ID and Catholic theology

_{Lord Ickenham

April 2, 2008

Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Religion, Science}

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

Father Michal Heller, 72, a Polish priest-cosmologist and a onetime associate of Archbishop Karol Wojtyla, the future pope, was named March 12 as the winner of the Templeton Prize.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801398.htm

In this recent interview came a critique of the intelligent design position as bad theology, akin to the Manichean heresy. Fr. Heller puts forth this rather strange argument as follows:

“They implicitly revive the old manicheistic error postulating the existence of two forces acting against each other: God and an inert matter; in this case, chance and intelligent design.”

Coming from a theologian, this is an astonishing summary of the Manichean heresy. Historically Manichæism is a form of dualism: that good and evil were equal and opposite forces, locked in an eternal struggle. In this distortion, the role of the all-powerful evil is replaced by chance? It is traditional Christian teaching that God forms (i.e. designs) creation. Does this make God the arch-rival of chanciness? It is difficult to see how the intelligent design perspective could possibly be contrary to Catholic teaching. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas speaks in his Summa of God explicitly as the great designer of the creation:

“… the “Spirit of God” Scripture usually means the Holy Ghost, Who is said to “move over the waters,” not, indeed, in bodily shape, but as the craftsman’s will may be said to move over the material to which he intends to give a form.”

The ID point of view is such a minimalist position it is amazing to see the charge of heresy– it simply does not have the philosophical meat necessary to begin to make this kind of theological accusation.

There are some points that Fr. Heller raises that are entirely consistent with an ID point of view:

“There is no opposition here. Within the all-comprising Mind of God what we call chance and random events is well composed into the symphony of creation.” But “God is also the God of chance events,” he said. “From what our point of view is, chance — from God’s point of view, is … his structuring of the universe.”

In this quote, he is basically saying the there is no such thing as fundamental chance, only apparent chance. The apparent noise is really a beautiful tapestry viewed from the wrong side. Of course if there were discernable structure, then we could … well … discern it (this is the whole point of ID). The problem here is that Fr. Heller does not have a self-consistent position that one can argue or agree with, as his next quote shows:

“As an example, Father Heller said, “birth is a chance event, but people ascribe that to God. People have much better theology than adherents of intelligent design. The chance event is just a part of God’s plan.”

Now if I were picking from a list of random events to use as my illustration of chance acting in the world, childbirth would not be one of them. Does he mean the timing of birth, or the act of conception, or the forming of the child? If anything this is an extremely well-choreographed event that has very little to do with chanciness of any flavor. Here he seems to be going back, and saying that chance is real (not just apparent) – but God intends to have it that way. Once again, the ID position can also be reconciled with the existence of fundamental chance, but not fundamental chance as the only thing that exists in the universe.

In this interview, Fr. Heller does not seem to have a sophisticated view of how randomness can work together with intelligence, he also does not seem to have read any books by design advocates – the arguments he makes are directed to nonexistent opponents. For a physicist/theologian that is giving an interview upon the reception of his Templeton award, the only physics/theology that is offered is internally confused, and based on caricatures of the ID argument. My feeling is that if he actually read and considered the ID arguments we might find a kindred spirit.

Comments

RF (and Eric and onlookers . . .): First, Eric, thanks for a substantial, well-informed response on a point. The contrast with the last from RF is telling. Given the rhetorical tactic of dismissal used just above, let us first follow an exchange: 1] Exchange on sources and substance . . . Let us follow the record, which will plainly show who is “fac[ing] facts” on the merits, and just who is consistently dodging them:
GEM, 119 [to GG]: you also raise the claim that “God” created the world and his intelligent action is therefore foundational to nature and cannot be distinguished from it. Sorry; you need to look at the signs of intelligence principle again, and look at he underlying complex organisation of the cosmos — does this show intelligent action? It seems so, for many reasons as discussed in brief in my always linked section D. So, we may reasonably infer to an extracosmic intelligence of vast power who made a cosmos suitable for life, which required exquisite fine-tuning of the physics of the cosmos. The operation of the laws and processes of nature is distinct from the setting up of the same, and in a way that shows that there is complex organisation that points to intelligent action. RF, 218: I can see you saying it, but I don’t see you backing it up in any way. How do you know that the laws and processes of nature are distinct from the setting up of the laws and processes? GEM, 224: You plainly did not read the context . . . “does this show intelligent action? It seems so, for many reasons as discussed in brief in my always linked section D . . . . In short, kindly go to the LH column, click on my handle and follow the in-page link after the synopsis to read section D. ” RF, 226: Kairos, have you even read the book in which it [Dawkins' Weasel] appears? GEM, 227: I excerpted the relevant text, courtesy Wiki, Dawkins' presentation and context for WEASEL, and made a few remarks on it. RF, 230: before I decide how to respond could you confirm if you’ve read the book or not? If not, then I’ll only reference wiki articles, as you have done. GEM, 231: Since you asked: I dipped into the book way back when it came out. Was not impressed then, and put my time to better use . . . I didn’t have time to waste on what did not impress me as real substance, on a READAK-trained speed preread . . . . If you pardon some direct remarks, what you need to do is to resist the temptation to go off on yet another tangential red herring, but instead speak cogently to the issue in the main on the merits. The Wiki excerpts are enough for that, on this sub-point of a sub-point of a sub-point. RF, 233: you are happy to claim things about WEASEL without having read teh book but insist that people go and read your “always linked” at every opportunity . . .
It should be obvious that I called attention to the Section D the always linked, to point to where a short but substantial summary of the cosmological inference to design is worked out. RF plainly has been unable to answer cogently on the merits so he has diverted to red herring after red herring. In particular, he has tried to use the fact that I pre-read instead of reading the Dawkins book to say in effect, that he does not need to read the substantiating information on a different point where he accused me of simply asserting without substance, and where I proceeded to point him to the fact that right from the beginning I had highlifhted just where the details were to be found. 2] The Weasel . . . Worse, courtesy Wiki I ACTUALLY PRESENTED THE WEASEL CASE AS DAWKINS DEVELOPED IT IN 1986. Thus, I showed, from Dawkins himself, that Weasel is of course a specifically targetted Hamming distance based search in a constrained finite domain that deliberately cuts down from the scale of config space that a more realistic model of the genome would require. (Notice how I showed above that the Cambrian life revolution would require searching out bio-functionality through a digital config space comparable to creating the worlks of Shakespeare.) And, in context [both of the book as a whole, as its very title -- The BLIND Watchmaker (i.e. by contrast with Paley's inference to design from sumbling over a watch as opposed to a stone in a field) --specified, and in that of Mr Dawkins' wider career and arguments], it was used rhetorically (NOT “educationally”) to try to persuade the reader that chance variations plus natural selection can be used to create functionally specific complex information. To do that, it cut down the search space unrealistically, used a purposeful target and substituted artificial for natural selection. In short, it set up a strawman – RF's “toy example” is in fact a backhanded acknowledgement of this that refuses to face the implications. 3] Genetic Algors: Here, from p. 3 of a current online textbook, is a summary of the underlying basic GA:
1: Randomly create an initial population of programs from the available primitives (more on this in Section 2.2). 2: repeat 3: Execute each program and ascertain its fitness. 4: Select one or two program(s) from the population with a probability based on fitness to participate in genetic operations (Section 2.3). 5: Create new individual program(s) by applying genetic operations with specified probabilities (Section 2.4). 6: until an acceptable solution is found or some other stopping condition is met (e.g., a maximum number of generations is reached). 7: return the best-so-far individual.
MATLAB, discussing its GA toolbox, comments:
The genetic algorithm solves optimization problems by mimicking the principles of biological evolution, repeatedly modifying a population of individual points using rules modeled on gene combinations in biological reproduction. Due to its random nature, the genetic algorithm improves your chances of finding a global solution.
In short, we see exactly what EB pointed out: a --> In praxis -- as opposed to how the general context is presented to the public [and the naive technical practitioner] -- a finite and conveniently scaled [digital] search/performance space is set up, a criterion of fitness [performance metric] towards optimisation [resource constrained search for maximum desired performance relative to some objective function] is set up. b --> random initial points in a space known to be near to the desired performance are sampled [e.g. we do not start with random individual atoms floating dispersed in a fluid to search for a high-performance antenna, or of course -- per my version of Hoyle's well-known 747 scenario at point 6, app 1 the always linked (which is in fact such an “evolutionary search” -- and with a simpler case than an organism) -- to get to a flyable jet plane] and tested for fitness relative to the known desired performance objective [i.e. We have to have a criterion of performacne to assess which is better and which worse] c --> a process of iterative culling and “interbreeding” is used to try to find an optimum or at least good performance in a finite number of steps. d --> This is of course targetted search through intelligently designed artificial selection that exploits active information to get search process gains over a pure random walk. e --> However, it is then presented as a model of how biological [including of course body-plan origination level macro-]evolution works [without adequately dealing with the search space and complexity issues, and the absence of intelligent direction in the usual model of such evolution]. 4] On writing books and programs: RF makes an inadvertently deeply revealing comment to EB:
all I would say in response to this: [cites EB] When genetic/evolutionary software is developed, the developers define in advance the model of the solution space they will explore. [Comments] Is that when you write a book the “solution space” you explore is constructed from only 26 letters and a space. Presumably you would also count this as cheating.
A book, of course, is openly intelligently designed, using a 128-state digital element as its base unit, the alphanumeric charactern [it is a lot more than 26 letters and a space!]. Authors are intelligent, and use insight, knowledge and imagination to construct intelligent communications. We do not write books by the million monkeys banging away at keyboards method! For excellent reason. GA's by contrast, are too often presented as if they were models of evolution by chance variation and undirected, non-purposive natural selection. Indeed, at the same site that led me to the book I cited, I have seen an attempted rebuttal by an academic practitioner, on the NFL-active information critique, that argues:
If blind optimization is as inadequate as NFLers insist, how did nature evolve the incredible complexity surrounding us? And if genetic algorithms and genetic programming are so weird, how come these procedures are regularly infringing on patents of human inventors and creating new patentable gizmos?
In effect, this begs the question. For, first, GA's are precisely NOT a blind search, but a set up intelligently designed search in a selected, constrained target zone with preset criteria of performance. And, to assert that NS -- notice the omission of the chance variation and config space issues -- has shown that blind optimisation can do wonders, simply begs an even bigger set of questions, starting from OOL and OO body plan level biodiversity in the face of the known organised, massively and tightly integrated functional complexity of DNA, the cell, tissues, organs and body plans. Both are intelligently designed, and in fact exemplify how FSCI comes about reliably by intelligent agency. One is openly acknowledged to be such: the author's name usually goes right on the cover. The other too often tries to have its cake and eat it too: putting out the notion that somehow an artificially constrained search across a finite and controllable domain that was selected for likelihood of success, is a good model of OOL and OO body plan level biodiver4sity by a claimed, unintelligent, none foresighted, non purposeful process.. That's giving us a nine for a six, RF. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 13, 2008
April
04
Apr
13
13
2008
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT}

KF:
I dipped into the book way back when it came out.
Yet you are happy to claim things about WEASEL without having read teh book but insist that people go and read your "always linked" at every opportunity. Whatever. EricB:
The developer knows what s/he is looking for and tailors accordingly.
Eric, you are obviously an expert in this field. I expect you see yourself as the person "pulling away the curtain". I'll leave you to it then rather then attempt to make you face facts. However, all I would say in response to this
When genetic/evolutionary software is developed, the developers define in advance the model of the solution space they will explore.
Is that when you write a book the "solution space" you explore is constructed from only 26 letters and a space. Presumably you would also count this as cheating.RichardFry_{April 13, 2008
April
04
Apr
13
13
2008
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PDT}

RichardFry (226): "Like I said in my first post WEASEL is simply a toy example used to explain the basic concepts of a GA. It does not need, nor require, nor is it appropriate for Dr Dembski et al to apply such a rigoirous mathmatical examination of such a trivial toy example. It’s the equivilent of writing off an entire culture because their “learn to read” books for children are of little literary worth." I agree that your general point here is fine, i.e. it would be inappropriate to treat a toy example as though it represented the full potential. On the other hand, even a toy example would still be legitimately an appropriate example. Even a "learn to read" book still rises to the level of a book legitimately containing meaningful language, albeit simplified. Dawkins' WEASEL fails to rise to the level of a legitimate toy example. It is a smoke-and-mirrors illusion appearing as though it were at least a toy example. A stage magician's trick is a trick, not a toy example of supernatural magic, but some will be taken in nonetheless. What it does illustrate, however, is that the ability of computer software to accomplish a task need not represent or demonstrate how biology actually works -- even if we attach words like "genetic" or "evolutionary" to the algorithms. Consequently, the fundamental problem is not that it is "simple" or "toy" but that it is "not like biology" regarding the key questions. One of the fundamental dissimilarities of computer software, including genetic/evolutionary algorithms, is that the authors can build in knowledge and a sense of target that real world biology would have no access to. In WEASEL, storing and comparing against a target is the obvious departure. In other software, the same unrepresentative advantage can be built in. When genetic/evolutionary software is developed, the developers define in advance the model of the solution space they will explore. This is necessary because they must anticipate and insure that a) as new solutions are generated, they must fall within the defined solution space they have modeled, and b) the fitness function must be able to evaluate any solution so generated. Consequently, there cannot be any solution that is not within the predetermined solution space of the model, and the process is simply a way of searching that large solution space for solutions that optimize the predefined function, i.e. finding the peaks in the landscape defined by their chosen function. Undirected processes are inherently unable to invent symbolic representation and encode information into it. Dawkins' non-example is inappropriate hand waving not only because the program stored a target string, but also more fundamentally because it could sense relative "nearness" to meaningful text even when the strings were still gibberish. It is the insight from the special information that gave it a slope that it could climb. In software, developers can build that kind of inside knowledge into the fitness function. The developer knows what s/he is looking for and tailors accordingly. In that artificial world, the preservation of closeness to desired future function need not have any demonstrable significance in the intermediate steps. A future goal is being pursued. This is exactly what Dawkins' non-example does. It does not preserve blindly according to present value considerations only. One gibberish is just as much gibberish as another. Rather, it uses secret knowledge to preserve progress beneficial to a future function, i.e. becoming a meaningful English sentence. In the real world, the Blind Watchmaker cannot do this. Dawkins' non-example fails, even as an toy example. It is less than a toy. It is a special effects image illustrating what Dawkins would like us to believe about the Great and Powerful Blind Watchmaker of Oz. Meanwhile, Dawkins is the man behind the curtain, operating the controls of the illusion (until someone pulls away the curtain).ericB_{April 12, 2008
April
04
Apr
12
12
2008
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

FYI RF: At this stage, after hours of interaction over the past few days, sorry to say -- but I think it is necessary to move back to substance [and the forest, not just one after another of real or imagined fly specks on the pine needles on the trees . . .] -- you are beginning to remind me of the saying about "straining at gnats . . ." Since you asked: I dipped into the book way back when it came out. Was not impressed then, and put my time to better use. [That was a time when I typically was reading 4 - 6 serious books at a time in addition to my studies. I didn't have time to waste on what did not impress me as real substance, on a READAK-trained speed preread. (This and this are somewhat developed forms of things I originally wrote at about that time, on relevant topics. I think it will show how I was thinking and dialoguing with serious people.)] If you pardon some direct remarks, what you need to do is to resist the temptation to go off on yet another tangential red herring, but instead speak cogently to the issue in the main on the merits. The Wiki excerpts are enough for that, on this sub-point of a sub-point of a sub-point. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 12, 2008
April
04
Apr
12
12
2008
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

KF, before I decide how to respond could you confirm if you've read the book or not? If not, then I'll only reference wiki articles, as you have done.RichardFry_{April 12, 2008
April
04
Apr
12
12
2008
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

Oh, it only appears to be on a per thread basis. Then we'll continue.RichardFry_{April 12, 2008
April
04
Apr
12
12
2008
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

Well, my comments are no longer appearing so I guess you "win" by default.RichardFry_{April 12, 2008
April
04
Apr
12
12
2008
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

