This is a repost from feb 8, 2011:
So much confusion over such a simple concept- determining design in a natural world. This is all about answering one of science's three basic questions- "How did it come to be this way?".
Intelligent Design is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box:
"Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”
He goes on to say:
” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.”
That said we have the explanatory filter to help us determine the cause of the effect we are investigating.
On to the Explanatory Filter:
The (design) explanatory filter is a standard operating procedure used for detecting basic origins of cause. It or some reasonable facsimile is used when a dead body turns up or a fire is reported. With the dead body we want to determine if it was a natural death, an accident, a suicide or a homicide (what caused the death?) and in with the fire, the investigator wants to know how it started- arson, negligence, accident or natural causes, i.e. lightning, lava, meteorite, etc. Only through investigation can those not present hope to know about it.
When investigating/ researching/ studying an object/ event/ structure, we need to know one of three things in order to determine how it happened:
1. Did it have to happen?
2. Did it happen by accident?
3. Did an intelligent agent cause it to happen?
A fire is investigated before an arson is.
First we must make this clarification by Wm. Dembski:
”When the Explanatory Filter fails to detect design in a thing, can we be sure no intelligent cause underlies it? The answer to this question is No. For determining that something is not designed, the Explanatory Filter is not a reliable criterion. False negatives are a problem for the Explanatory Filter.
This problem of false negatives, however, is endemic to detecting intelligent causes. One difficulty is that intelligent causes can mimic law and chance, thereby rendering their actions indistinguishable from these unintelligent causes. It takes an intelligent cause to know an intelligent cause, but if we don't know enough, we'll miss it.”
This is why further investigation is always a good thing. Initial inferences can either be confirmed or falsified by further research.
Intelligent causes always entail intent. Natural causes never do.
(page 13 of No Free Lunch shows the EF flowchart. It can also be found on page 37 of The Design Inference, page 182 of Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, and page 88 of The Design Revolution)
The flowchart for the EF is set up so that there are 3 decision nodes, each node capable only of a Yes or No decision. As are all filters it is eliminative. It eliminates via consideration/ examination.
START
↓
CONTINGENCY? →No → Necessity (regularity/ law)
↓yes
COMPLEXITY? →No → Chance
↓yes
SPECIFICATION? →No → Chance
↓ yes
Design
The event/ object/ phenomena in question is what we start with. Then we ask, in sequence, those 3 questions from above- 1st Did this event/ phenomena/ object have to happen? IOW is this the result of the laws of nature, regularity, or some other pre-determining (natural) factors? If it is then we don’t infer design with what we have. If it isn’t then we ask about the likely-hood of it coming about by some chance/ coincidence? Chance events do happen all the time, and absent some blatant design marker, we must take into account the number of factors required to bring it about. The more factors the more complex it is. The more parts involved the more complex it is.
By getting to the final decision node where we separate that which is merely complex from intentional design (an event/ object that has a small probability of occurring by chance and fits a specified pattern), means we have looked into the possibility of X to have occurred by other means. May we have dismissed/ eliminated some too soon? In the realm of anything is possible, possibly. However not only is it impractical to attempt every possible, but by doing so we would no longer have a design inference. By eliminating every possible other cause design would be a given. What we are looking for is a reasonable inference, not proof. IOW we only have to eliminate every possible scenario if we want absolute proof. We already understand that people who ask that of the EF are not interested in science.
It took our current understanding in order to make it to that, the final decision node and it takes our current understanding to make the inference. Future knowledge will either confirm or falsify the inference. The research does not and was never meant to stop at the last node. Just knowing something was the result of intentional design offers no more about it. IOW design detection is the first step in the two step process- detection and understanding of the design. Just because the answer is 42* that doesn’t tell us what was on the left-hand side of the equal sign.
"Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.
In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed” Pg. 72 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education
IOW the design inference is all about our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
We do not infer that every death is a homicide nor every rock an artifct. Parsimony- no need to add entities and the design inference is all about requirements, as in is agency involvement required or not?
Threfor to refute any given design inference all one has to do is demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can produce it.
Yet addled tards behaving cowardly attack ID and IDists because the only way to "support" their position is to use brute force to rid the world of all alternatives.
(*Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference)
Can you give an example of the EF in use?
ReplyDeleteIOW we only have to eliminate every possible scenario if we want absolute proof. We already understand that people who ask that of the EF are not interested in science.
