Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

William Dembski and 3 IDers cited in a significant OOL peer-reviewed article by Trevors and Abel

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Accepted July 2006

Physics of Life Reviews

[Update: thanks to Todd for a link to the full paper:]

Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models

[Update: IDers Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and R.L. Olsen were cited as well!! They wrote the book in 1984 which is considered the beginning of the modern ID movement. Also, critical remarks were made indirectly of Dawkins.]

Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models

by David Abel and Jack Trevors

Self-ordering phenomena should not be confused with self-organization. Self-ordering events occur spontaneously according to natural “law propensities and are purely physicodynamic. Crystallization and the spontaneously forming dissipative structures of Prigogine are examples of self-ordering. Self-ordering phenomena involve no decision nodes, no dynamically-inert configurable switches, no logic gates, no steering toward algorithmic success or “computational halting”.

Hypercycles, genetic and evolutionary algorithms, neural nets, and cellular automata have not been shown to self-organize spontaneously into nontrivial functions. Laws and fractals are both compression algorithms containing minimal complexity and information. Organization typically contains large quantities of prescriptive information. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces nontrivial optimized algorithmic function at its destination. Prescription requires choice contingency rather than chance contingency or necessity. Organization
requires prescription, and is abstract, conceptual, formal, and algorithmic. Organization utilizes a sign/symbol/token system to represent many configurable switch settings. Physical switch settings allow instantiation of nonphysical selections for function into physicality. Switch settings represent choices at successive decision nodes that integrate circuits and instantiate cooperative management into conceptual physical systems. Switch positions must be freely selectable to function as logic gates. Switches must be set according to rules, not laws. Inanimacy cannot “organize” itself. Inanimacy can only self-order. “Self-organization” is without empirical and prediction-fulfilling support. No falsifiable theory of self-organization exists. “Self-organization” provides no mechanism and offers no detailed verifiable explanatory power. Care should be taken not to use the term “self-organization” erroneously to refer to low-informational, natural-process, self-ordering events, especially when discussing genetic information.

….
[40] Dembski WA. No free lunch. New York: Rowman and Littlefield; 2002.

[127] C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley and R.L. Olsen, The mystery of life’s origin: Reassessing current theories, Lewis and Stanley, Dallas, TX (1984).

Many thanks to Dr. Albert Voie for alerting me to this article.

I reported on Trevors and Abel’s other fine article at:

Perfect Architectures which scream design

I reported on Voie’s article at:
Another pro-ID paper passes peer review

Comments
(Or is that $30 fee just for registration?)Douglas
October 30, 2006
October
10
Oct
30
30
2006
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
Todd, Your "prior issue" (post #15) requires one to purchase the article (for $30) in order to read it. Don't you have anything slightly less expensive, if not actually free?Douglas
October 30, 2006
October
10
Oct
30
30
2006
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
Todd, I'm sorry for the delays in posting your comments. Since UD facelift a couple months ago, I lost privileges to unspam comments, so we'll have to wait on one of the other mods. Thanks for your patience.scordova
October 30, 2006
October
10
Oct
30
30
2006
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
A prior issue has this: Energy transformation in biological molecular motorstodd
October 30, 2006
October
10
Oct
30
30
2006
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
Okay, link to a copy of the PDF Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models This comment was edited to make the link clickable -ds todd
October 30, 2006
October
10
Oct
30
30
2006
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Todd, I posted the first link in an update to the above. Thanks a million! Salscordova
October 30, 2006
October
10
Oct
30
30
2006
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
I can read the entire thing because I post from an .edu domain with a subscription. Hang on and I'll post the PDFtodd
October 30, 2006
October
10
Oct
30
30
2006
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin modelstodd
October 30, 2006
October
10
Oct
30
30
2006
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
I fear this URL will be too long and get trapped in the spam chute (post to follow)todd
October 30, 2006
October
10
Oct
30
30
2006
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
I think I fixed it now. Thanks Todd! scordova
October 30, 2006
October
10
Oct
30
30
2006
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
The quoted text appears to be double pasted within itself. Sal, read your post again and see if you don't see where the text is repeated.todd
October 30, 2006
October
10
Oct
30
30
2006
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
John Davison would be smiling, the peer-reviewed article uses the word "prescription".scordova
October 30, 2006
October
10
Oct
30
30
2006
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
Uh - that's ID. How did this get past the review committee?
Via a Trojan Horse. :-)scordova
October 30, 2006
October
10
Oct
30
30
2006
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
The paper may as well have been written by ID theorists. It was such a devastating critique of a major OOL theory. It used many arguments found in ID literature. Although Bill was only mentioned once, the fact that this paper is sympathetic to his position is heartening to see.scordova
October 30, 2006
October
10
Oct
30
30
2006
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
This article makes an important distinction. Pretty much any discussion of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as an argument against NDE includes a post by a pro-Darwinist about crystallization (such as ice formation). The argument is first made that order can not increase in a system -- regardless of how much energy enters the system -- unless order is imported through the boundary. This is inevitably followed by the counter-argument that ice forms (increasing the “order” of the system) without any influx of order. Until now, I’ve had trouble articulating why I disagreed with this. However, this increase in order comes with a loss of complexity. Increasing both order and complexity (i.e. organization) does not happen without the input of information. And information does not appear to arise without intelligent causation. Are ice crystals more orderly than liquid water? I would say yes. Is ice more complex and specified than water? I don’t believe so (unless it was artificially sculpted for a purpose). CSI exists physically, and can only degrade over time in the absence of intelligent input. Perhaps you could call this the 2nd Law of Information.sabre
October 30, 2006
October
10
Oct
30
30
2006
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
The list of refrenced works was by author in alphabetical order, that paper was number 40. I don't know how to make the PDF available for every one to read. If someone is knowledgeable willing, they are invited to post a link (hint, hint). It was a great paper. I hope everyone can read it sometime.scordova
October 30, 2006
October
10
Oct
30
30
2006
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
What content in the paper does the numeral designator "[40]" refer to?Joey Campana
October 30, 2006
October
10
Oct
30
30
2006
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
"Organization typically contains large quantities of prescriptive information. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces nontrivial optimized algorithmic function at its destination. Prescription requires choice contingency rather than chance contingency or necessity. Organization requires prescription, and is abstract, conceptual, formal, and algorithmic." Uh - that's ID. How did this get past the review committee?jaredl
October 30, 2006
October
10
Oct
30
30
2006
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply