ID gaining momemtum in the UK

ID gaining momemtum in the UK

Stuart Burgess is Professor of design and nature in the department of mechanical engineering at Bristol University. He argues that intelligent design is as valid a scientific concept as evolution.

Current scientific philosophy is to rule out completely the possibility that a creator was involved. But there is no scientific justification for making such a sweeping assumption. Science should always be open-minded.

Newton, Kelvin, Faraday and Pascal had no problem with a creator and with design. There is no reason why a modern scientist cannot take the same position as these eminent scientists. Three hundred years ago, there was so much support for intelligent design that life could be difficult if you were an atheist. Now the opposite is true; life can be difficult if you show the slightest sympathy for intelligent design.

Evolution cannot be taken as a fact of science because of the ambiguities in the evidence. The fossil record can be evidence for and against evolution because of the gaps. Similarities in DNA code can be just as much evidence for a common designer as for evolution. Most significantly, scientists have failed to reproduce the spontaneous generation of life for 60 years.

I've been designing systems like spacecraft for more than 20 years. One of the lessons I've learnt is that complex systems require an immense amount of intelligence to design. I've seen a lot of irreducible complexity in engineering. I have also seen organs in nature that are apparently irreducible. An irreducibly complex organ is one where several parts are required simultaneously for the system to function usefully, so it cannot have evolved, bit by bit, over time.

The mammalian knee-joint is an organ that appears irreducible. Everyone has a four-bar linkage in their knee. Engineers know that for this to work, you need all four bars to be present. Every time we walk, we're using irreducible mechanisms. Evolutionists have not been able to explain how the knee joint evolved step by step. We cannot prove that an intelligent being designed these, but at present no one can prove that they evolved, either.

There is a real difference between intelligent design and creationism. Creationism is about who the designer is and why he created the world.

For this reason, I don't think creationism should be taught in a science lesson. But the question of intelligent design is completely different. It only addresses the question of whether an intelligent designer is needed for life to have been possible. The possibility of a designer should be mentioned, however briefly.

I can understand that some people are worried about the implications of the existence of a creator, but it's not science to rule something out because you don't like the implications.

ID can no longer be considered to be "only in the USA".

Common Descent Does NOT predict a Nested Hierarchy- a Demonstration

All credit to Denton Chapter 6 "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" pages 134-35

Over on the Teleological blog the subject of Common Descent and nested hierarchy is being discussed. There are others who insist, despite all the data to the contrary, that NH is a prediction of Common Descent.

Now we can put this dead horse in the crematorium and fire those burners:

We have populations A, B, C, D (possessing unique character traits 1 2 3 4 5 6 7)

They are all nested under hypothetical population Z (acquired trait 1) with A & B being under hypothetical population X (acquired 2) and C & D being under hypothetical population Y (acquired 3). So draw Z diverging into X & Y with X diverging into A & B with Y diverging into C & D.

A- 124
B- 125
C- 136
D- 137

(A acquired 4, B acquired 5, C acquired 6 and D acquired 7)

Nice neat nested hierarchy.

NH based on Common Descent depends on immutable characteristics. IOW there wasn’t anything preventing the following:

A- 124
B- 25
C- 36
D- 137
(Oops B & C lost 1)

What happened to the nested hierarchy? (keep reading and feel free to sing along)

Nah nah nah nah
nah nah nah nah
heeeeyyyyheyyyayyy goo-ood bye (to the argument that Common Descent predicts NH)

Everybody join in-

Nah nah nah nah
nah nah nah nah
Heeeyyyyheeeyyyayy go-ood bye

You people in Kansas-

Nah nah nah nah
nah nah nah nah
Heeeyyyyheeeyyyayy goo-ood bye

the ACLU-

Nah nah nah nah
nah nah nah nah
Heeeyyyyheeeyyyayy goo-ood bye

Judge Jones III-

Nah nah nah nah
nah nah nah nah
Heeeyyyyheeeyyyayy good bye

(fade-->they're coming to take me away haha hoho heehee)

And there is more:

Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis

Abstract: Darwin claimed that a unique inclusively hierarchical pattern of relationships between all organisms based on their similarities and differences [the Tree of Life (TOL)] was a fact of nature, for which evolution, and in particular a branching process of descent with modification, was the explanation. However, there is no independent evidence that the natural order is an inclusive hierarchy, and incorporation of prokaryotes into the TOL is especially problematic. The only data sets from which we might construct a universal hierarchy including prokaryotes, the sequences of genes, often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree. Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true. This is not to say that similarities and differences between organisms are not to be accounted for by evolutionary mechanisms, but descent with modification is only one of these mechanisms, and a single tree-like pattern is not the necessary (or expected) result of their collective operation. Pattern pluralism (the recognition that different evolutionary models and representations of relationships will be appropriate, and true, for different taxa or at different scales or for different purposes) is an attractive alternative to the quixotic pursuit of a single true TOL.

(HT to ARN's finest)

The Criterion for the Materialistic anti-ID position

In my many years of discussing evolutionism, Creation and ID, I have asked on many occassions "What is the criteria for determining the obvious "apparent" design observed in living organisms and the universe?"

IOW I am interested in what is the data that supports the materialistic anti-ID position.

For all my asking I have never received a straight answer. And with all the negative attacks the materialists hurl at Creation and ID, it became obvious that there is only one criterion:

Flat out refuse to accept an intelligent agency was responsible no matter what data is presented.

So there you have it. The materialistic anti-ID position is intellectually bankrupt and as unobjective as one can get.

A secondclass lowlife (or secondclass = no class)

It seems that anti-IDists cannot stand to be shown that they are wrong. When that happens they run to another venue and spew nonsense and lies. secondclass is just the latest lowlife to do so:

Truly secondclass

This guy thinks that I can remember EVERYTHING from books I read years ago. He also thinks that Dembski is the "say all, do all" of ID. He doesn't understand that people can take Dembski's ideas and couple them with any number of pro-ID ideas in order to get a more complete picture of ID.

1. Joe doesn't know that the "complexity" part of "specified complexity" is synonymous with improbability.

Improbability is Dembski's way of mathematically verifying that complexity exists. Complexity exists whether or not we can calculate its improbability.

(added in edit)

I have always maintained that it is true the greater the complexity the smaller the probability (of occurring by chance or any combo of chance & necessity).

2. Joe doesn't know that specificity is positively correlated with simplicity of description.

Secondcalss doesn't know that simplicity of description requires pre-existing knowledge. For example Dembski's example of a "royal flush" for simplicity of description is useless unless one understands poker.

3. Joe doesn't know that Dembski's most oft-used example, the Caputo incident, is an instance of specified complexity, according to Dembski.

That is just a lie. And I also noted that Caputo got away with it. IOW the Court did NOT share Dembski's inference.

4. Joe doesn't know that knowledge of designers' capabilities plays no role in Dembski's approach. He has failed to realize the Dembski's approach is eliminative, with design exempt from consideration for elimination.

Another lie. As I have shown we have to have some knowledge of designers plus some knowledge of what nature, operating freely, is capable of BEFORE reaching an reasoned inference. Also seeing that I have blogged about the EF being eliminative- it eliminates via consideration- secondclass is just spewing more lies.

secondclass:
And until he was corrected, Joe thought that detachability was a sign of fabrication rather than a requirement for specification.

Yes, in my haste to figure out what secondclass was talking about I re-read TDI- a book I had read some 7 years ago- and misread Dembski. However I will note that all of what secondclass posted was nothing more than a deceptive distraction as it had nothing to do with pulsars and the EF.

And in the end it was secondclass who was improperly applying the EF. And when that was exposed he decided to go somewhere else and start his spewage. Typical...

How NOT to Argue Against ID- by AiGuy

Over in a thread on the ARN discussion board, see HERE?, someone named Glurk asked about infinite regress as in who/ what designed the designer. Someone who goes by "AiGuy" provided what he thinks is a valid answer that refutes ID. However on closer inspection it does nothing but expose AiGuy's ID ignorance. The following is AiGuy's response which will be followed by my assessment:

According to ID, the regress is irrelevant because (1) scientific theories need not consider ultimate cause, and (2) intelligence can be detected without regard to the origin of that intelligence. The second argument is both crucial to ID and completely contradicts ID's core tenets, as can be illustrated by considering artificial intelligence.

