselytising for the theory of evolution but niche adaptation, effectively a population of organisms being shaped by the dynamics of the particular niche it occupies, is I have mentioned that the origin of life (at least life as we know it) requires long complex specified (good enough for life) strings of DNA. You have read the argument. Your comeback seems to be, do we have any independent evidence of such designers? Design-assisting factories? Visual sightings? The non-human designers we do know don’t seem to have enough capability to pull this off, and there is no evidence that they existed during (or before) the required time period. My first reply would be, what if for multiple events, a designer seems to be required? Would that not make a designer a unifying hypothesis? Supposing that for the origin of long complex DNA strings it appears that we need a designer. Then supposing that for the origin of the universe we also appear to need a designer, and furthermore that the Cambrian explosion, and the origin of complex mechanical devices like the ATP generator, the flagellar motor, etc. we appear to need a designer, and finally, for the onset of human consciousness, we appear to need an intelligent designer. Does it at some point make sense to say, maybe the objection that there is no independent evidence of such a designer isn’t such a strong one after all? Once that point is conceded, I would be happy to discuss deductions about the nature of the designer from the designs left behind. But it hardly makes sense to discuss the nature of a designer with someone when he/she doesn’t even believe that there is evidence for design. Alan Fox

F/N: Heinrich Heine's all too vividly apt prophetic critique:

Christianity — and that is its greatest merit — has somewhat mitigated that brutal German love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered [--> the Swastika, visually, is a twisted, broken cross . . .], the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame. … The old stone gods will then rise from long ruins and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and Thor will leap to life with his giant hammer and smash the Gothic cathedrals. … … Do not smile at my advice — the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans, and philosophers of nature. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder … comes rolling somewhat slowly, but … its crash … will be unlike anything before in the history of the world. … At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead [--> cf. air warfare, symbol of the USA], and lions in farthest Africa [--> the lion is a key symbol of Britain, cf. also the North African campaigns] will draw in their tails and slink away. … A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll. [Religion and Philosophy in Germany, 1831.]

This was noted on regarding prussianism in the aftermath of the rape of Belgium in WWI (IIRC, right after the burning of the library at Louvain), and it is blatantly apt in anticipation of the much more destructive second war. KF kairosfocus

PG, 156:

You are afraid that the ID movement is a secret right-wing conspiracy, perhaps to establish a theocracy. I have some sympathy with that position. I am reasonably certain that there are some in the conservative part of the right wing that do wish to turn America into a Christian nation, which I believe is wrongheaded and will, if tried, end in disaster (for one thing, which branch of Christianity gets preference?). And I am not much happier with the libertarian wing, which sounds suspiciously like the Robber Barons of the previous century. Neither do I believe that corporations should have free rein to do whatever they want . . .

I think we need to look at some history, trends, definitions and issues. Let me try notes on points: 1 --> The US is indisputably a part of a Civilisation that until within living memory (on the strength of 1 - 2,000 years of cultural influences) self-identified as Christian Civilisation. Sometimes known as Christendom, which for all its sins also brought its blessings -- and BTW, observe the use of this theological, covenantal term in the preamble to the US Constitution. This can be checked by simply reading the contemporary voice of leaders during the Second World War, for simple illustration. In summary they viewed nations as having two linked covenants, nationhood under God and good government under God. 2 --> The predominant worldview, philosophical thought, cultural expressions and moral frame of thought were deeply influenced by ethical monotheism, in various versions of the Judaeo-Christian worldview; whether or not the people involved were personally committed and involved Christians. (And power elites often have been much less committed than the common people for various reasons connected to Jesus' remarks on the deleterious influences of wealth and power.) This frame influenced legal thought, justice, policies and political institutions -- and especially the rise of modern liberty and democracy, a capital example being the US declaration of independence, 1776, which in material parts reads:

When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . . We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27 and discussion in Locke], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

3 --> So, I take concern with how the term "Christian" is being used (especially in an increasingly Post-Christian era subjected to deeply hostile and active de-Christianisation that tends to be highly one sided and demonising in its characterisation of the Christian faith and impacts to the point of too often being materially and even willfully misleading). It can be used in a sense of individual commitment or sectarian establishment, but it can also mean the history, influence and cultural identity as just outlined. 4 --> I am particularly concerned to note that morality is a pivotal, worldview influenced and grounded entity. And while I will point out that some moral truths are self evident -- it is wrong to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a child [and I have in mind a specific case that happened to a little boy and his family who still mourn his loss] -- the worldview grounding of morality is a very important issue for well or woe. 5 --> That is, for the general good, we need a broad community consensus on a foundational IS that adequately grounds OUGHT. And, for good reason, the only serious candidate for such is the inherently good and just Creator God. To see the difference, let me here cite Hooker in Ecclesiastical Polity [1594+] as cited by Locke c 1690 in his 2nd essay on civil Govt Ch 2 sect 5, when he set out to ground justice, liberty and good government:

. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80]

. . . and contrast Wm B Provine in his 1998 U Tenn darwin Day address:

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists [--> undermines morality, leading to radical relativism]; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent [--> undermines responsible freedom, thus both mind and morality, thence liberty and self government] . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. [--> The root is the worldview, perhaps best described as evolutionary materialism] Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will . . .

6 --> The difference is striking and brims over with consequences not to the advantage of the latter view, despite the confident declarations and one-sided litanies of the sins and perils of Christendom of advocates to the contrary. I therefore hold that our age is one of great peril to the long term viability of liberty, justice and genuine self government by constitutional democracies. 7 --> I believe per fair comment that while there is indeed a fringe that would impose some sort of theocratic tyranny (much more likely from an IslamIST perspective BTW), that is not credibly a dominant school of thought among design thinkers or even Creationists. 8 --> The sort of secularist ideologically loaded conspiracy narrative and hostile agit prop kulturkampf agenda I have highlighted and objected to here, is a far more evidently clear and present danger. Morris Cargill, late dean of Jamaican columnists [and evidently some sort of atheistical Buddhist not noted for sympathy to "Bible bashers" of the ilk of televangelists], once put this in the terms that a man looking out to his right front, would easily miss the swinging blow coming from his left and behind him, until it is too late. 9 --> Notoriously, the 1st amdt to the US Constitution forbids an established Church of the US (though it envisioned freedom of local entities to have local state churches with provision for the freedoms of dissenters, in fact that is the context of freedom of association, expression and the press in that clause). Across C19, that moved to there being no locally established churches, though general Christian influences are remarked in de Toqueville's study, B. F. Morris' 1864 study on the Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States and the 1982 Trinity decision of the Supreme Court alike. 10 --> In that overall context, the likelihood of an intact USA reverting to an oppressive establishment of a church of the USA or a status where such a church becomes de facto established is effectively nil. Much more likely is undue influence of radically anti-Christian secularist sentiment, as is manifest in many ways. 11 --> In my considered opinion, for the sort of establishment that is set up as a bogeyman to emerge, there would have to be a sharp secularist radicalisation, leading to a situation where there is civilisational collapse, say by something like a successful EMP attack by North Korea or Iran (itself a high risk venture), triggering instant reversion to C19 and death of dozens of millions and chaos. Then in pockets of survivors, some sort of church-state alliance might emerge as a backlash. 12 --> Such is not likely at all. Science fiction, not a credible trend. 13 --> As for Republicans and the like, my thoughts are, that unbridled capitalism of C19 variety is dead, killed by the rise of unions and the recognition of market failures and the need to regulate monopolies. Libertarians and quasi-anarchists are and will remain a fringe. And while the Tea Party is a significant movement, it does not strike me that it could credibly morph into the lurid caricature too often projected, absent the sort of scenarios outlined. 14 --> I find a far more credible danger is the rise of the broad influence of Saul Alinsky and his destructive neo-marxist agit prop techniques. There is a loss of respect for duties of care to accuracy, truth, fairness and basic respect that is closely linked also to the rise of a cynical secularism that undermines moral consensus, and manipulates it without a moment's hesitation. The current cynical manipulation of marriage and family in a climate that tries to equate principled questions to nazism is a sobering case in point. 15 --> As to war-mongering, Western Civilisation is indeed one of the two most aggressive civilisations in our world today. That tendency needs to be checked. But at the same time, you do indubitably confront the rise in our time of IslamIST radicalism, making a powerful move for the geostrategic pivot, the Middle East, and with metastases far beyond. 16 --> That is why I point to the willing support for Britain by colonised peoples in the 2nd World War. Not because of some perception that the UK was an ideal and perfect society, but knowing that though flawed, it was the champion of Christian Civilisation in the teeth of an impending dark age of barbarism of a type prophetically warned against by Heine in the 1830's. 17 --> The USA is in a similar position today, even as Iran edges to the point of sprinting across the nuclear red line and as Al Qaeda in Syria is doubtless busily smuggling out chemical weapons. 18 --> The world is in a mess, and it is getting worse. A sober analysis of lesser of evils and due critically aware support for sensible and timely measures is indicated. 19 --> Which brings us back full circle. One of the urgent needs is to renew the thinking that guides our civilisation, at worldviews level, at scientific level, at policy and politics levels informed by sound and fair-minded deeply informed thought. 20 --> It is in that context that I think the rise of the design inference has significant scientific merit, and should not be swarmed down under a tide of a priori materialism imposed on science and science education. KF kairosfocus

Timaeus #164 The paper in question is this one: http://www.grisda.org/origins/55003.pdf Mark Frank

#169 Paul I don't see an example in your essay of a natural explanation being rejected by the vast majority of the experts in the field on the basis of what they believe to be repeatable observations. Which ones did you have in mind? Mark Frank

Mark Frank (#168), I agree that it does depend on what we mean by "established". If it is on the basis of repeatable mutual observations, you might be right. But if it is based on acceptance by the vast majority of experts in the field based on what they believe to be repeatable observations, there are most definitely counterexamples to the ratchet. Paul Giem

#163 Paul

In fact, the paper’s whole point, from one perspective, was to deny the existence of the one-way ratchet, by giving counterexamples. Do you deny the existence of every single counterexample I gave?

You provide examples of cases where there has been a supernatural explanation and a natural explanation has tried and failed to replace it. But that is not the ratchet in reverse. The ratchet in reverse would be where there is an established natural explanation and we discover  a supernatural explanation which overturns it and becomes the established explanation.  I can’t see any of those and indeed I can’t imagine what it would look like.  It depends a bit on what we mean by “established” but it means something on the lines of “accepted by the vast majority of experts in the field on the basis of repeatable mutual observations”. Mark Frank

...the genetic code is truly a code in the sense of communication theory; it is a set of arbitrary symbols used for the scope of communication, i.e. for information transmission. ...we have established that the genetic code is truly a code in the sense assigned to the word in communication theory... Diego L. Gonzalez. The Mathematical Structure of the Genetic Code

see also: Can the genetic code be mathematically described? Mung

http://www.grisda.org/origins/55003.pdf Geoscience Research Institute - an official institute of the Seventh-day Adventist Church "Does Religion Always Lose?" by Paul A Giem Gregory

T: http://www.grisda.org/origins/55003.pdf Mung

Paul Giem: You wrote: "Thank you for your careful reading and analysis of my essay." I cannot find, on this page, any title or locating reference for the essay that you and Mark Frank are alluding to. Can you tell me what essay is being spoken of, and how readers here can read it, so that we are not left out of the side-conversation? Timaeus

Mark Frank (#103), Thank you for your careful reading and analysis of my essay. It sounds like we agree on many points. (Before we go on, I should note that mine is not necessarily either a standard ID position nor even a standard ID topic.) The crux of our disagreement seems to come from your belief that there is a ratchet (vaguely similar to Muelller's ratchet), that once a natural explanation is accepted, it will never have to be revised. Therefore, supernatural explanations will always be decreasing, and naturalistic ones always increasing. Granted the existence of such a ratchet, the only remaining question is whether supernaturalistic explanations will eventually decrease to zero. To give a mathematical analogy, the functions f = 5/x and f = (5x+1)/x are both constantly decreasing, but the former has a limit of zero, whereas the latter has a limit of 5. So it is possible to have an ever-decreasing area where supernaturalism is the best explanation, but have that area never decrease to zero. But I see two problems with this formulation. First, it assumes that we have a finite and known area of knowledge. It is possible that, as our knowledge base expands, that new areas in need of explanation will keep showing up, for some of which a supernatural explanation fits best, and that the net number of areas where supernatural explanations fit best is static or even expanding, in spite of the existence of your ratchet. I will admit that if all the old problems get solved, I will strongly consider the possibility that the new problems are not solved simply because they are new. In that case it is a reasonable extrapolation that supernatural explanations will all eventually be replaced by natural ones. But one final possibility remains. Your ratchet may not work only one way. Spontaneous generation of life, for example, was once a standard belief, including for believers in naturalism. It took Redi and Pasteur (and others) to destroy that belief. As time went on, belief in spontaneous generation has gotten more difficult, with only occasional very partial relief of the difficulties (e. g., Miller and Urey). The same is true for the concept of a finite age for the universe, and the idea of a mechanistic universe (which was dealt a severe blow by quantum mechanics). I have documented that same effect in history. I think it is theoretically possible, and the examples I gave in the paper, at least IMO, document that it is practically true, that the ratchet does not work only one way if the original natural explanation was inappropriately favored to begin with. In fact, the paper's whole point, from one perspective, was to deny the existence of the one-way ratchet, by giving counterexamples. Do you deny the existence of every single counterexample I gave? Paul Giem

KN: "It means that the multiple senses of “code” are frustrating . . ." You are priceless. Still ducking and weaving long after the bell has rung. Thanks! Barry Arrington

Perhaps Theory X is only wrong metaphorically. Mung

Gregory wrote (155): "Saying “It *is* a literal code” then becomes a controversial claim, not a foregone conclusion" Agreed. That there is a code operating in the DNA-protein process is something to be established by argument, not to be assumed. But the fact remains that there is striking affinity between the so-called "DNA code" and codes employed by, and invented by, intelligent agents. Therefore, it is certainly reasonable to investigate the possibility that the "apparent code" is in fact a "real code" -- one devised by a non-human intelligent agent. A reasonable person would therefore wish to engage in a discussion regarding the similarities and differences between the "genetic code" and man-made codes, a discussion which could have, as one possible outcome, the conclusion that the genetic code is in fact a genuine code. But Gregory has shown no interest, at any time in the past several years, in engaging in such a discussion; and further, he seems rather scornful of those who think the discussion is a very important one. He tosses out biting one-liners about (and here I paraphrase rather than quote him exactly) "false analogies," "misplaced anthropomorphism," "misapplying human concepts in biology where they don't belong," "univocity incompatible with Abrahamic religion," etc. In other words, he appears to try to strangle all such discussions in the crib. As for the remark that Gregory is a "politician," I expect that the person who made it was not speaking "literally," but meant that Gregory's academic and popular arguments regarding ID tend to be "political" in character (i.e., tend to be focused on people's alleged motives and agendas), rather than either scientific or philosophical (as arguments about ID should be). There is no logical path from "I don't agree with the right-wing, fundamentalist, reactionary, religious and social and political agenda of a number of the people who support Theory X" to "Theory X is wrong." But for some reason, Gregory seems not to be able to see this. Timaeus

