Home » Intelligent Design » ARRRG! Enough Already With the “150 Years of Evidence” Bluff!!!

ARRRG! Enough Already With the “150 Years of Evidence” Bluff!!!

David W. Gibson writes in a comment to a prior post:

Joe, I think you have identified the problem here. In order to make his case airtight (i.e. that no other possible process can produce his entailments), Upright BiPed must prove a negative [Editors, i.e. that only intelligent agents produce semiotic* systems]. And I think he realizes this, which is why he simply continues to assert this. When the number of possibilities is unknown, process of elimination is not a valid means of picking one. I’d be willing to bet that Bill et. al. feel that they have indeed identified an alternative process, backed by 150 years of increasingly detailed scientific research. Their alternative may not meet what you feel are the necessary requirements (chance and necessity), but it’s possible that there are MANY possible alternatives. Upright BiPed’s semiosis might be one, chance and necessity might be another, biological evolution might be a third. If the third alternative should happen to be correct, you can’t deem if false simply because it isn’t the second alternative! And if you are fixed on one of many possible alternatives, and unluckily you happened to pick the wrong one, you run the serious risk of dismissing evidence for the right alternative because if it’s not evidence for YOUR alternative, you may not realize that it’s evidence at all.

David, it is true that Darwinists have been working feverishly for over 150 years.  It is NOT true that they have demonstrated – I said “demonstrated,” not assumed – that a chance/necessity process can produce an abstract digital code.  On his side Upright Biped has common everyday experience demonstrated billions of times each day – intelligent agents routinely create abstract digital codes.  On their side Darwinists have 150 years of question begging.

Upright Biped does not assume the consequent.  Here is his logic.

1.  Intelligent agents are the only observed cause of semiotic systems.

2.  DNA is an example of a semiotic system.

3.  The best explanation for the existence of DNA is that an intelligent agent caused it.

Now certainly in response to this you can assert that it is not logically impossible for a chance based process to create a semiotic code, whether it is DNA or trillions of monkeys pounding on their proverbial typewriters.  In response to your response KF has demonstrated over and over and over again that with respect to the configuration space we are talking about, the size of the target (i.e., a meaningful digital code) is vanishingly small.

In other words, you are essentially saying, “Yea, intelligent agents routinely produce abstract digital codes, but maybe DNA was the result of pulling a needle out of a billion billion billion haystacks.  Or maybe some process we haven’t even conceived of created the code.”

David, the entire ID movement would go away tomorrow if you or anyone else were able to point to ONE instance where a semiotic system was observed to have been spontaneously generated by chance or necessity or a combination of both.  And when I say “observed” I mean “observed,” not inferred on the basis of question begging a priori assumption.

Don’t tell me there is 150 years of accumulated evidence.  That’s a bluff!  I call your bluff.  Show me one – just one; that’s all I ask – concrete example.

I won’t hold my breath.

 

*“Semiotics” is the study of signs and symbols.  In essence, Upright Biped’s argument is that the DNA code is an abstract symbol system and intelligent agents are the only known cause of abstract symbol systems.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

74 Responses to ARRRG! Enough Already With the “150 Years of Evidence” Bluff!!!

  1. Excellent summary! This guy’s commitment to anything but ID, or rather his bias against ID, is coloring his conclusions.

    His best argument against ID is that we can’t prove a negative. If it has gotten that bad for evolutionists – that to maintain faith in their paradigm they have to appeal to as of yet unknown processes – well then I think the writing is on the wall so to speak!

  2. A few quotes that may be of interest:

    “Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day.”
    Norbert Weiner – MIT Mathematician – Father of Cybernetics

    Programming of Life – October 2010
    Excerpt: “Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter… These two domains will never be brought together in any kind of the sense usually implied by the term ‘reductionism.’… Information doesn’t have mass or charge or length in millimeters. Likewise, matter doesn’t have bytes… This dearth of shared descriptors makes matter and information two separate domains of existence, which have to be discussed separately, in their own terms.”
    George Williams – Evolutionary Biologist

    Basically the reductive materialist’s argument essentially appears to be like this:

    Premise One: No materialistic cause of specified complex information is known.
    Conclusion: Therefore, it must arise from some unknown materialistic cause

    On the other hand, Stephen Meyer describes the intelligent design argument as follows:

    “Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information.
    “Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information.
    “Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information in the cell.”

    Stephen Meyer – The Scientific Basis for the Intelligent Design Inference – video
    http://vimeo.com/32148403

    “Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source — from a mind or personal agent.” (Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2):213-239 (2004).)

    “A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor). It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required. ,,,there is no known law of nature and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. Werner Gitt 1997 In The Beginning Was Information pp. 64-67, 79, 107.”
    (The retired Dr Gitt was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology.)

    There remains one and only one type of cause that has shown itself able to create functional information like we find in cells, books and software programs — intelligent design. We know this from our uniform experience and from the design filter — a mathematically rigorous method of detecting design. Both yield the same answer. (William Dembski and Jonathan Witt, Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to the Controversy, p. 90 (InterVarsity Press, 2010).)

  3. Yeh, I agree some empiricism would be nice here.

    But if DNA is a semiotic system, and we posit that DNA is responsible for the construction of intelligent agents, then those agents are the consequence of semiotic systems. Which is the circular idea that semiotic systems create semiotic systems. But then that’s little different than stating that cells reproduce. So not a sound argument as such, but not out of line either.

    There are manners to improve your syllogism as well as the converse, but I assume you’re capable of sorting it out sans pedantry. No matter the case abduction isn’t induction and neither is a substitute for demonstration.

    Though this is a lament that applies to nearly all modern science in general rather than simply Darwinism and/or ID alone.

  4. Barry,
    do you agree with this restatement of Uprights argument?

    X1. All irreducibly complex systems are designed.
    X2. All semiotic systems are irreducibly complex.
    X3. Therefore, all semiotic systems are designed.

    Y1. A system involving representation(s) and protocol(s) is a semiotic system.
    Y2. Protein synthesis involves a representation and a protocol.
    Y3. Therefore, protein synthesis is a semiotic system.

    Z1. All semiotic systems are designed (by X3).
    Z2. Protein synthesis is a semiotic system (by Y3).
    Z3. Therefore, the protein synthesis system is designed.

  5. > David, the entire ID movement would go away tomorrow if you or anyone else were able to point to ONE instance where a semiotic system was observed to have been spontaneously generated by chance or necessity or a combination of both.

    If this happened I’d still stick around. I’m stubborn like that :P

    More seriously, I don’t want to rule out something like this being possible. My objections are that evolution is too slow. Behe made a good point of this in Edge. Something like 10^20 mutation events in HIV and malaria, and only a duplicated gene and new binding site in the former? To get here from apes in 6m years involves a million times fewer mutation events creation a thousand times more.

  6. JoeCoder,

    To get here from apes in 6m years involves a million times fewer mutation events creation a thousand times more.

    Then presumably the required information was injected into the DNA by the designer, but the question is how? Did that injection process break or suspend the laws of physics?

  7. 7

    JoeCoder,

    I’m not very familiar with this site. I wrote you a very long response, submitted it, and lost it all because I forgot to fill in the little box. I spent well over an hour on it. I just don’t have the energy to try to write it all over again. Maybe tomorrow…

  8. Did that injection process break or suspend the laws of physics?

    Well, Did you break or suspend the laws of physics when you wrote your post?

