Category: Complex Specified Information
|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 17, 2016||Posted by Eric Anderson under 'Junk DNA', Chemistry, Complex Specified Information, Engineering, Information, Just For Fun|
Over on this thread we’ve had a lively discussion, primarily about common descent. However, one of the key side discussions has focused on the information required to build an organism. Remarkably, some have argued that essentially nothing is required except a parts list on a digital storage medium. Yes, you heard right. Given the right […]
|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
|April 14, 2016||Posted by PaV under Comp. Sci. / Eng., Complex Specified Information, Irreducible Complexity|
For the delight of programmers here at UD, I include this post. Over at the “Reference Frame,” a blog by Lubos Motl, string theorist, and physicist extraordinaire, he has this post on a new game for “gamers” calledQuantum Moves. I don’t have time for any in-depth comment; however, for the programmers among us, here is […]
|February 23, 2016||Posted by johnnyb under Complex Specified Information, Informatics, Intelligent Design, Probability|
Recently a criticism was leveled against Dembski’s 2005 paper Specification: the pattern that signifies intelligence. As is often the case, if you read the criticism carefully, you will realize that, even though he says Dembski is wrong, it turns out that the more exacting answer would favor Dembski’s conclusion more strongly, not less.
|December 22, 2015||Posted by DLH under Biology, Complex Specified Information, Darwinism, Evolution, Genetics, Genomics, Human evolution, Information, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Mind, The Design of Life|
The remarkable “powers” of evolution are now shown to degrade (aka “mutate”) the human genes essential to intelligence. Remarkably, they found that some of the same genes that influence human intelligence in healthy people were also the same genes that cause impaired cognitive ability and epilepsy when mutated, networks which they called M1 and M3.
|December 18, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, Origin Of Life, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
I ran across a vid of a proposal developed by Martin Marietta to explore Mars, towards settlement (and terraforming?): embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt What I find highly interesting is the motivations given. In addition to the Mars colonisation idea, there seems to be hope that finding “independent” life on Mars would show life must […]
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 […]
|September 24, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Back to Basics of ID, Design inference, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society||
It is time to move on from preliminary logical considerations to key foundational issues relevant to design theory. Of these, the challenge of complexity, information and functionally specific organisation is first and foremost. Hence this post. We live in a technological age, and one that increasingly pivots around information. One in which we are surrounded […]
|September 10, 2015||Posted by DLH under Biophysics, Darwinism, Design inference, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, Genomics, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity|
Rockefeller University researchers found that part of a DNA repair protein known as 53BP1 fits over the phosphorylated part of H2AX “like a glove,” says Kleiner. This interaction helps bring 53BP1 to the site of DNA damage, where it mediates the repair of double-stranded breaks in DNA by encouraging the repair machinery to glue the […]
That is, why inferring design on functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information, e.g.: and equally: . . . makes good sense. Now, overnight, UD’s Newsdesk posted on a Space dot com article, Is Our Universe a Fake? The article features “Philosopher Nick Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University.” I […]
|June 26, 2015||Posted by Eric Anderson under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Evolution, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, Irreducible Complexity, Origin Of Life, Self-Org. Theory|
Yesterday I watched a re-run of a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode. There. I said it. I love Star Trek. Notwithstanding the many absurd evolution-based plotlines. In this specific episode, Data referred to a particular characteristic of a newly-developing lifeform as an “emergent property.” I’ve looked into the “emergence” ideas in the past, and […]
FYI-FTR: Part 8, an objection — >>nobody has solved the OOL challenge from an ID perspective either. And they never will until ID proposes the nature of the Designer (AKA God) and the mechanisms used (AKA “poof”). >>
|June 6, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR, Origin Of Life, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Selective Hyperskepticism||
The captioned comment comes by way of an email, from YM: >>nobody has solved the OOL challenge from an ID perspective either. And they never will until ID proposes the nature of the Designer (AKA God) and the mechanisms used (AKA “poof). >> (In addition, I have received a slander-laced remark from one of the […]
FYI-FTR: Part 7, But >>if you want to infer a designer as the cause of an apparent design, then you need to make some hypotheses about how, how, where and with what, otherwise you can’t subject your inference to any kind of test>>
Not so. With all due respect, EL’s error here is a case of failure to think through the inductive logic of abductive inference to best explanation on a tested, reliable sign. (And indeed the statistics of Type I/II error extend that to cases of known percentage reliability, especially when multiple aspects or signs are involved […]
FYI-FTR: Part 6, What about “howtwerdun” and “whodunit” . . . >>[the ID case has] no hypothesis about what the designer was trying to do, how she was doing it, what her capacities were, etc.>>
|June 4, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Selective Hyperskepticism||
One of the key diversions made by objectors to a design inference on empirically tested, reliable markers of design as causal factor, is to try to switch topics and debate about the designer. Often, this then bleeds over into assertions or suggestions on “god of the gaps” fallacies and even accusations of ID being “Creationism […]
|June 2, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR, Intelligent Design, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Selective Hyperskepticism||
Sometimes, one of the most telling issues in a debate is the point the other side utterly refuses to take up. The one it tries to pretend is just not there. Even, as it hastens off to a red herring dragged away to strawman caricatures laced with loaded accusations or insinuations and set alight to […]
FYI-FTR*: Part 2, Is it so that >>If current models are inadequate (and actually all models are), and indeed we do not yet have good OoL models, that does not in itself make a case for design>>
|May 31, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR, ID Foundations, Irreducible Complexity, Selective Hyperskepticism||
Further for record* on the case for a designer: EL, here: >> . . . What undermines the “case for design” chiefly, is that there isn’t a case for a designer. If current models are inadequate (and actually all [the?] models are), and indeed we do not yet have good OoL models, that does not […]
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [–> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [[–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [NB: If you are tempted to believe the talking point that this is “quote-mined” kindly cf the already linked fuller annotated cite.] >>
Quite an admission.