Jerad, no I am not going to play numbers games with you. All along you have had in hand a live case (being a response to MF's challenge some years back) in the definition you artfully half-quoted. And if you cared to look, you would have long since had both general examples from the simple fact of document file sizes, and from specifically biological cases repeatedly presented to you, as well as the simple fact that R/DNA in abstract stores 4 possibilities per base, 2 bits. (Redundancies in the code used make no difference to this raw potential rooted in the four bases and the chaining chemistry.) When adequate evidence is already there a serious minded person will attend to it instead of spinning on and dodging blatant facts with more talking points. KF kairosfocus

#154 The observation of semiosis during protein synthesis universally links it to massive pre-existing organization. The observation that the genetic code is dimensional universally links it to higher intelligence. These inferences are made prior to (and without reference to) the content of information required to establish cellular life. #155 I answered your question succinctly in #153. Implying that I didn't (or that I am unwilling to) is demonstrably false. The only thing I am unwilling to do at this point is waste much energy conversing about empirical matters with a person who is wholly motivated by divisive politics. Upright BiPed

Jerad, ducked just as predicted. What you ducked, of course is a discussion of how from 2004 - 11, between teams of researchers on BOTH sides of the question, in the literature, protein fold and function rarity in AA string config space and incremental approach to function influenced by pop genetics, were tested. And the ID expectation came up trumps. EL by her own admission had DD in hand before making her dismissive declaration on how ID hyps were not tested. She just shot her credibility in the foot on DD, and on testability of ID -- in a context where she has been trumpeting the alleged incompetence and dishonesty of Meyer, who would be an imagined ringleader of the conspiracy story she is enabling by hosting at her blog. But then, as someone who has been around the issue for some years she MUST have known that the junk dna issue was another test going on in the same time frame; also passed by ID. And all along -- as she originally popped up proposing to do a program to make CSI out of lucky noise and some form of mechanical necessity, she knows that the FSCO/I concept and the induction that points it out as a reliable sign of design are testable. So, we have insistently willful misrepresentation on provable points, backed up by already shown enabling of slander. Of course, I can predict that none of this will move you -- revealing in light of the attitude to morality you already revealed today. (On this, I invite you to happily surprise me by proving this saddening expectation wrong.) KF kairosfocus

Gregory (#63), I thought I was listening with my heart. Neither I nor my dialogue partner (I think) consider earth-bound animals as an adequate explanation for the long complex specified strings of DNA that seem to be required for life. They are both not intelligent enough, nor alive at the appropriate time. That is why I stopped discussing them. I'll tell you what it would take to capitalize the term "Intelligent Designer". First, it would take your (or the discussant with which I am speaking) acknowledging that an intelligent designer is the most plausible explanation for some phenomena (say, the origin of life). Until then, why even discuss the properties of a proposed intelligent designer? Then, it would take a rational discussion about the nature of that designer. If that designer seemed most likely to be Divine, then it makes sense to capitalize the Designer. So if you are wondering why I don't capitalize the designer most of the time, it is because I don't want to force my best estimates of the truth on others until they agree. You wrote,

But if it is gods or a God who is the so-called ‘Intelligent Designer’ (though there are many more elegant names than one stained by a right-wing American political movement) of the so-called ‘genetic code’ then the category is erroneous. And thus, IDists are busy with their universal Designism conflation game paraded as a ‘strictly [natural] scientific revolution.’ That’s been happening since the start of the movement in Pajaro Dunes, which is evident in “Of Pandas and People” in the term ‘cdesign proponentsists’ (which IDism will never recover from).

Now I see why you have such an aversion to ID. You are afraid that the ID movement is a secret right-wing conspiracy, perhaps to establish a theocracy. I have some sympathy with that position. I am reasonably certain that there are some in the conservative part of the right wing that do wish to turn America into a Christian nation, which I believe is wrongheaded and will, if tried, end in disaster (for one thing, which branch of Christianity gets preference?). And I am not much happier with the libertarian wing, which sounds suspiciously like the Robber Barons of the previous century. Neither do I believe that corporations should have free rein to do whatever they want. But I don't see the left as much better. Their antiwar sentiment seems to wane once they are in power. They increase the intrusiveness of government. Their position on religious freedom seems wrong to me. And their rule by executive fiat, enforcing the individual mandate at all costs while arbitrarily (actually for their own political advantage) not enforcing the employer mandate, is an example that will come back to bite them if and when they lose power. I notice that you stuck "[natural]" in the half-quoted 'strictly scientific revolution', and again in the last paragraph. I am curious as to why. You comment, "(which IDism will never recover from)." At least, not if you can help it. :) You wrote,

To suggest that *all* ‘codes’ are produced, generated, made, programmed, etc. by lowercase ‘intelligence’ like human beings or beavers is one thing. To univocally extrapolate that to believing non-human-made (or non-Earthly animal-made) things, such as the genetic code or OoL are produced, generated, made, programmed, etc. by Uppercase ‘Intelligence’ is something else.

I see. So it doesn't particularly bother you that codes could come from humans or other intelligent animals, but "Uppercase 'Intelligence' " creating such codes does. So now we know what really drives your objections. It is anti-theistic (or at least anti-active-theistic) bias. Okay. Whatever. It's a free country (presuming you live in the US). You wrote,

Don’t forget: Paul Giem’s view of ‘Intelligent Design THEORY’ = “It Is About God”, which means it *is not and cannot be* just a ‘simply [natural] science.’ In Paul’s case, apologetics are obviously brought to the table openly in the name of ‘I+D’.

You have grossly exaggerated. The quote ""*is not and cannot be*" (note the emphasis) is a a major overstatement of my position. I would be much more accurately quoted as saying, "with the evidence we have at hand, seem highly likely not to be". I would appreciate it if you dealt with, instead of the caricature, my actual position. And just to make it crystal clear, my thinking does not correspond with all ID advocates. Paul Giem

Well, UB, last I checked I'm not employed as a politician. I'm a researcher and teach at a university. And of course, you're not going to suggest that there's *no politics* involved with the IDM and its promotion of 'IDT', are you? ;) My challenge to you is to the person here at UD who seems to have studied or read the most 'semiotics'. If you are not willing to consider the limits of semiotics or the ideology of semioticism, then it reflects poorly on your advocacy of it in the name of your IDism. KN did admit "biosemiotics in general seems promising." But I couldn't tell if it was the first time he's looked into biosemiotics or not or if he's looked at criticisms of it. Your semiotistic-IDT ideas were dealt with quite handily by TSZ scientists from what I read and even have your own category there. That's quite welcoming of TSZ compared to how Lizzie has been treated here! My view is that it is responsible scholarship to look into the borders and boundaries of scholarly fields that one is involved in. Semiotics should be no different. Saying "It *is* a literal code" then becomes a controversial claim, not a foregone conclusion just because *some people* in a relatively new field of study say so. Similar is the problematic claim: "organisms *ARE* machines (or contain them)." Oh, and of course, I forgot 'literalism' and 'creationism,' though perhaps Dr. Paul Giem would do better to address those. Gregory

Barry:

So if you are saying that the existence of a literal code in living things supports a design argument, but does not necessarily establish it beyond all doubt, then we are in agreement.

I am saying what I said: Nothing about construing the genetic code as a literal code, or as a “semiotic” system, excludes the possibility of natural (unguided) origins for that system. Nor does it follow from the fact that the codes the provenance of which we have direct knowledge all originate with intelligent human activity that the genetic code originated from the activity of an intelligence. I does not follow from these arguments that the genetic code, even if a literal code, was necessarily designed. Since you agree that this is correct as far as it goes, I'm satisfied. Reciprocating Bill

Although I can answer your question "what would be exaggerations of semiotics outside of its ‘proper’ intellectual field or range?" It would be when the propositions no longer match the material evidence. Upright BiPed

Gregory, as a politician, you don't really say anything that interest me. Upright BiPed

UB, why don't you take a crack at my challenge and try to define 'semioticism'? This might help move things forward and expose some of the excesses in this thread. I realise 'semioticism' is not a word commonly used, even by semioticians, but you could at least put your mind to work and imagine what it might mean. The challenge then is: what would be exaggerations of semiotics outside of its 'proper' intellectual field or range? It is not altogether hard to define sociologism, biologism, economism, philosophism, scientism, etc. So, why not take a crack at the ideology of 'semioticism'? Indeed, it is a perfectly fitting topic for this thread, even if most of the discussion is just biosemiotics, with some OoL-semiotics (not sure what to call that!) sprinkled in by those who believe in Divine Creation. Gregory

Well, it appears that the challenge laid down by KN in the OP (“Good luck with that”) has been met, and although he/she would like to continue to object (“here’s the problem”), at this point KN would apparently rather not address it with me further. Okay, that's fine, but I don't think it's particularly even-handed. I realize ID proponents have no reason to expect such things of ID critics. Upright BiPed

Paul In the exchange of comments with Barry leading up to #131 above I think I dealt with the strong form of the argument. I am awaiting a response from Barry. Mark Frank

...if other organic codes exist in Nature we should be able to find them by the classic experimental method of science, just as we have found the genetic code. Any organic code is a set of rules that establish a correspondence between two independent worlds, and this necessarily requires molecular structures that act like adaptors, i.e. that perform two independent recognition processes. The adaptors are required because the two worlds would no longer be independent if there were a necessary link between them, and a set of rules is required in order to guarantee the specificity of the correspondence. In any organic code, in short, we should find three major features: (1) A correspondence between two independent worlds. (2) A system of molecular adaptors. (3) A set of rules that guarantee biological specificity. We conclude that the key molecules of the organic codes are the adaptors. They are the molecular fingerprints of the codes, and their presence in a biological process is a sure sign that that process is based on a code. This gives us an objective criterion for the search of organic codes, and their existence in Nature becomes therefore, first and foremost, an experimental problem. - Marcello Barbieri

Mung

Alan Fox (#64), I have a hard time calling a niche a designer, but don't think it is worth the trouble to argue the case. I have mentioned that the origin of life (at least life as we know it) requires long complex specified (good enough for life) strings of DNA. You have read the argument. Your comeback seems to be, do we have any independent evidence of such designers? Design-assisting factories? Visual sightings? The non-human designers we do know don't seem to have enough capability to pull this off, and there is no evidence that they existed during (or before) the required time period. My first reply would be, what if for multiple events, a designer seems to be required? Would that not make a designer a unifying hypothesis? Supposing that for the origin of long complex DNA strings it appears that we need a designer. Then supposing that for the origin of the universe we also appear to need a designer, and furthermore that the Cambrian explosion, and the origin of complex mechanical devices like the ATP generator, the flagellar motor, etc. we appear to need a designer, and finally, for the onset of human consciousness, we appear to need an intelligent designer. Does it at some point make sense to say, maybe the objection that there is no independent evidence of such a designer isn't such a strong one after all? Once that point is conceded, I would be happy to discuss deductions about the nature of the designer from the designs left behind. But it hardly makes sense to discuss the nature of a designer with someone when he/she doesn't even believe that there is evidence for design. Paul Giem

Gregory (#63), Alan Fox (#64), and Mark Frank (#103), I plan to get to your comments. But first I would like to deal with some side issues that have been raised by others. First, thanks, Timaeus (#106). I try to be civil, in line with the command to "love your enemies", and it is nice to see that I have at least partly succeeded. I mostly like your synthesis. My only correction, and a minor one at that, is that I am not arguing that the code gives evidence for intelligence. I believe it does, and the arguments that "code" (or "means") or various words around it are equivocal, are wrongheaded. Rather, my argument attempts to bypass the whole discussion, by pointing out that long complex specified strings of DNA, good enough to essentially run a cell, are not just parallel to what intelligent entities are known to produce, but in fact have been produced by intelligent entities. So the analogical argument simply disappears here. But you have formulated the position concisely. It is not a proof, but rather an inference to the best explanation, from the presently available facts. KN (132), along with Mung (140), I fail to see how an inference to a design hypothesis can be reasonable, but a theory of intelligent design supported by precisely this inference can be unreasonable. Perhaps you can explain the distinction. RB (#68 and #85), MF (#87), and BA (#89), among others, have misstated my argument. As I mentioned to Timaeus, I think the argument from codes is reasonable, but too easily obfuscated. So I was arguing only about long complex specified (for life) strings of DNA. RB (#68) also seems hung up on the "necessarily" part. Nothing in the argument said necessarily, and I explicitly disavowed it. Why this particular straw man keeps getting resuscitated only to be demolished is beyond me. On second thought, I do know why this strawman keeps being resuscitated. Sometimes, ID advocates, including Barry Arrington (#71) , are not careful enough with their words. In his restatement of the argument, he says,

So the argument goes like this: * X happened. * Y is the only cause of X of which we know. * Therefore, Y was present

When he translated it into his actual argument (and also in #77), he was more careful

* Cells contain a digital code filled to the brim with complex specified information (CSI) * We are aware of one and only one cause of CSI where the provenance of the cause is actually known, intelligent agency * Therefore, the best explanation for the presence of CSI in the cell is intelligent agency.

The last line of the general argument should have read, Therefore it seems most reasonable to assume that Y was present. I would argue that it would be better if all discussants dealt with the arguments of those they disagreed with in their strongest form, not trying to take advantage of the weakness of the arguer. Paul Giem

Jerad, did you notice that in the UD glossary is a live case of direct use in answer to a challenge issued by MF? Perhaps it has not registered that it is ALWAYS harder to work with config space numbers and probabilities directly, but info metrics are a log operation away. That is the context of the log reduction that you refuse to acknowledge the existence of.

I see your log reduction. I just want to see you calculate your and Dr Dembski's version of the metric for a particular example. Like a series of numbers say. Would you like me to provide a test case? Log or not, according to Dr Dembski you still have to compute the underlying probabilities. Yes?

The onward point on the test case in DD Ch 12 fr p. 249 on, is actually directly relevant to your latest loaded talking point on why the ban. Answer it in a straightforward, fact based way and the underlying insinuations about drastic action without serious cause will collapse. Prediction, you will NEVER answer as to what is going on in Ch 12 of DD relative to EL’s drumbeat loaded assertion that ID hyps are untested. Why don’t you prove my prediction wrong? (all you have to lose is yet another ill-founded drumbeat talking point.) KF

I don't have a copy of Darwin's Doubt to hand. Would you like to tell me what the test case is? Jerad

That abstract touches on so many things that have come up in this thread. Mung

Semiotics is the study of signs and initially it was thought to be concerned only with the products of culture. Mental phenomena, however, exist also in animals, and cultural semiotics came to be regarded as a special case of biological semiotics, or biosemiotics, a science that started by studying semiotic phenomena in animals and then it was gradually extended to other living creatures. Eventually, the discovery of the genetic code suggested that the cell itself has a semiotic structure and the goal of biosemiotics became the idea that all living creatures are semiotic systems. This conclusion, however, is valid only if we accept that the genetic code is a real code, but an influential school of thought, known as physicalism, has apparently convinced many people that it is only a metaphor, a mere linguistic expression that we use in order to avoid long periphrases. The argument is that the genetic code would be real only if it was associated with the production of meaning, but modern science does not deal with meaning and is bound therefore to relegate the genetic code among the metaphorical entities. In this paper it is shown that there is no need to avoid the issue of meaning and to deny the reality of the genetic code. On the contrary, it is shown that organic meaning can be defined with operative procedures and belongs to a new class of fundamental natural entities that are as objective and reproducible as the physical quantities. It is also shown that the presence of molecular adaptors gives us an objective criterion for recognizing the existence of organic codes in Nature, and that criterion proves that the genetic code has all the qualifying features of a real code. It also proves that the genetic code is not alone in the cellular world, and that many other organic codes appeared in the history of life, especially in eukaryotic cells. The conclusion that the cell is a semiotic system, in short, is based on the experimental evidence provided by the adaptors, but also requires a new theoretical framework where concepts like sign, meaning and code are not put aside as metaphorical entities but are defined by operative procedures and are recognized as fundamental components of the living world.