    Book Review – Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009.
    Excerpt: As early as the 1960s, those who approached the problem of the origin of life from the standpoint of information theory and combinatorics observed that something was terribly amiss. Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. Now of course, elementary particles aren’t chemical laboratories, nor does peptide synthesis take place where most of the baryonic mass of the universe resides: in stars or interstellar and intergalactic clouds. If you look at the chemistry, it gets even worse—almost indescribably so: the precursor molecules of many of these macromolecular structures cannot form under the same prebiotic conditions—they must be catalysed by enzymes created only by preexisting living cells, and the reactions required to assemble them into the molecules of biology will only go when mediated by other enzymes, assembled in the cell by precisely specified information in the genome.
    So, it comes down to this: Where did that information come from? The simplest known free living organism (although you may quibble about this, given that it’s a parasite) has a genome of 582,970 base pairs, or about one megabit (assuming two bits of information for each nucleotide, of which there are four possibilities). Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail.
    http://www.fourmilab.ch/docume.....k_726.html

    This short sentence, “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog” is calculated by Winston Ewert, in this following video at the 10 minute mark, to contain 1000 bits of algorithmic specified complexity, and thus to exceed the Universal Probability Bound (UPB) of 500 bits set by Dr. Dembski
    Proposed Information Metric: Conditional Kolmogorov Complexity – Winston Ewert – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm3mm3ofAYU

    Or did the following human designers break or suspend the laws of physics when they injected information into DNA?

    ID Vindicated – August 17, 2012
    Excerpt: Digital information is accumulating at an astounding rate, straining our ability to store and archive it. DNA is among the most dense and stable information media known. The development of new technologies in both DNA synthesis and sequencing make DNA an increasingly feasible digital storage medium. Here, we develop a strategy to encode arbitrary digital information in DNA, write a 5.27-megabit book using DNA microchips, and read the book using next-generation DNA sequencing.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....indicated/

    Even Dawkins, in a rare honest moment, conceded that Intelligence operating within space time may be detectable:

    Richard Dawkins Vs. Ben Stein – The UFO Interview – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4134259

    But seriously, since God, who is transcendent. omnipotent, and omnipresent, created and sustains physical reality, indeed since material reality is absolutely dependent on Him for its continued existence, then breaking or suspending the laws of physics is really just a matter of prejudiced perspective on the materialists part isn’t it?

    Alvin Plantinga: Divine Action – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5DPneR-Rtc

    Materialism simply dissolves into absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place:

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse – where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause – produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse – Dr. Bruce Gordon – video
    http://vimeo.com/34468027

    Dr. Gordon’s last powerpoint in the video states the following:

    The End Of Materialism? – Dr. Bruce Gordon
    * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.
    * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle.
    * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose.
    * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.

    further note:

    Quantum Evidence for a Theistic Universe
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agaJIWjPWHs5vtMx5SkpaMPbantoP471k0lNBUXg0Xo/edit

  9. David W Gibson-

    I feel your pain, sincerly.

    I have learned, the hard way, something I already knew-> use Word to write your post so you have a copy, before submitting it, especially if it contains CSI…

  10. bornagain77:

    Well, Did you break or suspend the laws of physics when you wrote your post?

    No, he just broke wind and suspended all rational thought.

    Just sayin’

  11. 11

    Barry,

    I apologize for derailing the previous thread, and I appreciate your taking the time to start a more appropriate thread. Thanks.

    I find your presentation clear, and I hope I can produce a clear response…

    Upright Biped does not assume the consequent. Here is his logic.

    1. Intelligent agents are the only observed cause of semiotic systems.

    2. DNA is an example of a semiotic system.

    3. The best explanation for the existence of DNA is that an intelligent agent caused it.

    OK, first off, I’m having difficulty pinning down just what Upright BiPed means by a semiotic system. Certainly his application of this term to chemical reactions is new to me. If chemistry is semiotic, then by the same definitiion just about everything imaginable can be considered semiotic. Now, I’m familiar with the claim that everything imaginable is in fact God’s Handiwork, and that there is nothing possible in our universe that is NOT the product of His Design. But in that case, why single out chemistry?

    Unfortunately, if we are to constrain the notion of a semiotic system so that chemistry and physics aren’t included, we have ipso facto ruled out biology as well, since biology is simply an application of chemistry and physics.

    My understanding of the term is that semiotic systems involve conversion into and back out of arbitrary symbolic representations. And by arbitrary, I mean that there is no “natural” relationship between the symbol and the object or idea symbolized. To put it another way, someone unfamiliar with the symbols would have no way to relate them to what they are intended to symbolize.

    And this is most emphatically not true in chemistry, not even in chemistry as complex as proteins and DNA. I don’t dispute that information is transferred, anymore than I would dispute that falling raindrops transfer information about clouds. But neither process is in any way symbolic. And Upright BiPed’s definition of semiosis, at least to me, clearly would encompass raindrops.

    Even moreso, ecological systems, weather systems, N-body gravitational systems, etc. ALL transfer information throughout these systems all the time. So again, if they are all semiotic systems, it would be hard to find a system that is NOT semiotic. If we are to require arbitrary symbolic representations, then none of these systems are any more symbolic than DNA, which after all is just an organic molecule which undergoes chemical reactions.

    David, it is true that Darwinists have been working feverishly for over 150 years. It is NOT true that they have demonstrated – I said “demonstrated,” not assumed – that a chance/necessity process can produce an abstract digital code.

    I have a couple of problems here. First, I don’t understand your (and others’) repetition of “chance and necessity”. I don’t know what this phrase is intended to convey.

    Consider my brief list of systems above. All of these are too complex to calculate predictively, because all of them are complex feedback processes with many variables, interacting and influencing one another dynamically all the time. So would you say these systems are “chance” or would you say they are “necessity” or are they something not well described by either term? Certainly biological evolution is found to be an extremely complex adaptive feedback system with elements of chance, of necessity, of coincidence, of contingency, and so on. How do you categorize extremely complex natural systems?

    As for whether DNA can be considered a “digital code”, this strikes me as more of a metaphorical than a physical description. In some ways it’s a good metaphor, and in some ways I think it’s misleading. Airplanes and birds both fly, so flight is an apt comparison. But this does not mean an airplane IS a bird, anymore than DNA IS a “digital code” rather than an organic molecule. DNA does not “represent” an abstract code, anymore than airplanes lay eggs. Metaphors, while often helpful, have limitations that need to be recognized.

  12. 12

    In essence, Upright Biped’s argument is that the DNA code is an abstract symbol system and intelligent agents are the only known cause of abstract symbol systems.

    This is wonderfully clear and concise, and lets us get straight to the point. I appreciate that.

    Trying to be just as concise, I’ll say that IF DNA were a “code” or “abstract” or a “symbol system” then this argument would be entirely correct. But, except in a metaphorical sense, DNA is none of these things.

    We can be astounded by the intricate complexity that the rules of chemistry permit, we might be intimidated by the challenge of figuring out a possible sequence of tiny steps over Deep Time during which that complexity developed, but this doesn’t mean we have to throw up our hands and invoke untestable causes.

    And there are a good many mainstream biologists who regard this challenge as figuring out God’s methods. If you were to argue that God set up the rules of chemistry and physics to make DNA eventually possible in His time frame, I wouldn’t argue. That sounds reasonable to me.

  13. “DNA does not “represent” an abstract code, anymore than airplanes lay eggs.”

