Category: ID Foundations
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 […]
|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
|February 26, 2016||Posted by DLH under Atheism, Big Bang, Books of interest, Cosmology, ID Foundations, Intelligent Design, Of General Interest, Origin Of Life, Philosophy, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
Criminologist and former atheist Mike Adams summarizes the three foundational philosophical alternatives to the Cosmos: First, we can say that it came into being spontaneously – in other words, that it came to be without a cause. Second, we can say that it has always been. Third, we can posit some cause outside the physical […]
|October 29, 2015||Posted by johnnyb under Darwinism, ID Foundations, Intelligent Design|
Since this has popped up a lot in the last few weeks, I wanted to repost an old post of mine describing the relationship between ID and Common Descent. I think it is pretty much as relevant now as when I originally posted it almost 6 years ago.
|September 8, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, ID Foundations, Logic and First Principles of right reason, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
As has come up as pivotal in recent discussions here at UD, we must recognise that logic and first principles underlie any serious discussion, including origins science, and in sciences — especially those addressing origins — the issue of chains of cause will be pivotal. The two are connected, as can be seen by first […]
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 […]
FYI-FTR*: Part 3, Is it so, that >> . . . What undermines the “case for design” chiefly, is that there isn’t a case for a designer>>
|June 1, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Creationism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Ethics, ID Foundations, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Selective Hyperskepticism||
It has become apparent that a major objection by EL et al, is that ” . . . What undermines the “case for design” chiefly, is that there isn’t a case for a designer” — clearly implying God as Designer/ Creator. This objection is closely backed by the now far too common atheistical/ secularist notion […]
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 […]
Let’s discuss: >> Elizabeth Liddle: I do not think the ID case holds up. I think it is undermined by [want of . . . ???] any evidence for the putative designer . . . >>
|May 30, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Design inference, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Selective Hyperskepticism|
In a current UD thread, Mung clips and comments: >> OT: Over at TSZ, fossils of reason occasionally appear, quite by accident. Elizabeth Liddle: I do not think the ID case holds up. I think it is undermined by any evidence for the putative designer – no hypothesis about what the designer was trying to […]
|May 28, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR, ID Foundations, Information, Irreducible Complexity, Selective Hyperskepticism||
Andre just asked me: can you please embed a flowchart of how communication works for [XXXX] … You know the one that goes like this input encoder medium decoder output. I don’t think [XXXX] understands the problems such a system has with accidental processes nor does he understand IC. Please KF. With a little bit […]
|May 2, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations|
A current rhetorical tack of objections to the design inference has two facets: (a) suggesting or implying that by moving research focus to Active Information needle in haystack search-challenge linked Specified Complexity has been “dispensed with” [thus,too, related concepts such as FSCO/I]; and (b) setting out to dismiss Active Information, now considered in isolation. Both […]
|April 30, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR, ID Foundations, Information||
Overnight, HT Mung, this was drawn to my attention: JF, TSZ: At the UD thread there were some loud dismissals of models that had genotypes and a fitness surface. It was declared that these genetic algorithms weren’t models of evolution. Actually DEM called such models “evolutionary search”, so they don’t seem to agree with the […]
Should ID supporters argue in terms of thermodynamics or information or [“basic . . . “] probability?
In the still active discussion thread on failure of compensation arguments, long term maverick ID (and, I think, still YEC-sympathetic) supporter SalC comments: SalC, 570: . . . I’ve argued against using information theory type arguments in defense of ID, it adds way too much confusion. Basic probability will do the job, and basic probability […]
|March 17, 2015||Posted by johnnyb under Darwinism, Design inference, Evolutionary biology, ID Foundations, Informatics, Information, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity|
There are many ID’ers who complain about the AVIDA simulation, and I for the life of me can’t figure out why this is so.
|March 15, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Cybernetics and Mechatronics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations, Molecular Animations, Selective Hyperskepticism, thermodynamics and information|
It seems to be time to call in the energy audit police. Let us explain, in light of an ongoing sharp exchange on “compensating” arguments in the illusion of organising energy thread. This morning Piotr, an objector (BTW — and this is one time where expertise base is relevant — a Linguist), at 288 dismissed […]
Functionally Specific, Complex Organisation and Associated Information (FSCO/I) is real and relevant
|February 4, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
Over the past few months, I noticed objectors to design theory dismissing or studiously ignoring a simple — much simpler than a clock — macroscopic example of Functionally Specific, Complex Organisation and/or associated Information (FSCO/I) and its empirically observed source, the ABU-Garcia Ambassadeur 6500 C3 fishing reel: Yes, FSCO/I is real, and has a known […]
|January 7, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, ID Foundations, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
An article in Salon caught my eye while looking at other things online: Saturday, Jan 3, 2015 10:00 AM -0400 God is on the ropes: The brilliant new science that has creationists and the Christian right terrified A young MIT professor is finishing Darwin’s task — and threatening to undo everything the wacky right holds […]
Axe on specific barriers to macro-level Darwinian Evolution due to protein formation (and linked islands of specific function)
|November 14, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under Cell biology, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations|
A week ago, VJT put up a useful set of excerpts from Axe’s 2010 paper on proteins and barriers they pose to Darwinian, blind watchmaker thesis evolution. During onward discussions, it proved useful to focus on some excerpts where Axe spoke to some numerical considerations and the linked idea of islands of specific function deeply […]
|November 13, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Design inference, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR, ID Foundations||
One of the favourite tactics of hyperskepticism is to brazenly dismiss what is objected to as a myth, misconcept or word magic, etc; even while in the real world, one must deal with it day by day as blatant reality. Oops. This has been happening with FSCO/I and linked concepts such as dFSCI. As a […]
FYI-FTR: What about the design inference explanatory filter (vs. strawmannish caricatures of how design inferences are made)?
|November 8, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR, ID Foundations||
From recent “challenges” by KS as a representative of a certain line of design objection thought, we find various unfortunate examples of a type of objection that pivots on a deep misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of the design inference, empirical evidence based inductive reasoning process.One that even more regrettably, seems strongly resistant to correction on evidence […]
So, we need sound answers, not ideological impositions of a priori materialism and/or its fellow travellers and linked begging of questions backed up by declarations of fact, fact FACT.
