Category: ID Foundations
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 […]
FYI-FTR: But, Wiki and Theobald’s 29+ evidences prove evolution is the best explanation of life and its branching tree pattern! — NOT
|November 5, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Cambrian explosion, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Evolutionary biology, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR, ID Foundations, Origin Of Life, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, UD's Pro-Darwinism essay Challenge||
In recent exchanges in and around UD on origins and the tree of life, Theobald’s 29 evidences claims (and by implication the sort of summary presented by Wikipedia in its articles on Abiogenesis and Evolution) have come up. [NB: to carry forward discussions, I suggest here on. I intend to do a for reference in […]
|November 4, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR, ID Foundations, Logic and First Principles of right reason||
In the face of confusing, accusatory, polarising and dismissive rhetoric emanating from all too many objectors to design thought in our day, it is useful to put on record the core design view and the pivotal design inference as a marker for reasonable discussion. That is, a key current task is to clear the air […]
|November 1, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR, ID Foundations, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society||
I was just challenged to reply to the KS “bomb” claim, and though I am busy, I will pause to note briefly, and will link this FYI-FTR to the thread of discussion where the challenge was made. I think WJM, in his post on the failure of the bomb, ably put his finger on the […]
|October 27, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Cell biology, Darwinian Debating Devices, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations|
. . . and blatant denial is not an appropriate response to the reality of and/or easily known facts concerning functionally specific complex organisation and /or associated information, FSCO/I: Facts are stubborn things, but people can be more stubborn than that. (That is, there are two types of ignorance, I: simple ignorance because one does […]
FYI/FTR: Making basic sense of FSCO/I, functionally specific complex organisation and associated information
|October 25, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Christian Darwinism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR, ID Foundations||
There is a current wave of attempts in an around UD to cloud, strawmannise, obfuscate, twist into pretzels and dismiss the observed (and measurable) phenomenon, functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information, FSCO/I. Accordingly, let us first note the root of the concept in the work of leading OOL — origin of life — researchers […]
One of the saddest aspects of the debates over the design inference on empirically reliable signs such as FSCO/I, is the way evolutionary materialist objectors and fellow travellers routinely insist on distorting the ID view, even after many corrections. (Kindly, note the weak argument correctives, accessible under the UD Resources Tab, which address many of […]
|October 21, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under Design inference, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations|
Lego Pile A: Lego “Pile” B: What’s the difference, and why is it there? What does this tell us about functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information (FSCO/I), why? So, bearing in mind this needle in haystack search challenge: . . . also, the design inference process flowchart: . . . and the use of […]
|October 18, 2014||Posted by Eric Anderson under Complex Specified Information, Design inference, ID Foundations, Information|
The concept of information is central to intelligent design. In previous discussions, we have examined the basic concept of information, we have considered the question of when information arises, and we have briefly dipped our toes into the waters of Shannon information. In the present post, I put forward an additional discussion regarding the latter, […]
Darwinian Debating Device # 8: refusing to acknowledge the reality of FSCO/I and its reliably known, characteristic cause
|October 17, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinian Debating Devices, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations|
Let us follow an example being discussed in UD comment threads in recent days, of comparing two piles of “dirt”. (U/D, I add — on advice, a sample from ES, as a PS.) CASE A: The volcanic dome of Montserrat’s Soufriere Hills Volcano, a few miles south of where I am composing this post . […]
|October 15, 2014||Posted by Eric Anderson under ID Foundations, Information|
For those of us who are among the unprivileged masses without access to advance copies, I present a photo of what showed up at my door yesterday: I look forward to delving in as time permits in the coming months.