    David, the Central Dogma and the Ribosomes would like to dicker with your statement. While I think it is important to remember that DNA is a physical and structural object in its own right it is also too far to state that it does not ‘represent’ any manner of coding given what we know of things.

  14. But this does not mean an airplane IS a bird, anymore than DNA IS a “digital code” rather than an organic molecule.

    Better tell these guys that DNA is not digital:

    Every Bit Digital DNA’s Programming Really Bugs Some ID Critics – March 2010
    Excerpt: In 2003 renowned biologist Leroy Hood and biotech guru David Galas authored a review article in the world’s leading scientific journal, Nature, titled, “The digital code of DNA.”,,, MIT Professor of Mechanical Engineering Seth Lloyd (no friend of ID) likewise eloquently explains why DNA has a “digital” nature: “It’s been known since the structure of DNA was elucidated that DNA is very digital. There are four possible base pairs per site, two bits per site, three and a half billion sites, seven billion bits of information in the human DNA. There’s a very recognizable digital code of the kind that electrical engineers rediscovered in the 1950s that maps the codes for sequences of DNA onto expressions of proteins.”
    http://www.salvomag.com/new/ar.....uskin2.php

    The Digital Code of DNA – 2003 – Leroy Hood & David Galas
    Excerpt: The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an information science.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....01410.html

    ID Vindicated – August 17, 2012
    Excerpt: Digital information is accumulating at an astounding rate, straining our ability to store and archive it. DNA is among the most dense and stable information media known. The development of new technologies in both DNA synthesis and sequencing make DNA an increasingly feasible digital storage medium. Here, we develop a strategy to encode arbitrary digital information in DNA, write a 5.27-megabit book using DNA microchips, and read the book using next-generation DNA sequencing.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....indicated/

    Extremely Sophisticated Software Design In Cells – Stephen Meyer – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5495397/

    Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life – Hubert P. Yockey, 2005
    Excerpt: “Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.”
    http://www.cambridge.org/catal.....038;ss=exc

    Biophysicist Hubert Yockey determined that natural selection would have to explore 1.40 x 10^70 different genetic codes to discover the optimal universal genetic code that is found in nature. The maximum amount of time available for it to originate is 6.3 x 10^15 seconds. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 10^55 codes per second to find the one that is optimal. Put simply, natural selection lacks the time necessary to find the optimal universal genetic code we find in nature. (Fazale Rana, -The Cell’s Design – 2008 – page 177)

  15. David W Gibson-

    Amino acids are coded for via 3 DNA bases, ie a triplet or codon. There is no physio-chemical connection between the codon and the amino acid it represents. IOW there are no physical rules nor rules of chemistry for this phenomena. (The codon does not become the amino acid)

    So the bottom line is somewhere in the system there is knowledge. Knowledge of what amino acid each codon represents.

  16. 16

    “We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence ‘is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;’ but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists.”

    Smith, Wolfgang (1988)
    Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

  17. to accentuate this from Joe:

    IOW there are no physical rules nor rules of chemistry for this phenomena

    i.e. the DNA code is not reducible to the laws of physics or chemistry:

    British Geneticist Robert Saunders Leaves a Highly Prejudiced Signature in His Review of “Signature in the Cell” – April 2012
    Excerpt: Meyer points out a rather astonishing fact – about which there is no scientific controversy – regarding the arrangements of the nucleobases in DNA. There are absolutely no chemical affinities or preferences for which nucleobases bond with any particular phosphate and sugar molecule. The N-glycosidic bond works equally well with (A), (T), (G), or (C). And secondly, there are also no chemical bonds in the vertical axis between the nucleobases. What this means is that there are no forces of physical/chemical attraction and no chemical or physical law that dictates the order of the nucleobases; they can be arranged in a nearly infinite amount of different sequences.
    http://www.algemeiner.com/2012.....-the-cell/

    DNA Enigma – Chemistry Does Not Create Information – Chris Ashcraft – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5542033/

    The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity – David L. Abel – 2009
    Excerpt: “A monstrous ravine runs through presumed objective reality. It is the great divide between physicality and formalism. On the one side of this Grand Canyon lies everything that can be explained by the chance and necessity of physicodynamics. On the other side lies those phenomena than can only be explained by formal choice contingency and decision theory—the ability to choose with intent what aspects of ontological being will be preferred, pursued, selected, rearranged, integrated, organized, preserved, and used. Physical dynamics includes spontaneous non linear phenomena, but not our formal applied-science called “non linear dynamics”(i.e. language,information).
    http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf

    Life’s Irreducible Structure
    Excerpt: “Mechanisms, whether man-made or morphological, are boundary conditions harnessing the laws of inanimate nature, being themselves irreducible to those laws. The pattern of organic bases in DNA which functions as a genetic code is a boundary condition irreducible to physics and chemistry.” Michael Polanyi – Hungarian polymath – 1968 – Science (Vol. 160. no. 3834, pp. 1308 – 1312)

    “an attempt to explain the formation of the genetic code from the chemical components of DNA… is comparable to the assumption that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from any external source of information.”
    Dr. Wilder-Smith

    “In the last ten years, at least 20 different natural information codes were discovered in life, each operating to arbitrary conventions (not determined by law or physicality). Examples include protein address codes [Ber08B], acetylation codes [Kni06], RNA codes [Fai07], metabolic codes [Bru07], cytoskeleton codes [Gim08], histone codes [Jen01], and alternative splicing codes [Bar10].
    Donald E. Johnson – Programming of Life – pg.51 – 2010

    Conservation of Information In Search – William Dembski and Robert Marks – Sept. 2009
    http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl.....er=5204206

    The DNA Enigma – Where Did The Information Come From? – Stephen C. Meyer – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4125886

    Though material processes have NEVER shown the ability to produce ANY functional information whatsoever (Abel – Null Hypothesis), Darwinists are adamant that material processes produced more information, of a higher complexity than man can produce in his computer programming, than is contained in all the libraries of the world. Even a single cell bacterium, which can’t even be seen with the naked eye, when working from a thermodynamic perspective, contains more information than anyone would have dared to imagine prior to investigation:

    “a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.” – R. C. Wysong

    further note, Materialism had postulated for centuries that everything (including information and consciousness) reduced to, or emerged from material atoms, yet the correct structure of reality is now found by science to be as follows:

    1. material particles (mass) normally reduces to energy (e=mc^2)
    2. energy and mass both reduce to information (quantum teleportation)
    3. information reduces to consciousness (geometric centrality of conscious observation in universe dictates that consciousness must precede quantum wave collapse to its single bit state)

    Many useful references are here debunking claims to the contrary (debunking claims that blind material processes can create information):

    Evolutionary Informatics Lab – Main Publications
    http://evoinfo.org/publications/

    cool video along those lines: Refutation Of Evolutionary Algorithms

    “Darwin or Design” with Dr. Tom Woodward with guest Dr. Robert J. Marks II – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yoj9xo0YsOQ

  18. As to DWG’s comment here:

    DNA does not “represent” an abstract code, anymore than airplanes lay eggs.