RF: Please. I am speaking in the global context of Mr Dawkins' work. The work of a man who in effect argues that those who reject the evo mat version of the Darwinian paradigm are "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked." Weasel was an early attempt, done with BASIC and PASCAL. Here is how Wiki excerpts -- do a Google etc search -- Dawkins, from Ch 3 of Blind Watchmaker [1986]:
I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, given enough time. Let us limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence 'Methinks it is like a weasel', and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence? . . . . We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL . . . . What matters is the difference between the time taken by cumulative selection, and the time which the same computer, working flat out at the same rate, would take to reach the target phrase if it were forced to use the other procedure of single-step selection: about a million million million million million years. This is more than a million million million times as long as the universe has so far existed . . . . The human eye has an active role to play in the story. It is the selecting agent. It surveys the litter of progeny and chooses one for breeding. ...Our model, in other words, is strictly a model of artificial selection, not natural selection. The criterion for 'success' is not the direct criterion of survival, as it is in true natural selection. In true natural selection, if a body has what it takes to survive, its genes automatically survive because they are inside it. So the genes that survive tend to be, automatically, those genes that confer on bodies the qualities that assist them to survive.
Now, how was this example used?
1 --> It presented itself as a simplification of the million monkeys typing out Shakespeare example [Huxley wasn't it or someone like that], without drawing out the significant difference between a corpus of millions of words and less than a dozen: COMPLEXITY, including the complexity of the “simplest” unicellular life forms and the increment in complexity to get to the body plan divergence that the Cambrian fossils show us. 2 --> Also, the traditional monkeys example was notoriously in the context of creation of biologically FUNCTIONAL information by chance; showing that complex information could be produced by a random walk. [The traditional illustration -- per its rhetorical purpose -- never got around to the issue of the unlikelihood of success of random walks in vast search spaces, though . . .]. And, e.g. Wiki's dismissive reference to saltationism vs cumulative change does not address cogently the implications of the sort of credible scale of increments in information we are dealing with – e.g. Unicellular to arthropod would require something like 100 mn+ base prs, or ~ 200 mn bits. [At ~ 4.75 bits per letter, then 7 letters per avg word, that is about 42 mn letters or 6 mn words, or at 600 words per page, about 10,000 pages. A good slice of Shakespeare's corpus I'd say!] 3 --> WEASEL proceeds to use an instance of artificial selection as as substitute for cumulative natural selection [just as Darwin did in Origin], producing sense out of nonsense, tada, like “magic.” [And, AS is of course DESIGN!] 4 --> Dawkins then infers -- noting en passant but not highlighting the telling implications of the crucial difference -- onward to NS: In true natural selection, if a body has what it takes to survive, its genes automatically survive because they are inside it. So the genes that survive tend to be, automatically, those genes that confer on bodies the qualities that assist them to survive. [BTW, Darwin did essentially the same thing in Origin when he used AS as evidence supportive to NS.] 5 --> Now, let's ask: where do these novel genes come from? 6 --> D'uH: Genes, presumably -- per NDT type models -- are the product of chance variations? BINGO!
Thus, we see the rhetorical function and context clearly enough. GEM of TKI PS: Marks and Dembski bring the analysis up to date in the two already linked papers on active information and search algors, here and here.kairosfocus_{April 12, 2008
April
04
Apr
12
12
2008
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

KF:
At rhetorical level: making CV + NS appear as a plausible – as opposed to well-warranted — source of functional DNA variation.
I'll addres your other points shortly. With regard to the above you are simply wrong. It appears your education in this regard is faulty. WEASEL is not trying to make CV+NS appear as a plausible source of functional DNA variation. Kairos, have you even read the book in which it appears? Like I said in my first post WEASEL is simply a toy example used to explain the basic concepts of a GA. It does not need, nor require, nor is it appropriate for Dr Dembski et al to apply such a rigoirous mathmatical examination of such a trivial toy example. It's the equivilent of writing off an entire culture because their "learn to read" books for children are of little literary worth.
But of course, that is exactly a target
But as onlookers can themselves note, "flying to the moon" and "the technicial documentation that allows flight to the moon" are two different things altogether. One is simply a string representing an aim "flying to the moon" and the other represents the accumilated knowledge of hundreds of engineers and scientists. It appears that KF thinks that an instruction to "write a bestselling book" and "the contents of a best selling book" are the same thing. Onlookers please note how Kairos has not addressed this simple distinction. KF appears to think the two things are equal because they are both "targets" So KF, I simply don't see how you can say that a GA that finds a target that is known in advance such as WEASEL is equivilent to a GA that finds a target that is not known in any detail in advance, but where parameters are set that define sucess. WEASEL "sneaks" in information, the target phrase is known in advance before the program is even run. Normal GA's work somewhat differently and if you knew that then you are wrong to conflate the two.
At rhetorical level: making CV + NS appear as a plausible – as opposed to well-warranted — source of functional DNA variation.
please provide a page reference so I can check this claim that you say Dawkins is making.RichardFry_{April 12, 2008
April
04
Apr
12
12
2008
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

13] 221: Can we run a rock and a Clovis point arrowhead into the EF just for fun? Done, cf point 1, no 223 above. 14] I might be missing something obvious here but I don’t really count all the air rushing to one corner of the room as violating SLOT. I am of course speaking of the classic form of 2 LOT. If all the O2 molecules in a room were to rush to one end, diffusion would be undone, and a counterexample to that classical form would be instantiated: entropy would spontaneously, quite appreciably fall. {I think the new edn of Kittel's Thermal Physics has an analysis of this case.] Similarly, if the air in a [suitably sealed] room wee to rush to one end, that would be an instance of “free contraction” -- as opposed to free expansion. The STATISTICAL analysis shows that at room scale we would reliably not expect to see such instances [on maximal improbability], but it is not absolutely ruled out per logic and physics of molecules freely rushing about. 15] I’m not saying you can’t detect agency at work. I just want to see the EF at work on lots of diffreent things. I have repeatedly given you an Internet full of instances of FSCI originating by known intelligent action. So, you give me a case in point of a web site with 500 – 1,00 or more bits of functionally specified complex information that credibly has originated by chance + necessity only, i.e “lucky noise.” 16] Who is not open to that possibility [i.e that “evidence such as FSCI may point to intelligence in non-human contexts”]? Sadly, a lot of people. That is why I argued in 219 that: [PREMISE} we have no good reason to infer that humans exhaust the set of possible or even actual intelligent agents. So, [CONCLUSION} we have to be open to the possibility that evidence such as FSCI may point to intelligence in non-human contexts; [FALLACIOUS REJECTION} unless we want to beg the question. 17] The “weasel” GA example is an example used only as a pedagogical device. There is no “target phrase” like “WEASEL” in real GA’s, unless you count high level descriptions such as “maximise the radio frequency X pickup” as specifically targetted. But of course, that is exactly a target [BTW, the actual exact case I had in mind . . . GA's for Antenna design, thanks to a logn ago article now in good old Wireless World by which I first saw GA's in action, in my long time favourite technical mag], and one incrementally approached through artificial – not natural – selection! [BTW, the use of AS as a stand-in for NS has been going on since Darwin.] 18] What problem is WEASEL solving KF? At technical level: using initially random text strings to change them through artificial selection dependent on Hamming Distance to target, into the target. At rhetorical level: making CV + NS appear as a plausible – as opposed to well-warranted -- source of functional DNA variation. Cf Marks and Dembski:
As an example, consider finding the following phrase taken from Shakespeare’s Hamlet [23]. ME*THINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL (3) Using an alphabet of N = 27 characters (26 letters and a space), the probability of choosing these L = 29 specific characters in a single query is p = N¡L = 27¡29 = 3:0935 £ 10¡42: To increase this probability, Dawkins [8] uses a partitioned search [23] for the phrase by randomly choosing letters and, if there is a match, keeping the letter. For example, if the first set of randomly chosen letters has an M in the first position and an L in the last, our search for the letters in these positions is finished. These letters are kept as is, and the search continues only for the letters not yet successfully identified . . . . If there are Q = NL = 3:2326 £ 1041 queries, then to an excellent approximation1 pw = 1 ¡ e¡1 = 0:6321, whereas solving for Q in (4) gives the same probability of success after only Q = 110 queries when pps = 0:6321: For this probability, the ratio of the Q’s reveals the random search is 2.9387£1041 per cent worse than partitioned search. Partitioned search contributes an enormous amount of information . . . . The random queries probability in (5) is small and therefore corresponds to a large amount of information. For a fixed Q, the partitioned search is more probable and therefore has less information. The difference in these values is the active information, in bits, front loaded in the partitioned search. the weasel phrase in (5), the deterministic approach provides log2(43=26)=29 =0.0250 more bits of active information per query.
See what I mean? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 12, 2008
April
04
Apr
12
12
2008
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT}

