Category: ID Foundations
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.) […]
|December 2, 2016||Posted by johnnyb under Complex Specified Information, ID Foundations, Intelligent Design, Video|
I’ve found that a lot of people who are interested in Intelligent Design are nonetheless unaware of the mathematics behind it. Therefore, I decided to do some videos teaching the basic ideas.
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 30, 2016||Posted by johnnyb under Complex Specified Information, Darwinism, ID Foundations, Intelligent Design|
I have often noticed something of a confusion on one of the major points of the Intelligent Design movement – whether or not the design inference is primarily based on the failure of Darwinism and/or mechanism.
|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 […]
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 […]
There is no significant observed evidence of such cumulative constructive work being feasible by chance on the gamut of our solar system or the observed cosmos on the timeline of some 10^17 s from the conventional timeline since the big bang event as is commonly discussed, in light of the very strong statistical tendencies and expected outcomes just outlined.
No wonder, then, that some years ago, leading OOL researchers Robert Shapiro and Leslie Orgel had the following exchange of mutual ruin on metabolism- first vs genes-first/RNA world OOL speculative models:
The only empirically, observationally warranted adequate cause of such FSCO/I at macro or micro levels (recall that classic pic of atoms arranged to spell IBM?) is intelligently directed configuration. Which of course will use energy converting devices to carry out constructive work in a technology cascade. It takes a lot of background work to carry out the work in hand just now, as a rule.
Such is not a violation of 2LOT, as e.g. Szilard’s analysis of Maxwell’s Demon shows. There is a relevant heat or energy flow and degradation process that compensates the reduction in freedom of possibilities implied in constructing an FSCO/I rich entity.
But, RELEVANT is a key word; the compensating flow needs to credibly be connected to the constructive wiring diagram assembly work in hand to create an FSCO/I rich entity. It cannot just be free floating out there in a cloud cuckooland dream of getting forces of dissipation and disarrangement such as Brownian motion and diffusion to do a large body of constructive work.
That is the red herring-strawman fallacy involved in typical “compensation” arguments. There ain’t no “paper trail” that connects the claimed “compensation” to the energy transactions involved in the detailed construction work required to create FSCO/I.
[Or, let me clip apt but often derided remarks of Mathematics Professor Granville Sewell, an expert on (the highly relevant!) subject of differential equations, from http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/appendixd.pdf:
. . . The second law is all about probability, it uses probability at the microscopic level to predict macroscopic change: the reason carbon distributes itself more and more uniformly in an insulated solid is, that is what the laws of probability predict when diffusion alone is operative. The reason natural forces may turn a spaceship, or a TV set, or a computer into a pile of rubble but not vice-versa is also probability: of all the possible arrangements atoms could take, only a very small percentage could fly to the moon and back, or receive pictures and sound from the other side of the Earth, or add, subtract, multiply and divide real numbers with high accuracy. The second law of thermodynamics is the reason that computers will degenerate into scrap metal over time, and, in the absence of intelligence, the reverse process will not occur; and it is also the reason that animals, when they die, decay into simple organic and inorganic compounds, and, in the absence of intelligence, the reverse process will not occur.
The discovery that life on Earth developed through evolutionary “steps,” coupled with the observation that mutations and natural selection — like other natural forces — can cause (minor) change, is widely accepted in the scientific world as proof that natural selection — alone among all natural forces — can create order out of disorder, and even design human brains, with human consciousness. Only the layman seems to see the problem with this logic. In a recent Mathematical Intelligencer article [“A Mathematician’s View of Evolution,” The Mathematical Intelligencer 22, number 4, 5-7, 2000] I asserted that the idea that the four fundamental forces of physics alone could rearrange the fundamental particles of Nature into spaceships, nuclear power plants, and computers, connected to laser printers, CRTs, keyboards and the Internet, appears to violate the second law of thermodynamics in a spectacular way.1 . . . .
What happens in a[n isolated] system depends on the initial conditions; what happens in an open system depends on the boundary conditions as well. As I wrote in “Can ANYTHING Happen in an Open System?”, “order can increase in an open system, not because the laws of probability are suspended when the door is open, but simply because order may walk in through the door…. If we found evidence that DNA, auto parts, computer chips, and books entered through the Earth’s atmosphere at some time in the past, then perhaps the appearance of humans, cars, computers, and encyclopedias on a previously barren planet could be explained without postulating a violation of the second law here . . . But if all we see entering is radiation and meteorite fragments, it seems clear that what is entering through the boundary cannot explain the increase in order observed here.” Evolution is a movie running backward, that is what makes it special.
THE EVOLUTIONIST, therefore, cannot avoid the question of probability by saying that anything can happen in an open system, he is finally forced to argue that it only seems extremely improbable, but really isn’t, that atoms would rearrange themselves into spaceships and computers and TV sets . . . [NB: Emphases added. I have also substituted in isolated system terminology as GS uses a different terminology. Cf as well his other remarks here and here.]]
Call in the energy auditors!
Arrest that energy embezzler!
In short simple terms, with all due respect, you simply don’t know what you are talking about and yet traipse in to announce that others who do have a clue, misunderstand.
That does not compute, as the fictional Mr Spock was so fond of saying.
Such does not exactly commend evolutionary materialist ideology as the thoughtful man’s view of the world. But then, long since, that view has been known to be self-referentially incoherent. E.g. per Haldane’s subtle retort:
“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays , Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
I suggest to you that you would be well advised “tae think again.”>>
Time tae think again objectors. END
PS: For benefit of Z at 17 below, here’s an exploded view of a Garden pond fountain pump, exploded view:
. . . and yes, just the drive motor alone would be FSCO/I.