    You are right in a way, birds are far more advanced than any airplane man has ever built, and it is somewhat arrogant for us to think airplanes can be on equal footing to the integrated complexity inherent in birds:

    Can Humans Improve on Nature? If So, What Does it Mean for Intelligent Design? – February 9, 2012
    Excerpt: Now if they can create an impedance pump that builds itself from materials in its environment and copies itself flawlessly for thousands of generations without human intervention, or build a superhydrophobic carbon nanotube array that produces seeds that grow into beautiful works of art as well as functional systems, or design a 747 that lays eggs that hatch into new 747s, then they will really be something to talk about.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....55981.html

    Nor is it prudent for us to think that our computer programs can be considered on equal footing to the undreamt complexity found in the coding of DNA:

    Systems biology: Untangling the protein web – July 2009
    Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. “Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured,” he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. “The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent,” he says. “The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening.”
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....0415a.html

    “Complexity Brake” Defies Evolution – August 2012
    Excerpt: Improved technologies for observing and probing biological systems has only led to discoveries of further levels of complexity that need to be dealt with. This process has not yet run its course. We are far away from understanding cell biology, genomes, or brains, and turning this understanding into practical knowledge.”,,,
    Why can’t we use the same principles that describe technological systems? Koch explained that in an airplane or computer, the parts are “purposefully built in such a manner to limit the interactions among the parts to a small number.” The limited interactome of human-designed systems avoids the complexity brake. “None of this is true for nervous systems.”,,,,
    to read more go here:
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62961.html

  19. note:

    But Is It Evolution ? – February 2011
    Excerpt: Airplane wings exploit some of the same aerodynamic tricks. But a bird wing is vastly more sophisticated than anything composed of sheet metal and rivets. From a central feather shaft extends a series of slender barbs, each sprouting smaller barbules, like branches from a bough, lined with tiny hooks. When these grasp on to the hooklets of neighboring barbules, they create a structural network that’s featherlight but remarkably strong. When a bird preens its feathers to clean them, the barbs effortlessly separate, then slip back into place.
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20110218a

  20. Another bluff, ie lies, spewed by mathgrrl:

    Your characterization of this discussion as “tribal” implies a false equivalence. Upright BiPed’s argument has been utterly destroyed logically and never was shown to support the assertions of ID.

    The science that ID proponents rail against is based on more than fifteen decades of research by tens of thousands of highly educated individuals, and represents the best current explanation for all the empirical evidence that has been observed. The results of this research are derived by the only method we know of for testing explanations against reality.

    There is no objective empirical evidence that ID purports to explain, there is no scientific theory of ID, there are no testable predictions that could serve to falsify it. ID is not science and the views of the denizens of UD are not equal in any way to those of the scientists they denigrate.

    If Upright BiPed’s argument were solid, he wouldn’t need a home field advantage.

    What a clueless and lying individual patrick is.

    1- ID does NOT rail against sciencve- patrick’s position doesn’t have anything to do with science

    2- That is because pat’s position doesn’t make any testable predictions based on the proposed mechanisms

    3- The only way to refute UB’s argument is to demonstrate blind and undirected processes can do it. You have failed to do that, pat

  21. How does ID explain the origin of the semiotic system?

    You see, I don’t consider this:

    The best explanation for the existence of DNA is that an intelligent agent caused it.

    As you like definitions so much, here’s one for “explanation”, wiki’s

    An explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts.

    This description may establish rules or laws, and may clarify the existing ones in relation to any objects, or phenomena examined. The components of an explanation can be implicit, and be interwoven with one another.

    An explanation is often underpinned by an understanding that is represented by different media such as music, text, and graphics. Thus, an explanation is subjected to interpretation, and discussion.

    In scientific research, explanation is one of the purposes of research, e.g., exploration and description. Explanation is a way to uncover new knowledge, and to report relationships among different aspects of studied phenomena. Explanations have varied explanatory power.

    So does the “explanation” for the existence of DNA, that an intelligent agent caused it, meet any of those criteria?

    Does it clarify any cause (other then a mystery designer didit)? No.
    Does it show any consequences? No.
    Does it clarify any existing laws, or tell us anything new about the phenomena examined? No.
    Does it have multiple interwoven components? No.
    Can this explanation be subjected to interpretation or discussion? No.
    Does this explanation uncover new knowledge or illustrate previously unknown relationships between already known data? No.

    Does this explanation have *any* explanatory power?

    No.

    So you might as well write:

    The best explanation for the existence of DNA is that 087hn807n8078070780uy789h caused it.

    As it’s as useful.

  22. Joe,

    3- The only way to refute UB’s argument is to demonstrate blind and undirected processes can do it. You have failed to do that, pat

    Tell you what. Why don’t you just carry on believing that an intelligent designer did it, despite no actual evidence for that, and in the meanwhile the people doing the actual work will just carry on without you. And then one day if it gets explained without the use of an intelligent designer you can just pretend none of this ever happened, as you and yours have done for the past 150 years. Each and *every* time.

    Ya see Joe, if you want the default position to be “the designer did it” then you can hardly complain that evolution is the current default. At least that default status is based on evidence rather then just wishful thinking and strawmen.

  23. Let’s see intelligent agencies constructing Stonehenge is an OK explanation for how it came to be.

    But anyway by your “logic” your position has absolutely no explanatory power.

    Nice goig ace.

  24. Why don’t you just carry on believing that an intelligent designer did it, despite no actual evidence for that, and in the meanwhile the people doing the actual work will just carry on without you.

    1- There is evidence for the designer did it- you just don’t know how to assess evidence

    2- They can carry on without me but to what end?

    Ya see Joe, if you want the default position to be “the designer did it”

    You have serious issues. The default I want is “we don’t know”. To get to the design inference requires quite a bit of work, which means it ain’t the default.

    And your false accusations and cowardly innuendos are also duly noted.

  25. mphillips- you can continue to ignore the following:

    Amino acids are coded for via 3 DNA bases, ie a triplet or codon. There is no physio-chemical connection between the codon and the amino acid it represents. IOW there are no physical rules nor rules of chemistry for this phenomena. (The codon does not become the amino acid)

    So the bottom line is somewhere in the system there is knowledge. Knowledge of what amino acid each codon represents.

  26. Joe,

    So the bottom line is somewhere in the system there is knowledge. Knowledge of what amino acid each codon represents.

    And of course it’s impossible that that knowledge could have arisen any way other then intelligent design. Care to show how you know that for an absolute fact?

    Tell me Joe, presumably the designer had some similar form of system in place? Where did the knowledge for that come from? Another designer? And where did etc etc.

  27. as to:

    Where did the knowledge for that come from? Another designer? And where did etc etc.

    Welcome to the infinite regress argument from information for omniscience:

    Dr. Werner Gitt, starting at the 3:00 minute mark of the following video, touches on how atheists, in using the infinite regress argument for information, actually confirms ‘omniscience’ as is held by Theism:

    Dr.Werner Gitt Ph.D.”In The Beginning” Part 3 of 4
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBV_DGGex-Q

    But, believe it or not, there is even a quicker argument for omniscience from a single photon of light,,,

    Quantum Wave function (of a photon)
    Excerpt “wave functions form an abstract vector space”,,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....ctor_space

    Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh
    Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1)
    http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/fa.....lPSA2K.pdf

    Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia
    Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,,
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entr.....tcomp/#2.1

    Thus every time we see (consciously observe) a single photon of ‘material’ reality we are actually seeing just a single bit of information that was originally created from a very specific set of infinite information that is/was known by the ‘infinite consciousness’ that precedes material reality. i.e. information known only by the infinite Mind of omniscient God!

    Job 38:19-20
    “What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings?”

    Of course atheists can challenge this ‘omniscience’ interpretation for why photons of light exist by creating a single photon from scratch :)

  28. And of course it’s impossible that that knowledge could have arisen any way other then intelligent design.

    That is what science says. Ya see there isn’t any evidence that molecules can program themselves with knowledge.