Is The Cell A Semiotic System? Mung

Jerad, did you notice that in the UD glossary is a live case of direct use in answer to a challenge issued by MF? Perhaps it has not registered that it is ALWAYS harder to work with config space numbers and probabilities directly, but info metrics are a log operation away. That is the context of the log reduction that you refuse to acknowledge the existence of. The onward point on the test case in DD Ch 12 fr p. 249 on, is actually directly relevant to your latest loaded talking point on why the ban. Answer it in a straightforward, fact based way and the underlying insinuations about drastic action without serious cause will collapse. Prediction, you will NEVER answer as to what is going on in Ch 12 of DD relative to EL's drumbeat loaded assertion that ID hyps are untested. Why don't you prove my prediction wrong? (all you have to lose is yet another ill-founded drumbeat talking point.) KF kairosfocus

I forgot to mention one other category of designer: the niche environment.

I will echo Mung, here. There is no such thing as a niche environment. Like some sort of evolutionary Oort cloud, It's something that the neo-darwinists cannot see but faithfully believe must exist **if Evolution is true**..... See... the environment changes, and then the right mutations come along in the right sequence to exploit that new environment and then are selected for...yea, that's the ticket... This is nothing short of Darwinian mysticism, a magical natural selection fairy that appears throughout history to set evolution in proper course. It amazes me that this kool-aid is still being sold as science. Whereas environmental exploits in populations that we actually observe are primarily epigenetic and have nothing to do with mutations. Of course the Darwinists will just use equivocal words like "adapt" and "evolve" and lump everything in with their antiquated religion. lifepsy

Kantian Naturalist:

On my view, biosemiotics grounds the reasonableness of the inference to the design hypothesis, but it doesn’t establish the reasonableness of the theory of intelligent design of biochemical systems, because arguments are not theories.

One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought Mung

At this point I can freely say that the continual drumming out of willfully continued misrepresentations — Jerad et al, are you going to tell us whether the section in Meyer’s DD ch 12 fr p. 249 on beginning “testing” will now lead to retiring the talking point on how ID hyps cannot be tested? [not that there were not many other points of successful testing hitherto including Junk DNA and the simple one that FSCO/I beyond 500 bits will reliably continue to be seen as produced by design] — and of stale talking points long since cogently answered tell us that something has gone very wrong with those who constantly recirculate them and evidently will never acknowledge an answer.

Well, let's just focus on Dr Dembski's metric and your restatement of that. Since Dr Dembski's version is in the UD glossary and all. If we can just clear up how to use that metric and whether or not your restatement are giving consistent results then I think we'll get somewhere. It would be nice if Barry made a choice about whether or not he was going to answer my two questions but . . . well . . . I'll just have to learn to live with disappointment. But you'd think he'd like to clear up why he banned Dr Liddle at least. It's not a hard question . . . . I wonder why he's ducking it? Jerad

So does this mean that you agree that the genetic code is a literal code?

It means that the multiple senses of "code" are frustrating, although biosemiotics in general seems promising. I still can't tell if "code" is being used as syntactical (a set of rules or instructions), as semantical (bound up with recognizably semantical terms such as "means," "signifies," "designates," "refers to", and so on), or as something a little bit different -- e.g. as a function that maps one domain onto another, subject to caveats and restrictions. Sellars would have called this "picturing," and stressed the distinction between "picturing" and "signifying". One of his favorite examples of "picturing" is the "language" of honey-bees. As he puts it, the dance of a honey-bee pictures the location of the flowers by virtue of the structural isomorphism between the wiggles and circles of the bee and the direction and distance of the flowers. It could be that a genetic sequence is a "picture," in Sellars' sense, of a peptide sequence. I'll have to think more on this, and see if there are any Sellarsian philosophers of biology willing to help me think through this. On first blush, my concern with this way of putting things is that there's a faint whiff of the homonculus fallacy to the whole thing -- I have a pretty clear understanding of what it means to say that an organism pictures its environment and exhibits this picturing through its behavior, but I don't quite know what to say about the idea that a genome pictures its cellular milieu and exhibits this picturing through regulation (i.e. transcription and translation). (There's always the danger of "language gone on holiday"!) Kantian Naturalist

The form in 2005 is a bit hard to directly work with so it can be log reduced into info metrics then thresholds can be set off the maximum search event capacity of the solar system, which gets us to a 500 bit limit. It turns out that the common file measure in bits or bytes [8-bit clusters as a rule] is of functionally specific info. Once we are beyond 500 bits, comfortably, blind chance and mechanical necessity on the gamut of our solar system could not plausibly come up with it due tho the needle in haystack vs sharply restricted search resources challenge. For a wider limit 1,000 bits is generous for the observed cosmos. A simplified metric (cf just linked) is:

Well, the 2005 statement might be a bit hard to work with but, you know, Dr Dembski has a PhD in mathematics so I'm thinking maybe he might know what he's talking about. And, the real question is: does your simplification carry the same conditions that his original statement did? That is: are you sure your simplification is creating the same screening criteria? Personally, I'd like to see some examples worked out of both methods that show that, in some cases at least, you get the same result. That's fair surely? You'd say the same thing if I proposed a different method for finding the area under a curve say. I really think that is a fair and reasonable request: show that both methods give the same results for several different examples. Jerad

BAAAAAAAAARRRRYYYY!!! HELLO!! knock knock knock Hey if you're not going to answer Why did you ban Dr Liddle from UD when she seemingly broke none of UD rules? And Can you compute Dr Dembski's metric for a given example? you can just say: no, I'm not going to answer those. I THINK dodging the questions just makes you look foolish and weak but at least saying you're not going to answer them would be a start. HELLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Jerad

PPS: The card hand example is cited from 90 above and as is discussed in the UD glossary and weak argument correctives. kairosfocus

KN @ 132: "On my view, biosemiotics grounds the reasonableness of the inference to the design hypothesis" So does this mean that you agree that the genetic code is a literal code? Barry Arrington

AF: The Ribosome protein manufacturing system is an algorithmic, programmable, digital code controlled process unit, which is carrying out a computation in the relevant sense. mRNA is directly comparable to punched paper tape used in older computers and numerically controlled process unit machines. (BTW, this is also similar to the tapes in the old Turing Machine model of a computational entity.) The code expressed in the codons is object code. The impression objectors inadvertently communicate at this point, is that they cannot by any means acknowledge such, so they are clutching at straws to make objections. KF PS: CSI, in the bio-context, is functionally specified -- hence FSCO/I. In terms of basic definition, the refusal to attend to Dembski in NFL as has been repeatedly highlighted in response to the talking points above tells us that talking points are being drummed out without regard to truth, once they will seem plausible to a target audience likely to swallow and parrot them without checking. Let me cite yet again to expose this willfully continued misrepresentation:

p. 148: “The great myth of contemporary evolutionary biology is that the information needed to explain complex biological structures can be purchased without intelligence. My aim throughout this book is to dispel that myth . . . . Eigen and his colleagues must have something else in mind besides information simpliciter when they describe the origin of information as the central problem of biology. I submit that what they have in mind is specified complexity [[cf. here below], or what equivalently we have been calling in this Chapter Complex Specified information or CSI . . . . Biological specification always refers to function . . . In virtue of their function [[a living organism's subsystems] embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the sense required by the complexity-specificity criterion . . . the specification can be cashed out in any number of ways [[through observing the requisites of functional organisation within the cell, or in organs and tissues or at the level of the organism as a whole] . . .” p. 144: [[Specified complexity can be defined:] “. . . since a universal probability bound of 1 [[chance] in 10^150 corresponds to a universal complexity bound of 500 bits of information, [[the cluster] (T, E) constitutes CSI because T [[ effectively the target hot zone in the field of possibilities] subsumes E [[ effectively the observed event from that field], T is detachable from E, and and T measures at least 500 bits of information . . . ”

This was extended a bit in the 2005 expression by Dembski. The card hand case was an answer at MF's blog to a challenge he gave must be five years ago. The form in 2005 is a bit hard to directly work with so it can be log reduced into info metrics then thresholds can be set off the maximum search event capacity of the solar system, which gets us to a 500 bit limit. It turns out that the common file measure in bits or bytes [8-bit clusters as a rule] is of functionally specific info. Once we are beyond 500 bits, comfortably, blind chance and mechanical necessity on the gamut of our solar system could not plausibly come up with it due tho the needle in haystack vs sharply restricted search resources challenge. For a wider limit 1,000 bits is generous for the observed cosmos. A simplified metric (cf just linked) is: Chi_500 = I*S - 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold. At this point I can freely say that the continual drumming out of willfully continued misrepresentations -- Jerad et al, are you going to tell us whether the section in Meyer's DD ch 12 fr p. 249 on beginning "testing" will now lead to retiring the talking point on how ID hyps cannot be tested? [not that there were not many other points of successful testing hitherto including Junk DNA and the simple one that FSCO/I beyond 500 bits will reliably continue to be seen as produced by design] -- and of stale talking points long since cogently answered tell us that something has gone very wrong with those who constantly recirculate them and evidently will never acknowledge an answer. kairosfocus

Sure, Barry, but the reason why we're discussing whether the genetic code is, literally speaking, a code is because of how that claim grounds the reasonableness of the abductive leap to the design hypothesis. As for this:

So if you are saying that the existence of a literal code in living things supports a design argument, but does not necessarily establish it beyond all doubt, then we are in agreement

On my view, biosemiotics grounds the reasonableness of the inference to the design hypothesis, but it doesn't establish the reasonableness of the theory of intelligent design of biochemical systems, because arguments are not theories. Kantian Naturalist

#115 Barry

Mark at 109: You don’t seem to understand the difference between a test designed to determine whether a chance hypothesis is reasonable (which is what the metric does) and a test that precludes determining a chance hypothesis is reasonable within its structure (which is what you, falsely, say the metric does). That’s OK. The distinction is a little bit subtle, and not everyone is going to be able to grasp it.

Barry – I have no idea what the phrase “precludes determining a chance hypothesis is reasonable within its structure” means – is it some legalese? However, I am happy to go with your first definition of what the CSI formula does. In doing so, you have put your finger on one of the problems with CSI – it is calculated with respect to specific chance hypothesis. Therefore, the specified information (SI) of an outcome can vary according to the chance hypothesis under consideration. So tell me, if there exists a chance hypothesis (i.e. a natural explanation) for a particular outcome for an explanation and it happens to have a high value of (T|H) so the formula produces a low SI would you say the object had CSI? Mark Frank

Yo Barry!! You still haven't said: Why you bannned Dr Liddle from UD when she hadn't seemed to have violated any of the UD rules. AND You haven't provided an example of Dr Dembski's metric being calculated. It's up to you. I'm just noticing . . . Jerad

C'mon Mung: can you do the calculation or not? Yes or no? Jerad

Ah I see Barry has dropped Orgel’s FSC and moved on to Dembski’s CSI which is allegedly a calculable quantity. Any demonstrations available? The number of times I see “it’s been done” there must be a link to an example of a CSI calculation and how it isn’t just assuming the conclusion you want to arrive at. I hesitate to point out Dr Elizabeth Liddle’s damning critique but I understand why Barry felt the need to ban her.

Well, I've asked him several times to address the Dr Liddle banning issue. So far . . . nada. Do you think he's scared? I wonder . . . why no response? It's curious. Surely if he had a good reason he'd be happy to spell it out. I mean, the man is an attorney, he understands arguments and so forth. As far as an attempt at calculating Dr Dembski's CSI metric . . . I can' t blame the current crop of UD commenters for not stepping up to the plate. Dr Dembski does have a PhD in some kind of mathematics and so you'd expect his arguments to be dense and difficult. Although, it must be said, two of his terms, phi(T) and P(T|H) aren't all that difficult to conceive of. Not sure about their computability, it's not my theory. But it is sad that Barry is just choosing to ignore the questions. In hopes that I'll give up and no one will remember? Perhaps. Not a good legal ploy though is it? Jerad

Alan Fox:

Can you calculate CSI a la Dembski?

I trust Elizabeth knew what she was doing. Creating CSI with NS Or not. Mung

Gregory's response to Paul Giem in 63 appears to have been written without the benefit of my critique (in 24) of Gregory's earlier remarks. So I presume either that Gregory did not see 24 above, or chose to ignore its argument. Gregory now writes: "if ‘codes’ are defined as ‘human-made things’ then ‘genetic code’ is merely an anthropomorphic misnomer" But again, the difficulty lies in the if-clause; there is no reason to define codes as human-made things. We certainly first encounter codes as human-made things; but it does not follow that human beings are the only beings who can make use of codes. The ability to employ codes goes along with intelligence. If there are other intelligent beings, divine or non-divine, they too, like human beings, can employ codes. I presume that Gregory would not deny intelligence to God. So if God exists, he can employ codes. Thus, there is no proof that "genetic code" is an "anthropomorphic misnomer." "Genetic code" may be exactly the right description for what is going on in nature. How does Gregory think the apparent "code" (or whatever word he chooses to use to signify the DNA-protein relationship) got into nature? Does he think it got there *without* an intelligent origin? I do not think this is Gregory's position. Rather, I think Gregory believes that the relationship had an intelligent origin, but that the intelligence cannot be deduced from the facts of nature, but must be asserted on the basis of faith alone. And he is entitled to his view; what is irritating is that he does not think that ID people are entitled to their view, i.e., that design is inferrable. This intellectual autocracy -- by which some some views are declared acceptable, but others not -- is the enemy of genuine academic and intellectual discussion. All views should be initially on the table, and should be removed from the table only when the arguments for them have been shown to be invalid. But Gregory has never shown that any ID inference is invalid. He has simply fulminated against ID proponents for daring to make such inferences, as if they are *on principle* forbidden or illegitimate. But why they should be forbidden or illegitimate, even within natural science, let alone philosophy, he has never made clear. Timaeus

Well RB at 121, you pulled a switch-a-roo. In one part of the comment you use “necessarily.” Then in the conclusion of your argument you drop it: “It goes plenty far to me: all the way to the conclusion that “design” does not follow from the “literal code” and “it’s semiotic” arguments.” So if you are saying that the existence of a literal code in living things supports a design argument, but does not necessarily establish it beyond all doubt, then we are in agreement Barry Arrington

KN,

KN: So if one is going to maintain that the genetic code is a literal code, one will have to present a theory of what it is for something to be a linguistic rule without there being any speakers of the language. (Good luck with that.)

UB: No problem. I’ll come back later and disambiguate the issue by proving the material basis for the observations. Then you can move the goalposts. :)

Are you not going to directly address the model provided? Upright BiPed

KN @ 120: "If all that you and UB have been urging is the intelligibility of the design hypothesis . . ." Really? We have been arguing that the genetic code is a literal code, thus the name of this thread. Barry Arrington

Ah mung the magnificent. Any complaints about moderation these days? Made it up with Sal?