7] [Zener and Johnson noise are] the best examples of what? Did anybody ask for examples of random number generators? Perhaps, I should have phrased my head a bit better. Recall my contrast of rocks and spearheads. I was then giving examples of chance objects in a credibly designed world. Namely, 191:
. . . design, as GP points out, is not determinism. Similarly, that there may – on evidence as discussed in brief — be an extracosmic mind that has designed the cosmos does not preclude that there may also be minds within the cosmos that are significantly free to decide, think, reason and communicate. [Indeed, evolutionary materialism and all other worldviews that reduce mind to chance and/or necessity end up in self refutation, as they undermine the freedom of choice and action that underlies real rationality. This includes theological determinisms. Divine sovereignty and foreknowledge are not logically equivalent to, nor do they entail, determinism.]
In giving the examples of Zener noise and Johnson noise, I pointed to thermally linked chance processes and phenomena that are real-world, and commonly encountered in electronics systems; they are not just a matter of random number generators. Spiking in lasers is an instance of a chance process similarly tied to the micro-scale chance processes in our world. For that matter, many transistors take advantage of diffusion, yet another thermally linked chance process. And more,. Much more. That is, I have here provided further concrete examples of chance objects and processes in a credibly designed world; indeed, cases commonly found in KNOWN designed objects. So, I have shown by example. 8] A corrective: Sorry, RF, I made correctives to GG on his use of terms like “proof,” “syllogism,” and “assumptions.” 9] While we can debate all day about the rigour of the scientific model of ID I doubt that even Dr Dembski would claim it’s the “best” model we have. Here, GP in 118 made some observations on ID in its context, and again mostly to GG. In that context, he said “ID is the best scientific model we have” in a very particular context, i.e accounting for FSCI. And, he is manifestly right, and notes in the context that this is – as all serious scientific inferences are – provisional. 10] I can see you saying it [i.e arguing to the credibility of an extrracosmic intelligence as cause of our observed cosmos; per implications of fine-tuned complex organisation of the physics of the cosmos], but I don’t see you backing it up in any way. You plainly did not read the context:
you need to look at the signs of intelligence principle again, and look at he underlying complex organisation of the cosmos — does this show intelligent action? It seems so, for many reasons as discussed in brief in my always linked section D. So, we may reasonably infer to an extracosmic intelligence of vast power who made a cosmos suitable for life, which required exquisite fine-tuning of the physics of the cosmos. The operation of the laws and processes of nature is distinct from the setting up of the same, and in a way that shows that there is complex organisation that points to intelligent action.
In short, kindly go to the LH column, click on my handle and follow the in-page link after the synopsis to read section D. This link is ALWAYS there in any comment I make in this blog. 11] Has the FSCI concept been taken up by the “average scientist in a lab with no particular axe to grind”? If not, why not if there are billions of positive examples? First, your average scientist in fact routinely uses and accepts the implications of FSCI, in day to day life and in science. (The exchange in another current thread that highlights how a medical illustrator, acting in defense of the evolutionary materialist paradigm, uses the EF to infer to design – per specification [similarity] + complexity [many other ways to come up with a solution that is not such a close match] in explaining the similarity between an animation in EXPELLED and a Harvard animation, is illuminating. Similarly, when PZM claims that “copied errors” show that the EXPELED video is derivative from the harvard one, shows that he knows that specification + complexity --> design.) Think about, e.g. how control and treatment experiments are designed, executed and analysed; and on how we distinguish random errors and erratic ones or biases imposed by experiment techniques or personal equations etc. For that matter, look at how classical inferential statistics works. The problem is not with the recognition, credibility and use of the EF per se. Not at all. Rather, it is that in certain key cases it points to design that would not sit well with the evolutionary materialist paradigm. And, there is routine resort to naked force and the rhetoric of distraction and polarisation to try to suppress that. As to the billions of instances, I have long since pointed to an Internet full of them. Hundreds of TV and radio channels are similar cases in point, sustained for the bast 100 or so years for Radio, and 60 years for TV. To correct that, we need to expose the inconsistency and address the abuse of force and persuasion techniques, not to mention the abuse of the power of educators. That has been the answer ever since the days of the parable of Plato's cave. [You'll love the video version just linked; just take due note of its own ideological agendas.] 12] Can I see the report that you’ve compiled that contains the evidence for that? I’m afraid I doubt Nature will accept papers hosted on Geocitys…. Why not look at he collection of peer reviewed and peer-edited [remember the way say Annalen der Physik was managed circa 1905 . . . the year in which four papers, each worth a Nobel were published by a certain 3rd class Patents Clerk] works listed here, instead? [Then, think about the sort of games that go on in a Plato's Cave institutional culture. Or, just go watch the Machine video, if you won't be seeing Expelled in a week or so . . .] In short, i am pointing out that relevant technical materials exist, and that the naked appeal to authority in the context of an oppressive institutional situation simply underscores that no authority is better than its facts, assumptions and logic. So, kindly address the issue on the merits – and if my always ANGELFIRE [Thank you CMU!] page is nonsense, that should be easy enough to show . . . so why is it that you are making such heavy weather of it? [BTW, I simply have no interest in trying to publish anything in Nature or the like – they have been long since weighed in the balance and found sadly wanting.] [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{April 12, 2008
April
04
Apr
12
12
2008
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

Mr Fry (and onlookers . . .) Let us now follow up on several points overnight (while waiting on GG to come back . . .): 1] RF, 218: On what basis do you make that claim? [Namely, that: “the design of the cosmos does not entail that within the cosmos everything is specifically designed in the relevant sense detected by the EF “] Quote a sweeping claim no? First step, I used the case of Monopoly to show that in a known designed context, one may have chance-based features and processes. So, the logical and physical possibility exists, per concrete example. Second, we observe that the cosmos, per fine-tuning, may be designed; and, in that context that we have a lot of evidence to support the reliability of the inference from FSCI to intelligent action as its cause. Further to this, we have no good reason to infer that humans exhaust the set of possible or existing intelligent agents, or that other agents would not manifest FSCI as ONE sign of intelligent action. [This takes in your immediately following point on trying to confine inferences from FSCI to human agents only.] Indeed, just the opposite obtains: intelligent agents use insight and imagination to creatively configure elements to achieve entities and processes that work to achieve goals. FSCI is a manifestation of that configuration, where relatively rare and specified configs show up in config spaces that are sufficiently vast that relevant probabilistic resources for chance-based searches would be exhausted. Next, we observe actual cases: a common, garden variety rock is credibly a product of chance + necessity, but say a Clovis point spearhead is not. And, the evident functionality, characteristic stylistic features and vast array of alternative configs for a rock show that the Clovis point exhibits FSCI and is designed. [In fact it is used as a diagnostic of certain ancient cultures in the Americas.] 2] false positives and the EF In principle, any statistical test is capable of false negatives and false positives. The EF is designed to be reliable in cases where it rules “design,” and cheerfully pays the price of false negatives. On observation, it is indeed reliable. [Onlookers, notice how, for all the objections above, those who do not like where the EF points have been unable to provide a credible instance of a false positive. No prizes for guessing why.] 3] Plus that string [scooped out digits from pi] must be designed right? . . . What proportion of that complexity [in making up the observed cosmos] was used up in making up pi do you think? Lets say we don’t scoop out an arbitrary substring. Given the free choice, how big a substring would you need to determine if a given string was part of pi? First, pi is the name of a basic ratio: circumference to diameter of a circle. Once circles can exist, pi, as a ratio, in principle exists, by necessity. That means that your question is tantamount to asking what sort of cosmos allows circles to exist; to which the answer is, physical or abstract ones that allow spaces that can host planes and conic sections. This is not a matter at stake in the discussion of fine-tuning of physical parameters. That is, this is a red herring. More to the point [and as someone else pointed out], would be an object that accurately emits, without evident constraint, say in classic 8421 BCD code, decimal digits of pi in sequence; as recognised; NB: for ASCII, we would simply prefix 011 to each 4-bit cluster. Such an entity would be producing functionally specified, complex information, and we would be justified in inferring that its behaviour reflects intelligence. Thirdly, you will note that I have highlighted “as recognised,” just above. This is to point out that we begin the inquiry into FSCI when we have first noticed that something is behaving in a functionally specified manner. That is, we are not creating a universal decoder algorithm that is instantly capable of recognising any and all functional strings of information, but we start from the recognition that we have evident functionality in a context of complexity here. In short, the question about substrings to recognise pi is irrelevant to the central question; misidentifying emitted digits of pi as random digits -- the highly contingent situation already rules out mechanical necessity as the dominant causal factor -- is a false negative and we have cheerfully accepted that possibility. Finally, I just gave a note of interest on the structure of the Reals (whereby irrationals dominate rationals, and transcendentals dominate all – indeed, grant just one transcendental (say pi or e), then process it by applying all the rationals through say multiplication and division operations. Just one transcendental would then propagate to exceed the rationals!). Teacher's habit. 4] Are the rings of Saturn designed according to the EF? Is the moon? Is Pi? First of all, we do not need to address all and every possible entity in the cosmos through the EF to see if it works, even reliably. Indeed, since we are finite and fallible, we cannot. The basic scientific method therefore uses the principle of induction to infer from demonstrated reliability of a scientific principle, to provisional universal applicability. So, proposing arbitrary cases where we were not present to test does not undermine the basic point: we have tested the EF and it is reliable. Also, observe that in two of the three cases,you are not actually addressing functionally specified complex INFORMATION stored in configurations of objects (cf DNA); but rather instances of complexity. In the cases, for which we do not have independent observation of the actual causal process, we may reason as follows:
[a] rings: i.e rocks orbiting in the general plane of Saturn's moons [and with gaps swept by said moons]. Necessity and chance evidently dominate. [Are there any features of these rings that exhibit functionality dependent on a specified information-bearing configuration?] [b] Moon: a more or less spherical satellite of earth [or the smaller planet of a double planet system, depending on your view], which in many features reflects chance + necessity. However, certain features of where our moon is and how it functions in the earth-moon system to facilitate life as we know it (and even scientific investigation, e.g. through solar eclipses . . .) may reflect design, as say Gonzalez argues. [c] pi: the existence of pi was already addressed -- necessity once we have a space in which planes and conical sections are possible.
5] Do you have a list of such test cases [of the EF's success] ? Or will you fob me off again with “there are billlions, open your eyes and look”? This is rather unfair. I have pointed out how, for instance, the Internet constitutes a typical illustration, comprising billions of known instances of FSCI, all of which are known to trace to intelligent action. The libraries of the world constitute similar cases, as do the records of organisations etc etc. I then asked you to put forth a single credible counter-instance, in light of the issue of probabilistic resource exhaustion ion attempted use of random walk based searches to find islands of FSCI. You have been obviously unable to provide such, so you now wish to dismiss the test cases with loaded language. That's not cricket, sir. And, you know it or should know it. 6] What limits in your opinion has this extracosmic mind placed on humanities ability to decide, think, reason and communication? If they are only significantly free they are not free at all IMHO. Is that how you think about free will? “the extracosmic mind that designed the cosmos has given me significant freedom”. First, this is now worldviews comparisons, not science. I therefore speak from a general theistic context, at worldviews level. On that premise, I observe that we live in a world in which necessity constrains our freedom of action, but is also a premise for decision making. IF ACTIONS DID NOT HAVE RELIABLY PREDICTABLE CONSEQUENCES IN GENERAL, WE COULD NOT MAKE RATIONAL DECISIONS OR ACTIONS. Think about a world in which, for instance, thrown objects did not follow reasonably predictable ballistic paths, and more generally we see no reliable regularities: chaos. The same extends to the intellectual sphere – think of a world [if you could] in which there was no distinction between symbols: confusion in one word. Also, think of a world in which there were no reliable principles of actions and consequences so that one could not discern what does harm from what does good: chaos, again, in one word. So, freedom is in the contexts of constraints of necessity, logical, intellectual, moral. And it is significant. Howbeit, we are plainly finite, limited in capacity to act, and fallible [though some would argue that we too often reject what we should trust to be wise counsel, which would save us from much grief]. In such a world, a creature with a mind of his/her own can be significantly free, but is also morally responsible. [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{April 12, 2008
April
04
Apr
12
12
2008
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT}

