Where have you looked?

IOW how do you know there isn’t any evidence?

This is just too funny. Just a short while ago you where complaining that one can not prove a negative, yet, here you are asking Nakashima to do just that.

A simple example of scientists calculating CSI would have been sufficient to convincingly refute him.

Your Amazon link to “Signature in the Cell” seems to be broken.

If so, I’m quite surprized that there isn’t any evidence that anyone is calculating CSI, whether in bits, in fits, or during fits.

Where have you looked?

IOW how do you know there isn’t any evidence?

It is one thing to define a concept, another thing to put it to use. If CSI is useful, why isn’t it used in these latest papers from Drs Dembski, Marks, et al.?

Ask them.

But if blind watchmaker evolution is so useful why doesn’t anyone use it to make new discoveries?

It’s one thing to define a concept but another to put it to use- right?

CSI- same thing- there still isn;t any evidence that nature, operating freely can produce it.

If so, I’m quite surprized that there isn’t any evidence that anyone is calculating CSI, whether in bits, in fits, or during fits.

It is one thing to define a concept, another thing to put it to use. If CSI is useful, why isn’t it used in these latest papers from Drs Dembski, Marks, et al.?

Actually the problem is interesting one also from the human point of view. Brentano revived scholastic conception of intentionality and posited “horizont” against which all our perception are perceived. Nothing is more persuasive as color perception – we often detect the same color even though the color itself has changed greatly – be it by its frequency or intensity. In such cases it is the “background” and not the foreground that determine our perception.

These considerations were used by Husserl and the school of phenomenology. Husserl clearly called his teaching “subjective idealism”. To be on topic – the difference between deep thoughts of phenomenologists and those babble of darwinists regarding perception and judgment is something that has always strucked me.

http://cadra.wordpress.com/

Maybe we should ask a handful of blind people and see how they feel.

Animals have different senses from humans and therefore different experiences, at least in certain important ways.

A bat’s most important sense for getting around seems to be echolocation – something humans just do not even do – or not as a natural sense anyway.

We can create technology around echolocation, but that is a different matter.

I don’t know what bats feel or think, but it probably isn’t easily accessible to humans.

Animal mind and behaviour have always been a puzzle. Probably even nowadays all have heard about conditional and unconditional reflexes. At the beginning of the 20th century the work of physiologist I.P.Pavlov was extremly popular in Russia.
Pavlov’s disciple Savi? tried to prove that also human behaviour is nothing else as conditional reflexes (published in Obozrenij biologi?eskoj laboratorii P.F.Lesgafta according Nikolay Lossky. One can sometimes read also books on History of philosophy in Russia to hit upon interesting information. Of course it cannot be included in top 10).

Savi? took as an example Darwin. He analysed the conditions of his life. He tried to prove that all scientific work of this scientist can be understand as a sequence of conditional reflexes.

http://cadra.wordpress.com/

ID does not attack evolution.

Rather ID “attacks” the blind watchmaker thesis.

Also ID has always been about origins- IOW there wasn’t any shift.

As for the EF and CSI- they still work.

How do you think scientists differentiate between nature, operating freel and agency involvement?

My bet is they use the EF or something very similar to it.

CSI- same thing- there still isn;t any evidence that nature, operating freely can produce it.

I agree, Signature in the Cell was the number one book on ID in 2009.

I see it as a significant shift in the argument for ID away from evolution per se towards OOL as the intellectual battleground. Until Drs Dembski and Marks can join up their mathematics with the existing population genetics literature, it seems that attacking evolution will be left as a culture war exercise, like the previous year’s Expelled. Even then, what of CSI and the Explanatory Filter? Hors de combat, apparently.