Category: Back to Basics of ID
|December 4, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Back to Basics of ID, Cosmology, Design inference, Informatics, Intelligent Design, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
. . . that is, the design inference vs. the broader scientific investigation of a world of life and cosmos that are infused with complex, functionally specific information and complex, functional organisation? In the Turing test thread, just now, I raised this issue in responding to GP and SA . . . and I think […]
Our Physicist and Computer Scientist from Russia — and each element of that balance is very relevant — is back, with more. MOAR, in fact. This time, he tackles the “terror-fitted depths” of thermodynamics and biosemiotics. (NB: Those needing a backgrounder may find an old UD post here and a more recent one here, helpful.) […]
A few days back, I headlined a clip from Crick’s letter to his son Michael, March 19, 1953: The main text is accessible here (with page scans). Sans diagrams: >>My Dear Michael, Jim Watson and I have probably made a most important discovery. We have built a model for the structure of des-oxy-ribose-nucleic-acid (read it […]
|November 5, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Back to Basics of ID, Complex Specified Information, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations, Intelligent Design|
A: One of the old sayings of WW II era bomber pilots was that flak gets heaviest over a sensitive target. So, when something as intuitively obvious and easily demonstrated as configuration-based, functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated (explicit or implicit) information — FSCO/I — becomes a focus for objections, that is an implicit sign […]
A: Of course, this was long since answered in Dembski’s No Free Lunch, but many (especially those who draw their understanding of ID from what ruthlessly manipulative objectors have to say) will not be familiar with what he has long since said on record. So, let’s clip and highlight, as foundational: >>p. 148:“The great myth […]
|November 2, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under academic freedom, Back to Basics of ID, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Intelligent Design, Peer review|
A quick FTR-FYI, here. END PS: Cover page:
BTB, Bob O’H vs the trillion-member observational base of FSCO/I and the design inference on reliable sign
|November 2, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Back to Basics of ID, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Design inference, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
It seems we need more back to basis by us deplorable lightweight ID-iots, again. Here, Bob O’H refuses to take the trillion member case observational base that functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information [FSCO/I for short] is a reliable sign of intelligently directed configuration as key causal factor. Accordingly, in the answering ID is […]
BTB, RVB8 vs deplorably “lazy” ID-iots who “deny science” and insist on trying to “detect a designer”
UD News’ Walking dead thread offers an opportunity to address some common talking points and/or assumptions of many objectors to design. In this case, I replied to some key claims by RVB8, at 21 in the thread: [KF, 21:] >>I see your intended sting in the tail at 18 above: Actual experiments to detect a […]
For many years, atheistical objectors — often, taking a cue from ruthless advocacy groups such as the NCSE and/or ACLU etc — have been tempted to dismiss ID as “Religion” or “Creationism,” and this long since answered point still occasionally crops up here at UD. (Unfortunately, even when it is not explicit, it is often […]
|August 7, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Back to Basics of ID, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Global Warming, Logic and First Principles of right reason, Politics/policy and origins issues, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
In the Induction thread, we have continued to explore inductive logic, science and ID vs Evolutionary Materialism. Among the key points raised (with the help of Hilary Putnam) is the issue that while Popper sees himself as opposed to induction, it is arguable that instead he has actually (against his intent) brought it back in […]
In the current VJT thread on 31 scientists who did not follow methodological naturalism, it has been noteworthy that objectors have studiously avoided addressing the basic warrant for the design inference. Since this is absolutely pivotal but seems to be widely misunderstood or even dismissed without good reason, it seems useful to summarise this for […]
|July 13, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Astronomy, Atheism, Back to Basics of ID, Cosmology, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Fine tuning, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR||
It seems there is now a talking-point agenda to dismiss the fine tuning issue as an illusion. So, in the current thread on the big bang and fine tuning, I have clipped and commented on a recent article by Luke Barnes. However, comments cannot put up images [save through extraordinary steps], so it is first […]
|June 11, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Back to Basics of ID, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations, Intelligent Design, Privileged planet, The Design of Life, Video|
Here: embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt Let us watch and ponder, then discuss. END Posts
|January 23, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Back to Basics of ID, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Genetics|
BA77 often posts clips of citations and links here at UD. After a recent noticeable break (we missed you), he has just [–> correction: he posted in a thread some time ago which just got a comment from TJG . . . ] posted a link to a video on objections to prof Dawkins’ claims […]