Yes, of course. But the best solution (or rather best it's able to find) is not specifically targetted in the way that the example you reference is. The "weasel" GA example is an example used only as a pedagogical device. There is no "target phrase" like "WEASEL" in real GA's, unless you count high level descriptions such as "maximise the radio frequency X pickup" as specifically targetted. Of course, in a way it is "specifically targetted" but in the same way that saying "America will go to the moon" is the same level of specification as "the documentation for the project that took man to the moon" To conflate the two and write off GA's is mistake as you appear to be doing. I think. Industry thinks so too.
The fitness function is always problem dependent.
What problem is WEASEL solving KF?RichardFry_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

You really need to avoid tilting at strawmen so often
Well, I can only thank you for burning them down so well and persevering with me.
Monopoly game shows through a concrete example, how a designed context can incorporate chance elements
I would counter by saying that the entire scene is subject to random effects, including the quantum effects you refered to in a different thread. There is no real difference between the dice and me or the air between the dice and me. What's not random about that scene? Sure, some things are predictable in the short term. The dice will roll, I won't float off etc. So it's just a matter of degree really you see. Not really a designed context including randomness. And so you scale that up to the cosmos too. Why not.
I think a handy rock from your backyard — as I stated above — is an excellent case in point of an object that may well be part of a designed world, but which is not specifically designed
Can we run a rock and a Clovis point arrowhead into the EF just for fun?
I am saying that just as it is statistically possible for 2 LOT to be violated, but overwhelmingly improbable on relevant observational scopes
Er, care to substantiate that? I might be missing somthing obvious here but I don't really count all the air rushing to one corner of the room as violating SLOT.
You do not come up with a counterexample for an excellent reason – you don’t have one handy
For what? I'm not saying you can't detect agency at work. I just want to see the EF at work on lots of diffreent things.
[Here’s a deal for ya – show me just one web site where we credibly know the causal story of how its contents arose, and we see that sense-making data arose by chance + necessity only, with no intelligence. JUST ONE.]
I asked first ! Dibs! Nimbs! Got your Ribs!:)
So, we have to be open tot he possibility that evidence such as FSCI may point to intelligence in non-human contexts; unless we want to beg the question.
Who is not open to that possibility ? That would be great. Super smashing great! I just want to see the mechanism that was used to determine what you are saying used in a number of difference scenarios. I guess there's plenty of books to read right guys? Ok...RichardFry_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

PS: Wiki on GA's:
Genetic algorithms are implemented as a computer simulation in which a population of abstract representations (called chromosomes or the genotype or the genome) of candidate solutions (called individuals, creatures, or phenotypes) to an optimization problem evolves toward better solutions. Traditionally, solutions are represented in binary as strings of 0s and 1s, but other encodings are also possible. The evolution usually starts from a population of randomly generated individuals and happens in generations. In each generation, the fitness of every individual in the population is evaluated, multiple individuals are stochastically selected from the current population (based on their fitness), and modified (recombined and possibly randomly mutated) to form a new population. The new population is then used in the next iteration of the algorithm. Commonly, the algorithm terminates when either a maximum number of generations has been produced, or a satisfactory fitness level has been reached for the population. If the algorithm has terminated due to a maximum number of generations, a satisfactory solution may or may not have been reached . . . . A typical genetic algorithm requires two things to be defined: 1. a genetic representation of the solution domain, 2. a fitness function to evaluate the solution domain. . . . . The fitness function is defined over the genetic representation and measures the quality of the represented solution. The fitness function is always problem dependent.
In short, a specifically targetted search. Bye bye for now.kairosfocus_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

