Category: ID Foundations
|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 […]
John Lennox responds to the God Delusion thesis, pivoting on the power of agent explanation (vs. scientism)
|July 22, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, ID Foundations, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
John Lennox is always a treat, here in a video in reply to the God Delusion thesis: embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt Food for thought and comment, starting with, what is a delusion and then pivoting on the power of agent explanation. What do we think, why? END
|June 29, 2014||Posted by Eric Anderson under Complex Specified Information, Design inference, ID Foundations, Information|
In this post I want to consider another aspect of information. Specifically, I want to consider the concept of “Shannon information.” First of all, I admit to having ruffled a few feathers when I mentioned in passing in a prior post that “Shannon information is not really information.” As I have also written before in […]
|June 24, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Design inference, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations|
When I was maybe five or six years old, my mother (a distinguished teacher) said to me about problem solving, more or less: if you can draw a picture of a problem-situation, you can understand it well enough to solve it. Over the many years since, that has served me well. Where, after so many […]
Clearing the air for cogent discussion of the design inference, by going back to basics (a response to RDF)
|June 21, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations, Selective Hyperskepticism|
Sometimes, an objector to design theory brings to the table a key remark that inadvertently focuses the debate back on the core basics. In his comment at 339 in the ongoing nature/detection of intelligence thread here at UD, longtime objector RDFish does so in these initial remarks: Intelligent Design Theory 1) No current theory of […]
|June 13, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under Artificial Intelligence, brains and computation vs contemplation, Cybernetics and Mechatronics, ID Foundations|
Design theory infers to design on inductive inference on tested reliable empirical signs. While many are disinclined to accept such inferences on matters linked to origins, that says more about lab coat clad materialist ideological a prioris and their cultural influences than it does about the actual balance of evidence on the merits. But also, […]
|April 16, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under academic freedom, Big Bang, Cell biology, Cybernetics and Mechatronics, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, ID Foundations, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
I think we need to watch a video by Friend of UD, Kirk Durston. But first, a loop-back note: I have been rather busy elsewhere with issues like AS-AD, Kondratiev waves, Hayek’s investment triangle, SD and Schumpeterian creative destruction.(Pardon the resulting absence.) BTW, this line of thought leads me to hold that the oh- so- […]
|March 28, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations, UD Guest Posts|
UD commenter, ayearningforpublius [AYP], has his own blog where he has many interesting posts informed by a lifetime of varied experiences. He is also an advocate for the idea that nature shows compelling observable signs of design, and in “dialog with folks at and surrounding the National Center for Science Education (NCSE)” has encountered a […]
|March 21, 2014||Posted by Eric Anderson under Complex Specified Information, Design inference, ID Foundations, Informatics|
In my first post I discussed the concept of information, in particular whether information is contained in a physical object by its mere existence. In this post I would like to consider an additional issue relating to information, namely, the point at which information arises or comes into existence. Information is often closely associated with […]
|March 19, 2014||Posted by Eric Anderson under Complex Specified Information, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Design inference, ID Foundations, Informatics|
First of all I want to thank the Uncommon Descent moderators for allowing me to post, with a particular hat tip to StephenB. As I indicated on a prior thread, I am not sure how often I will take the time to create a new thread, but hopefully I can occasionally post something of interest. […]
|January 28, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations, They said it . . ., Video|
VJT has recently posted on what kind of cosmos God made, remarking on the Don Johnson bioinformatics lecture. He linked but didn’t embed, so here is the lecture: embedded by Embedded Videovimeo Direkt And, here is the handout. No comments — go to VJT’s thread. OOPS, something funny there so I open back up comments […]
|January 28, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under academic freedom, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, ID Foundations, science education, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Selective Hyperskepticism, They said it . . .|
Good day, my name is JoeG and I would like to get something out in the open and hopefully have it become fully understood by everyone. For decades I have been debating against evolutionism and for decades I have been told that my position is “anti-evolution.” I found that strange because my position allows for […]
And that brings us to a true either-or. If the choice between common design and common ancestry is a false either-or, the choice between intelligent design and materialistic evolution is a true either-or. Materialistic evolution does not only embrace common ancestry; it also rejects any real design in the evolutionary process. Intelligent design, by contrast, contends that biological design is real and empirically detectable regardless of whether it occurs within an evolutionary process or in discrete independent stages. The verdict is not yet in, and proponents of intelligent design themselves hold differing views on the extent of the evolutionary interconnectedness of organisms, with some even accepting universal common ancestry (ie Darwin’s great tree of life).
Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.– IBID, page 142
And from one more pro-ID book:
Many assume that if common ancestry is true, then the only viable scientific position is Darwinian evolution- in which all organisms are descended from a common ancestor via random mutation and blind selection. Such an assumption is incorrect- Intelligent Design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry.— page 217 of “Intelligent Design 101”
That is just a sample of what the Intelligent Design leadership say about biological evolution — they are OK with it. And the following is from “Uncommon Descent” in its Weak Argument Correctives:
The word “evolution” can mean different things. The simplest meaning is one of natural history of the appearance of different living forms. A stronger meaning implies common descent, in its universal form (all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor) or in partial form (particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor). “Evolution” is often defined as descent with modifications, or simply as changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.
None of those definitions can prove ID wrong, because none are in any way incompatible with it.
ID is a theory about the cause of genetic information, not about the modalities or the natural history of its appearance, and is in no way incompatible with many well known patterns of limited modification of that information usually defined as “microevolution.” ID affirms that design is the cause, or at least a main cause, of complex biological information. A theory which would indeed be alternative to ID, and therefore could prove it wrong, is any empirically well-supported “causal theory” which excludes design; in other words any theory that fits well with the evidence and could explain the presence or emergence of complex biological information through chance, necessity, any mix of the two, or any other scenario which does not include design. However, once we rule out “just-so stories” and the like, we will see that there is not today, nor has there ever been, such a theory. Furthermore, the only empirically well-supported source of functionally specific, complex information is: intelligence.
To sum it up: no definition of evolution is really incompatible with an ID scenario. Any causal theory of evolution which does not include design is obviously alternative to, and incompatible with, ID.
However, while many such theories have indeed been proposed, they are consistently wanting in the necessary degree of empirical support. By contrast, design is an empirically known source of the class of information – complex, specified information (CSI) — exhibited by complex biological systems.
The Weak Argument Correctives go on to say:
10] The Evidence for Common Descent is Incompatible with Intelligent Design
ID is a theory about the cause of complex biological information. Common descent (CD) is a theory about the modalities of implementation of that information. They are two separate theories about two different aspects of the problem, totally independent and totally compatible. In other words, one can affirm CD and ID, CD and Darwinian Evolution, or ID and not CD. However, if one believes in Darwinian Evolution, CD is a necessary implication.
CD theory exists in two forms, universal CD and partial CD. No one can deny that there are evidences for the theory of CD (such as ERVs, homologies and so on). That’s probably the reason why many IDists do accept CD. Others do not agree that those evidences are really convincing, or suggest that they may reflect in part common design. But ID theory, proper, has nothing to do with all that.
ID affirms that design is the key cause of complex biological information. The implementation of design can well be realized through common descent, that is through implementation of new information in existing biological beings. That can be done gradually or less gradually. All these are modalities of the implementation of information, and not causes of the information itself. ID theory is about causes.
And finally there is front loaded evolution (Mike Gene) and a prescribed evolutionary hypothesis (John Davison) — both are ID hypotheses pertaining to evolution.
Mutations are OK, differential reproduction is OK, horizontal gene transfer is OK. With Intelligent Design organisms are designed to evolve, i.e. they evolve by design. That is by “built-in responses to environmental cues” a la Dr Spetner’s “non-random evolution hypothesis” being the main process of adaptations.
As Dembski/ Wells said Intelligent design only has an issue with materialistic evolution — the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. (Also known as the blind watchmaker thesis.)
Intelligent Design is OK with all individuals in a population generally having the same number and types of genes and that those genes give rise to an array of traits and characteristics that characterize that population. It is OK with mutations that may result in two or more slightly different molecular forms of a gene- alleles- that influence a trait in different ways and that individuals of a population vary in the details of a trait when they inherit different combinations of alleles. ID is OK with any allele that may become more or less common in the population relative to other kinds at a gene locus, or it may disappear. And ID is OK with allele frequencies changing as a result of mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection, that mutation alone produces new alleles and gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection shuffle existing alleles into, through, or out of populations. IOW ID is OK with biological evolution. As Dr Behe et al., make very clear, it just argues about the mechanisms- basically design/ telic vs spontaneous/ stochastic. (Yes, design is a mechanism.)
Now we are left with:
However I cannot find any credible source that definitively states on the record that that is the case. END