Clearly computers generate CSI, which in ID's view should qualify them as being intelligent. But if computers - which operate purely according to stochastic processes - are intelligent, then ID's arguments against evolution fail, since then the stochastic processes of evolution must be capable of intelligence (creating CSI) as well.

ID's response is that the CSI generated by computers actually comes from the human programmer, rather than intrinsically from the computer itself. But this argument violates ID's argument (2): If we can detect intelligence without regard to its origin, then the CSI generation we see from computers must signify that computers have bona-fide intelligence, no matter what the source of that intelligence. Simply because some other intelligent designer designed computers is no reason to reject that the computer is intelligent per se, any more than imagining that simply because human beings were themselves designed by some Designer would mean that humans are not intelligent!

So there is simply no consistent way to interpret ID's claims at all. If chance and necessity is capable of intelligence, then ID's arguments against evolution fail. If chance and necessity is incapable of intelligence, then we must explain how computers manage to create CSI. If we deny that computers generate CSI because they are designed by people, then we must by the same token deny that humans generate CSI if they are themselves designed by a Designer.

I've made these and related points here many times. I gave up on getting any salient responses on this board, so I wrote to Dembski and other folks at the DI. Dembski actually answered, and resorted to suggesting that humans too may be "merely conduits for preexisting CSI"! But the implication - that humans are not really intelligent any more than computers are - is completely contrary to what virtually all ID supporters wish to believe.

So ID's arguments crumble in a mass of contradiction, but continue to attract uncritical thinkers - those who are not interested in actually evaluating what "intelligence" is supposed to mean, and find these arguments too difficult and too picky.

According to IDists the regress is irrelevant for the reasons provided in the following essay:

Who Designed the Designer

Next it is that design can be detected without regard as to the origin of the designer.

Computers can't generate anything without the aid of an external intelligent agency. It took intelligent agencies to build and program computers. Therefore anything a computer outputs is an extension of their intelligence.

Next it is ID's position that the origin of CSI requires an intelligence.

Next computers do NOT "operate purely according to stochastic processes". Computers operate purly according to the programs and hardware an intelligent agency provided.

When computers start making humans I will agree with AiGuy in that "humans are not really intelligent any more than humans are"- that ia just a stupid inference and an inference only an ardent anti-IDist would make.

Next we should ask AiGuy what type of computer generated CSI are we observing (in his scenario). We know to output something a computer needs more man-made peripherals.

That designing agencies can design something that appears to generate CSI does nothing to the design inference. All CSI generated by the computer can be traced back to it which can be traced back to the designing agencies. And if we can't trace it back to the computer then who cares? AiGuy's point is moot.

Also ID does NOT argue against evolution. ID argues against the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over it. And you have been told how computers generate CSI. But all you have done is to ignore what you have been told and post your nonsense anyway.

Suggested reading for AiGuy- "Why is a Fly Not a Horse?"- specifically chapter VIII "I can only tell you what I already know".

Of Pulsars, Specified Complexity and the Explanatory Filter

The Explantory Filter is a process that can be used to reach an informed inference about an object or event in question.

In order to get to the third node it "takes considerable background knowledge" (Dembski NFL page 111). He goes on to say "What's more it takes considerable background knowledge to come up with the right pattern (ie, specification) for eliminating all those chance hypotheses and thus inferring design."

In an article about SETI (that misrepresents ID) we have the following:

Consider pulsars – stellar objects that flash light and radio waves into space with impressive regularity. Pulsars were briefly tagged with the moniker LGM (Little Green Men) upon their discovery in 1967. Of course, these little men didn’t have much to say. Regular pulses don’t convey any information—no more than the ticking of a clock. But the real kicker is something else: inefficiency. Pulsars flash over the entire spectrum. No matter where you tune your radio telescope, the pulsar can be heard. That’s bad design, because if the pulses were intended to convey some sort of message, it would be enormously more efficient (in terms of energy costs) to confine the signal to a very narrow band. Even the most efficient natural radio emitters, interstellar clouds of gas known as masers, are profligate. Their steady signals splash over hundreds of times more radio band than the type of transmissions sought by SETI.

A properly applied EF and the researchers who initially inferred design wouldn't have. And with a properly applied EF we would never get to apply the "complexity- specification" criterion to pulsars as the EF would have eliminated them before that node.