David Kellogg, English professor, cannot differentiate between "new" and "originate"
David Kellog, an English professor at Northeastern U., cannot even differentiate between words like "new" and "originate".
CSI is all about origins.
With that in mind the following is what took place on Kellogg's blog:
New CSI requires intelligence.
To which I responded:
That's not in NFL either.
Don't worry. You just don't get it and probably never will.
David than demonstrates he cannot differentiate between the words "new" and "originate":
Holy shit, Joe, I know the book well enough to riff on it. Apparently better than you:
NFL, p. 161: "[O]rdinary experience also tells us that complex specified information originates from intelligence."
NFL, p. 163: "The Law of Conservation of Information is not saying that natural causes in tandem with intelligent causes cannot generate CSI but that natural causes apart from intelligent causes cannot generate CSI."
NFL, p. 164: "To explain an instance of CSI requires either a direct appeal to an intelligent agent who via a cognitive act originated the CSI in question, or locating an antecedent instance of CSI that contains at least as much CSI as we started with."
"Intelligent causes generate CSI whereas natural causes transmit preexisting CSI (and usually imperfectly)."
"With CSI the information problem never goes away short of locating the intelligence that originates the CSI."
This is funny because on page 162 my pont is made. That is funny because David starts quoting from page 161.
Ya see if one has pre-existing CSI and then random mutations (or other unintelligent processes) are allowed in, that pre-existing CSI could very well become "new" CSI- meaning it is different than the original and therefore "new".
This can be seen by taking an existing sentence:
"David Kellogg is an assistant professor at Northeastern."
Then say the page that it was written on gets torn by natural wear and tear.
The original sentence becomes:
"David Kellogg is an ass"
This seemingly new information was not generated from scratch, but generated by natural processes acting on pre-existing information.
The same scenario applies to biological organisms. For example those populations which have lost some biological feature present in their ancestors.
But I do not expect Kellogg or his minions to accept or understand this concept. That is why they are anti-IDists- they just refuse to understand what is being debated.