Talk about equivocation!

You start.

There is no such thing as a niche environment. And environments aren’t designers. Neither are niches.

Evolution is a fairly good explanation of the diversity of liufe on Earth that we see. What other explanations are there? Can you calculate CSI a la Dembski? Alan Fox

Design does not NECESSARILY follow from the literal code.

That goes the distance, and is the way I express it in the passage quoted above, which we both agree is correct. To wit:

Nothing about construing the genetic code as a literal code, or as a “semiotic” system, excludes the possibility of natural (unguided) origins for that system. Nor does it follow from the fact that the codes the provenance of which we have direct knowledge all originate with intelligent human activity that the genetic code originated from the activity of an intelligence. I does not follow from these arguments that the genetic code, even if a literal code, was necessarily designed.

I don't claim that it follows that the code was necessarily not designed. Reciprocating Bill

Yeah, Barry and UB are right, but I’ll be damned if I will admit it. But even if they are right ID is not necessarily established.

If all that you and UB have been urging is the intelligibility of the design hypothesis qua abductive inference, I offer no serious challenge (though I do have a few minor qualms, as documented in this thread). My serious challenge lies elsewhere: since a scientific theory must both predict new data and have those predictions confirmed, the design hypothesis is necessary but not sufficient for a theory of intelligent design for biochemical systems. And by "predicting new data," I don't mean, "someday we'll find a function for what appears non-functional right now" or "this new discovery, which 'Darwinists' find surprising, isn't surprising to us" or "there's no 'Darwinist' explanation for _______!" In other words, I mean doing science, not just writing anti-'Darwinist' propaganda. On occasion it has been suggested that I don't want design theory to be true. I don't know where this suggestion comes from, but I assure you, it's very far from the truth. I'd be fascinated and delighted if design theory were true. If it were true, it would certainly answer a lot of questions that contemporary evolutionary theory can't answer. (And I do like answers, almost as much as I like questions.) I just don't think it's likely to be true. Kantian Naturalist

"UB I will not respond to your unambiguous formulation, I will instead go elsewhere and respond to something else" Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill @ 107: Please consider the following sentences: 1. Barry: Design does not NECESSARILY follow from the literal code 2. RB: Design does not follow from the literal code. The two sentences are vastly different. If you need help understanding why, let me know, and I will be glad to explain. Barry Arrington

So KN, can I now assume that you will not be responding directly to my comments in #98? Upright BiPed

Alan Fox:

I forgot to mention one other category of designer: the niche environment.

Talk about equivocation! There is no such thing as a niche environment. And environments aren't designers. Neither are niches. Mung

Mark at 109: You don’t seem to understand the difference between a test designed to determine whether a chance hypothesis is reasonable (which is what the metric does) and a test that precludes determining a chance hypothesis is reasonable within its structure (which is what you, falsely, say the metric does). That’s OK. The distinction is a little bit subtle, and not everyone is going to be able to grasp it. Barry Arrington

Translation: “Yeah, Barry and UB are right, but I’ll be damned if I will admit it. But even if they are right ID is not necessarily established.”

Then get publishing. I dare you! Alan Fox

Ah I see Barry has dropped Orgel's FSC and moved on to Dembski's CSI which is allegedly a calculable quantity. Any demonstrations available? The number of times I see "it's been done" there must be a link to an example of a CSI calculation and how it isn't just assuming the conclusion you want to arrive at. I hesitate to point out Dr Elizabeth Liddle's damning critique but I understand why Barry felt the need to ban her. Alan Fox

Semioticism is stinking big in this thread. [And yes, I've already provided a basic definition above that has not been addressed.] "I’ve articulated the same [semiotic] model using the exact same terms among humans[living], bats[living], bees[living], fish[living], bacteria[living], birds[living], ants[living], plants[living], music boxes[not living] and fabric looms[not living]. Take your pick." Your semioticistic 'explanation' runs into a problem: Uppercase Intelligent Design vs. lowercase intelligent design. How does IDT distinguish them? KN is quite right: "univocally as opposed to analogically." And that is what turns the so-called 'strictly [natural] scientific theory' of Uppercase Intelligent Design into an ideology of Intelligent Designism. "No one has argued that my computer is alive." Start thinking forward, Barry, that will change. Repeat: The main point is that IDists seemingly *want* to exaggerate ‘codes’ = both lowercase 'mind' *and* Uppercase ‘Mind’, whereas more scientific thinkers (including most responsible Abrahamic ones) are cautious and thus less fanatical than IDists tend to be on various topics involved in the discourse. Gregory

UB here is the takeaway sentence from KN’s comment at 96: “It does nothing at all to confirm the abductive leap or lend any empirical support to the design hypothesis.” Translation: “Yeah, Barry and UB are right, but I’ll be damned if I will admit it. But even if they are right ID is not necessarily established.” Barry Arrington

I read the Wikipedia article on biosemiotics and it looks fascinating. To be honest, I didn't see anything in the biosemiotic approach (as characterized there) that I disagree with. I'll take a look at the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies, too. Already my interest is peaked by seeing that Terrence Deacon is involved in this. I read his The Symbolic Species with great interest, and I'm looking forward to his Incomplete Nature. One thing I'll be very interested in is how biosemiotics relates to inferential semantics (or "inferentialism"), which is the account of linguistic expressions I find most compelling. (I'll leave aside my reasons for preferring it, unless there's real curiosity.) It might be that inferentialism is "symbolic" in Peirce's sense . . . very interesting! Kantian Naturalist

#90 Barry Thanks for providing the formula. The relevant part is: P(T|H) is the probability of being in a given target zone in a search space, on a relevant chance hypothesis, A relevant chance hypothesis is a natural explanation - right? If it is a plausible explanation then P(T|H) will be high and the result of the formula will be a low number of bits i.e. not complex. So for the formula to result in complexity it is necessary that there be no H with a high P(T|H) i.e. no plausible natural explanation. Have you never had this explained before? Mark Frank

Oh, by the way Barry, nice ploy authoring a thread trying to highlight the faults of your critics. Good choice. I'm not sure keeping the thread closed to comments was a good move though. It looks a bit cowardly to me. It looks like you're stonewalling dissenting views. You would never do that would you? Like when you banned Dr Liddle? Are you going to say why you banned her by the way? I mean I'll stop asking if you just make it clear you're NOT going to ever address it. Jerad

Barry, on his closed OP:

The ID argument based on the presence of a digital code in the cell is unanswerable (or at least it has never been answered).

Never been answered? Here is my answer:

Nothing about construing the genetic code as a literal code, or as a “semiotic” system, excludes the possibility of natural (unguided) origins for that system. Nor does it follow from the fact that the codes the provenance of which we have direct knowledge all originate with intelligent human activity that the genetic code originated from the activity of an intelligence. I does not follow from these arguments that the genetic code, even if a literal code, was necessarily designed.

Which you state is correct, "as far as it goes." It goes plenty far to me: all the way to the conclusion that "design" does not follow from the "literal code" and "it's semiotic" arguments. Reciprocating Bill

Good comments from Box in 69 and Paul Giem in 44. Also, thanks to Paul Giem for the way he has conducted the discussion in response to critics of his post in 44. It's a model of civilized discussion, with no name-calling on either side -- focusing entirely on the contents. I wish all discussions of ID here and other sites could be like this. As someone trained to some degree in philosophy I'm sympathetic with Kantian's desire to get clarity regarding "signifies" "means" "is a code" etc. I think that it is sometimes necessary to conduct a fine analysis of such terms. In this case, however, I think that Paul Giem has directed the discussion in a useful manner: the point is how did this setup (triplet codons with corresponding amino acids) come into being, if not via intelligence? Whether we speak in terms of "codes" or of "CSI" (as Barry points out, the problem is the same either way), what do we propose as the cause of the arrangements of life? As has been pointed out by Gregory, Francis Collins thinks that the cause is God -- he calls the DNA code "the language of God." But of course Collins, so to speak, keeps that assertion bottled up on week days and only pops the cork on Sundays. ID people, on the other hand, don't compartmentalize the way TEs do, so they see the same description as appropriate on all days: whether it is the language of God, or of a Demiurge, or of aliens, it certainly looks like the language of *someone* -- and therefore the design inference is reasonable -- until someone can show how such arrangements could have come into existence without design. Promissory notes are no good. One can always say: "Someday science will be able to explain how such arrangements came into being without intelligence." Maybe so. But we live now, not "someday." And *now* it appears that the best explanation for the arrangements is intelligence of some kind. If the situation changes, then ID folks will have to change their stance accordingly, in accord with the evidence. And they must be willing to do so, if they claim that their theory is scientific. To hold onto "intelligence" after intelligence if proved unnecessary would be an indicator that ID was, indeed, religiously motivated. But that works both ways. To hope for the future emergence of explanations which can dispense with intelligence, even when, currently, the evidence seems to favor an intelligent explanation, is to maintain one's position based on a preference -- a preference which in many cases seems to be a religious one, i.e., a preference that there should be no designer of any kind. It seems to me that the reasonable person would concede that, *at the moment*, it *looks* as if some intelligence lies behind the fundamental arrangements of life, while reserving the possibility that a non-intelligent explanation may eventually present itself. This strikes me as a moderate, balanced position that is in accord with the tentative spirit of science at its best. It strikes me as non-dogmatic. But for some reason it is not acceptable to those who oppose ID. Timaeus

Jerad at 99. Now you’re just being childish. Stop it.

Asking you to answer a couple of simple questions, one of which only you can answer, is childish? Really. Is that how you play it out in court? Do you tell you senior partner: well, they asked me a couple of questions but I didn't want to answer them so I told them they were being childish. Does that sort of thing go down well with juries? I'm only asking 'cause I can't quite figure out why you don't just answer the questions: Why did you ban Dr Liddle from UD? and Can you show me how to compute Dr Dembski's metric for a given example? If you think those questions are silly then . . . what are you doing running this blog? Jerad

KN @ 96: “What is needed here is a coherent use of ‘code’” No, what is needed is for you to stop pretending there is a lack of coherence. You are not fooling anyone you know. UB, I would add to “tiresome” the descriptors “painful” and “embarrassing.” Barry Arrington

Paul I read your rather interesting and very well written essay. What a nice contrast to some of your colleagues! You will not be surprised to learn that I disagree – but it certainly made me think. It does merit a rather long response which makes an over-long comment. I am sorry. I think you slightly misstate the argument which you are addressing – or at least the version of it that I support. It is not “religion always loses”. This is too general. It may well be that religion is currently explaining certain events better than any natural explanation and religion occasionally predicts an outcome better than current science (I tackle these at the end). But the precise point is that there have been many many outcomes which had no obvious natural explanation e.g. thunder, for which a supernatural explanation was offered, and eventually a natural explanation has been established. It is the sequence: 1) This is mysterious 2) Here is a supernatural explanation 3) Whoops – we have discovered a natural explanation after all which is key. It is key because it weakens the argument which does steps 1 and 2 and then concludes the supernatural explanation must be right. The argument is asymmetric. You can never have a sequence that goes: 1) This is mysterious 2) Here is a natural explanation 3) Whoops – we have discovered a supernatural explanation after all because supernatural and natural explanations differ in their nature. To discover a natural explanation is find an explanation which conforms to repeatable, mutually observable laws; and probably happened; and if it happened would probably cause the outcome to be explained. It may actually be a one-off unobservable event but that event has to comply with repeatable, mutually observable laws. A supernatural explanation by definition breaks some of those laws. Establishing a natural explanation will kill off any supernatural explanation – but providing a supernatural explanation can never kill off the possibility of a natural explanation because the supernatural explanation can never be firmly established in the same way. Given this you can rightly point out that there is no way the natural explained domain can give way to the supernaturally explained domain. It is always going to be the supernatural domain that shrinks. What is impressive is the sheer rate at which it has happened in the last 400 years. The attitude “everything has a natural explanation” almost always seems to work. To look at some of your specific examples. Why does religion sometimes win? There are various incidents which the Bible predicted and which current science did not. This is not a big surprise. The Bible is a book written by real people and generates an enormous amount of stories about what happened – many of which are likely to be at least based on true events and will be true in some respects. It is historical source book just like Tacitus but written by more people and less well established circumstances. There is really nothing especially supernatural about the Biblical explanation. Archaeology is a science which, like all sciences, makes hypotheses which often turn out to be false. Consider smoking. There are a vast number of religious sects each with their own prohibitions and taboos – some of them quite possibly based on experience of what turns out to be bad for you (mixing milk and meat). It is no surprise that sometimes their taboo turns out to be correct when an initial scientific hypothesis was wrong. What is interesting is that the truth of the matter was not considered established until science showed smoking was bad for you. Again there is a perfectly natural explanation for why religion wins. Neither of these cases conform to the pattern that concerns me. They are not cases of mysterious phenomena needing explanation. The very beginning of the universe and the beginning of life do conform to this pattern. We have mysteries – how did the universe/life begin? We have got to stage 2 – there are supernatural explanations. As yet there are no established natural explanations. But this is simply where the main point comes in … when in this situation in the past time and time again a natural explanation has been established. It is not good evidence for the supernatural explanation to note that there is no current natural explanation. It is not even good evidence to note that past or current natural explanations have failed to explain things. Supernatural explanations are condemned to remain matters of faith. That is a consequence of their being supernatural. They may be true but we can never know that in the same way we can know that a natural explanation is true. Mark Frank

Jerad at 99. Now you're just being childish. Stop it. Barry Arrington

KN @ 96

Presumably . . . there will be all sorts of cases throughout non-living systems in which ‘an arrangement of matter evokes a specific effect within a system, but is physicochemically arbitrary to the effect it evokes.’

Indeed there are KN. And every one of those non-living systems is designed (e.g., the computer code used to type this post). That is the point. No one has argued that my computer is alive. Therefore, your suggestion that UB’s formulation collapses the distinction between living and non-living things makes no sense. You cannot point to a single example of a non-living thing that exhibits the properties to which you refer that was not designed. At this point you seem to be just throwing linguistic dust into the air in an effort to distract. Barry Arrington

And, it must be stressed, that’s merely what’s needed in order to make precise and umambiguous the abductive leap.

I've provided a model of the sufficient and necessary conditions of the translation of information into a functional effect. I welcome your detailed argument where that model is false. Upright BiPed

HEY BARRY! Hello!! I can see you're posting on other threads so I know you're around. I've just got these two simple questions: Have you stated why you banned Dr Liddle from UD? and Can you show me how to compute Dr Dembski's metric for a given example? I'll be happy to provide multiple choice answers to the above if you're too busy to type a lot . . . Jerad

KN,

In other words, here’s the problem: either (1) the ‘home base’ for our concept of code is human language, in which our grasp of the concept will become increasingly difficult to articulate as we move away from ‘home base’.

...and you are about to detail where I struggle to articulate the same concept among other species, right? I’ve articulated the same model using the exact same terms among humans, bats, bees, fish, bacteria, birds, ants, plants, music boxes and fabric looms. Take your pick.

(2) begin by taking the notion of ‘code’ so broadly as to include the codon-amino acid relationship, but at risk of losing grip on the distinction between living things and physical nature generally, because the semiotic relations ramify through nature.