RF: You really need to avoid tilting at strawmen so often . . . A quick note or three -- or four, to hold you till I get back anon, DV [by which time hopefully you will have read section D my always linked]:
1 --> For instance, the Monopoly game shows through a concrete example, how a designed context can incorporate chance elements. Thus, it is logically and physically possible for a designed context to embed chance elements. [Cf my remarks on temperature, lasers and spiking emission etc.] 2 --> In the cosmos, I think a handy rock from your backyard -- as I stated above -- is an excellent case in point of an object that may well be part of a designed world, but which is not specifically designed; by contrast with, say, finding a clovis point stone spearhead in the same backyard. 3 --> Now, also, observe, we are able to use human artifacts to test the reliability of the EF and the principle that FSCI is a reliable [which is not the same as an absolute, i.e I am saying that just as it is statistically possible for 2 LOT to be violated, but overwhelmingly improbable on relevant observational scopes, the same holds for FSCI] sign of intelligent agency. You do not come up with a counterexample for an excellent reason – you don't have one handy, despite an Internet full of darwinista sites. But, the whole Internet is replete with instances where FSCI exists and is known to trace to intelligent agents. [Here's a deal for ya – show me just one web site where we credibly know the causal story of how its contents arose, and we see that sense-making data arose by chance + necessity only, with no intelligence. JUST ONE.] 4 --> But also, as long since pointed out, we have no good reason to infer that humans exhaust the set of possible or even actual intelligent agents. So, we have to be open tot he possibility that evidence such as FSCI may point to intelligence in non-human contexts; unless we want to beg the question.
In short, onlookers, the now habitual resort to strawmen by objectors to the EF-anchored inference to design is telling, very very telling on where the weight of the evidence on the merits lies. More anon, DV. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @191
A monopoly game includes dice-throwing, which for practical purposes is a manifestation of chance within a designed, rule-regulated context.
And because monopoly is designed and dice are "random" the cosmos is therefore designed? I think not.
In short, the design of the cosmos does not entail that within the cosmos everything is specifically designed in the relevant sense detected by the EF
Does it not? On what basis do you make that claim? Quote a sweeping claim no?
FSCI. FSCI, when it is observed, is a reliable characteristic of agents making configurations to fulfill purposes.
If I accept that, I'd have to say that it's "characteristic" of humans. Not "agents". Give me an example where the EF points to a non-human source of information?
The first point is that this would be anotehr false negative, i.e. This is strictly irrelevant to the material question – identifying cases that may test whether or no the EF gives false positives.
Dr Dembski disagrees with you I suspect. I suggest you read some more of his work on false positives and the EF.
It so happens that the resulting number is irrational, in fact more than that, transcendental, as are MOST actual real numbers and so the actual digits do not show any particular pattern that we may discern from scooping out an arbitrary substring, but that is not relevant to the case.
and the set of all transcendental numbers is uncountable. And? Plus that string must be designed right? Remember Penrose and how unlikely this particular configuration of universe was? What proportion of that complexity was used up in making up pi do you think? Lets say we don't scoop out an arbitrary substring. Given the free choice, how big a substring would you need to determine if a given string was part of pi? How big before you can discern that pattern? Does the EF do that?.....
That is, the EF is on evidence in hand, reliable when it rules design.
Are the rings of Saturn designed according to the EF? Is the moon? Is Pi?
In praxis, in every test case where we directly know the causal process, the observation that FSCI is present, reliably and accurately rules design.
Do you have a list of such test cases? Or will you fob me off again with "there are billlions, open your eyes and look"?
Similarly, that there may – on evidence as discussed in brief — be an extracosmic mind that has designed the cosmos does not preclude that there may also be minds within the cosmos that are significantly free to decide, think, reason and communicate.
That's very generous of the extracosmic mind that designed the cosmos. What limits in your opinion has this extracosmic mind placed on humanities ability to decide, think, reason and communication? If they are only significantly free they are not free at all IMHO. Is that how you think about free will? "the extracosmic mind that designed the cosmos has given me significant freedom".
Random number generators and free wills: The best examples trace to quantum or tehrmally-linkled or similar physical phenomena, e.g. A Zener diode noise source driving an electronic circuit, or Johnson noise in a resistor, or the noise in an antenna and radio picking up the ionosphere’s off-station shortwave RF, etc. All of this is consistent with a cosmos that exhibits underlying design in its physics.
The relevance? "The best examples?" the best examples of what? Did anybody ask for examples of random number generators? You seem to be answering a different post to the one that I wrote. @215
First, RF, there is an agenda of issues on the table that you need to clearly resolve. Namely, as per corrective remarks at 118 – 121 and 142 - 148, your use of concepts such as proof, syllogisms and assumptions as ways to dismiss the design inference. Are we to take your silence as consent that you were wrong, or are you just shrugging your shoulders and passing on to the “next objection”?
I tell you what. If you can summarise what it is that you want me to answer in less then 100 words then I'll do my best. However asking people to respond to a dozen odd comments plus the "always linked" and several long quotes on top is kind of like asking me to respond to "War and Peace" Which part do you want a response to? So, lets see: Post 118: Long comment covering much ground. Can you not summarise relevant points? I believe we can really advance if we do? Contains this " I am perfectly satisfied that ID is the best scientific model we have, and would be very happy if even a significant minority of the scientific academy would accept that.
While we can debate all day about the rigour of the scientific model of ID I doubt that even Dr Dembski would claim it's the "best" model we have. Post 119: Another blockbuster of a post. Contains this
So, we may reasonably infer to an extracosmic intelligence of vast power who made a cosmos suitable for life, which required exquisite fine-tuning of the physics of the cosmos. The operation of the laws and processes of nature is distinct from the setting up of the same, and in a way that shows that there is complex organisation that points to intelligent action.
I can see you saying it, but I don't see you backing it up in any way. How do you know that the laws and processes of nature are distinct from the setting up of the laws and processes? Post 120: Contains this, of you
Since your posts are more accusation and “correction” than discussion anyway, I will try to bear the loss.
Not sure why you refer me to read that. Post 121:
It is not the medium which matters. What matters is the artificial arrangement, regardless of whether the material of the medium is “natural”.
Profound. No wonder you wanted me to read that post. Post 142 - 148:
FSCI per scientific method and literally billions of test observations — e.g an Internet full of them — is a reliable empirical sign of intelligence.
Has the FSCI concept been taken up by the "average scientist in a lab with no particular axe to grind"? If not, why not if there are billions of positive examples? And how do you suggest going about correcting that? Post 143:
Sorry: point no 9 . . .
Not sure about that one.
We then identify DNA and the complex organisation of the cosmos as significant cases in point. We then scientifically infer to intelligence as the best explanations of both.
Can I see the report that you've compiled that contains the evidence for that? I'm afraid I doubt Nature will accept papers hosted on Geocitys....
More generally, we have evidence from ourselves that intelligence is possible in our cosmos.
Oh? I thought there was a vast brain at the centre of the cosmos allowing us "significant" freedom?
We observe a case where we obviously were not present to produce it – a complex message that is foundational to life itself, and exists in a cosmos that was carefully and complexly organised in a way that just happens to facilitate such life.
And again, beings sitting on what we would call red dwarf stars in a universe where sound was faster then light could say exactly the same thing ont the same evidence.
We can easily show many, many instances where reliably the presence of FSCI points to intelligent agency.
Go on then. Links please!
And Genetic algorithms, Dawkins’ “methinks” and the like simply don’t count: they are preloaded with active information and intelligently designed search algorithms
I can only conclude from that that you don't actualy know what a Genetic algorithim is. Therefore your sweeping claims about them can be discounted with no further requirement to read any of your other opinions on them. In my humble opinion, of course, infected as I no doubt am with selective hyperskepticism.RichardFry_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

PPS: Dembski and Marks on active information and searches that do significantly better than random walks, is relevant, too, GG. (As my former students used to say" "More work, sir . . .!"]kairosfocus_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

PS: Shapiro and Orgel: ______________ SHAPIRO, in Sci Am: RNA's building blocks, nucleotides, are complex substances as organic molecules go. They each contain a sugar, a phosphate and one of four nitrogen-containing bases as sub-subunits. Thus, each RNA nucleotide contains 9 or 10 carbon atoms, numerous nitrogen and oxygen atoms and the phosphate group, all connected in a precise three-dimensional pattern. Many alternative ways exist for making those connections, yielding thousands of plausible nucleotides that could readily join in place of the standard ones but that are not represented in RNA. That number is itself dwarfed by the hundreds of thousands to millions of stable organic molecules of similar size that are not nucleotides . . . . The RNA nucleotides are familiar to chemists because of their abundance in life and their resulting commercial availability. In a form of molecular vitalism, some scientists have presumed that nature has an innate tendency to produce life's building blocks preferentially, rather than the hordes of other molecules that can also be derived from the rules of organic chemistry. This idea drew inspiration from . . . Stanley Miller . . . . A careful examination of the results of the analysis of several meteorites led the scientists who conducted the work to a different conclusion: inanimate nature has a bias toward the formation of molecules made of fewer rather than greater numbers of carbon atoms, and thus shows no partiality in favor of creating the building blocks of our kind of life . . . I have observed a similar pattern in the results of many spark discharge experiments . . . . no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites, nor have the smaller units (nucleosides) that contain a sugar and base but lack the phosphate. To rescue the RNA-first concept from this otherwise lethal defect, its advocates have created a discipline called prebiotic synthesis. They have attempted to show that RNA and its components can be prepared in their laboratories in a sequence of carefully controlled reactions, normally carried out in water at temperatures observed on Earth . . . . Unfortunately, neither chemists nor laboratories were present on the early Earth to produce RNA . . . . His Punch-line: The analogy that comes to mind is that of a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course, then assumed that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence. He had demonstrated the possibility of the event; it was only necessary to presume that some combination of natural forces (earthquakes, winds, tornadoes and floods, for example) could produce the same result, given enough time. No physical law need be broken for spontaneous RNA formation to happen, but the chances against it are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to generate RNA. The majority of origin-of-life scientists who still support the RNA-first theory either accept this concept (implicitly, if not explicitly) or feel that the immensely unfavorable odds were simply overcome by good luck. ORGEL's Rejoinder: If complex cycles analogous to metabolic cycles could have operated on the primitive Earth, before the appearance of enzymes or other informational polymers, many of the obstacles to the construction of a plausible scenario for the origin of life would disappear . . . Could a nonenzymatic “metabolic cycle” have made such compounds available in sufficient purity to facilitate the appearance of a replicating informational polymer? It must be recognized that assessment of the feasibility of any particular proposed prebiotic cycle must depend on arguments about chemical plausibility, rather than on a decision about logical possibility . . . few would believe that any assembly of minerals on the primitive Earth is likely to have promoted these syntheses in significant yield. Each proposed metabolic cycle, therefore, must be evaluated in terms of the efficiencies and specificities that would be required of its hypothetical catalysts in order for the cycle to persist. Then arguments based on experimental evidence or chemical plausibility can be used to assess the likelihood that a family of catalysts that is adequate for maintaining the cycle could have existed on the primitive Earth . . . . Why should one believe that an ensemble of minerals that are capable of catalyzing each of the many steps of [for instance] the reverse citric acid cycle was present anywhere on the primitive Earth [8], or that the cycle mysteriously organized itself topographically on a metal sulfide surface [6]? The lack of a supporting background in chemistry is even more evident in proposals that metabolic cycles can evolve to “life-like” complexity. The most serious challenge to proponents of metabolic cycle theories—the problems presented by the lack of specificity of most nonenzymatic catalysts—has, in general, not been appreciated. If it has, it has been ignored. Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own . . . . The prebiotic syntheses that have been investigated experimentally almost always lead to the formation of complex mixtures. Proposed polymer replication schemes are unlikely to succeed except with reasonably pure input monomers. No solution of the origin-of-life problem will be possible until the gap between the two kinds of chemistry is closed. Simplification of product mixtures through the self-organization of organic reaction sequences, whether cyclic or not, would help enormously, as would the discovery of very simple replicating polymers. However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help. _____________ See why science writer Robinson in PLOS observed:
. . . there has been relatively little progress in the past half century on how it [life] began—the so-called origin question . . . . finding the answer to the origin question will require not only money but also progress in understanding how the most basic of biological molecules were put together before life began, how they became organized and self-sustaining, and how they developed into the membrane-bound cells that are our ancestors. Scientists have come a long way from the early days of supposing that all this would inevitably arise in the “prebiotic soup” of the ancient oceans; indeed, evidence eventually argued against such a soup, and the concept was largely discarded as the field progressed. But significant problems persist with each of the two competing models that have arisen—usually called “genes first” and “metabolism first”—and neither has emerged as a robust and obvious favorite.
kairosfocus_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT}