I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for a demonstration of the usage of the EF for the "digital organisms" in EV. For example. Something specific.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ev-ware-dissection-of-a-digital-organism/
Or a banana?
Basically anything at all. All I've ever seen are people talking about how the EF can be used to detect design but I've never seen anybody actually do it.
Will you be the first?
The event/ object/ phenomena in question is what we start with. Then we ask, in sequence, those 3 questions from above- 1st Did this event/ phenomena/ object have to happen? IOW is this the result of the laws of nature, regularity, or some other pre-determining (natural) factors? If it is then we don’t infer design with what we have. If it isn’t then we ask about the likely-hood of it coming about by some chance/ coincidence? Chance events do happen all the time, and absent some blatant design marker, we must take into account the number of factors required to bring it about. The more factors the more complex it is. The more parts involved the more complex it is.
By getting to the final decision node where we separate that which is merely complex from intentional design (an event/ object that has a small probability of occurring by chance and fits a specified pattern), means we have looked into the possibility of X to have occurred by other means. May we have dismissed/ eliminated some too soon? In the realm of anything is possible, possibly. However not only is it impractical to attempt every possible, but by doing so we would no longer have a design inference. By eliminating every possible other cause design would be a given. What we are looking for is a reasonable inference, not proof.
Can you do that for a banana? Or a rock?
IOW the design inference is all about our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
Please illustrate that knowledge for EV. Or a banana. Your choice.
OM:
ReplyDeleteCan you give an example of the EF in use?
It is standard operating procedure.
How else do you think scientists determine the cause? The EF is the process for all the reasons I have already told you about.
Or is being an obtuse moron the best you have? You do realize your stupidity is not a refutation.
Yes EV is the product of design. That is based on my knowledge of cause and effect relationships. Ya see it is clear that physics and chemistry cannot write a computer program and computer programs also meet the design criteria.
And ev being designed means that the digital organisms are also designed.
JoeG said:
ReplyDelete"Yet addled tards behaving cowardly attack ID and IDists because the only way to "support" their position is to use brute force to rid the world of all alternatives."
===
What I find entertaining about these people is that they are the very ones who self promote themselves as the world's greatest FREE-THINKERS. Yet they are for anything but FREE-THOUGHT. Therefore any ALTERNATIVES considered contrary to their personal BIASED BIGOTTED worldview are to be labled as heretical and blasphemous against their almighty bearded Buddha god and needs to be dealt with harshly, much like the way present day dictators like the Kadhafi family, Mubarak family, Assad family and other Monarchial dictatorship power vessels are attempting to hold onto power and wealth during this turbulant Arab Spring Uprising.
Step out of line by refusing to conform to the prevailing worldview in the realm of powerful authortarian scientifism and you run the risk of personal attack or other bodily harm[depending on what country you reside in and the controlling socialist regime that rules such, like China, Russia, North Korea, etc].
"1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
ReplyDelete2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity."
===
On these two points, it reminds me of what is located on Stephen Meyer's website.
---
"The Origins of Information: Exploring and Explaining Biological Information"
"In the 21st century, the information age has finally come to biology. We now know that biology at its root is comprised of information rich systems, such as the complex digital code encoded in DNA. Groundbreaking discoveries of the past decade are revealing the information bearing properties of biological systems."
Now couple this with what was published back this past December 22nd 2010 by Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr:
"Abstract
All life depends on the biological information encoded in DNA with which to synthesize and regulate various peptide sequences required by an organism's cells. Hence, an evolutionary model accounting for the diversity of life needs to demonstrate how novel exonic regions that code for distinctly different functions can emerge. Natural selection tends to conserve the basic functionality, sequence, and size of genes and, although beneficial and adaptive changes are possible, these serve only to improve or adjust the existing type. However, gene duplication allows for a respite in selection and so can provide a molecular substrate for the development of biochemical innovation. Reference is made here to several well-known examples of gene duplication, and the major means of resulting evolutionary divergence, to examine the plausibility of this assumption. The totality of the evidence reveals that, although duplication can and does facilitate important adaptations by tinkering with existing compounds, molecular evolution is nonetheless constrained in each and every case. Therefore, although the process of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Complexity, 2011
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract
What else is there to argue, but worldview and faith-based ideology.
Joe
ReplyDeleteYes EV is the product of design.
Then you can be confident that the EF will also note it as such if you were to run it through that process.