    Tell me Joe, presumably the designer had some similar form of system in place?

    Don’t know and it is irrelevant.

    Ya see mphillips, if you want to play the regression game your position FAILS. That is because natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin, which science says it had.

  29. bornagain77, the number of ways in which theism has been empirically proven, is now becoming increasingly hilarious, in view of the dogged refusal of the materialist ‘bitter-enders’ to acknowledge their clear, unique implication.

    There are no other possiblities, but ‘We doan wan none o your steenking theism.’, seems to be the response – if silence on the subject is any indication.

  30. 30

    the number of ways in which theism has been empirically proven, is now becoming increasingly hilarious

    But WHICH theism has been empirically proven? Abrahamic theism? Hindu theism? Norse theism?

    Maybe rather than assert this as trivially true (and it may be), you might like to cite the actual tests that were performed, and the test results, so that they could be intersubjectively verified by people of all faiths and none. You know, the way science actually works.

  31. Maybe rather than assert this as trivially true (and it may be), you might like to cite the actual tests that were performed, and the test results, so that they could be intersubjectively verified by people of all faiths and none. You know, the way science actually works.

    Oh, the irony…

  32. On Guard Conference: William Lane Craig – What is Apologetics? – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US_ZrXEw_a4

    Quantum Evidence for a Theistic Universe
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agaJIWjPWHs5vtMx5SkpaMPbantoP471k0lNBUXg0Xo/edit

    Predictions of Materialism compared to Predictions of Theism within the scientific method:
    http://docs.google.com/Doc?doc....._5fwz42dg9

  33. DWG you state:

    so that they could be intersubjectively verified by people of all faiths and none. You know, the way science actually works.

    Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence that has come along in modern science that argues in favor of mono-theism is the fact that the universe has been found to have a absolute beginning. It is very interesting to note, besides the complete failure of the materialistic philosophy itself to predict the instantaneous creation of the entire material universe, that among all the ‘holy’ books, of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was correct in its claim for a complete instantaneous transcendent origin of the universe. Some later ‘holy’ books, such as the Mormon text “Pearl of Great Price” and the Qur’an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact. (Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5)

    “Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past.”
    (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) – 1970

    “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” -
    Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston – paper delivered at Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday party 2012
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....beginning/

    Genesis 1:1-3
    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

    ,,, ‘And if you’re curious about how Genesis 1, in particular, fairs. Hey, we look at the Days in Genesis as being long time periods, which is what they must be if you read the Bible consistently, and the Bible scores 4 for 4 in Initial Conditions and 10 for 10 on the Creation Events’
    Hugh Ross – Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere; video

    The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.
    Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics – co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation – as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978

    “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis”
    Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation

    “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”
    George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE

    “,,,the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world,,, the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same.”
    Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’

    Besides the ‘non-trivial’ confirmation of the Genesis 1:1 ‘prediction’ by modern science, (which should be more than enough to make any true scientist take severe pause before hastily writing the bible off as just another myth), studying the early development of the universe provided stunning confirmation for a passage in Job which described the early development of the universe:

    i.e. As well as the universe having a absolute transcendent beginning, thus confirming the Theistic postulation in Genesis 1:1, the following recent discovery of a ‘Dark Age’ for the early universe uncannily matches up with the Bible passage (prediction) in Job 38:4-11.

    For the first 400,000 years of our universe’s expansion, the universe was a seething maelstrom of energy and sub-atomic particles. This maelstrom was so hot, that sub-atomic particles trying to form into atoms would have been blasted apart instantly, and so dense, light could not travel more than a short distance before being absorbed. If you could somehow live long enough to look around in such conditions, you would see nothing but brilliant white light in all directions. When the cosmos was about 400,000 years old, it had cooled to about the temperature of the surface of the sun. The last light from the “Big Bang” shone forth at that time. This “light” is still detectable today as the Cosmic Background Radiation.
    This 400,000 year old “baby” universe entered into a period of darkness. When the dark age of the universe began, the cosmos was a formless sea of particles. By the time the dark age ended, a couple of hundred million years later, the universe lit up again by the light of some of the galaxies and stars that had been formed during this dark era. It was during the dark age of the universe that the heavier chemical elements necessary for life, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and most of the rest, were first forged, by nuclear fusion inside the stars, out of the universe’s primordial hydrogen and helium.
    It was also during this dark period of the universe the great structures of the modern universe were first forged. Super-clusters, of thousands of galaxies stretching across millions of light years, had their foundations laid in the dark age of the universe. During this time the infamous “missing dark matter”, was exerting more gravity in some areas than in other areas; drawing in hydrogen and helium gas, causing the formation of mega-stars. These mega-stars were massive, weighing in at 20 to more than 100 times the mass of the sun. The crushing pressure at their cores made them burn through their fuel in only a million years. It was here, in these short lived mega-stars under these crushing pressures, the chemical elements necessary for life were first forged out of the hydrogen and helium. The reason astronomers can’t see the light from these first mega-stars, during this dark era of the universe’s early history, is because the mega-stars were shrouded in thick clouds of hydrogen and helium gas. These thick clouds prevented the mega-stars from spreading their light through the cosmos as they forged the elements necessary for future life to exist on earth. After about 200 million years, the end of the dark age came to the cosmos. The universe was finally expansive enough to allow the dispersion of the thick hydrogen and helium “clouds”. With the continued expansion of the universe, the light, of normal stars and dwarf galaxies, was finally able to shine through the thick clouds of hydrogen and helium gas, bringing the dark age to a close. (How The Stars Were Born – Michael D. Lemonick)
    http://www.time.com/time/magaz.....-2,00.html

    Job 26:10
    He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness.

    Job 38:4-11
    “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut in the sea with doors, when it burst forth and issued from the womb; When I made the clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band; When I fixed my limit for it, and set bars and doors; When I said, ‘This far you may come but no farther, and here your proud waves must stop!”

    Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sl0Ln3Ptb8

    History of The Universe Timeline- Graph Image
    http://www.astronomynotes.com/.....meline.jpg

    As a sidelight to this, every class of elements that exists on the periodic table of elements is necessary for complex carbon-based life to exist on earth. The three most abundant elements in the human body, Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen, ‘just so happen’ to be the most abundant elements in the universe, save for helium which is inert. A truly amazing coincidence that strongly implies ‘the universe had us in mind all along’. Even uranium the last naturally occurring ‘stable’ element on the period table of elements is necessary for life. The heat generated by the decay of uranium is necessary to keep a molten core in the earth for an extended period of time, which is necessary for the magnetic field surrounding the earth, which in turn protects organic life from the harmful charged particles of the sun. As well, uranium decay provides the heat for tectonic activity and the turnover of the earth’s crustal rocks, which is necessary to keep a proper mixture of minerals and nutrients available on the surface of the earth, which is necessary for long term life on earth. (Denton; Nature’s Destiny). These following videos give a bit deeper insight into the crucial ‘balance’ of elements in allowing life:

    Michael Denton – We Are Stardust – Uncanny Balance Of The Elements – Fred Hoyle Atheist to Deist/Theist – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003877

    The Elements: Forged in Stars – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003861

    There are many more such things that could be discussed in this area, such as the fine-tuning, and the privileged planet principle, and the accompanying Bible verses which ‘predicted’ those things, but to move along for the sake of brevity and to focus in on the cosmological evidence that argues in favor of Christianity in particular:

