CSI- Why CSI is Evidence for Intelligent Design
-
CSI = complex specified information. It is defined as 500 bits of specified information. Specified information is just information in the normally used way- a sequence that produces specific effects.
CSI is evidence for Intelligent Design because all of our knowledge, observations and experiences demonstrate that CSI always come from an intelligent agency, ie a mind. No one has ever observed nature producing CSI. No one has ever observed nature coming close. We don't have any knowledge or experience with nature doing so.
So when we observe CSI and did not observe how it came to be, we infer intelligent design thank to Science 101- knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships.
And to refute that inference all it takes is for someone to step up and demonstrate nature, ie blind and mindless processes, can produce CSI. Also, science 101
CSI = complex specified information. It is defined as 500 bits of specified information. Specified information is just information in the normally used way- a sequence that produces specific effects.
CSI is evidence for Intelligent Design because all of our knowledge, observations and experiences demonstrate that CSI always come from an intelligent agency, ie a mind. No one has ever observed nature producing CSI. No one has ever observed nature coming close. We don't have any knowledge or experience with nature doing so.
So when we observe CSI and did not observe how it came to be, we infer intelligent design thank to Science 101- knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships.
And to refute that inference all it takes is for someone to step up and demonstrate nature, ie blind and mindless processes, can produce CSI. Also, science 101
posted by Joe G @ 12:37 PM
4 Comments:
At 5:03 AM,
JV said…
Did you read the post at Uncommon Descent about Specified Complexity? What did you think of it?
At 8:29 AM,
Joe G said…
As Dr Donald Johnson has written "they" don't even deserve a seat at the probability table. The only reason anyone has to figure out the probability distribution is because "they" don't have any evidence nor a methodology to test their claims.
Your side loses because you an yours can't even get started
At 5:10 PM,
JV said…
Um, that's not really addressing the point of the post which lays out some computations which could be done to help establish specified complexity and which, I think, closely parallels Dr Dembski's work.
At 5:31 PM,
Joe G said…
My point is the post is moot because no one knows "P". Well we do for certain things like a snowflake. That is because your side is a complete failure.
Post a Comment
<< Home