Ya see it is clear that physics and chemistry cannot write a computer program and computer programs also meet the design criteria.
It might be clear to you, but that's what the EF is for. Putting that clarity on a objective basis.
Are you able to do what you claim is easily done and demonstrate how the EF shows that the digital organisms inside EV are designed?
Of course you are not, nobody can.
All you can do is exactly what you just did.
Yes EV is the product of design.
And all you can do is tell us your conclusion, that EV is designed. You can't *prove* it.
That is based on my knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
Yet the EF is supposed to work regardless of any prior knowledge.
Ya see it is clear that physics and chemistry cannot write a computer program
Your hidden assumptions are starting to show Joe. Why not just use the EF instead and prove your claim objectively?
Joe
ReplyDeleteHow else do you think scientists determine the cause? The EF is the process for all the reasons I have already told you about.
If that really is the case then why is there not a single, detailed example of the usage of the EF in existence?
It might well be what "scientists" use every day but until you demonstrate that it's just an empty claim.
I can claim that design can be determined with the "hoochie-coochie" but until I demonstrate it in action....
Joe,
ReplyDeleteIf I design a random number generator and the number are statistically shown to indeed be random, are the strings of random numbers that are the product of the generator designed?
If not, why not? It logically follows from this statement
And ev being designed means that the digital organisms are also designed.
I.E.
And a random number generator being designed means that the strings of random numbers that it generates are also designed.
Ya see Joe, IOW it's not the "how the design inference works" data that is lacking. There's your detailed post, there's all the books that have been written about it, there's all the data on UD about it.
ReplyDeleteWhat's lacking are actual examples of it in use that follow all the steps you've just detailed.
I mean, when I asked you are the digital organisms inside EV designed you said
Yes EV is the product of design. That is based on my knowledge of cause and effect relationships. Ya see it is clear that physics and chemistry cannot write a computer program and computer programs also meet the design criteria.
And ev being designed means that the digital organisms are also designed.
But where are the details like this
The event/ object/ phenomena in question is what we start with. Then we ask, in sequence, those 3 questions from above- 1st Did this event/ phenomena/ object have to happen? IOW is this the result of the laws of nature, regularity, or some other pre-determining (natural) factors? If it is then we don’t infer design with what we have. If it isn’t then we ask about the likely-hood of it coming about by some chance/ coincidence? Chance events do happen all the time, and absent some blatant design marker, we must take into account the number of factors required to bring it about. The more factors the more complex it is. The more parts involved the more complex it is.
???
You skip ahead to the conclusion and expect people to believe that you got there via the EF. If so, prove it, show your working.
OM:
ReplyDeleteIf that really is the case then why is there not a single, detailed example of the usage of the EF in existence?
How else do youn think they do it?
Again archaeologist have to eliminate nature, operating freely, as do forensics and SETI BEFORE coming to a design inference.
That is Occam's razor at work.
IOW OM your ignorance is meaningless.
OM:
ReplyDeleteThen you can be confident that the EF will also note it as such if you were to run it through that process.
I did.
OM:'
Yet the EF is supposed to work regardless of any prior knowledge.
You are a moron, Science requires prior knowlegde you dolt. Forensics, archaeolgy, SETI- all require prior knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
You are one ignorant mother.
Ya see it is clear that physics and chemistry cannot write a computer program
OM:
Your hidden assumptions are starting to show Joe.
What assumptions? Prove me wriong if you can.
Ya see moron the EF is the process YOU would use to refute the design inference.
OM:
ReplyDeleteIf I design a random number generator and the number are statistically shown to indeed be random, are the strings of random numbers that are the product of the generator designed?
Obviously.
OM:
ReplyDeleteYou skip ahead to the conclusion and expect people to believe that you got there via the EF.
Prove me wrong then.
Joe
ReplyDeleteYou are a moron, Science requires prior knowlegde you dolt. Forensics, archaeolgy, SETI- all require prior knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
An artifact is discovered orbiting earth.
It's made of a substance that looks like diamond. It's shape appears to reflect some variation on the Fibonacci sequence.
Yet we cannot determine that if it is designed because we have no prior knowledge about it.
And therefore, according to you, we cannot progress.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteObviously.
So design can be detected in strings or random numbers?
How?
If I give you two sets of numbers would you be able to tell me which came from a designed random number generator and a naturally occurring random number generator?
"It is standard operating procedure."
ReplyDeleteAsserted, not supported.