...and now you’ll demonstrate the same concept using the same terms among the inanimate world, right? Upright BiPed

UB: "The effort expended to avoid the unambiguous model of a semiotic code is tiresome to watch." Indeed. Barry Arrington

Upright Biped posed this criticism:

In this context, the words “means” and “signifies” and “represents” and “is mapped to” all refer to the same material phenomenon. It’s when an arrangement of matter evokes a specific effect within a system, but is physicochemically arbitrary to the effect it evokes. The arrangement evokes the effect, but does not physically determine what that effect will be.

Well, I'm no chemist (obviously), but I worry that construing the semiotic relations so broadly results in collapsing the very distinction between living and non-living things. Presumably (he says, in his adorable naivete), there will be all sorts of cases throughout non-living systems in which "an arrangement of matter evokes a specific effect within a system, but is physicochemically arbitrary to the effect it evokes. The arrangement evokes the effect, but does not physically determine what that effect will be". In other words, here's the problem: either (1) the 'home base' for our concept of code is human language, in which our grasp of the concept will become increasingly difficult to articulate as we move away from 'home base'. (You'd have an easier time of it if we talked about, say, honey-bee dances first and then got into whether "the genetic code" is taken literally, i.e. univocally as opposed to analogically.) or (2) begin by taking the notion of 'code' so broadly as to include the codon-amino acid relationship, but at risk of losing grip on the distinction between living things and physical nature generally, because the semiotic relations ramify through nature. What is needed here is a coherent use of "code" that avoids both (1) and (2). And, it must be stressed, that's merely what's needed in order to make precise and umambiguous the abductive leap. It does nothing at all to confirm the abductive leap or lend any empirical support to the design hypothesis. In other words, what we're arguing about here is just how to make the design hypothesis [for biochemical systems] clear enough to make it a viable candidate for testing. We're still nowhere near the point of actually testing it or showing that it is confirmed, let alone well-confirmed, by the available tests. Kantian Naturalist

The effort expended to avoid the unambiguous model of a semiotic code is tiresome to watch. Upright BiPed

Oh, have you said specifically why you banned Dr Liddle from UD? I just can't see what she did that broke the UD rules. Jerad

No Jerad, that is not what you did. You copies the non-rigorous general narrative that preceded the definition. Then, pretending that the part of the definition that you copied was the entire definition, you criticized it for lacking rigor. Then you tried to cover your tracks with a glib and obviously false “explanation.” You are shameless.

Well, considering I admitted it immediately when you brought it up and considering I've spent much time on this forum discussing Dr Dembski's metric then I think you're being a bit harsh. I am quite familiar with that definition of CSI and so my comment about its rigour was based on more than just the first two paragraphs. I'm not that manipulative. But, point taken, next time I'll copy-and-paste the whole definition from the UD glossary. Anyway, that's a side issue. Can you calculate that metric for a given situation or example? I can provide one . . . . Jerad

No Jerad, that is not what you did. You copied the non-rigorous general narrative that preceded the actual definition. Then, pretending that the part that you copied was the entire definition, you criticized it for lacking rigor. Then you tried to cover your tracks with a glib and obviously false “explanation.” You are shameless. Barry Arrington

BTW, you reproduced only have of the definition. The math comes after the part you reproduced.

Yup, I figured I would just point out that there was a discussion of CSI in the UD glossary. The last time we got into a discussion of the mathematics I think we lost a lot of people. That phi(T) is a real stinker. And the P(H|T) generated a lot of discussion. But, as far as I know, no one has computed Dr Dembski's metric. It hasn't been shown to be rigorous enough to avoid too many false positives or false negatives. So, it's a start but needs some worked out examples at least. Just 'cause it's written down doesn't mean it works!! Jerad

Mark @ 87: “In the case of CSI we have the complication that part of the definition of CSI is that there is no plausible natural cause.” That is simply not true. I am astounded that you can post on this site for eight years and still make such a statement. From the UD glossary:

In the current formulation, as at 2005, his metric for CSI, ? (chi), is: ? = – log2[10^120 ·?S(T)·P(T|H)] P(T|H) is the probability of being in a given target zone in a search space, on a relevant chance hypothesis, (E.g. Probability of a hand of 13 spades form a shuffled standard deck of cards) ?S(T) is a multiplier based on the number of similarly simply and independently specifiable targets (e.g. having hands that are all Hearts, all Diamonds, all Clubs or all Spades) 10^120 is the Seth Lloyd estimate for the maximum number of elementary bit-based operations possible in our observed universe, serving as a reasonable upper limit on the number of search operations. – log2 [ . . . ] converts the modified probability into a measure of information in binary digits, i.e. specified bits. When this value is at least + 1, then we may reasonably infer to the presence of design from the evidence of CSI alone. (For the example being discussed, ? = -361, i.e. The odds of 1 in 635 billions are insufficient to confidently infer to design, on the gamut of the universe as a whole. But, on the gamut of a card game here on Earth, that would be a very different story.)

Nothing in the definition states there is no plausible natural explanation. The whole point of the explanation is to determine whether there is a plausible natural explanation. Mark, surely you know this. Why would you misrepresent it? Barry Arrington

Mark @ 87: “I was referring to Paul’s argument in which X was codes not CSI.” Well, the argument for ID works just as well if we substitute “codes” for X. Again, the form of the argument: * X happened. * Y is the only cause of X of which we know. * Therefore, Y was present To translate into the actual argument: * Cells contain a digital code * We are aware of one and only one cause of a digital code where the provenance of the code is actually known, intelligent agency * Therefore, the best explanation for the presence of a digital code in the cell is intelligent agency. Barry Arrington

Jerad @ 83: “I’m not sure that’s a real ‘definition’. It certainly lacks rigour.” I am sure that is not a real “critique” of the definition. BTW, you reproduced only half of the definition. The math comes after the part you reproduced. Barry Arrington

#71 Barry I was referring to Paul's argument in which X was codes not CSI. In the case of CSI we have the complication that part of the definition of CSI is that there is no plausible natural cause - so of course there is only one known cause of CSI - if there were another it would no longer be complex. Lizzie and I and others have pointed IDists - almost certainly including you - to the exact term in Dembski's formula for CSI which corresponds to "no plausible natural cause". This is a debate that has been rehearsed a million times I suggest we don't go round it again. Mark Frank

Alan @ 81: “CSI is undefined. So depending on how anyone decides to define it, either nothing, everything (or anywhere in between) has CSI.” Now you’re just raving. Stop it. Even Darwinists admit the concept of specified complexity. Leslie Orgel was one of the top 20 most prominent Darwinists of the 20th century. He wrote: “Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.” L.E. Orgel, 1973. The Origins of Life. New York: John Wiley, p. 189. Barry Arrington

Barry:

What you write is correct as far as it goes.

That it is.

* X happened. * Y is the only cause of X of which we know. * Therefore, Y was present

This doesn't accomplish what you want it to accomplish, because the conclusion turns on what we know, and the conclusion may change based upon what we come to know. Your conclusion therefore does not follow as a logical conclusion, nor is it necessarily correct. Reciprocating Bill

The only other explanation I can think of is you are just stupid.

Can't rule that possibility out! But don't you see the same problem arises with dzfault arguments. ToE might be wrong but thinking so doesn't give ID a free pass. You may not have been bright enough to think of another explanation. Alan Fox

From the UD glossary:

CSI – Life shows evidence of complex, aperiodic, and specified information in its key functional macromolecules, and the only other example we know of such function-specifying complex information are artifacts designed by intelligent agents. A chance origin of life would exceed the universal probability bound (UPB) set by the scope of the universe; hence design is a factor in the origin and development of life. Contrary to a commonly encountered (and usually dismissive) opinion, this concept is neither original to Dr Dembski nor to the design theory movement. Its first recognized use was by noted Origin of Life researcher, Leslie Orgel, in 1973: Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [ L.E. Orgel, 1973. The Origins of Life. New York: John Wiley, p. 189. Emphases added.] The concept of complex specified information helps us understand the difference between (a) the highly informational, highly contingent aperiodic functional macromolecules of life and (b) regular crystals formed through forces of mechanical necessity, or (c) random polymer strings. In so doing, they identified a very familiar concept — at least to those of us with hardware or software engineering design and development or troubleshooting experience and knowledge. Furthermore, on massive experience, such CSI reliably points to intelligent design when we see it in cases where we independently know the origin story.

I'm not sure that's a real 'definition'. It certainly lacks rigour. Jerad

Box @ 69

If we are to find CSI in times and/or places which excludes us earthlings as candidates we have to conclude that there are indeed other intelligent beings besides us. Some of us feel that a particular case of CSI points towards a Uppercase Intelligent Designer. Others may be inclined to say it points towards intelligent extra-terrestrials. It’s a matter of personal preference since the identity of the unearthly designer is not inferable from the CSI we encounter.

ID theory as such (for the 10,000th time) does not purport to identify the designer. It purports only to conclude based on the indicia of design that design has in fact occurred. The identity of the designer is another matter. Barry Arrington

This statement makes no sense whatsoever. The explanation explains the presence of CSI in the cell. (so it explains more than nothing). The explanation does not purport to explain anything other than the presence of CSI in the cell (so the claim that it explains “everything” is preposterous).

CSI is undefined. So depending on how anyone decides to define it, either nothing, everything (or anywhere in between) has CSI. Either nothing or everything fits. What it patently doesn't do is tell you anything you haven't already assumed. Alan Fox

Alan @ 78: “I don’t have an aversion, visceral or otherwise, to ID.” Seriously dude. You lose all credibility when you put an obviously false statement like this in the combox. Alan, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. I was ascribing the stupid comments you made to a heated passion that caused you to write before you reflected. The only other explanation I can think of is you are just stupid. I will continue to give you the benefit of the doubt, however. Remember: Deep breath. Stop. Think. Write. Do it in that order. Barry Arrington

Alan @ 74: Really? See my comment at 76. Barry Arrington

Alan, seriously, your visceral aversion to ID seems to cause you to spew nonsense into the combox before you stop and think.

Thanks for the advice, Barry. I don't have an aversion, visceral or otherwise, to ID. For eight years, on and off, the main point of my comments has been to try and find out what ID is as an actual scientific theory. To date, I have been unsuccessful.

Dude, take a deep breath. Stop. Think. Then write.

A coherent scientific theory of ID would render me speechless and numb-fingered for, well, I can't quite manage to imagine the cosequences! Alan Fox

RB@68:

In other words, nothing about construing the genetic code as a literal code, or as a “semiotic” system, excludes the possibility of natural (unguided) origins for that system. Nor does it follow from the fact that the codes the provenance of which we have direct knowledge all originate with intelligent human activity that the genetic code originated from the activity of an intelligence. I does not follow from these arguments that the genetic code, even if a literal code, was necessarily designed.

What you write is correct as far as it goes. The evidence does not compel as a matter of logic an ID conclusion and only an ID conclusion. On the other hand, as a matter of “inference to the best explanation,” the ID argument is extremely compelling. On the other hand, we have been given a materialist promissory note. The problem with that note is that it has gone unpaid now for 150 years and the prospects for payment just get worse and worse as more evidence comes in. Barry Arrington

Alan, seriously, your visceral aversion to ID seems to cause you to spew nonsense into the combox before you stop and think. Dude, take a deep breath. Stop. Think. Then write. Barry Arrington

Alan Fox @ 72: “That is an explanation that explains nothing and everything. This statement makes no sense whatsoever. The explanation explains the presence of CSI in the cell. (so it explains more than nothing). The explanation does not purport to explain anything other than the presence of CSI in the cell (so the claim that it explains “everything” is preposterous). Barry Arrington

I mean, BTW, what does Barry mean when he says "intelligent agent" with respect to the evolution of living organisms. Alan Fox

Oops explanation Alan Fox

Therefore, the best explanation for the CSI in the cell is intelligent agency.

That is an explantion that explains nothing and everything. Unless you are prepared to put entailments on your "explanation" it is wishful thinking. Alan Fox

Mark Frank @ 52: You misstate the ID argument: You say it is: * We don’t know currently know how X happens (or happened) * People can use their intelligence to make X happen * Therefore, we have evidence that something with intelligence made X happen This is like saying: * We don’t know currently how the lawn got wet * Rain can make the lawn wet * Therefore, we have evidence that it rained. Now the argument is valid in both cases. If a particular cause evokes an effect and the effect is present, we have evidence that perhaps the cause was present. You misstate the ID argument, however. The ID argument is much much stronger. In the case of the lawn being wet there are multiple possible causes of which we know (garden hose, dew, etc.). With respect to complex specified information we know of one and only one cause, intelligence. So the argument goes like this: * X happened. * Y is the only cause of X of which we know. * Therefore, Y was present To translate into the actual argument: * Cells contain a digital code filled to the brim with complex specified information (CSI) * We are aware of one and only one cause of CSI where the provenance of the cause is actually known, intelligent agency * Therefore, the best explanation for the presence of CSI in the cell is intelligent agency. Barry Arrington

KN @ 45: “If the univocality of “signifies” in these two cases is what you are asserting, I am fully prepared to argue the converse" “Univocal,” of course, means “unambiguous.” Two classes of people can argue for ambiguity where there is plainly none, lawyers and philosophers. I have plenty of experience of both, and in all candor it bores me. As I said, never mind. You don’t want to engage seriously. No law says you have to. Barry Arrington

Gregory #63: To suggest that *all* ‘codes’ are produced, generated, made, programmed, etc. by lowercase ‘intelligence’ like human beings or beavers is one thing. To univocally extrapolate that to believing non-human-made (or non-Earthly animal-made) things, such as the genetic code or OoL are produced, generated, made, programmed, etc. by Uppercase ‘Intelligence’ is something else.

Whenever we encounter complex specified information we assume that only intelligent beings are candidates as its designer, so we discriminated against all non-intelligent forces. Well-known intelligent candidates are earthlings, but maybe there are more candidates in our grand old universe. Who knows? If we are to find CSI in times and/or places which excludes us earthlings as candidates we have to conclude that there are indeed other intelligent beings besides us. Some of us feel that a particular case of CSI points towards a Uppercase Intelligent Designer. Others may be inclined to say it points towards intelligent extra-terrestrials. It's a matter of personal preference since the identity of the unearthly designer is not inferable from the CSI we encounter. Box

PG:

I would accept this as a reasonable critique. It could turn out someday that this will be a similar case, where we do not now know how X happened, but we will later come to know that it is not the result (at least the direct result) of a non-human intelligence.

In other words, nothing about construing the genetic code as a literal code, or as a "semiotic" system, excludes the possibility of natural (unguided) origins for that system. Nor does it follow from the fact that the codes the provenance of which we have direct knowledge all originate with intelligent human activity that the genetic code originated from the activity of an intelligence. I does not follow from these arguments that the genetic code, even if a literal code, was necessarily designed. Reciprocating Bill

...we have found computer code not of human provenance, in the living cell.

Another example of equivocation! Cells are living computers. You do have to give engineers some leeway, but honestly! Alan Fox

F/N: As long as codes can possibly be made by others than humans, to try to stick human made into the definition is question-begging. Where also, codes have observable characteristics that allow an objective understanding -- e.g. Collins English Dict: "1. (Electronics & Computer Science / Communications & Information) a system of letters or symbols, and rules for their association by means of which information can be represented or communicated for reasons of secrecy, brevity, etc. binary code Morse code See also genetic code". For instance, if we were to find a computer on Mars that was of ET provenance, we would not be arguing over such points. As it is, we have found computer code not of human provenance, in the living cell. The talk points above are in response to its possible significance. Revealingly so. KF kairosfocus

And picking up on codes and "codes". The same semantic equivocation applies. Alan Fox

You are quite comfortable with designers if they are embodied: people, chimpanzees, beavers, termites. Presumably if you had reliable video evidence of aliens creating artifacts, you would be amenable to accepting aliens as designers. Your main problems with them would be the quality of the evidence, and the difficulties that they would presumably have in interstellar travel.