But perhaps the most telling case is that of Paley and the thought exercise on the time keeping self replicating watch, in Ch II of his Nat Theol. Paley is often set up and lampooned as making a silly error of analogy, failing to notice the possibility of reproduction and what it opens the way for. But in fact this is a strawman caricature pivoting on a misrepresentation, a strawman tactic. (At the relevant level, those who present the watch as an emblem of erroneous analogy need to make sure they accurately represent all Paley had to say on the matter. Otherwise they speak with disregard to truth hoping to profit by what is said or suggested being perceived as true.)
For in Chapter II Paley carefully suggests:
Suppose, in the next place, that the person who found the watch [in a field, cf the well known argument in Ch I] should after some time discover that, in addition to [–> a key point] 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 mold, for instance, or a complex adjustment of lathes, baffles, and other tools — evidently and separately calculated for this purpose . . . .
The first effect would be to increase his admiration of the contrivance [first excited by observing a complex, functionally specific, time keeping mechanism based on correct interaction of correctly formed and arranged parts], 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 . . . . 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.
Indeed, he goes on to discuss this at quite serious depth, even dealing with the issue of claimed or suggested infinite regress.
Of course, this also shows that the problem of misrepresentation of design thinkers and their thought is a longstanding one.
Drawing together, the design inference process starts from the point that some things fall under natural regularities reasonably explained by laws of mechanical necessity. Aspects of processes shaped by such mechanical forces do not need further explanation as such. Torques and stress-strain relationships in the reel’s gears or elliptical orbits of planets alike fit well within Newtonian dynamics (save for Mercury’s orbit, which is one manifestation of relativity).
The per aspect design filter in the cases in view would point to characterising the laws and embedding them in explanatory frameworks.
Of course that we live in a cosmos with laws and parameters fine tuned for C-Chemistry, Aqueous medium cell based terrestrial planet life, raises another level of design inference. But, that is patently on a very different aspect of the situation and has little to do with the causal factors directly at work in the meshing of gears to transfer torques and rotational kinetic energy, or the orbiting of a planet about a sun.
Nor, are design thinkers explaining the orbiting of planets based on imagined angels actively pushing in accord with some law or other. Theistic design thinkers may consider that God may have created the laws and sustains them in existence, but that is at a different level of discussion. As in, how do laws and worlds come into existence?
The strawman caricature fails.
Next, there may be highly contingent aspects of a situation that under seemingly closely similar initial circumstances may come to have very different outcomes.
That is not compatible with mechanical laws at work on that aspect.
As the filter shows, the default for such is chance, similar to how dice tumble and come to values, or to sky noise etc. So long as we are dealing with stochastically plausible outcomes on chance, that is the default conclusion made, accepting that there may be a false negative.
But under the circumstances of joint complexity-specificity relative to an independently describable deeply isolated cluster of configurations T in a space of possibilities [especially where functionality like that of the reel is involved], design is a superior explanation. Especially where T is an island of function:
BTW, one of the stranger recent objections that popped up recently is that the island of function metaphor reflects an inability to think multidimensionally.
Actually, if one looks at P(x1, x2, . . xn) in the figure just above, one will see that the point P is specified by n degrees of freedom or co-ordinates or elements of a vector, i.e. dimensions. For a single component, that involves already X-Y-Z location, and orientation relative to the x-axis as polar axis requiring yaw, pitch and roll. Six dimensions for a single component. As a typical reel involves up to about 100 parts, that is 600 dimensions give or take based on number of parts. And that does not take into account the mesh structures needed to specify the parts in a further config space, and the identification of the parts, or the systems to assemble them. And, in the underlying phase space analysis of thermodynamic systems, 10^22 parts — molecules — can require more than 10^22 dimensions at six degrees of freedom per molecule even for a simple case of an ideal gas. The chain of y/n q’s to specify the state of a functional system, of course, if it takes n questions, has n dimensions, with of course two states per dimension, which in the first instance are mutually independent in terms that one bit value may follow any other: 00, 01, 10, 11. The information content involved is obvious.
Where also, in the context of implied sparse search, once one is off an island of function, the challenge is to find the shores of such and island, not to climb hills within such islands. Where, as was shown by using the example of the reel, configuration of multiple matching parts to function implies confinement to narrow zones in the space of possible clumped or scattered possibilities. Islands of function is not an easily brushed aside question-begging analogy, it is a metaphorical illustration of a major constraint on effective design and functionality.
(This multidimensionality objection, too, clearly reflects prejudices and projections on design thinkers that show a subtext of contempt and presumed ignorance even in the face of direct evidence to the contrary. In this case, failure to see what a set of co-ordinates in a configuration space immediately implies.)
So, it is clear that there is a problem of strawman caricatures of design thought and linked inattention to what design thinkers are actually saying, likely fed by a subtext of contempt.
That needs to be corrected.
Finally, as there are several open threads on KS’ challenges currently, this will be a FTR that will be linked to from the threads, e.g. here. END