OM, do you contend that it is impossible to infer intelligent cause as the most plausible explanation for anything at all?
ReplyDeleteOr is it just biological evolution where you rule out the scientific method in favor of your religious beliefs? Do you get on websites to attack SETI for attempting to infer design? Do you harangue archeologists at all times demanding "proof"?
Detecting intelligent cause versus accident is pretty standard stuff for science. I'm not sure what your objection is. Im thinking that you cling so closely to shakey materialist belief systems that you fear anyone contesting it.
"It is standard operating procedure."
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
Asserted, not supported.
No assertion, just experience.
You are a moron, Science requires prior knowlegde you dolt. Forensics, archaeolgy, SETI- all require prior knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
ReplyDeleteOM:
An artifact is discovered orbiting earth.
It is?
OM:
It's made of a substance that looks like diamond. It's shape appears to reflect some variation on the Fibonacci sequence.
Do you have a reference or are you just making this up?
Yet we cannot determine that if it is designed because we have no prior knowledge about it.
Umm YOU said it was an artifact moron. That means it was designed.
And therefore, according to you, we cannot progress.
Nope, that isn't according to me.
We need prior knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
But thanks for continuing to prove that yo are an imbecile.
OM:
ReplyDeleteSo design can be detected in strings or random numbers?
Have you ever observed blind, undirected processes producing a string of numbers?
If you saw a string of numbers on a cave wall would you think that erosion did it or some agency?
OM:
If I give you two sets of numbers would you be able to tell me which came from a designed random number generator and a naturally occurring random number generator?
I would love to see a naturally ocurring random number generator generate some numbers without agency involvement at any level.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteThe question was
If I give you two sets of numbers would you be able to tell me which came from a designed random number generator and a naturally occurring random number generator?
You answered a different question.
I would love to see a naturally ocurring random number generator generate some numbers without agency involvement at any level.
You failed to note if you'd be able to tell the difference, perhaps unsurprisingly.
However the the decimals of π are such a natural source of random numbers. There is no cyclic behaviour, all finite dimensional distributions of the sequence are uniform therefore that it satisfies all the properties of today's generation of statistical tests.
You want another?
Well, the radioactive decay of some element is a good natural source of random numbers. No agency involvement required.
But, you'll object, we need "agency involvement" to turn radioactive decay into "strings of numbers".
In fact we don't at all. The randomness exists regardless of what we do with the data or what format the data is in. Radioactive decay can be used as a source for randomness, agency involvement is only required to turn that original data (decay/time) into something that agency can use, it does not alter the underlying random nature of the event.
You lose. And if you don't think so then you'll have to define "number" for me.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteI would love to see a naturally ocurring random number generator generate some numbers without agency involvement at any level.
FYI numbers do not exist without humans, i.e. agency involvement.
As such you've already defined away any examples I can provide as they all require "agency" to understand that a number is a number.
But you could sit in that cave you mention with a Geiger counter and write down the number of seconds that pass between each detection.
= Natural random number generator.
Ah, but "agency involvement" was required to create the counter in the first place I hear you say.
Random numbers are generated all the time in nature. But as you claim that all nature is designed I guess there's really no such thing as a random number. I guess it keeps Jesus busy, making all those numbers up. Oh, I mean "the designer".
OM:
ReplyDeleteIf I give you two sets of numbers would you be able to tell me which came from a designed random number generator and a naturally occurring random number generator?
How is that relevant to ANYTHING?
OM:
However the the decimals of π are such a natural source of random numbers.
How are you using the word "natural"?
OM:
The randomness exists regardless of what we do with the data or what format the data is in.
But the NUMBERS don't. We are talking about a STRING OF NUMBERS PRODUCED BY THE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR.
You are an asshole loser.
I would love to see a naturally ocurring random number generator generate some numbers without agency involvement at any level.
ReplyDeleteOM:
FYI numbers do not exist without humans, i.e. agency involvement.
No shit fuckhead- you lose, again.
"No shit fuckhead- you lose, again."
ReplyDeleteNumbers are a human cosntruct.
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteNumbers are a human cosntruct.
Are they? What's your point?
My point about OM's RNG scenario is it is irrelevant to what the design inference entails because if we see a string of numbers we can be very sure agency involvement was required at some point.
Whether or not the numbers have meaning or are of some ordered sequence or totally random or what made them totally random, are things to be answered by someone who cares.