No wonder, Philip Johnson replied as follows, in the same year in a First Things article:
>>For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
. . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]>>
In short, once the selective hyperskepticism imposed by a priori evolutionary materialist scientism is seen for what it is — a mind-closing fallacy of ideological bias — then the force of the inductive argument from tested reliable signs to design as cause can then be acknowledged.
Absent that, we are back to EL’s position.
Having been forced to face the notorious fact that there are no good naturalistic, a priori evolutionary materialist models or theories for OoL, the conclusion imposed is that we must lock out the possibility of design by imposing an unreasonable demand for proof of miracle or else separate, direct evidence of a designer (seemingly, presumed to be supernatural).
Similarly, she imposes that actual proof of “no possible evolutionary pathway” does not bring up design as a serious alternative.
First, this is already selectively hyperskeptical.
We were not present when life originated or body plans originated, so we cannot have direct observational “proof.” And it is inherently the case that inductive, empirical reasoning cannot deliver proof beyond possibility of correction or alternative suggestions, however implausible. So, an unreasonable, obviously ideological demand is being made.
Second, once ideological lock-outs are laid aside, we do have a serious alternative, which does not necessarily require miracles to manipulate molecular level entities: intelligently directed configuration, aka design.
Third, one does not need to know fabrication or design process to infer to design on empirically reliable, tested signs such as FSCO/I. We routinely recognise artifacts as just that, designed entities, even when we neither know who made it, nor why, nor to what end or use, nor how.
Inference on reliable, tested sign — and FSCO/I has a trillion-member observational base — is enough.
Indeed, the logic here is backwards, cart before horse.
For, the scientific investigation of origins faces the challenge that we were not there to observe directly and must seek to reconstruct an unobservable deep past on traces in the present. And the key principle here is that before being projected to a remote past, a claimed causal force must show adequate capability in the here and now present.
Where, when it comes to FSCO/I, on a trillion-member base of observations, there is only one empirically warranted adequate cause: design. And, the ideologically favoured alternative, blind watchmaker chance and/or mechanical necessity in some cluster of circumstances, faces the issue of being a blind, needle in haystack search process, that especially for OoL has to account for the vNSR-based, irreducibly complex and FSCO/I rich code-using process that is the heart of cellular self-replication.
That is, this is the (often dismissed) needle in haystack search challenge that OoL models face:
Likewise, for origin of Body Plans [OOBP for short], the same basic challenge obtains, but it is often argued that there is an incremental branching path from microbes to Mozart, mango trees, molluscs, etc. (That too, really needs to be shown . . . )
An immediate issue here is:
Likewise, there are serious issues on population scale and generation times to achieve the sort of diversification involved, even if there were observed cases of major body plan feature origin by blind watchmaker mechanisms.
In short, it is at least patently reasonable to infer from FSCO/I involved in cell based life and in body plans, that life shows strong signs of design as causal process.
Where, it still remains so that:
P1: design processes call out for explanation, and
P2: the only reasonable explanation of such is that the functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information [FSCO/I] we see point to intelligently directed configuration as proximate, actuating cause and onwards to the intelligence and purpose of a contriver as the first, root cause. So,
C: such calls for the [Paleyan] explanation: “[c]ontrivance must have had a contriver; design, a designer . . .”
For, as Paley had argued (and as was cited in the just linked but was studiously avoided):
>>SUPPOSE, in the next place, that the person who found the watch, should, after some time, discover that, in addition to all the properties which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing, in the course of its movement, another watch like itself (the thing is conceivable); that it contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts, a mould for instance, or a complex adjustment of lathes, files, and other tools, evidently and separately calculated for this purpose; let us inquire, what effect ought such a discovery to have upon his former conclusion [–> on seeing a watch in a field].
I. The first effect would be to increase his admiration of the contrivance, and his conviction of the consummate skill of the contriver. Whether he regarded the object of the contrivance, the distinct apparatus, the intricate, yet in many parts intelligible mechanism, by which it was carried on, he would perceive, in this new observation, nothing but an additional reason for doing what he had already done,–for referring the construction of the watch to design, and to supreme art. If that construction without this property, or which is the same thing, before this property had been noticed, proved intention and art to have been employed about it; still more strong would the proof appear, when he came to the knowledge of this further property, the crown and perfection of all the rest.
II. He would reflect, that though the watch before him were, in some sense, the maker of the watch, which was fabricated in the course of its movements, yet it was in a very different sense from that, in which a carpenter, for instance, is the maker of a chair; the author of its contrivance, the cause of the relation of its parts to their use. With respect to these, the first watch was no cause at all to the second: in no such sense as this was it the author of the constitution and order, either of the parts which the new watch contained, or of the parts by the aid and instrumentality of which it was produced. We might possibly say, but with great latitude of expression, that a stream of water ground corn: but no latitude of expression would allow us to say, no stretch of conjecture could lead us to think, that the stream of water built the mill, though it were too ancient for us to know who the builder was. What the stream of water does in the affair, is neither more nor less than this; by the application of an unintelligent impulse to a mechanism previously arranged, arranged independently of it, and arranged by intelligence, an effect is produced, viz. the corn is ground. But the effect results from the arrangement. The force of the stream cannot be said to be the cause or author of the effect, still less of the arrangement. Understanding and plan in the formation of the mill were not the less necessary, for any share which the water has in grinding the corn: yet is this share the same, as that which the watch would have contributed to the production of the new watch, upon the supposition assumed in the last section. Therefore,
III. Though it be now no longer probable, that the individual watch, which our observer had found, was made immediately by the hand of an artificer, yet doth not this alteration in anywise affect the inference, that an artificer had been originally employed and concerned in the production. The argument from design remains as it was. Marks of design and contrivance are no more accounted for now, than they were before . . . .
Nor is any thing gained by running the difficulty farther back, i. e. by supposing the watch before us to have been produced from another watch, that from a former, and so on indefinitely. Our going back ever so far, brings us no nearer to the least degree of satisfaction upon the subject. Contrivance is still unaccounted for. We still want a contriver. A designing mind is neither supplied by this supposition, nor dispensed with. If the difficulty were diminished the further we went back, by going back indefinitely we might exhaust it. And this is the only case to which this sort of reasoning applies. Where there is a tendency, or, as we increase the number of terms, a continual approach towards a limit, there, by supposing the number of terms to be what is called infinite, we may conceive the limit to be attained: but where there is no such tendency, or approach, nothing is effected by lengthening the series. There is no difference as to the point in question (whatever there may be as to many points), between one series and another; between a series which is finite, and a series which is infinite. A chain, composed of an infinite number of links, can no more support itself, than a chain composed of a finite number of links . . . The machine which we are inspecting, demonstrates, by its construction, contrivance and design. Contrivance must have had a contriver; design, a designer; whether the machine immediately proceeded from another machine or not. That circumstance alters not the case. That other machine may, in like manner, have proceeded from a former machine: nor does that alter the case; contrivance must have had a contriver . . .>>
The issue on the table is first to lay aside selectively hyperskeptical anti-supernaturalist prejudice and strawman caricatures of the design argument on FSCO/I etc as empirically tested reliable signs pointing to design as cause. It will not do to beg questions and/or caricature and knock over misrepresentations of the actual case to be addressed.
Then, copious evidence of FSCO/I in hand we must squarely face the point made by Paley: Contrivance must have had a contriver; design, a designer. END
* F/N: Due to an unfortunate insistent current tactic of side-tracking the discussion into a pointless, distractive, patently ill-founded polarising debate over alleged censorship [cf. a thread where I had to abort commenting, here, yesterday . . . a thread, BTW, that from the opening words of its title, invited, “Let’s discuss . . . “], I am forced to put up responses for the record for this series of posts without direct access to a comment exchange; thus making the debate more like an old fashioned exchange of magazine articles. The bottom-line is simple: I will not tolerate incivility, abuse and enabling of stalking and worse as a demanded price of interactive dialogue. (Hopefully, the circle of objectors will eventually reconsider the side-track and polarise tactic.)