    The conflict of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is the number one problem in mathematics and physics today and is far more severe than most people realize. The ‘conflict’ primarily arises from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the Zero/Infinity problem that crops up in different places of each theory:

    THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY
    Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today’s physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. “The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common – and what they clash over – is zero.”,, “The infinite zero of a black hole — mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely — punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.”,, “Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge.
    http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/e....._mar02.htm

    Quantum Mechanics and Relativity – The Collapse Of Physics? – video – with notes as to plausible reconciliation that is missed by materialists
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6597379/

    Moreover, this extreme ‘mathematical difficulty’, of reconciling General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything’, was actually somewhat foreseeable from previous work, earlier in the 20th century, in mathematical logic by Kurt Godel:

    THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010
    Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
    http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ematicians

  34. In fact, in the postulation of string theory, of the postulation of a mathematical theory of everything, it seems that mathematicians and physicists have completely forgotten this ‘number 1 breakthrough’ in mathematical logic in the twentieth century:

    Kurt Gödel – Incompleteness Theorem – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/8462821

    Gödel’s Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century
    Excerpt: Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says:
    “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume to be true but cannot prove “mathematically” to be true.”
    http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/incompleteness/

    Taking God Out of the Equation – Biblical Worldview – by Ron Tagliapietra – January 1, 2012
    Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties.
    1. Validity . . . all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning.
    2. Consistency . . . no conclusions contradict any other conclusions.
    3. Completeness . . . all statements made in the system are either true or false.
    The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem.
    Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation.
    Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3).
    http://www.answersingenesis.or...../equation#

    Godel, who ‘logically’ proved you cannot have a mathematical ‘Theory of Everything’, without allowing God to bring completeness to that mathematical ‘Theory of Everything’, also had this to say:

    The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman
    Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” – Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed)
    http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ematicians

    And indeed, if one allows that ‘God can play the role of a person’ then a successful resolution to the zero/infinity conflict of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics readily pops out at us:

    The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31
    William Dembski PhD. Mathematics
    Excerpt: “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”
    http://www.designinference.com.....of_xty.pdf

    The Center Of The Universe Is Life – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video
    http://vimeo.com/34084462

    Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age – Pictures, Articles and Videos
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg

    Condensed notes on The Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/15IGs-5nupAmTdE5V-_uPjz25ViXbQKi9-TyhnLpaC9U/edit

    Of note: I hold ‘growing large without measure’ to be a lesser quality infinity than a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The reason why I hold growing large without measure to be a ‘lesser quality infinity’ than a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero is stated at the 4:30 minute mark of the following video:

    Can A “Beginning-less Universe” Exist? – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8YN0fwo5J4

  35. Verse and music:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    Empty (Empty Cross Empty Tomb) with Dan Haseltine Matt Hammitt (Music Inspired by The Story)
    http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=F22MCCNU

    Thus DWG, despite however weak you thought the evidence for Christianity was, the fact is that Christianity has far more going for it than one would be predisposed to think going into a investigation of its scientific validity!!

  36. mphillips:

    So does the “explanation” for the existence of DNA, that an intelligent agent caused it, meet any of those criteria? … Does this explanation have *any* explanatory power?

    Right, so what you’re after is The Religious Myth rather than Yet Another Religious Myth. That’s fine for what it’s worth and I wish you luck on trying to satisfy your yearning for the One True Set of Excuses. Versus those other ones.

    But your shotgun approach to firing demands cloaked as queries is wide of the mark: Can your theory generate or lead to empirically testable hypotheses?

    That’s the only question that needs be asked or answered unless you’re prostrating yourself in a plea that someone will be your priest. And there’s a really basic issue here that everyone needs to satisfy to themselves about every wild, wooly, false and true notion in general: Can your knowledge of the known ‘prove’ any framework of excuses that preceded your knowledge and are unknown to it?

  37. Thank you, Joe and bornagain.

    As you know, I have zero capacity for understanding the manner in which particular empirical truths of physics have been established.

    Fortunately, since English is my first language, I don’t need to tread in any of the footsteps of the scientists, following the nitty-gritty of their professional work.

    But, David, I don’t quite know whether to congratulate you for conceding that my assertion might be ‘trivially true’(!)(an enormous step for a materialist), or to question the balance of your mind, in dismissing such a contention as ‘trivial’, and then being moved to ask which theistic religion I had in mind…!

    For I sensed a wee note of truculence in the question, as if you felt that your attempted swatting of a ‘trivial truth’ was a bizarre, incommensurately-weighty riposte – which would somehow lay bare the utter triviality of empirically establishing the unambiguous truth of theism. Never mind. As long as my point is conceded – ‘implicitly’ is a start.

  38. Joe,

    Ya see there isn’t any evidence that molecules can program themselves with knowledge.

    Whereas there is of course that the intelligent designer did it at the origin of life.

    Ground is wet.
    Rain wets ground.
    Ground is wet because it rained, only explanation.

    Man does complex things.
    Life turns out to be complex.
    Life was created by man-like intelligence, only explanation.

    Joe, if you get a planet full of chemicals and bring to a boil for a long time, what are the limits of what could and could not happen? Given that you don’t know, all you have left is hysterical claims that “molecules programmed themselves with knowledge”.

    Yes, because that’s so much more likely and plausible then “an intelligent designer programmed molecules with knowledge” but by definition that knowledge had to come from somewhere but Joe’s already thought of that one,

    Ya see mphillips, if you want to play the regression game your position FAILS. That is because natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin, which science says it had.

    Just like evolution cannot account for the origin of evolution. You ID guys have it all sewn up! Joe, the designer is complex, complex things are designed. The designer is complex, complex things are designed.

    10: The design is complex.
    20: Complex things are designed. Goto 10.

    A more circular argument I have yet to hear.

  39. A more circular argument I have yet to hear.

    True true. The competing arguments are the one as you state, and the other as:

    1. The design is complex.
    2. Therefore it is not designed.

    Neither accounts as a valid argument let alone a sound one.

  40. It’s been raining
    The ground is wet

    The best explanation for the wet condition of the ground is that it came from rainfall.

    Why is such logic such a mystery to so many critics of ID?

  41. How does ID explain the origin of the semiotic system?

    What is a semiotic system?

    How do did the semiotic systems that we know about originate?

  42. perhaps mphillips, (I assume from your argumentation that you are a Darwinian materialist), you would care to justify your use of logical reasoning to try to make your case against ID?