Fellow participants [esp. GG]: It is a good sign that this thread continues to be active, as it speaks to several important issues lying at the interface of science, philosophy, worldviews and theology; especially the issue of warrant as a criterion of knowledge. [And EB, you have done an an excellent job in 214 on bringing out the implications of the provisionality of the inference to design as a scientific endeavour that rests on the logic of inference to best explanation.] Unfortunately, it also reveals cases where some have not done basic homework. On select points: 1] Jerry, 201: The problem lies in that the evidence supports naturalistic explanations for the appearance for most species while there are relatively few species that the best explanation is intelligent input (any bets this comment gets misinterpreted.) First, the definition of species is extremely contentious in biology, and in many cases is probably significantly arbitrary. The true issue is not species formation, but the creation of the underlying functionally specified, complex information that is required to form new body plans, e.g. as the Cambrian revolution points to -- a challenge that just got bigger with the latest announcements. 2] SB, 203: we are making inferences to the best explanation and we have to interpret facts. Facts don’t do their own interpreting. So, yes, lets be merciless about facts, but let dialogue about the interpretation. It is very easy for some of us, myself included, to treat our well-thought out opinions to be facts. This, it seems to me, is where the danger lies. Key observation. 3] RF, 212: That’s all very vague. “likely”, “might” “depending on the circumstances”. I mean, everything depends on the corcumstances. First, RF, there is an agenda of issues on the table that you need to clearly resolve. Namely, as per corrective remarks at 118 – 121 and 142 - 148, your use of concepts such as proof, syllogisms and assumptions as ways to dismiss the design inference. Are we to take your silence as consent that you were wrong, or are you just shrugging your shoulders and passing on to the “next objection”? Now, on the point in question, kindly observe immediate context from 190:
“repeat [THIS TEXT STRING] 10^6 times” specifies the algorithm adequately] , but periodic and repetitive, similar to the structure of a crystal. It would most likely be ruled as necessity by the filter, which might again be a false negative [depending on the circumstances].
Here, I simply pointed to a key factor: circumstances are decisive. If, e.g., we see an actual coded algorithm that gives the result, the context probably has in it sufficient additional functionally specified complex information that we see that the text string is designed. If on the other hand, we are in a context where something may have gone amok with say an unattended printer overnight, that would be accident driven by chance + necessity. But in either case, “THIS TEXT STRING” is in itself insufficient to be seen by itself as FSCI, and its repetition 10^6 times is a matter of periodic repetition, a pattern reminiscent of law-like necessity, not the aperiodic complexities of functional information. This was actually excerpted on and discussed with reference to the TBO discussion of 1984, two paragraphs below your out-of-context excerpt. More to the point, in 191, I actually laid out an algorithm in outline:
Third, as has been discussed previously, with examples, the detection of functionality as and instance of specification is prior to the issue of deciding that something is a case of FSCI: [1] CONTINGENT AND FUNCTIONALLY SPECIFIED – Y/N? [2] If N, then not FSCI. (Probably lawlike necessity, but false negatives are possible.) [3] If Y, then functionally specified, so is it complex enough? — Y/N? [4] If N, then probably chance [false negatives are possible] [5] If Y, then FSCI. Once informationally complex functional specification is observed, then that is what needs to be explained. To date, all cases of FSCI where we directly know the cause, are the result of agent action. That is, the EF is on evidence in hand, reliable when it rules design.
In short, your comment smacks uncomfortably of the rhetoric of out-of context citation and sniping at resulting strawmen; rather than a serious engagement with serious and substantial issues. 4] How can the EF be used to determine that the cambrian explosion required intelligent design? On another thread to another poster you said ID explains it easily. Could you perhaps expland on that? This was already done in the always linked, section C, and in other threads; it is also a major element of the 101 level intro to design by Dan Peterson I highlighted above. At more technical level, you may wish to read the Meyer paper on this. In a very brief nutshell, and not intended to do your basic homework for you, we are looking at several dozen phyla and subphyla emerging in a narrow window in the fossil record, and a context where 300k – a few million base pairs is a reasonable ballpark for the dna content of unicellular life. Comparing with say a typical arthropod, we can see that to get the body plans credibly requires on the order of increments of 100 mn base-pairs in information storage capacity, dozens of times over, and just 100 mn base pairs [200 mn bits of information storage capacity – a measure of information, btw] is a config space of ~ 1.36*10^60,205,999, vastly beyond the UPB. The Cambrian life forms show incremental bio-functionally specified information, and are complex, so arte FSCI, and fall well within the UPB intelligence zone. 5] The entire point is that “life as we know it” does not encompass the set of all possible circumstances that can support life. Are you saying there is nothing beyond your imaginaion? We are specifically discussing an observed cosmos suited to observed, cell based life. The required physics turns out to be exquisitely fine-tuned and manifests functional, organised complexity. So, observing that for instance simply the cumulative bit depth on several of the constants puts us well beyond the UPB, we have excellent reason to infer to design as the best explanation of the observed cosmos. In short, you have again resorted to an irrelevancy, and so have pummelled a strawman caricature of the real issue. [FYFI, in Section D the always linked, and as I directed you to examine, I discuss exactly the case of non-cellular life. In short you did not do your homework before attacking.] 6] Are you claiming that there is only 1 set of constants that can support life then? And you know this how? This is inexcusable, as in 190, I actually explicitly cited Leslie -- a well known, highly respected figure in this field -- on this exact point. Cf, the discussion of “the lone fly on the local section of the wall swatted by a bullet,” GG. 7] It’s amazing how exactly this puddle of water fits the ground underneath it. It’s almost as if it was designed specifically for that exact puddle! The shape of a puddle has little resemblance to the exquisite balance of the physics underlying the observed cosmos, and in particular the clusters of independently convergent values that come together to make our life-facilitating observed cosmos possible. Again, you did not address or show evidence of simply seriously reading the actual argument before quote-mining and dismissing it. This lends stronger and stronger support to the inference that this is closed minded objectionism, not a serious addressing of a serious issue, GG. This is then underscored by your excuse for not engaging the matter on the merits:
I’m afraid that with the volume of text you are able to summon on demand I’m simply not capable of responding to overlong quotes from professors too.
Cho, man, do betta dan dat! 8] Could you give me an example of a non-designed object ? A typical random rock from your backyard or a streambed or a pyroclastic flow or a lahar will do nicely. [Did you pause long enough to read 190 -191, points 3 – 9? A designed cosmos can easily have in it many objects and phenomena that are not specifically designed, and the FSCI principle is capable of distinguishing them, e.g. the difference between a spearhead and a random rock.] 9] Do you have a link to a website that shows me all the instances of identification of characteristic behaviour of intelligent agents where such identification was shown to be both reliable and empircally repdocuable? As I have already pointed out in this thread, the entire Internet is a set of examples comprising billions of true positives for the EF. [In the school room, I would maybe say: “Pay attention, you there in the back of the class!”] I showed, above, an example of a typical false negative, and an other of a true positive. We have excellent reason –- absent closed minded objecitonism –- to see that the EF is empirically reliable in doing what it was designed to do, detect positive cases of design. 10] What units is information measured in? Have you done basic homework, GG? [If you need it, cf Section A the always linked which, inter alia, using standard results, step by step takes you through the quantification of and metrics for information.] 11] What does lucky noise have to do with anything? Much [cf Section A the always linked on this term . . .]: as has been repeatedly put in this threads and elsewhere, kindly identify just one actual empirical case where noise generates functional text beyond the UPB, i.e. 500 bits of information storing capacity. 12] What about selection? I think you’ve been watching too many japanese cartoons where things self-assemble from parts and attack! First, differential reproductive success [in effect, roughly: “survival and overwhelming reproduction of the fittest”] is logically and dynamically irrelevant to the claimed chem evo driven spontaneous origin of life, as may be seen from the discussions in and surrounding Appendix 1 the always linked. I refer you onwards to the Shapiro [Sci Am] and Orgel [PLOS] mutually destructive exchange on metabolism first and RNA world models. Next, the mechanisms of chance variation and natural selection have to face a basic challenge: NS is a culling filter, i.e the less fit lose in the struggle to survive and reproduce. That is, NS inherently REDUCES diversity of bioinformation. So, to explain the SOURCE of such novel bio-information as say encoded in DNA, we must look elsewhere, which brings up an increasing list of chance-based processes. And that runs right into the clash between observed complexity of dna for life function and the UPB. GG, right now you don't come across as a serious participant in a dialogue. Please, please, please, do something about that. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 11, 2008
April
04
Apr
11
11
2008
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT}