First determine the cause, THEN move on to those other considerations.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteif we see a string of numbers we can be very sure agency involvement was required at some point.
Likewise if those numbers are printed out we can be sure a printer was involved at some point.
However, the question is, is it possible for those printed out numbers to represent a random string that was generated without agency involvement?
Joe,
ReplyDeleteBut the NUMBERS don't. We are talking about a STRING OF NUMBERS PRODUCED BY THE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR.
You have defined your conclusion into the question. If a number is a thing that only an agency can create and we observe a number then it must have been created by an agency.
Not a very interesting claim actually. Almost a non sequitur.
The point is my previous question, can a number (agency involvement required) represent a value that is random (no agency involvement required)?
Can it Joe?
Does a list of tree ring sizes represent agency involvement in the growth of that tree? After all, it has generated "numbers".
OM:
ReplyDeleteHowever, the question is, is it possible for those printed out numbers to represent a random string that was generated without agency involvement?
All strings of numbers require agency involvement you moron.
OM:
ReplyDeleteThe point is my previous question, can a number (agency involvement required) represent a value that is random (no agency involvement required)?
How is that relevant?
I have asked you before and you have refused to answer. What is your cowardly problem?
Joe
ReplyDeleteAll strings of numbers require agency involvement you moron.
Here is a number 5 in cloud form.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v59/BSTommy/Number5Cloud.jpg
Should I watch long enough another number will no doubt appear. Then I will have a "string of numbers with no agency involvement".
Joe
ReplyDeleteI have asked you before and you have refused to answer. What is your cowardly problem?
It's relevant because if by definition a number is a thing that humans have created then by definition strings of numbers can only be created by agency involvement.
The more interesting point is can the values represented by those numbers arise without agency involvement?
So, yes Joe, strings of numbers require agency involvement because strings of numbers are only possibly to create by agency involvement.
Even when a cloud creates a number 5, as per my previous post, an "agency" is required to turn that into a number.
So if you want to claim that strings of numbers can only be created by agency then that is akin to claiming that Shakespeare is the only person who can write Shakespeare. A trivially true claim that advances your cause not a jot.
Now, given that you claim a string of random numbers exhibits design I'll be rubbing your face in that at UD at some point soon and you can explain over there how design can be detected in a string of random numbers.
"Duh, they are numbers moron! They must therefore be designed".
OM:
ReplyDeleteHere is a number 5 in cloud form.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v59/BSTommy/Number5Cloud.jpg
That's a 5? Maybe to a retard...
OM:
ReplyDeleteIt's relevant because if by definition a number is a thing that humans have created then by definition strings of numbers can only be created by agency involvement.
True.
OM:
The more interesting point is can the values represented by those numbers arise without agency involvement?
I don't find that interesting at all.
OM:
So, yes Joe, strings of numbers require agency involvement because strings of numbers are only possibly to create by agency involvement.
So what?
OM:
Even when a cloud creates a number 5, as per my previous post, an "agency" is required to turn that into a number.
I didn't see a number "5".
OM:
Now, given that you claim a string of random numbers exhibits design ...
I said it indicates agency involvement. Obviously you are a moron.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteThat's a 5? Maybe to a retard...
I guess that's what you say to children as they gaze up and let their imaginations work.
So, Joe, according to you in the whole of the universe there are no constructs that coincidentally look like numbers to a non-retard.
Like being wrong do you?
Joe
ReplyDeleteI said it indicates agency involvement.
Here are some random numbers
4 17 33 7 57
29 7 26 62 24
58 67 67 37 9
20 43 73 82 65
35 64 51 84 11
83 30 80 28 81
88 63 21 68 63
23 21 3 81 99
37 28 37 22 43
11 51 81 65 78
8 25 4 30 31
88 48 32 33 96
80 53 93 96 12
37 47 33 38 71
41 22 57 19 16
62 34 4 98 29
48 89 35 9 73
83 92 4 34 94
58 43 79 58 8
67 33 69 71 5
If ID is about cause and effect, then could you detail the process of how you come to the conclusion that agency involvement was required?
OM:
ReplyDeleteI guess that's what you say to children as they gaze up and let their imaginations work.
I forgot that you think science is done via imagination.
OM:
ReplyDeleteIf ID is about cause and effect, then could you detail the process of how you come to the conclusion that agency involvement was required?
I already have moron. Cause and effect- only agencies can put down a sequence of numbers.