    “One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the popular scientific philosophy]. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears… unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.”
    —C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry (aka the Argument from Reason)

    Do the New Atheists Own the Market on Reason? – On the terms of the New Atheists, the very concept of rationality becomes nonsensical – By R. Scott Smith, May 03, 2012
    Excerpt: If atheistic evolution by NS were true, we’d be in a beginningless series of interpretations, without any knowledge. Yet, we do know many things. So, naturalism & atheistic evolution by NS are false — non-physical essences exist. But, what’s their best explanation? Being non-physical, it can’t be evolution by NS. Plus, we use our experiences, form concepts and beliefs, and even modify or reject them. Yet, if we’re just physical beings, how could we interact with and use these non-physical things? Perhaps we have non-physical souls too. In all, it seems likely the best explanation for these non-physical things is that there exists a Creator after all.
    http://www.patheos.com/Evangel.....#038;max=1

    The following interview is sadly comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes that neo-Darwinism can offer no guarantee that our faculties of reasoning will correspond to the truth, not even for the truth that he is purporting to give in the interview, (which begs the question of how was he able to come to that particular truthful realization, in the first place, if neo-Darwinian evolution were actually true?);

    Evolutionary guru: Don’t believe everything you think – October 2011
    Interviewer: You could be deceiving yourself about that.(?)
    Evolutionary Psychologist: Absolutely.
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....think.html

    Evolutionists Are Now Saying Their Thinking is Flawed (But Evolution is Still a Fact) – Cornelius Hunter – May 2012
    Excerpt: But the point here is that these “researchers” are making an assertion (human reasoning evolved and is flawed) which undermines their very argument. If human reasoning evolved and is flawed, then how can we know that evolution is a fact, much less any particular details of said evolutionary process that they think they understand via their “research”?
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....their.html

    “Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning…”
    CS Lewis – Mere Christianity
    http://www.allaboutphilosophy......quotes.htm

    “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” – Charles Darwin – Letter To William Graham – July 3, 1881

    “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.” J. B. S. Haldane ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.

    etc.. etc.. etc..


  43. Ya see there isn’t any evidence that molecules can program themselves with knowledge.

    Whereas there is of course that the intelligent designer did it at the origin of life.

    Was that supposed to be some sort of refutation? Or are you just a little child?

    Ground is wet.
    Rain wets ground.
    Ground is wet because it rained, only explanation.

    I am sure that is how YOUR thinking goes.

    Man does complex things.
    Life turns out to be complex.
    Life was created by man-like intelligence, only explanation.

    Evo spews ignorant nonsense
    Evo thinks ignorant nonsense is meaningful
    Life is good.

    Joe, if you get a planet full of chemicals and bring to a boil for a long time, what are the limits of what could and could not happen?

    Where did you get the chemicals from? Where did you get the planet all all the factors required to harbor complex metazoans from?

    And no, given your scenario I guarantee we wouldn’t get a living organism. I do know.

    Yes, because that’s so much more likely and plausible then “an intelligent designer programmed molecules with knowledge” but by definition that knowledge had to come from somewhere

    So what? How is that relevant to whether or not cells are programmed?

    Just like evolution cannot account for the origin of evolution.

    I get it- it upsets you to have your “logic” used against you. And it upsets you that your position has absolutely nothing.

    10: The design is complex.
    20: Complex things are designed

    More like:

    Living organisms exist.
    Necessity and/ or chance cannot account for the origins of living organisms.
    Living organisms fit the criteria for designed objects.
    Living organisms were designed.

    And as with all scientific inferences someone can come along and falsify it by demonstrating living organisms can arise via physics and chemistry- testable and falsifiable.

    That is what has you so confused.

    mphillips plays the childish regression game, eats it and throws a childish hissy-fit

  44. supplemental notes on the ‘argument from reason’:

    Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? – Joe Carter
    Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties.
    http://www.firstthings.com/ont.....onkey-mind

    What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? (‘inconsistent identity’ of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw

    Alvin Plantinga – Science and Faith Conference – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVlMK9Ejhb0

    Philosopher Sticks Up for God
    Excerpt: Theism, with its vision of an orderly universe superintended by a God who created rational-minded creatures in his own image, “is vastly more hospitable to science than naturalism,” with its random process of natural selection, he (Plantinga) writes. “Indeed, it is theism, not naturalism, that deserves to be called ‘the scientific worldview.’”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12.....wanted=all

    Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism.
    ~ Alvin Plantinga

    Can atheists trust their own minds? – William Lane Craig On Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byN38dyZb-k

  45. Maus:

    But if DNA is a semiotic system…

    Not a claim that UprightBiped makes.

    DNA itself is not the system.

    DNA is a medium. Wow. What does it even mean to say that something is a medium? Is the English language a medium? Are ASCII characters being represented and displayed on a computer screen a medium?

    How does that all happen and what are the ASTRONOMICAL odds against it happening by chance? What does it take to be a “true believer” in such odds?

  46. mphillips:

    Then presumably the required information was injected into the DNA by the designer, but the question is how? Did that injection process break or suspend the laws of physics?

    You miss the point completely. Forget about information in the DNA. The very idea is meaningless unless SOMETHING ELSE IS TRUE.

    Having said that, do you accept or reject the concept of “information in DNA,” and why?

    What is an “information processing system”?

  47. David W. Gibson:

    OK, first off, I’m having difficulty pinning down just what Upright BiPed means by a semiotic system.

    ok, that’s a great place to start. So I hope you’re not arguing against UB based upon your ignorance of what he’s talking about.

    Are you at all familiar with the concept of Semiotics?

    It’s not like it’s something new.

  48. I don’t dispute that information is transferred, anymore than I would dispute that falling raindrops transfer information about clouds.

    OMG, MUWAHAHAHAHA ! SRSLY?

    oh man, I hope Upright Biped sees this.

    Raindrops transfer information about clouds?

    Well, at least we’re making progress, however slight, over the foolishness of elizabeth liddle who denied the “aboutness” of information.

    Who or what is the source of that information?

    Who or what is the receiver of that information?

    Does the transfer of that information involve encoding and decoding?

    man, so looking forward to this discussion.

  49. David W. Gibson:

    DNA … is just an organic molecule which undergoes chemical reactions.

    Pixels on a computer screen are just molecules that undergo physical/chemical reactions. Move along. Nothing to see here.

    No information has been transmitted. I am Chaos and I endorse this message.

  50. David W. Gibson:

    Trying to be just as concise, I’ll say that IF DNA were a “code” or “abstract” or a “symbol system” then this argument would be entirely correct. But, except in a metaphorical sense, DNA is none of these things.

    You’re starting to bore me.

    Noe one is claiming that DNA is a code or that DNA is abstract or that DNA is a symbol system. After all, DNA is simply a molecule. How could it be a system, much less a symbol system?

    Can you say STRAWMAN?

    You either:

    A. Don’t understand the argument

    or

    B. Deliberately misrepresent the argument.

    Why should we take you seriously?

  51. Yeah, Joe, who designed the designer?

    Anyone not heard that one before?

  52. mphillips:

    So does the “explanation” for the existence of DNA, that an intelligent agent caused it, meet any of those criteria?

    Does it clarify any cause (other then a mystery designer didit)? No.

    The argument is not about the existence of DNA. Posit any hypothesis that you like.

    What do you mean by “cause.”

    Did you “cause” your post to appear here on UD?

    What are the arguments we should reject as possible explanations for you post appearing here on UD?

    “Youdidit” isn’t even on the table, so good luck

  53. Mung:

    DNA itself is not the system.

    Obviously. Given our knowledge of DNA such a claim would be silly. My apologies for not lifting my pedantry to a fine art.

    What does it take to be a “true believer” in such odds?

    If you go by the Principle of Insufficient Reason then the odds are 50/50. Or about that of Blackjack whether you’re the House or the Mark. I think the idea of attaching a frequentist count to uncounted things is a bit nonsensical, but that’s the answer if you require a number.

  54. Maus:

    If you go by the Principle of Insufficient Reason then the odds are 50/50.

    Assuming the principle applies, which you have NOT established.

    Please explain how the principle applies to this particular instance?

    http://mathworld.wolfram.com/P.....eason.html

  55. David W. Gibson:
    First, I don’t understand your (and others’) repetition of “chance and necessity”. I don’t know what this phrase is intended to convey.