(To garygagliardi too) gpuccio (189) wrote: "But TEs, very often, cannot even be addressed, so inconsequential are their arguments. What can you say to Heller’s “argument” that ID is resurrecting the manicheistic heresy?" The burden of showing relevance is upon the TE advocate who claims to offer something relevant. That said, those who understand ID may need to help the TE advocate past their misconceptions about ID, assuming they are willing to let go of them. Too often, a TE advocate will come into the discussion supposing that ID's aim is to make theological claims and attempt to answer theological questions. They don't realize the extent to which this is fundamentally misguided. Thus, they come bearing "gifts" of alternate answers to theological issues. A possibly helpful exercise might be to set out three cases and ask the TE advocate whether what they are saying has any effect on any part of the scientific process. Case A: Scientist studying effect X observes that, although unusual or interesting in some ways, the empirical evidence does not convincingly indicate that X is beyond the reach of undirected processes. Outcome: An inference to the influence of intelligent agency is not warranted by the evidence. (This never proves the absence of design. It only means science lacks the warrant to infer intelligent causation.) Case B: Scientist studying effect Y finds the empirical evidence persuasive that Y is beyond the reach of the effects of undirected processes. Outcome: An inference to the influence of intelligent agency becomes warranted. Tentatively, intelligent agency is inferred as the best explanation available to science. Case C: Scientist studying effect Z also finds the empirical evidence persuasive that Z is beyond the reach of the effects of undirected processes. However, at some later date, science is rocked by revolutionary discoveries that overturn our previous understanding of the reach of undirected processes. Outcome: If and when this happens, with support from empirical evidence available to science, science will make revisions as needed in light of the new relevant empirical evidence, including but not limited to reevaluating the status of earlier inferences to intelligent agency if they are affected by the change. If the TE advocate is unable or unwilling to show how any of these cases would be affected, even supposing that their theological claims were true, then they have failed to demonstrate relevance to scientific inferences to intelligent agency. garygagliardi, if you see this, I would still welcome your response. As it stands, I am not aware that you ever showed Heller's points to have any effect whatsoever on ID inferences, such as these cases illustrate.ericB_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

Gpuccio, I couldn’t agree with you more. Straddling the fence between materialist/ Darwinism and Intelligent Design, we find the ever popular, media friendly paragons of schizophrenia—the Christian/Darwinists. Abandoning the law of the excluded middle, they want their God and their Darwin too; but they want a quiet God and a loud Darwin. To believers they say, “Hey, I am a Christian.” leaving the convenient impression they believe in a purposeful, mindful creator. To the academy they say, “Don’t worry, I am first and foremost a Darwinist, so I really believe in a purposeless, mindless process that has no need of a creator. I you don’t believe me, just watch how I slander and smear the ID people.” Incredibly, the only thing they are consistent about is their double-mindedness. For them, any pair of contradictory statements can be reconciled. On the one hand, they believe God revealed himself in Scripture; on the other hand, they insist that God hid himself in nature. On the one hand, they reject design inference in principle; on the other hand, they find design inherent in the “evolutionary process.” On the one hand, they renounce the philosophy of metaphysical materialism; on the other hand, they practice it under the aegis of “methodological naturalism.” Be sure of one thing, though. If an atheist arguing for Darwin debates a Christian arguing for design, they will always go with the side that butters their bread. Not only does their duplicity betray the public trust, it retards scientific progress.. More to the point, these disingenuous hacks harm the ID movement 100 times more than Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens could ever hope to. There is just enough sugar in their confection to make young Christians swallow the poison whole and join the ranks of the anti-ID militants. Although I am a Catholic Christian myself, I do, nevertheless, find the radical atheist easier to bear. Spare me from the soul selling, split-the-difference, have-it-both-ways Christian.StephenB_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

Mr Focus [190]
It would most likely be ruled as necessity by the filter, which might again be a false negative [depending on the circumstances].
That's all very vague. "likely", "might" "depending on the circumstances". I mean, everything depends on the corcumstances.
And, by extension, it highlights that the EF is looking for those situations where an agent acts in a characteristic way – generating functionally specified, complex information.
How can the EF be used to determine that the cambrian explosion required intelligent design? On another thread to another poster you said ID explains it easily. Could you perhaps expland on that?
I am talking about alternative universes where there would be no atoms, or there would not be the set of atoms required for life as we know it
Well. A) If, as Miss O'Leary says in her book the mind is a seperate and distinct entity from the brain why would the lack of atoms preclude life (aka minds). B) The entire point is that "life as we know it" does not encompass the set of all possible circumstances that can support life. Are you saying there is nothing beyond your imaginaion?
That is, 1 followed by 10^124 zeros, far more than there are atoms in the observed universe
Are you claiming that there is only 1 set of constants that can support life then? And you know this how? I'm always reminded of the puddle argument here. It's amazing how exactly this puddle of water fits the ground underneath it. It's almost as if it was designed specifically for that exact puddle! Look, if we were all sitting round on neutron star like objects in universes where sound went faster then light then people would still say “the accuracy of the Creator’s aim,” when he selected this world from the set of physically possible ones, must have been on the order of one part in 10^10(^124).. And I'm a fan of Penrose by the way.
If you pardon a procedural note, it would help if you were to do some basic readings and then discuss in light of what has already been put into play.
Could you give me an example of a non-designed object ?
you have elected to use emotionally loaded language to try to dismiss it; and that in a context where you have evidently failed to address seriously the central issue.
Perhaps you could repise it for me? I'm afraid that with the volume of text you are able to summon on demand I'm simply not capable of responding to overlong quotes from professors too.
First of all, I gave a clear way to identify the characteristic behaviour of intelligent agents, one that is empirically tested and shown to be reliable.
Do you have a link to a website that shows me all the instances of identification of characteristic behaviour of intelligent agents where such identification was shown to be both reliable and empircally repdocuable?
They in fact show signs of design, through FSCI. That is what you need to address on the merits.
And how do I go about that? What units is information measured in?
it is logically and physically possible that lucky noise has generated e.g. this post, but that outcome is so utterly improbable that we infer on best and reliable explanation to agent action.
What does lucky noise have to do with anything? If you had a load of lucky noise and a selection filter that pared it down to text as you required, would it be amazing if what you wanted was selected from this "lucky noise?". What about selection? I think you've been watching too many japanese cartoons where things self-assemble from parts and attack! PeaceRichardFry_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

News Flash: Catholic Priest Thomas Dubay is unabashedly ID and has written a book entitled,"The Evidential Power of Beauty."StephenB_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

-----Jerry: "On Galileo, I learned a lot from other people on this site especially one insightful comment by you on a previous occasion." Thanks, I have been edified by many of your posts as well. And I am grateful that you always take time out to clarify your points when guestions arise.StephenB_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

jerry: Thank you for the clarification. This way, it's perfectly OK for me. I really would like to engage you more in depth about the "speciation" issue, but really I had not the time to gather enough information, for the moment (I would like to bring the discussion more in technical detail, from a strict ID perspective), So, let's consider our personal confrontation about that only postpopned...gpuccio_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

StephenB, On Galileo, I learned a lot from other people on this site especially one insightful comment by you on a previous occasion.jerry_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

StephenB, Thank you for the comment about Galileo. Like Darwin, I did not know the truth about this topic until a few years ago.jerry_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

gpuccio, "Are my scientific opinions in the bunch of “off limit untruths”?" No I do not think so. You can certainly believe that species are mostly created. I will continue to fight any such opinion, not because I find them personally objectionable, but I believe that they do not meet with reality. I believe there are many instances of ID in the history of life and at times listed several of them. So I accept intelligent input at various different points in time. But I also recognize many of the problems with such a position. There is no trouble free position in this morass. My objective is to persuade the average person that Darwinian evolution has several problems and important flaws and thus should be questioned. But that does not mean that much if not most of life cannot be explained by Darwinian processes. My personal belief is that in order to change opinions, then one has to be as truthful and accurate as possible. Many of these "Darwinian processes" were unknown to Darwin and many of his followers over the next 130 years. The list of processes that affect the offspring of a species grows by the year and is much more than natural selection (or genetic drift and gene flow). But none of these new models of development of an offspring affects more than micro evolution. It is just that natural selection is not the only process that affects adaptation. Allen MacNeill is fond of throwing water on the ID fire by suggesting all sorts of processes but it seems none of what he adds really affects ID at all but expands what is meant by micro evolution and is compatible with ID. So I am pushing for what I consider the most reasonable explanation for life's variety and changes. And I actually believe that micro evolution is fantastic design and should be part of the ID paradigm. But micro evolution does not lead to macro evolution under any scenario ever brought up that has scientific under pinning.jerry_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

StephenB: "So, yes, lets be merciless about facts, but let dialogue about the interpretation. It is very easy for some of us, myself included, to treat our well-thought out opinions to be facts. This, it seems to me, is where the danger lies." I thing that's exactly the point.gpuccio_{April 10, 2008
April
04
Apr
10
10
2008
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply