6] As Demsbski has shown, a reasonable yardstick for cases of interest is ~ 500 bits. For, if something that is contingent is at or significantly beyond that level of complexity, the chance of the indicated configuration being arrived at by chance is ~ 1 in 10^150, which is comparable to the credible number of quantum states in the observed universe across its credible lifetime.

7] So if we see FUNCTIONALLY SPECIFIC, COMPLEX INFORMATION (I use FSCI to abbreviate) at or beyond the 500 bit threshold, we should be confident in saying it is maximally unlikely that the information — much less the system that processes it, has been arrived at by chance and/or natural regularities only on the gamut of the probabilistic resources of the observed universe. (I do think Royal Flushes are significantly less improbable than the Dembski bound!]

8] However, we know from observation and experience, that FSCI beyond the Dembski bound is routinely produced by intelligent agents [as a rule of course with chance and necessity also involved]. For instance, this web page is a case in point: more than 500 bits of information, and functioning as more or less text in English, making a meaningful message.

9] But, in principle, it is possible that “lucky noise” has generated all of the posts in this page, not just this one. For, neither the logic nor the physics involved can rule that out — indeed the very measurement of information is based on a log ratio of a posteriori to a priori probabilities of the signal as detected. That is the inference to and measurement of signal not noise is based on an inference to design [signal] rather than chance + necessity only [noise].

10] So, given that the probabilities of “lucky noise” are similar in a complex web post or in the DNA chain, why then do many routinely infer to design in the one case but so deeply wish to reject design in the other? [Apart from that prejudice that we may term selective hyperskepticism, i.e. without first doing the comparative difficulties analysis, one rejects what does not sit easily with the presuppositions of one's evolutionary materialist worldview?]

11] This resort to prejudice is often disguised under fine-sounding prhases like Sagan’s: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

12] But, apart from the assumption of evolutionary materialism, what is so extraordinary about infererring that functionally specific, complex information — in say DNA as well as on this web page — is credibly the product of intelligence?

We can extend this argument to cover the case of irreducibly complex systems. For instance, the bacterial flagellum is based on DNA and epigenetic structures that implement a self-assembling sophisticated movement and control system in bacteria. (A subset of the relevant DNA evidently codes for another biosystem, one hat implements an injector, i.e. we have a twofer here . . . that INCREASES the constraints and specificity of the code!] The blood clotting cascade is part of a subsystem in life forms that embraces a host of linked, coupled systems vital to life. And more.

All of this, if we are sufficiently insistent, could in principle have originated by chance + necessity alone. But to do that requires a gross inconsistency between what we specially plead in this case and how we operate in other cases where core evolutionary materialist worldview agendas and assertions at the heart of a scientific research programme are not at stake.

On an inference to best explanation basis, methinks the real issue is NOT adequacy of evidence that FSCI/CSI points to design in the heart of life systems, and indeed the cosmos too.

That’s my take

GEM of TKI

Thanks for the kind words.

I do think though based on my experiences in other not so polite, carefully moderated fora, that it is wise to make a slight adjustment in terminology and approach.

This can be seen in my own page on the matter [cf link though my handle]:

1] Information has joined matter-energy and space-time as fundamental to understanding the world, over say the past 60 or so years.

2] Information functions in information and communication systems [concrete and abstract], through the cascade: source, encoder, transmitter, channel, receiver, decoder, sink. In turn that implies a code, an associated mutually recognisable system of symbols for the code that can be used to transmit and process it so it functions, a physical system capable of so processing the information in the relevant physical manifestation of the code, and more.

3] Thus, once we recognise information at work, then we credibly have seen a functional pattern that specified the information to correspond with the cascade just enumerated.

4] Such information systems are the product — in all directly known cases — of intelligence. Information, the “stuff” processed by such systems is objective, observable, in some aspects measurable, functional and specified. (Intelligence, its known source, is also identifiable by in the first instance family resemblance in behaviour to known intelligent agents, namely ourselves.)

5] In some cases, we can see that information is not only functional but complex, in the sense that across a reasonable gamut, it is immensely improbable to get to the information as encoded by chance. In this context, specification is implied by “functional” i.e. first observe the configuration acting in a meaningful way in some system, then address the issues on functionality, specificity and complexity. (A Royal Flush for instance is a specific recognisable, complex and improbable by chance but simply describable pattern of cards that functions in a certain way in a certain game.)

Pausing . . .

“and become the IDer that your inner heart is calling you to be.”

Hmm… I am not really looking forward to the event. Maybe it’s better he stays where he is…

Dr. Miller, either Dembski is correct, or Dembski merits your criticism, one or the other. Now, get honest and criticize Dembski, or get over to the camp of honesty, bite your fear of rejection by the scientific zealots, and become the IDer that your inner heart is calling you to be.

LOL! Right on.

Granted, he says he avoids commenting on CSI but as someone recognised as one of the leading ID critics the very least he could do is read what leading ID proponents have actually written.

Write a blog titled “Only a moron would use this type of argument against ID” (or something like it) and then post Miller’s argument but do NOT mention his name anywhere at any time in the blog’s OP.

Thanks for clearing that up Ken.