|January 18, 2016||Posted by Eric Anderson under Back to Basics of ID, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Design inference, Intelligent Design|
This is prompted primarily by a recent post and by the unfortunate realization that some people still do not understand the design inference, despite years of involvement in the debate. Specifically, there was discussion at Barry’s prior post about whether Elizabeth Liddle admits that “biological design inferences” may be valid in principle. Over 200 comments appeared […]
|January 11, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Back to Basics of ID, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Governance & control vs anarchy, Politics/policy and origins issues, Popular culture, Selective Hyperskepticism|
The parable of Plato’s Cave in The Republic — vid: embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt . . . is a classic point of departure for discussions of true vs false enlightenment, education, worldviews, liberty and manipulative sociocultural agendas or power games that open up marches of folly. ( I think Acts 27 still has the […]
BTB, 4: Evolutionary Materialism as “fact, Fact, FACT” and its self-falsifying self-referential incoherence
|November 13, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Back to Basics of ID, brains and computation vs contemplation, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society||
One of the challenges commonly met with in re-thinking origins science from a perspective open to design, is that the evolutionary materialist narrative is too often presented as fact (not explanation), and there is also a typical failure to recognise that materialist ideology cannot be properly imposed on science. Likewise, there is a pattern of […]
|November 2, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Back to Basics of ID, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, Intelligent Design||
It does not take a lot of familiarity to know that a common and widely repeated accusation against ID is that it is “creationism in a cheap tuxedo,” that it tries to smuggle the strictly verboten “supernatural” into scientific thought on origins, and that it is a god-of-the-gaps appeal to ignorance by way of we […]
BTB, 2: But, do DNA and the living cell contain functionally specific complex organisation and associated information?
|November 1, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Back to Basics of ID, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, Information||
First, let’s see: And again, here is Crick in his March 19, 1953 letter to his son on his discovery: Notice, how emphatic Crick is: “. . . we believe that the D.N.A. is a code . . . “ Obviously leading scientists agree that DNA reflects coded information that is used in identifiable communication […]
FYI-FTR (& BTB, 1a): A headlined response to LM: “you guys steadfastly refuse to offer any evidence at all for intelligent design or for the existence of an intelligent designer”
|October 27, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Back to Basics of ID, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR, Intelligent Design||
It has now been over a day since I responded to the above, and though LM has further commented in the thread, he has studiously refused to respond to the corrective. It is therefore appropriate to speak here for record, and in so doing it is necessary to point out the implications of LM’s speaking […]
Let’s add a screen-clip, on abductive inference to best explanation (with implications of requiring observed causal adequacy . . . a lingering issue for macro-evolutionary claims):
Likewise, Lyell on the observed adequate cause, vera causa principle (championed by Newton in his four rules of reasoning):
So, Darwin’s legacy:
Meyer then infers:
Where, Crick to his son, March 1953:
Further to all this, there is a sea change of context.
Innocent blood now cries up from the ground at Umpqua, only to be brushed aside. But those who have laboured long and hard, those who have aided and abetted, those who have actively enabled, those who have been passive or indifferent in the face of the creation of an atmosphere of undue hostility to and polarisation against Christians and the Christian heritage of our civilisation, must now face the consequences.
For, when madmen are distilling shoot on sight from the toxic atmosphere, it is a sign and wake up call for all decent people.
And, a terrible portent for our civilisation:
(What kind of matches do you think you were playing with when Christians were routinely characterised as ignorant or stupid or insane or wicked? When, a religious upbringing was portrayed as the equivalent to child abuse? When, Christians are routinely portrayed as right-wing, Christo-fascist would be theocrats and potential terrorists? Do we even remember the consequence — literally for centuries — of Nero’s false accusation that Christians were guilty of criminal, treasonous arson against Rome on the night of July 18, 64 AD? And, more, much more? Or, have we forgotten that the lessons of history were paid for in blood and tears, so that those who refuse to heed them doom themselves to pay the same price over and over again?)
We stand warned.
Now, my reply — slightly enhanced:
you guys steadfastly refuse to offer any evidence at all for intelligent design or for the existence of an intelligent designer
I will note the loaded language implicit in “the crowd” and the like language on your part, pointing to the preliminary remark in 115 above on polarisation and why this needs to stop given that innocent blood is there crying up from the ground in Umpqua.
Further, kindly observe 115 ff above and again pointed to at 182 regarding outlining the evidence for intelligent design that you wish to sweep away with a blanket, hyperskeptical, loaded language dismissal: “you guys steadfastly refuse to offer any evidence at all for intelligent design.”