HeKS strikes gold again, or, why strong evidence of design is so often stoutly resisted or dismissed
|October 3, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations|
New UD contributor HeKS notes: The evidence of purposeful design [–> in the cosmos and world of life] is overwhelming on any objective analysis, but due to Methodological Naturalism it is claimed to be merely an appearance of purposeful design, an illusion, while it is claimed that naturalistic processes are sufficient to achieve this appearance […]
|August 23, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Design inference, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations|
Sometimes, the very dismissiveness of hyperskeptical objections is their undoing, as in this case from TSZ: Pesky EleP(T|H)ant Posted on June 25, 2014 by Richardthughes Over at Uncommon Descent KirosFocus repeats the same old bignum arguments as always. He seems to enjoy the ‘needle in a haystack’ metaphor, but I’d like to counter by asking […]
Does ID ASSUME “contra-causal free will” and “intelligence” (and so injects questionable “assumptions”)?
|August 19, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, brains and computation vs contemplation, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations|
Those who have been following recent exchanges at UD will recognise that the headlined summarises the current objection highlighted by objector RDFish, an AI advocate and researcher. A bit of backdrop will be useful; a clip from Luke Muehlhauser in the blog/site “Common Sense Atheism” will aid us in understanding claim and context: Contra-causal free will […]
BA77’s observation: “many influential people in academia simply don’t want Design to be true no matter what evidence . . .”
|August 4, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, ID Foundations, science education, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
The inimitable BA77 observes: I [used] to think that if ID could only get its evidence to the right people in the right places then they would change their mind about Darwinian evolution and we would have a fundamental ‘paradigm shift’ from the ‘top down’. But after a few years of banging my head on […]
Debating Darwin and Design A dialogue between two Christians 1. Is Intelligent Design science or ‘creationism in a cheap tuxedo’? 21st July 2014 Joshua Gidney – Fourth Response I wish to begin this response by thanking Francis for his refreshingly substantive and engaging rebuttal. I believe that in his critique of ID, he has stepped up several […]
(21) In books such as Science & Its Limits: The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective (Downers Grove: IVP, 2000), and Nature, Design and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science (SUNY Press, 2001), Del Ratzsch argues that the activity of intelligence leaves ‘counterflow marks’. Marks which cannot be accounted for without reference to intelligence.
(22) Timothy McGrew argues for what he calls the ‘Realistic Bayesian model’ as the best way of rationally reconstructing design reasoning in ‘Toward a Rational Reconstruction of Design Inferences’, Philosophia Christi 7 (2005), 253-98, available at: commonsense atheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/McGrew-Towards-a-Rational-Reconstruction-of-Design-Inferences.pdf. Lydia McGrew argues for the same conclusion in ‘Testability, Likelihoods, and Design,’ Philo, 7 (1): 5-21, (2004), available at: http://www.lydiamcgrew.com/PhiloTestability.pdf.
(23) William Dembski, The Design Revolution, p.33.
(26) Garret J. DeWeese & J.P. Moreland, Philosophy made slightly less difficult, (Downers Grove: IVP, 2005), p.142.
(27) Wells, op cit., p.87.
(28) Since ‘design-talk’ relies on a non-standard definition of design, I am inclined to think it just confuses matters and that if biological systems aren’t really intelligently designed, then the biological community should be able to elucidate the biological world without high jacking terminology.
(29) Dembski, op cit., p.57.
(30) Bradley Monton, Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Broadview Press, 2009), p.32.
(31) Wells, op cit., p.9.
(32) Dembski, op cit., p.71.
(33) A more detailed discussion of why Dembski finds this to be the case can be found in his interview with Robert Kuhn in the Closer to Truth series, at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAoED7C-A3M.
(34) William A. Dembski, ‘On the Scientific Status of Intelligent Design’, available at: www.designinference.com/documents/2002.03.kennedy_on_ID.htm.
(35) Peter S. Williams, ‘Intelligent Designs on Science: A Surreply to Denis Alexander’s Critique of Intelligent Design Theory’, available at: http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_designsonscience.htm#_ednref7.
(36) Dembski, op cit.
(37) Mike Gene, ‘What is Front Loading?’ available at: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/darwin-or-design/id317032464?mt=2.
(38) Ferris Jabr, ‘Why Life Does Not Really Exist’, Scientific American (2013), available at: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/12/02/why-life-does-not-really-exist/.
(39) ‘In geometry, definitions are formed using known words or terms to describe a new word. There are three words in geometry that are not formally defined. These three undefined terms are point, line and plane.’, available at: http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/math/geometry/GG1/undefinedterms.htm.
(40) William Dembski, ‘Is intelligent design a form of natural theology?’.