I forgot to mention one other category of designer: the niche environment. Regarding aliens, I love the idea of alien life. It would be the best evidence for a natural origin of life in the universe. Unfortunately, the evidence for alien life is currently zero.

What you don’t like, or at least don’t think science can address, is disembodied, ethereal designers (I’ll leave out the imaginary part as a rhetorical flourish as we both don’t like imaginary designers). So I’ll ask you the follow-up question. What would be appropriate evidence for a possible/probable/near-certain existence of a non-human intelligent designer?

It's a question of definition. Science can only work with real phenomena. I have no problem at all with non-human intelligent designers. I've already listed some. Tell me more about some I haven't mentioned. Where are they? What can they do?

While you consider your answer, I should point out that for at least some ID advocates, one thing a disembodied designer could do is to create all the mass and energy of the universe from nothing, thus violating “the law of conservation of mass/energy”. Another thing a designer could do is to create information, specifically the information needed to create life, and to create more complex life, either from simpler life or de novo. If you do not believe that these are appropriate functions for such a designer, then fine. Just tell us, and we will understand. Again, what would be appropriate evidence for such a designer, given that science should be open to this possibility (” ‘Do you see science as being closed off from all possible evidence of a non-human intelligent designer?’ Of course not.”)?

Create information? OK. How does that work? How would we go about observing such a phenomenon?

Or perhaps you wish to clarify or revise your answer to the original question.

I thought I was pretty clear. My point was equivocation over real and imaginary designers. You can't imagine science. You have to do science. It involves real, observable, detectable phenomena. Alan Fox

"What would be appropriate evidence for a possible/probable/near-certain existence of a non-human intelligent designer?" - Paul Giem You don't seem to be listening with your heart, Paul Giem. Your dialogue partner has already granted you animals as 'non-human intelligent designers'. Did you not catch this or are you ignoring it on purpose? Let me ask you another question: what would it take for you to capitalise the term 'Intelligent Designer' instead of leaving it uncapitalised? You do capitalise the Divine Name when you use it, do you not? [Paul Giem's view of 'Intelligent Design THEORY' = "It Is About God" (that's his youtube page, as the link seems to indicate).] This strikes at the heart of this thread because if 'codes' are defined as 'human-made things' then 'genetic code' is merely an anthropomorphic misnomer (which of course will nevertheless, at least for now, persist among some) perpetrated by natural scientists seeking deeper meaning for their 'crafts'. But if it is gods or a God who is the so-called 'Intelligent Designer' (though there are many more elegant names than one stained by a right-wing American political movement) of the so-called 'genetic code' then the category is erroneous. And thus, IDists are busy with their universal Designism conflation game paraded as a 'strictly [natural] scientific revolution.' That's been happening since the start of the movement in Pajaro Dunes, which is evident in "Of Pandas and People" in the term 'cdesign proponentsists' (which IDism will never recover from). To suggest that *all* 'codes' are produced, generated, made, programmed, etc. by lowercase 'intelligence' like human beings or beavers is one thing. To univocally extrapolate that to believing non-human-made (or non-Earthly animal-made) things, such as the genetic code or OoL are produced, generated, made, programmed, etc. by Uppercase 'Intelligence' is something else. KN's main point has still not been directly addressed. And folks, semioticism is stinking big right now in the rooms of some IDist people here. One could call it properly 'code-ism' also - put your way-forward thinking caps on with me to start talking about 'things that are not coded or informational', to understand the problem of the IDist ideology involved here. The main point is that IDists seemingly *want* to exaggerate 'codes' = both lowercase *and* Uppercase 'Mind', whereas more scientific thinkers (including most responsible Abrahamic ones) are cautious and thus less fanatical than IDists tend to be on various topics involved in the discourse. Don't forget: Paul Giem's view of 'Intelligent Design THEORY' = "It Is About God", which means it *is not and cannot be* just a 'simply [natural] science.' In Paul's case, apologetics are obviously brought to the table openly in the name of 'I+D'. Gregory

PG: Excellent. I note that lifelong agnostic and astrophysicist, Sir Fred Hoyle, observed as follows in regards to evidence of a fine tuned cosmos:

From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? . . . I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has “monkeyed” with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. [F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16. Emphasis added.]

He added:

I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. ["The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12]

If we ponder a cosmos fine tuned in such a way that the first four elements are H, He, O and C, with N close by, and the result that we have stars, the periodic table, Water, organic chemistry and water with all of its astonishing properties just so, we can see reason for Hoyle's inclination. In that context of antecedence to a cosmos, surely a disembodied intelligence is possible, and one capable of causing a cosmos is possible. Multiply that by consequences of first principles of reason that point to a necessary and powerful being at the root of our observed contingent cosmos, and it is at minimum highly plausible -- perhaps even compellingly cogent -- that such an intelligent being is the root of the reality we experience. But then, if one is committed otherwise, one who is clever enough will always be able to come up with deflective arguments. And, in the directly relevant case, life on earth, the example of Venter et al shows that the inference to design on signs does not strictly entail inferring a disembodied intelligence as the specific source of life on earth. As has been highlighted since the 1980's by Thaxton et al in TMLO. That twerdun and whodunit are after all far more obviously distinct than the fine distinctions being advanced above in an effort to make it seem plausible that the observed object code in DNA is not just that, a code. KF kairosfocus

BA77 (59), It was my pleasure. Paul Giem

Mark Frank (57), Thank you for your answer. My reaction to your comment,

I am not sure why you write that in this area, the evidence is currently with the believer in ID. I see no evidence for ID other than the argument you have just made.

is to say, the argument I just made is an argument from evidence, and I still don't understand how one can discount either the evidence or the argument unless one trumps it with the argument that "we always win in the end, so we will do so here as well." You already know my answer to that argument. We can either discuss it, or we can at least understand where the other person is coming from. (For now I will leave it at that, as I have to work this evening and must sleep in the meantime.) If I heard you correctly, you need evidence, independent of a given event X, that the proposed designer exists, has reason to produce X, and has the ability to produce X. Would the designer's statement, as heard by someone else, be acceptable evidence? Would eyewitnesses of a similar designer doing similar things on a smaller scale be acceptable evidence? Would two events, X and Y, pointing to a similar designer, count? Three or more? Would you agree if twenty different events, all similar, pointed to a designer? At your leisure, I would be interested in your criticism of my article. Paul Giem

Paul Giem. I wanted to thank you for the video series you did on Science and Human Origins, Science and Human Origins--Objections (Part 1) 7-13-2013 by Paul Giem - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3YfH3IPO3g&list=UUaBAwmf0uZeTYejbXpXV7VQ as well as the current series you are doing on Darwin's Doubt: Darwin's Doubt (Part 1) 9-28-2013 by Paul Giem http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wB4GKzmWCA&list=UUaBAwmf0uZeTYejbXpXV7VQ bornagain77

Alan Fox (#56). The question was not addressed to you, but I will accept your answer. I was not looking to hammer anyone for his or her answer, but rather trying to understand the mindset. Tell me if I got it right. You are quite comfortable with designers if they are embodied: people, chimpanzees, beavers, termites. Presumably if you had reliable video evidence of aliens creating artifacts, you would be amenable to accepting aliens as designers. Your main problems with them would be the quality of the evidence, and the difficulties that they would presumably have in interstellar travel. What you don't like, or at least don't think science can address, is disembodied, ethereal designers (I'll leave out the imaginary part as a rhetorical flourish as we both don't like imaginary designers). So I'll ask you the follow-up question. What would be appropriate evidence for a possible/probable/near-certain existence of a non-human intelligent designer? While you consider your answer, I should point out that for at least some ID advocates, one thing a disembodied designer could do is to create all the mass and energy of the universe from nothing, thus violating "the law of conservation of mass/energy". Another thing a designer could do is to create information, specifically the information needed to create life, and to create more complex life, either from simpler life or de novo. If you do not believe that these are appropriate functions for such a designer, then fine. Just tell us, and we will understand. Again, what would be appropriate evidence for such a designer, given that science should be open to this possibility (" 'Do you see science as being closed off from all possible evidence of a non-human intelligent designer?' Of course not.")? Or perhaps you wish to clarify or revise your answer to the original question. Paul Giem

Paul - thanks for your comment. I am not sure why you write that in this area, the evidence is currently with the believer in ID. I see no evidence for ID other than the argument you have just made. I would also dispute your article that religion does not always lose. But that would take a long time. I want to deal with your last point. What would be appropriate evidence for non-human intelligent designer? The answer is not remarkable. Evidence that the designer exists. Evidence that the designer had some motive or reason for creating X. Evidence that the designer had the opportunity and means to create X. These can be of varying strengths and in different combinations - but there must be some evidence independent of X in each of these categories. Examples might include suitably dated remains of appropriate technology (i.e. several billion years old) or the reappearance of such designer with demonstration of abilities. Mark Frank

Do you see science as being closed off from all possible evidence of a non-human intelligent designer?

Of course not. Typical equivocation! It's disembodied, imaginary, ethereal designers that science cannot address, though they may exist. Science can look at non-human designers, chimps, termites, beavers. And it could look at discontinuities. If a disembodied designer is affecting current reality, we should see a violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy, for instance. If ID science was more than imaginary, there is stuff it could do but ID "scientists" would need to give their designer some attributes. What's the problem? Alan Fox

Mark Frank (#52),

I apologise – I was being frivolous. Clearly the two legs are irrelevant.

Apology accepted. It will help if when you are being frivolous, you give some indication thereof. ;)

More seriously your argument is of the form: * We don’t know currently know how X happens (or happened) * People can use their intelligence to make X happen * Therefore, we have evidence that something with intelligence made X happen This is a pretty standard design argument. The problems with it are: * There are masses of cases where once upon a time we did not know how X happened and now we do and they turn out not the result of a non-human intelligence * There are no known examples of non-human intelligence remotely capable of doing X

I would accept this as a reasonable critique. It could turn out someday that this will be a similar case, where we do not now know how X happened, but we will later come to know that it is not the result (at least the direct result) of a non-human intelligence. And from where you apparently stand, it is understandable to begin by asserting that there is no other evidence for a non-human designer. Two points: First, there is no guarantee that this will eventually be the case. At this point both the believer in ID and the believer in no ID have to go by faith. And in this area, the evidence is currently with the believer in ID. It is not proven, either logically or scientifically, that the non-ID position is correct. It might be asserted that ID always loses in the long run, but there is evidence against that assertion. And while some holes in a blanket assertion that a non-ID position can explain everything have closed, others appear to have opened up, the origin of life being one of them. Second, there are those of us who have experienced, sometimes with objective validation, events that seem to argue to us that there is a non-human intelligence (or intelligences), and so your second argument falls flat for us. But even for yourself, consider the following. If you deal with each asserted argument for a non-human intelligence in the way that you do, you make it impossible to ever consider a non-human intelligence as a possibility. For the argument will take 100 evidences one at a time, and say, this one doesn't prove the case, and we have no other evidence for the proposed non-human intelligence, so it doesn't count, and move on to the next case and say the exact same thing, in spite of the first evidence that was good except for the "no other evidence" argument. The position of non-ID thus becomes invincible regardless of the evidence, and non-correctable, which is not supposed to be a characteristic of science. Do you see science as being closed off from all possible evidence of a non-human intelligent designer? If so, is self-correction important to science? If not, what would be appropriate evidence for a possible/probable/near-certain existence of a non-human intelligent designer? Paul Giem

Upright Biped (#53), You are correct. DNA to RNA is transcribed, RNA to amino acids is translated. I know that and just missed it and chose the wrong word. Paul Giem

KN,

there is not a satisfactory account of “signifies”

I've given it to you in material terms, so as to avoid the various ambiguities of the language. But you have not addressed it. In this context, the words "means" and "signifies" and "represents" and "is mapped to" all refer to the same material phenomenon. It's when an arrangement of matter evokes a specific effect within a system, but is physicochemically arbitrary to the effect it evokes. The arrangement evokes the effect, but does not physically determine what that effect will be. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark, Your response at 46 was almost too painful to read. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Paul at 44, Just as a point of clarity: DNA is transcribed into mRNA, and that mRNA is then translated into amino acids. As you well know, these are two very different material processes. The first is reducible to physical law (pair bonding), but the second requires the physicochemically arbitrary relationships instantiated in the system by the protein aaRS. Upright BiPed

#48 Paul I apologise - I was being frivolous. Clearly the two legs are irrelevant. More seriously your argument is of the form: * We don't know currently know how X happens (or happened) * People can use their intelligence to make X happen * Therefore, we have evidence that something with intelligence made X happen This is a pretty standard design argument. The problems with it are: * There are masses of cases where once upon a time we did not know how X happened and now we do and they turn out not the result of a non-human intelligence * There are no known examples of non-human intelligence remotely capable of doing X Mark Frank

A more serious attempt to address this. This requires some consideration of the detail. I know there are various ID supporters who consider any attempt to look at things in detail as ignoring what they consider to be obviously true. Those people will not be interested in this comment. I don’t deny that DNA resembles some codes created by humans e.g. Morse Code in some respects – sufficiently for biologists to want to call it a code. The question are these similarities sufficient to provide evidence that DNA was also created by something similar to a human? I define three terms for brevity and consistency: Input e.g. DNA, Morse code Environment e.g. cell, Morse code transcriber Output e.g.Protein, letters The similarities between DNA and Morse Code: 1) The input is a string of discrete items from a limited set (let’s call this digital) which can ordered any way i.e. there is apparently no physical restriction on which item follows which. 2) The output is a similar digital string 3) Given a suitable environment a given input string will reliably produce the same output string 4) It would appear that a different but similar environment could be created so that a given input strong reliably produces a different output string (this is the arbitrariness aspect as close as I can express it). This is clearly true of Morse code – it seems plausible for DNA but is not proven. Note the words information, sign, meaning etc do not come into this and appear not to be required. Differences between DNA and Morse Code: 1) In the case of Morse Code the relationship between input and output was defined independently of the environment and the environment created or instructed to match it. In the case of DNA the relationship between input and output existed because of the environment and nowhere else for billions of years although the relationship has now been described. 2) DNA is truly digital, Morse Code is digital by convention A revelation to me arising from the comments above is that 3 and 4 are unimportant (thanks Mung for this). Nature is full of examples of where a given input will be result in different outputs depending on the environment. What is distinctive is 1 and 2 - that the input and output are digital strings. There are indeed very few digital strings being converted from one to another outside of life except where they are created by man. However, there is a good reason for this. In nature digital strings of any length and complexity only exist at the molecular level and indeed only exist in living organisms – so they can’t be the subject of a conversion process. It is one of the features of life that it is able to sustain long complex molecules i.e. digital strings. There are long molecules outside life but they comprise repeating exactly the same thing over and over again. This is quite different from the kind of digital strings that we come up with such as Morse Code. The sounds of Morse Code or marks of a written alphabet are physically not digital – one letter “S” can be physically quite different from another and may well be quite similar to another person’s digit 5. Man can conceptually digitise larger things such as marks on paper but they are not physically digital. They are essentially different from molecules which are physically digital. In summary DNA and Morse Code have some similarities but they also have enormous and relevant differences. Mark Frank