Such is false, patently false, is offered in disregard to truth and is presented in hopes of profiting from it being perceived as though it were true. Where, for years you have run a blog that attacks design thought in similar terms, in insistent denial of corrective information on the point. This means, at minimum, it is — pardon directness, it is necessary to say A is A — a lie by failure to do basic due diligence on easily ascertainable fact.
Had you said, you reject or disagree with evidence offered, on whatever basis, that would be a different thing. But instead, you asserted refusal on our part to present ANY evidence.
That is untruth.
I suggest, that you need to reconsider what you have been doing, in light of the issues pointed out in say 182 and 115 ff above.
Now, in fact, there are trillions of cases of FSCO/I [= functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information . . . a descriptive acronym tracing to remarks in Orgel and Wicken in the 1970’s] all around us and something so simple as the cause of the FSCO/I in the text of your own comments highlights the ONLY actually observed cause, intelligently directed configuration.
That, sir, is a trillion member body of readily accessible highly relevant evidence, and to my certain knowledge it has been repeatedly presented here at UD, repeatedly and prominently.
Per vera causa as championed by Newton and acknowledged by Lyell and Darwin, design is therefore the best current, observationally warranted causal explanation for FSCO/I.
FSCO/I, case 1, a nodes-arcs view of a fishing reel (just the main gear is already more than enough:
FSCO/I, case 2, a flow-process unit network:
FSCO/I case 3, protein synthesis:
FSCO/I, case 4, the information system involved in such synthesis, per Yockey:
FSCO/I, case 5, the wider cellular metabolic network:
To overturn that, you need to show per observation, how blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, without intelligent direction of configuration, can and do give rise to FSCO/I beyond the 500 – 1,000 bit threshold.
Further to this, the vNkSR [ = von Neumann kinematic self replicator] evidently at work in cellular self-replication (foundational to reproduction, thus to any discussion of differential reproductive success) needs to be grounded on thermodynamically plausible spontaneous physics and chemistry at OOL, in order for the whole chance/non foresighted variation and culling out by differential reproductive success explanatory narrative to have a basis. As Paley pointed out c 1802 – 4, through the thought exercise of a self-replicating watch, and as has been evident since von Neuman’s work on self replicating machines c 1948 on, this implies a huge increment of FSCO/I. Likewise to account for OOBPs dozens of times including our own, increments of 10 – 100+ mn bits of FSCO/I would have to be accounted for.
Just in our case — for the sake of argument — on we are 2% different from chimps, 60 mn bases (120 mn bits) would have to be accounted for in 6 – 10 Mn y, in ways that account for major anatomical differences, for verbal language, for speech, and more, in incremental ways that are population-wise and mut rate wise plausible. Mission impossible, I suggest.
In light of only observed actual cause and the blind watchmaker search, needle in haystack challenge in beyond astronomical configuration spaces, it is very reasonable to hold FSCO/I as a strong sign of intelligently directed configuration. Thus also, as strong indication of the action of designer(s), acting intelligence(s). For, it is equally patent that intelligently directed configuration is a marker of the action of designing intelligence.
So, either your objection that we have offered no evidence of a designer folds into the point that FSCO/I is a strong sign of design, or else you are making a selectively hyperskeptical demand.
Namely, you imply that — knowing that on origins science, we deal with a remote past of origins that we cannot directly observe — you demand “scientific” direct inspection of a designer.
Sorry, this is a violation of reasonableness.
Secondly, it points to the issue of the question-begging redefinition of science to fit with a priori evolutionary materialist ideology.
The answer is, that FSCO/I is a strong sign of design, per vera causa anchored inference to best current, observationally and analytically grounded inductive explanation.
To overturn this, what is needed is what has not been forthcoming for 150 – 200 years (bringing in Paley’s self-replicating watch), actual observational evidence that grounds the reasonable conclusion that FSCO/I of at least 500 – 1,000 bits not only results from intelligently directed configuration, but also from blind watchmaker needle in haystack search by means of chance and mechanical necessity without intelligent direction.
In that context, we have a direct positive induction on a trillion member observational base: FSCO/I is seen to result from design.
We have the further induction, that it has only been observed to come from design, and this is backed up by the needle in haystack search challenge to hit on shores of islands of function. Where also, the constraint of multiple well matched, correctly arranged parts to achieve function shows why specific, configuration based function sharply confines successful configs to islands in the space of possibilities.
Thence, on comparative difficulties and merits of alternatives, we may freely infer that the best explanation to date (and in prospect) for FSCO/I in the world of life and elsewhere, is design.
And, that is a conclusion that stands on a trillion member publicly and readily accessible body of evidence.>>
And, as there is a live thread in progress, discussion can be entertained there. END