(42) William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence (Langham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), p.xi.
(43) William Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998), p.36.
(44) William Dembski, ‘Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information‘, available at: http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm.
(45) Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press (2006), p.193.
(46) gpuccio, op cit.
(47) William Dembski, The Design Revolution, p.115.
(48) William Dembski, No Free Lunch, p.141.
(49) William Dembski, The Design Revolution, p.99.
(50) William Dembski, The Design Inference, p.36.
(52) To illustrate this, Peter S. Williams poses the following thought experiment: ‘if there are two forensic scientists in a lab. One of whom believes in souls, and one of whom doesn’t. Do they have to resolve that dispute about the nature of intelligence, metaphysically speaking, before they can decide whether or not it was a murder? No…they can agree that there is something we call intelligence and we’ll leave the question of ‘what is the nature of that intelligence’, to the philosophers to argue about.’ (Peter S. Williams, Is Christianity Unscientific?, available at: http://www.damaris.org.uk/cm/podcasts/category/peterswilliams/?ps=140).
(53) William Dembski & Jonathan Wells, The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems (Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 2008), glossary.
(54) Casey Luskin, ‘Finding Intelligent Design in Nature’ in Intelligent Design 101: Leading Experts Explain the Key Issues, (Kregel, 2008). p.69-73.
(55) William Dembski, ‘Is intelligent design a form of natural theology?’.
(56) Dr Vincent Torley offers an extended examination of a more specified account of intelligence, in: ‘On the nature and detection of intelligence: A reply to RDFish’, available at: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-the-nature-and-detection-of-intelligence-a-reply-to-rdfish/.
(57) William Dembski & Jonathan Wells, The Design of Life, p.140.
(58) William Dembski & Sean McDowell, Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language (Harvest House Publishers, 2008), p.102.
(59) Smallwood, op cit.
(60) William Dembski, ‘Is intelligent design a form of natural theology?’.
(61) Smallwood, op cit.
(62) William Dembski, The Design Revolution, p.230.
(63) Peter S. Williams argues that ‘If some detail of the natural world …exhibits exactly the same property of complex specified information, then the standard inferential argument warrants positing exactly the same kind of cause: intelligent design.’(‘Intelligent Designs on Science: A Surreply to Denis Alexander’s Critique of Intelligent Design Theory’.).
(64) Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (New York: Harper Collins, 2009). p.385.
(65) William Dembski, ‘Is intelligent design a form of natural theology?’.
(67) Smallwood, op cit.
(70) Many ID theorists appear to agree with Francis’ observation here. that More explicitly, Peter S. Williams argues that ‘Although he didn’t employ this precise terminology, Paley pointed out that a watch is irreducibly complex.’(‘Intelligent Design, Aesthetics and Design Arguments’, available at: http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_idaestheticsanddesignarguments.htm#_ednref148.
(71) ‘FAQ: Isn’t intelligent design just a rehash of William Paley’s design arguments refuted by Hume and Darwin?’, available at: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1166
(72) William Dembski, No Free Lunch, p.xvi
(73) Stephen Dilley argues that ‘Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation.’, and that ‘theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin’s science.’(‘Charles Darwin’s use of theology in the Origin of Species.’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 45, pp29-56, (2012), available at: http://theistic.net/papers/S.Dilley/Dilley-Brit.J.Hist.Sci_2011–1-28.pdf). ID theorist Paul Nelson argues that there is a ‘demonstrable role of theology in evolutionary explanation…’, in his essay ‘Jettison the Arguments, or the Rule? The Place of Darwinian Theological Themata in Evolutionary Reasoning’, available at: http://www.arn.org/docs/nelson/pn_jettison.htm.
(74) Smallwood, op cit.
(76) Casey Luskin, ‘Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why ID Doesn’t Identify the Designer (Part 2)’, available at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/principled_not_rhetorical_reas_1004427.html.
(77) William Dembski, No Free Lunch, p.xiv.
(79) Casey Luskin, ‘Why Can’t Intelligent Design Critics in Synthese Accurately Represent Their Opponents?’ available at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/why_cant_intelligent_design_cr042651.html.