@ PG Just beat me to the punch :P Optimus

MF @ 46 Interesting, but your restatement of PG's logic ignores a causal connection that he left unstated (likely because it seems so obvious), namely that intelligence is the necessary antecedent to irregular, specified strings of information. The last time I checked, the status of one's legs has no bearing on the matter. Oscar Pistorius would be just as capable of generating irregular, specified information as Betty Gravel. Optimus

Mark Frank (#46), Nice try, yourself. Ask yourself the question, which is the more necessary for humans to create long complex specified strings of DNA, two legs, or intelligence? If Craig Venter had been born without legs, or had lost them in an accident, would it have prevented him from doing what he did? If he had been born without awareness of his surroundings, and had never acquired it, would it have prevented him from doing what he did? Why did you not ask yourself these questions before presenting your alternative proposal? It sounds inventive but desperate. My point was that it was the intelligence of these humans, and their ability to deliberately manipulate parts of their environment, that allowed them to create long strings of DNA. The presence or absence of legs is totally irrelevant. I am amazed (perhaps I shouldn't be) that I have to spell this out. BTW, although I have two legs, I know of fully mentally competent humans who do not have two legs, and vice versa. The former could have been in Venter's group; the latter not so much. Paul Giem

I suggest that anyone who seriously questions whether the 'genetic code' can properly be described as a code needs to brush up on basic information theory, digital electronics, and/or cryptography. It is a salient defect of many ID critics that they often (though not always) tend to lack grounding in engineering disciplines. Ultimately, Darwinism in its fullthroated grandeur is to explain the manifold mechanisms that undergird biological systems. In other words, Darwinism must explain the engineering of biology. Optimus

#44 Paul Giem Nice try - a slightly modified version of your logic: A. Humans have two legs (try denying that and listening to yourself). B. Humans are capable of creating long irregular specified strings of DNA, long enough and irregular enough and specified enough, that they can function as the major code for specifying protein sequence in living cells. Corollary: Some creatures with two legs are capable of creating such strings. C. There has not been experimental evidence that nature without the aid of beings with two legs has created such strings. D. There is no plausible theory that explains how nature without the aid of beings with two legs can be reasonably expected to create such strings. Conclusion: If we find such strings in nature, it is reasonable to attribute them to the action of some being with two legs. Mark Frank

I'm sorry you thought I was "punting". I was attempting to drive home the following line of thought: that there is not a satisfactory account of "signifies" that can accommodate, univocally, both

"'Hund' signifies 'dog'" (or perhaps, "Hund" and "dog" both signify those objects by which one means "dog" (in English)".

and

The nucleotide triplet referred to as "UCU" signifies the amino acid referred to as "serine".

If the univocality of "signifies" in these two cases is what you are asserting, I am fully prepared to argue the converse; if that is not what you are arguing, then I do not know yet what it is. Kantian Naturalist

Guys, Here's the problem. When scientists and those following science (e. g. Wikipedia) are simply looking at the evidence, they can't help but be impressed with the similarity of DNA code to other codes. But when they come here to discuss this with ID proponents, they suddenly start to nitpick at every remotely possible difference they can find, and some differences that are not there. It is tempting to attribute this to the fact that if they conceded the similarity, they would have to admit that ID is based on science. But the implications of accepting ID are uncomfortable, or perhaps for some unacceptable, and they are stuck with resisting the obvious by any means possible. For example, take the concept that

A code is a rule for converting a piece of information . . . into another . . . form or representation (one sign into another sign) . . .

is different from

Thus, a code is the protocol (the rules if you will) by which one translates a sign into that which is signified.

(see post #25) With a little thought it can be seen to be a true but totally irrelevant proposition. Why so? Because in both human code (e. g. Morse code and human language) and the genetic code, both definitions apply. Morse code translates A into (.-). But the whole point of having Morse code is so the when one signals (-.. --- .--), unless some other convention upervenes (such as another language than English or perhaps a another code such as "Operation Dog"), a furry animal without retractable claws, etc., is meant. The same is true of English. One can translate it into German (hund), or Spanish (perro), but again, absent further codes, one means the furry animal. Similarly, if a stretch of DNA has the triplet TAC in line with the proper frame, it is first translated (the parallel is uncanny) into AUG (note both the inversion, and the use of a new symbol), then transcribed into methionine, which is what it really signifies, again unless further codes mean that it is to contribute to the twisting of a loop or something else in RNA function. I agree with Mung that a code is not necessarily arbitrary. His example is good (look at the difference between the Morse code for E, A, N, and T, and that for J, Q, and X), or look at ASCII code, where the letters are lined up in alphabetical order. Also take the Thai for cat, pronounced roughly "meow", which obviously is not completely arbitrary. Kantian Naturalist asks, is "meant" being used in exactly the same sense? The effect is a "Hail Mary" pass; perhaps there is some difference between the meanings of "meant" (what the definition of the word "is" is?) that will allow us to avoid the conclusion that the genetic code is a product of intelligence, like all the other codes. I'm going to do an end run around that question. Consider the following 4 propositions: A. Humans are intelligent (try denying that and listening to yourself). B. Humans are capable of creating long irregular specified strings of DNA, long enough and irregular enough and specified enough, that they can function as the major code for specifying protein sequence in living cells. Corollary: Some intelligent creatures are capable of creating such strings. C. There has not been experimental evidence that nature without the aid of intelligent beings has created such strings. D. There is no plausible theory that explains how nature without the aid of intelligent beings can be reasonably expected to create such strings. Conclusion: If we find such strings in nature, it is reasonable to attribute them to the action of some intelligent being. There. We can stop arguing about the similarities and differences between DNA code and other codes. Intelligent beings can create DNA code itself, and furthermore, the specific DNA code needed for life, and as far as we know, unguided processes can't. Can we let go of those objections now? Paul Giem

Now that KN has punted, do any of our other interlocutors want to try to mount a serious opposition argument here? Mark? RDFish? Anybody? Barry Arrington

KN: Never mind. You are not engaging with us seriously. Instead, you pick linguistic nits. Why? I imagine it is because the obvious facts of the matter threaten to take you to a philosophical place to which you don’t wish to go. That’s OK. Very few people are able substantially to alter their philosophical commitments after a certain age. Most will do almost anything to avoid even contemplating such a thing. Barry Arrington

UB: This is an intractable reality, and it will not go away over the pitter patter of language we use to describe it. KN: So there’s a difference between “means,” “signifies,” and “maps to”? What difference is that? Kantian, I would encourage you to view the physical system. Upright BiPed

So there's a difference between "means," "signifies," and "maps to"? What difference is that? Kantian Naturalist

Mung,

“arbitrariness” is irrelevant to the mathematical definition of a code

I wouldn’t say that arbitrariness is so much irrelevant, as it is missing. From your link:

The mapping C = { a -> 0, b -> 01, c -> 011} is a code, whose source alphabet is the set {a, b, c} and whose target alphabet is the set {0,1}. Using the extension of the code, the encoded string 0011001011 can be grouped into codewords as 0?011?0?01?011, and these in turn can be decoded to the sequence of source symbols acabc.

This definition reflects that there is a relationship between sets, but doesn’t necessarily reflect the arbitrary nature of that relationship, nor does it provide a formula to establish it through inexorable law. There is no formula given to establish the relationship between the sets, nor is there a formula to establish (in the example given) the dimension of the codewords. But isn’t that precisely the point? If there was a formula to establish these things via inexorable law, then it wouldn’t be arbitrary. Again, it must be demonstrated. (it’s the contact at complexity cafe. no wordpress) Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed:

When I read upthread that you thought the arbitrary mapping was a red herring, I took it that you meant the argument over the arbitrariness was a red herring – given that it is obvious and universal.

Actually the point I was attempting to make is that "arbitrariness" is irrelevant to the mathematical definition of a code, and if that is in fact the case, then bringing up whether or not "the code" is "arbitrary" is a red herring. Whether or not is is in fact the case that all such codes are "arbitrary" is a separate question from whether or not "the genetic code" is a literal code or a "metaphorical code." If in fact all codes are "arbitrary" then it would still be the case that it's a red-herring. I hope that makes sense. :) Mung

KN, Mung is right. “Means” has nothing to do with it. The sign maps to (or “signifies” if you like) that which is signified within the protocols of the code. To your examples: 1. The sequence “uracil, cytosine, uracil” is a sign that maps to (signifies) “serine.” (I take your word for it here; I have not verified). 2. The sequence “…---…” is a sign that maps to (signifies) “SOS.” 3. The word “hund” is a sign that maps to (signifies) “dog.” In all of these examples the sign maps to the signified pursuant to the protocol. Barry Arrington

I had the impression you sent me something through email. I never got it, but would appreciate the contact if you have a chance to try again.

Well, I thought I had sent you something, that's for sure! But not via email. Did you direct me to a blog? http://complexitycafe.wordpress.com/ I followed the "Contact" link. http://complexitycafe.wordpress.com/contact/ My comment is still awaiting moderation, lol! I can post the content here at UD in the original thread where it came up if you like and post a link to it. Mung

Hi Mung, To my mind, the set of relationships is the code, and they are physicochemically arbitrary. I believe this is a defensible position. The relationships are not a property of the matter involved; they must be demonstrated to know they exist. I'm certain you remember the haphazard Dr Liddle rejecting the idea that she would have to actually demonstrate the relationships in order to demonstrate the rise of information. When I read upthread that you thought the arbitrary mapping was a red herring, I took it that you meant the argument over the arbitrariness was a red herring - given that it is obvious and universal. By the way... I had the impression you sent me something through email. I never got it, but would appreciate the contact if you have a chance to try again. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed:

The arbitrary relationship between the arrangement of the medium and the effect produced by the system is a physical necessity of translation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this statement is quite distinct from a claim that the code is arbitrary. Mung

Kantian Naturalist:

To put it in ‘philosophese’, is “means” being used univocally in these three sentences?

To put it in 'mathematicalese', who cares!? Are S and T two finite sets? Is there is a total function mapping each symbol from S to a sequence of symbols over T? "Means" gots nothing to do with it. Mung

The arbitrary relationship between the arrangement of the medium and the effect produced by the system is a physical necessity of translation. The system could not operate without it. It is one of the features that define a semiotic state. Translated information uses the arrangement of a medium to create effects which are not locally derivable from inexorable law. Let that sink in; it encompasses the entirety of the living kingdom. Without a physicochemically arbitrary relationship, those effects would have to be PHYSICALLY DERIVABLE from the arrangement of the medium. In other words, which direction a bird should fly in order to catch the grasshopper could be derived solely from the neural inpulses traveling through the optical nerve of the grasshopper. That cannot happen without the context of the system, i.e. information is not derivable from inexorable physical law, its derivable only from the organizations that create and translate it. The material arrangement of the medium physically inputs form into the system. The material arrangement of the protocol physically determines what that effect will be. Both of these are fundamental requirments in a system that harnesses the laws of nature to create effects that obey those laws, but are not derived from them. The system that drives biological organization on Earth is an irreducibly complex core of these two material arrangements of matter. The relationship that they instantiate in the system is required prior to the onset of cellular organization (as well as Darwinian evolution). This is an intractable reality, and it will not go away over the pitter patter of language we use to describe it. But, there's more. The relationships instantiated in the genetic translation system universally link biological organization to pre-existing organization, but there is a second requirement of the genetic system, stemming from the type of encoding used in the cell. Not only does cellular translation require material protocols to establish the arbitrary relationships between the medium and the effect, but because of the type of encoding used in the cell, it also requires a second unrelated set of (systematic) protocols to establish the dimensional operation of the system - i.e. the linear dimension of the genetic code (the three-nucleotide codon, the start function, the stop function, etc). All other semiotic systems operate solely on the three-dimensional recognition of the symbol object (like an ant recognizing a pheromone). The only other instance of a secondary dimensional requirement within a semiotic system is in language and mathematics. So whereas the semiotic system itself links the origin of cellular organization to pre-existing organization, the reality of a iterative dimensional code links the origin of the system to higher intelligence. And here again, this observed reality is not going to go away just because we can fight over the words we use to describe it. Upright BiPed

I've been following this thread, and I still have some lingering doubts about the sense of "code" at work in the phrase "the genetic code". (That biologists don't share this worry doesn't mean it's not a good worry to have, obviously.) In setting up this discussion, Barry said

a code is the set of rules linking a sign with that which is signified and the fact that the link is arbitrary.

and in support of this we get some examples, like Morse code and computer coding languages, and some translations ('Hund' means 'dog'). But does this mean that

(1)The sequence "uracil, cytosine, uracil" means "serine"

in the same sense that

(2)The sequence " ...---..." means "SOS"

and also in the same sense that

(3)"Hund" means "dog."

To put it in 'philosophese', is "means" being used univocally in these three sentences? Kantian Naturalist

revised and expanded: Hi Barry, I think it was something that Mark Frank wrote which initiated my remark, but to answer your question, even the Wiki article you cited doesn’t appeal to the presence (or absence) of arbitrariness. From the OP:

Notice that arbitrariness of the linking rules within codes is ubiquitous.

That may in fact be the case, but is a necessary part of the definition of a code? If the mapping were not arbitrary would it be any less a code. Take, for example, Morse Code. What is the most common letter in the English alphabet? How is that letter presented in Morse Code? Coincidence? From Wikipedia:

Using terms from formal language theory, the precise mathematical definition of this concept is as follows: Let S and T be two finite sets, called the source and target alphabets, respectively. A code C:\, S \to T^* is a total function mapping each symbol from S to a sequence of symbols over T…

If the genetic code fits that definition, then it’s a literal code. That’s the main point.

...there are several good reasons to think that life had a common origin. Central among these is DNA itself. A DNA sequences looks like gibberish, but any of your cells can read it. It tells the cell how to make protein. This information is written in the DNA in a kind of code - a special language for describing proteins. This "genetic code" is arbitrary in the same sense that human language is arbitrary. ... Every living thing ... makes protein using essentially this same arbitrary code. - Alan R. Rogers The Evidence for Evolution

heh Mung

Hi Barry, I think it was something that Mark Frank wrote which initiated my remark, but to answer your question, even the Wiki article you cited doesn't appeal to the presence (or absence) of arbitrariness.

Notice that arbitrariness of the linking rules within codes is ubiquitous. That may in fact be the case, but is a necessary part of the definition of a code? If the mapping were not arbitrary would it be any less a code. Take, for example, Morse Code. What is the most common letter in the English alphabet? How is that letter presented in Morse Code? Coincidence?

Using terms from formal language theory, the precise mathematical definition of this concept is as follows: Let S and T be two finite sets, called the source and target alphabets, respectively. A code C:\, S \to T^* is a total function mapping each symbol from S to a sequence of symbols over T...

If the genetic code fits that definition, then it's a literal code. That's the main point.