Joe
ReplyDeleteCause and effect- only agencies can put down a sequence of numbers.
And what about the quantities represented by those numbers? Does that always require agency involvement?
OM:
ReplyDeleteAnd what about the quantities represented by those numbers?
Who cares? How is that relevant to anything I have been posting?
Joe,
ReplyDeleteWho cares? How is that relevant to anything I have been posting?
The relevance is this. You said
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
What do you use to measure "information content"? Presumably at some point that "measure" becomes a number. Or string of numbers.
And as numbers require agency involvement once numbers are used then by definition what you are looking at is designed as only agencies use numbers.
Or something.
At least you have changed your mind that design can be detected in strings of random numbers. That was a bit silly, even for you.
Who cares? How is that relevant to anything I have been posting?
ReplyDeleteOM:
The relevance is this. You said
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
Yes I did
OM:
What do you use to measure "information content"? Presumably at some point that "measure" becomes a number. Or string of numbers.
And that doesn't have anything to do with what you are posting.
OM:
And as numbers require agency involvement once numbers are used then by definition what you are looking at is designed as only agencies use numbers.
We use the numbers for the thing we are investigating- moron.
OM:
At least you have changed your mind that design can be detected in strings of random numbers.
I never said it could. IOW I haven't changed my mind.
"No assertion, just experience"
ReplyDeleteTick and watermelons, dragonflies playing?
Exactly- as I ai I can prove the part about ticks and watemelon during any dry-spell in th summer. And dragonflies- well all one hs to do is get outside and start observing.
ReplyDeletePeople didn't believe Jane G when she said she had observd chimps using tools (a stick to get at the termites), yt now it is an accepted fact. She added knowledge, as do the observations I have made- observations tat can be duplicated by anyone who isn't an evotard (as evotads as too stupid to conduct science).
OM, is it your assertion that intelligent agency involvement can never be detected on anything at all? If you have never heard of anyone doing it then you intentionally live with your head under a rock. Intelligent agency detection is a key element in many branches of science and other fields. Are you claiming they are all wrong? What do YOU think?
ReplyDeleteI see you reference a great book called Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. It is a great spoof of the stupidity of Accidentalism.
ReplyDeleteAt one point a fully functional whale forms by random chance. Unfortunately, selection does its damage because the whale was formed miles above a planet and falls to its death.
You didnt like Joe's answer to your question about the random number generator, but I did.
ReplyDeleteThe sets of numbers themselves are random in both cases. Intelligent agency can mimic accident, but random accident cannot mimic intelligent agency, except in very simplistic, temporal and rare cases.
Still, he is correct that the random number generator is mostly intelligent in cause anyway.
Darwinists like to equate their luck theory to a lottery or card game. Yet you are sitting down to a game of cards with no cards. You lose every game because you are waiting for cards to appear by random particle collision, then needing pigmentation of some kind to form numbers and pictures of jacks and aces.
Do you think you can win a game using your random accident, OM? Ill give you a hint: Your odds of having cards luckily form in your hand are vastly better than forming a living organism by luck.
Your deal.
OM, Im not sure if you really dont understand the principles of intelligent cause detection or if you are just being obtuse. I dont know the exact process by which fire investigators detect intentional actions, but I get the general concept as most people do.
ReplyDeleteAlthough everything can be proven with math, that is a long and arduous task (in evolution it requires computers to disprove Darwinism) as compared to common sense. Sometimes design inference is obvious to anyone beyond about 2years old.
As Paley said, if you find a watch in the forest, you know it was designed and created by intelligent agncy. This is the simple truth and you know it.
OM, you admit intelligent cause detection in archeology. How uncharacteristically scientific of you. You protest that we know who did the designing in those cases, as compared to biological evolution. What about SETI, where we do not know the source of the intelligence? Are they wrong?
ReplyDeleteI will agree with you that not knowing how something could have been intelligently caused does lead to a higher standard of proof for intelligent agency, but it by no means disproves intelligent cause. There is a point where the most plausible explanation is intelligent cause, and we need to re-think our original belief that intelligence was not involved.
For example if you found a rough carving of a human in the woods you could easily conclude it was carved by humans, but if the first people to the South Pole found the same thing, scientists may be more inclined to infer random luck.
However, with enough detail, such as depictions of buttoned clothing and laced shoes, scientists would logically infer design and re-think the presence of intelligence at the South Pole.
Make sense to you?