Mung

“Whether or not the mapping is arbitrary seems to me to be a bit of a red-herring.” Interesting that you should say that Mung. I think it is critical for the design inference for the reasons I’ve explained. Why do you think it is a red herring Barry Arrington

The genetic information system is segregated, linear and digital. It is astonishing that the technology of information theory and coding theory has been in place in biology for at least 3.850 billion years (Mojzsis, S.J., Kishnamurthy, Arrhenius, G., 1998. Before RNA and after: geological and geochemical constraints on molecular evolution 1-47. In: Gesteland, R.F. (Ed.), The RNA World: The Nature of Modern RNA Suggests a Prebiotic RNA, second ed. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Boca Raton, FL). The genetic code performs a mapping between the sequences of the four nucleotides in mRNA to the sequences of the 20 amino acids in protein. It is highly relevant to the origin of life that the genetic code is constructed to confront and solve the problems of communication and recording by the same principles found both in the genetic information system and in modern computer and communication codes. There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences. The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from non-living matter. If the historic process of the origin and evolution of life could be followed, it would prove to be a purely chemical process (Wächtershäuser, G., 1997. The origin of life and its methodological challenge. J. Theor. Biol. 187, 483-694). The question is whether this historic process or any reasonable part of it is available to human experiment and reasoning; there is no requirement that Nature's laws be plausible or even known to mankind. Bohr (Bohr, N., 1933. Light and life. Nature 308, 421-423, 456-459) argued that life is consistent with but undecidable by human reasoning from physics and chemistry. Perhaps scientists will come closer and closer to the riddle of how life emerged on Earth, but, like Zeno's Achilles, never achieve a complete solution.

Origin of life on earth and Shannon's theory of communication. Whether or not the mapping is arbitrary seems to me to be a bit of a red-herring. Comments? Mung

Mark Frank @ 25: “However, you could not substitute say CGU for GCU in a DNA string and get the same effect. The effect is determined by the cell translation mechanism. You might argue that a different cell translation mechanism could be substituted for the current one with the same effect – so the translation mechanism is arbitrary.” Thank you for answering your own objection. Yes one could change CGU for GCU if the rules changed. Example from language: There was a time when the sign “sick” signified an illness. When my kids use that sign, they usually are signifying something completely different (i.e., crazy, cool, insane) as in “Hey, that snowboarding trick was totally sick!” Mark Frank @ 25 continued: “I don’t see that this proves anything about design.” Really? You just admitted that the genetic code has all of the same features any other semiotic code, including the arbitrary relationship between the sign and the thing signified. You also know that for every semiotic code the provenance of which has been observed (rather than inferred), the cause of the code has been intelligent agency. And you say that proves nothing. By that statement you might mean one of two things: (1) you personally are not persuaded; or (2) the evidence does not even tend to make a reasonable person believe the proposition (i.e., the design inference) more probably true. Now obviously, if you mean (1) I can have no quarrel with your statement. You can set your own standards of proof for your own opinions. But frankly (pun intended), no one can assert (2) in good faith, so I hope that is not what you mean. Barry Arrington

I don’t agree with KN that this a good way of characterizing the dispute between design theorists and their critics.  The  word “code” has too many shares of  meaning and it is easy to confuse them.  Barry demonstrates this in the OP. He starts off by using the Wikipedia definition:

A code is a rule for converting a piece of information . . . into another . . . form or representation <b>(one sign into another sign)</b> . . .

But then later on he writes:

Thus, a code is the protocol (the rules if you will) by which one translates a sign into that which is signified.

which is different. The key concept which most people have latched onto is that relationship between DNA and Amino Acid is  “arbitrary” (you don’t really need to worry about whether that makes it a code or not). The claim being that the relationship between codon and amino acid is arbitrary just as the relationship between a word and its meaning is arbitrary. This also needs a bit of analysis. “Arbitrary” means could have been otherwise and been equally effective. So a different word could have been chosen instead of “dog” and been equally effective as proven by the fact that different words do the same job in other languages.  However, you could not substitute say CGU for GCU in a DNA string and get the same effect. The effect is determined by the cell translation mechanism. You might argue that a different cell translation mechanism could be substituted for the current one with the same effect – so the translation mechanism is arbitrary.  I don’t see that this proves anything about design. Evolution happened to select one mechanism and because it worked it never got changed (I think there are some exceptions). It is no different in principle from the fact that the heart could have been on the right instead of the left and been equally effective and a thousand other “choices” that evolution has made which could equally have gone another way. Mark Frank

Gregory wrote: "Obviously, if a ‘code’ is defined strictly as a human-made thing (e.g. in cryptography), then ‘non-human-made codes’ would be nonsensical. Thus, one can leave aside aliens and SETI as faulty analogy." The problem here is that the initial premise, given in the protasis of the first sentence, is faulty. There is no reason why a "code" should be defined as "a human-made thing." There is nothing in the notion "code" that implies "human-made." The notion "code" implies no more than the existence of an intelligence which can assign the elements of the code to the things that are coded for. Thus, "strictly" speaking, there is no need at all to "leave aside" aliens or any other other intelligent being, including God. God could invent a code. And of course, as Francis Collins also believes, God *did*. (How Collins has failed to grasp the implications of that admission is a subject which I won't take up here.) I fail to see what Romans 1 has to do with the question of "codes"; I also fail to see how an appeal to Romans 1, in itself, constitutes any evidence of Biblical literalism; and finally, I fail to see why it should be objectionable that Romans 1 is quoted so often by ID proponents. It is of course a *locus classicus* for the justification of a limited natural theology, and therefore, it is perfectly appropriate to refer to it in debate with TEs and other fideists who attack natural theology while claiming (as BioLogos claims) to regard *all* of the Bible as divine revelation. If TEs can't live with Romans 1, I wonder what else in Paul they can't live with. Probably Paul's interpretation of Adam. :-) Timaeus

JGuy, That would be the result of a GIGO. Real codes being interpreted in a way that leads to a garbage result. In the case of a mirage, it's more of false apprehension of false "codes" that were mimicking real codes, leading to a false result. I can fill my computer will random instruction codes, and the result will be useless garbage, but the process on translation of code to some result had still transpired. Garbage codes got translated and rendered garbage effects, but codes still got translated. Codes do not necessarily have to lead to a "good" outcome. All they need to "achieve" to be considered a code is to have something translate them. CentralScrutinizer

Mung: I wonder whether the concept of a “metaphorical code” is even coherent.

Bwahaha Good point

The mirage was obvious to me, since my senses & judgement were not yet fully dulled from dehydration and overheating. And it was as if the atmosphere over the desert was my readied enemy, already conspiring and transmitting the image of the sky to my eyes as a deceptive code reading: "water here!". :P JGuy

Mung: I wonder whether the concept of a “metaphorical code” is even coherent.

Bwahaha Good point CentralScrutinizer

The essence of something being a code is that it is translated by something else. Sometimes translations can result in garbage output. (GIGO) But a code is a code when it is translated by something else. Clearly DNA codons are consistently translated by the ribosomes into something with no chemical affinity to the original codon. This is the strong point of Meyer's Signature in the Cell, and the "materialists" and bitch and moan all they want, but they can't deny the obvious. Does anyone really not get that? CentralScrutinizer

If it requires an interpreter, it is a code in my opinion. It does not matter if the interpreter is neither conscious nor intelligent. Egyptian hieroglyphics are a code and so is the alphabet. Human speech is a code too, and now that it can be interpreted by machines, doubly so. Does DNA fall into this category? Mapou

KN @ OP

If a code requires linguistic rules, and if linguistic rules are just how speakers hold each accountable for what they say, then the genetic code cannot be a literal code, since nucleotide sequences are not themselves speakers or agents of any kind. So if one is going to maintain that the genetic code is a literal code, one will have to present a theory of what it is for something to be a linguistic rule without there being any speakers of the language. (Good luck with that.)

'holding accountable' in this seems to be your coded way ;) of saying, the agents need to be aware. Does hardware speak to hardware in computers? Does hardware hold accountable hardware in computers? These seem to be require intelligence. But yet, isn't computer code itself or using a literal code within itself? If we knew how they worked, but didn't know computers were designed by an intelligence, would we then say the computer code is not a literal code? Would we claim to be agnostic about it? JGuy

Looks like I didn't see it was copy/pasted into the new post. I recalled it partly wrong, but it still has use in topic, I think. JGuy

Here's one example: a quote from "Evolution of Semantic Systems" Springer 2013. The list of contributers to the book are

Stefan Artmann Frege Centre for Structural Sciences, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany Jon Doyle Department of Computer Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA Dagfinn FøllesdalDepartment of Philosophy, Stanford University, and Center for the Study of Mind in Nature, University of Oslo, 0316 Oslo, Norway Udo HahnDepartment of German Linguistics, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Germany Jerry R. Hobbs Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern Caifornia, Admiralty Way, Marina del Rey, CA, USA Ian Horrocks Oxford University, Department of Computer Science, Oxford, UK R¨udiger Inhetveen Former Chair for Artificial Intelligence and Center for Ethics and Scientific Communication, Friedrich-Alexander-Universit¨ at ErlangenN¨urnberg Erlangen, Germany Klaus KornwachsBrandenburgische Technische Universit¨ at Cottbus, Cottbus, Germany Bernd-Olaf K¨uppers Frege-Centre for Structural Sciences, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany Kyungjoon LeeCenter for Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA Alexa T. McCrayCenter for Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA C. Ulises MoulinesDepartment of Philosophy, Logic and Philosophy of Science, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨ at M¨unchen, Munich, Germany Rutu Mulkar-MehtaPrecyse Advanced Technologies, Founders Parkway, Suite, Alpharetta, GA Bernhard SchiemannFormer Chair for Artificial Intelligence and Center for Ethics and Scientific Communication, Friedrich-Alexander-Universit¨ at ErlangenN¨urnberg Erlangen, Germany

This is not provided as an appeal to authority but just to emphasise the point made earlier that the genetic code as a literal code is not just an ID argument as KN appeared to frame it. In the book we find

However, more surprising is the fact that essential characteristics of human language are reflected even in the structure of the genetic information-carriers. This analogy does not just consist in a mere vague correspondence; rather, it embraces largely identical features that are shared by all living beings. Let us consider some facts: the carriers of genetic information, the nucleic acids, are built up from four classes of nucleotide, which are arranged in the molecules like the symbols of a language. Moreover, genetic information is organised hierarchically: each group of three nucleotidesforms a code-word, which can be compared to a word in human language. The code-words are joined up into functional units, the genes. These correspond to sentences in human language. They in turn are linked up into chromosomes, which are higher-order functional units, comparable to a long text passage. As in a written language, the “genetic text” includes punctuation marks, which label for example—the beginning and end of a unit to be read. Last but not least, the chemical structure of the nucleic acids even imposes a uniform reading direction. In addition to the parallels described here, there are further fundamental correspondences between the structure and function of genes and that of human language. These include, especially, the vast aperiodicity of nucleotide sequences and the context-dependence of genetic information. The context in turn is provided by the physical and chemical environment, which confers an unambiguous sense upon the (in itself) plurivalent genetic information [10]. Just as a printing error in a written text can distort the meaning, the replacement of a single nucleotide in the genome can lead to collapse of the functional order and thus to the death and decay of the organism. This shows that genetic information also has a semantic dimension; in other words, it possesses functional significance for the sustenance of life processes. As the dynamics of life are encoded in the genes, it would seem only consistent to speak of the existence of a molecular language. The use of terms such as “genetic information” and “the language of genes” is in no way an illegitimate transfer of linguistic concepts to the non-linguistic realm of molecules. On the contrary: the existence of a genetic, molecular language appears to be an indispensable prerequisite for the construction of living systems, as their complex functional organisation arises along the path of material instruction and communication

p.s. as far as the "Evolution" part of the book title goes, that seems to be a bit of a stretch. On first glance they appear to have no clue as to how it all came about. steveO

Of possible interest is the observation that the genetic code is not the only code that has been identified in living systems. In fact, there's an entire volume: The Codes of Life: The Rules of Macroevolution Mung

KN had a rebuttal response in the first version of this posting. He argued that if a literal code requires linguistic rules, then he said the genetic code would not be a literal code. Correct me if wrong KN. And if I can recall correctly, that this means you have an aware communicator & receiver agents both agreeing on how to communicate. My response: If this is true KN, then you must argue that source code, compiled computer code or machine code are not themselves literal codes and/or are not using a literal code. Afterall, the programmer is not communicating with the machine, he is simply the intelligent designer/creator/originator of the information in the code. To argue the computer is an observably intelligently designed device would ignore the basis of the argument requiring aware agents on either end of the code. JGuy

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc.. in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations). IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church. buffalo

A cat is a mammal only by analogy. Right Gregory? Mung

That is why this fits so nicely - IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act. buffalo

OT:

Until our population-based evolutionary theory can be reconciled with our homology-based evolutionary theory, we live without a true synthesis of evolutionary thought. - Amundson, Ron. The Changing Role of the Embryo in Evolutionary Thought: Roots of Evo-Devo

Mung

Alan Fox:

All I am pointing out that it is fine to refer to the genetic code as a code.

Well gee, thanks Alan. I feel so much better now. Mung

It's a literal code. I wonder whether the concept of a "metaphorical code" is even coherent. It's a literal code because it fully satisfies the mathematical definition of a code. Mung

UD Editors: Kantian Naturalist's comment has been removed from the comment thread and added to the OP Barry Arrington

However, I think arbitrariness as a basis is sufficient, but not necessarily required. JGuy

KN

I had a minor insight yesterday: that one way of characterizing the dispute between design theorists and their critics is in terms of the question, “is the ‘code’ in ‘the genetic code’ meant literally or metaphorically?”

I don't it's a case of just design theorists referring to a literal code or language. It's possible to find scientists with no ID affiliation saying the same thing. So KN's dispute is not just with ID proponents, he's also arguing against independent specialists in this area. steveO

I think the answer came down to arbitrariness in the symbols. JGuy

(Good luck with that)

No problem. I'll come back later and disambiguate the issue by proving the material basis for the observations. Then you can move the goalposts. :) Upright BiPed

The genetic code is "the language of God," isn't it? Is that what you mean by 'literal'? Before the term 'real' was used. Now, 'literal' is used. This may explain why it is no wonder many theists who accept limited evolutionary biology have highlighted the biblical literalism of YECism, which is also held by a significant number of IDists. I can't count the number of times Romans 1:20 has been quoted here at UD (but GoogleSearch can: here) KN's question can also be framed as concerning analogy; i.e. between human-made codes and non-human-made 'codes'. Obviously, if a 'code' is defined strictly as a human-made thing (e.g. in cryptography), then 'non-human-made codes' would be nonsensical. Thus, one can leave aside aliens and SETI as faulty analogy. The semiotic argument is of course limited, as are all 'origins' theories, which in the case of one poster at UD, often falls into the ideology of 'semioticism' (which said poster won't allow is possible or work to define); had to throw that in after speaking with someone tonight who tried to take the 'semiotic' approach rather too far into absurdity. Simple definition: 'exaggeration of semiotics'. Gregory

The DNA Code - Solid Scientific Proof Of Intelligent Design - Perry Marshall - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4060532 "Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source -- from a mind or personal agent." (Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2):213-239 (2004).) "A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor). It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required. ,,,there is no known law of nature and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. Werner Gitt 1997 In The Beginning Was Information pp. 64-67, 79, 107." (The retired Dr Gitt was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology.) Biological Information — What is It? - published online May 2013 - Werner Gitt 1*, Robert Compton 2 and Jorge Fernandez 3 http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0001 bornagain77