    My take from your statement is that you should not be taken seriously. You have not performed the requisite research to qualify as a critic.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_and_Necessity

  56. We can be astounded by the intricate complexity that the rules of chemistry permit, we might be intimidated by the challenge of figuring out a possible sequence of tiny steps over Deep Time during which that complexity developed, but this doesn’t mean we have to throw up our hands and invoke untestable causes.

    No one but you is proposing the invocation of untestable causes.

  57. Mung:

    Please explain how the principle applies to this particular instance?

    I’ve already disclaimed the thing, of course. But as I have not had the ability to count the occurrences of Dice caused historical biology and non-Dice caused historical biology then I am strictly ignorant of what the odds could possibly be. Since it must be one of the two in every case then it is 50/50. Which is no more than to restate what’s already at your Wolfram link.

  58. 58

    I waited around on Friday as long as I could in order to respond to mphillips, whom I had told that I would: a) cease my attack on the obvious flaws in his position, and b) would fully answer any disciplined question he had for me to the very best of my ability. Unfortunately, he did not appear until after I had stopped monitoring the site for the weekend.

    I had told mphillips that I would not hold him to providing an example of something that is impossible (transferring recorded information without the use of a representation), and instead I asked him to fashion three or four of his most pressing (yet disciplined) questions regarding my argument. Apparently the pressure was just too much.

    He returned to tell me he would not accept my offer, then he pelted the board with the most undisciplined questions he could muster, then used the opportunity (to provide an example of the impossible) as a means to denigrate persons with magnitudes more understanding of the issues than he has, then answered my question by saying the only way to transfer recorded information without using a representation was to break physical law. What a load of crap. If I had to do what he has to do in order to support my beliefs, I would simple change my beliefs.

    I have now read through the thread here, and the counter comments at TSZ. It is unfathomable that these people can delude themselves into thinking they are materialists. Anthony Flew was a materialist.

    Empiricism means nothing to these people whatsoever.

    Elizabeth, I hope you are proud of your group. One of your guys told me that just by handing me a book he has “tranferred information”. Thats powerful stuff.

  59. Antony Flew- no “h”-

    and septic zone commentors, Mike “smell my finga” Elzinga and dr “spew” who, declared that physics and chemistry can doit, therefor you are refuted.

    Of course they didn’t offer any evidence, but hey they are really, really convinced, just not so convincing.

  60. David W. Gibson:

    I don’t dispute that information is transferred, anymore than I would dispute that falling raindrops transfer information about clouds.

  61. 61

    Well, it doesn’t seem that mphillips and DWG intend on returning to the conversation. I suppose being asked “Is it even possible in a material universe to transfer recorded information without the use of a material representation” and being forced to answer “only if you break the laws of physics” isn’t much of a conversation to return to. It admits that the Origin of Information required the capacity of representation, which isn’t particularly prevalent in the materialist’s narrative.
    A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system (e.g. written text, spoken words, pheromones, animal gestures, codes, sensory input, intracellular messengers, nucleotide sequences, etc, etc). We recognize the system and its components by their unambiguous function. Given that demonstrable fact, I suggest the reason for reluctance on the part of so many materialists to address this issue has to do with what rationally follows from an admission of the evidence.

    It is not logically possible to transfer information (the form of a thing; a measured aspect, quality, or preference) in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing). If that is true, then the presence of that representation must present a material component to the system (which is reducible to physical law), while its arrangement presents an arbitrary component to the system (which is not reducible to physical law)**. If that is true, and again it surely must be, then there has to be something else which establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between the representation and the effect it evokes within the system. In fact, this is the material basis of Francis Crick’s famous ‘adapter hypothesis’ in DNA, which lead to a revolution in the biological sciences. In a material universe, that something else must be a second arrangement of matter; coordinated to the first arrangement as well as to the effect it evokes. It then also follows that this second arrangement must produce its unambiguous function, not from the mere presence of the representation, but from its arrangement. It is the arbitrary component of the representation which produces the function. And if those observations are true, then in order to actually transfer recorded information, two discrete arrangements of matter are inherently required by the process; and both of these objects must necessarily have a quality that extends beyond their mere material make-up. The first is a representation and the second is a protocol (a systematic, operational rule instantiated in matter) and together they function as a formal system. They are the irreducible complex core which is fundamentally required in order to transfer recorded information.

    This is not only logically sound, but is validated by observation.
    During protein synthesis, a selected portion of DNA is first transcribed into mRNA, then matured and transported to the site of translation within the ribosome. This transcription process facilitates the input of information (the arbitrary component of the DNA sequence) into the system. The input of this arbitrary component functions to constrain the output, producing the polypeptides which demonstrate unambiguous function.

    From a causal standpoint, the arbitrary component of DNA is transcribed to mRNA, and those mRNA are then used to order tRNA molecules within the ribosome. Each stage of this transcription process is determined by the physical forces of pair bonding. Yet, which amino acid appears at the peptide binding site is not determined by pair bonding; it is determined in by the aaRS. In other words, which amino acid appears at the binding site is only evoked by the physical structure of the nucleic triplet, but is not determined by it. Instead, it is determined (in spatial and temporal isolation) by the physical structure of the aaRS. This is the point of translation; the point where the arbitrary component of the representation is allowed to evoke a response in a physically determined system – while preserving the arbitrary nature of the representation.

    This physical event, translation by a material protocol, as well as the transcription of a material representation, are ubiquitous in the transfer of recorded information. These two physical objects (the representation and protocol) along with the required preservation of the arbitrary component of the representation, and the production of unambiguous function from that arbitrary component, confirm that the transfer of recorded information in the genome is just like any other form of recorded information. It’s a arbitrary relationship instantiated in matter.

    Stir that prebiotic soup, surely there is some semiosis in there somewhere.

    - – - – - – - –

    ** “There has always been an apparent paradox between the concept of universal physical laws andsemiotic controls. Physical laws describe the dynamics of inexorable events, or as Wigner 47expresses it, physical explanations give us the impression that events “. . . could not be otherwise.”By contrast, the concepts of information and control give us the impression that events could beotherwise, and the well-known Shannon measure of information is just the logarithm of thenumber of other ways.

    One root of this paradox is the fact that the formulation of physical laws depends fundamentally on the concepts of energy, time, and rates of change, whereas information measures and the syntax of formal languages and semiotic controls are independent of energy, time, and rates of change. A second root of the paradox is that fundamental physical laws, as they are described mathematically, are deterministic and time-symmetric (reversible), whereas informational conceptslike detection, observation, measurement, and control are described as statistical and irreversible.Perhaps the deepest root of the problem, however, is the conceptual incompatibility of theconcepts of determinism and choice, a paradox that has existed since the earliest philosophers.

    -Howard Pattee PhD. New York University 1996

  62. 62

    Hi Mung, you crazy person.

    Yeah, I saw it. He seems to be as accepting and uninformed as Elizabeth Liddle.

    Perhaps not.

  63. mphillips, aka petrushka, most likely won’t be back. Ya see last week petrushka “predicted” mphillips would be gone by Monday (August 20) and by golly Sunday was the last we seen of mphillips.

    Now petrushka is claiming victory and drumming up sympathy for the dear departed mphillips. But of course not without its usual unsupported spewage.

  64. Onlookers:

    Petrushka at TSZ, lying — speaking with willful disregard to the truth, hoping to profit by that being taken as true:

    As I predicted, mphillips has disappeared. I have no idea why, but it happened right after KF threatened bannation.

    What I of course warned MP of was what I proceeded to do from 57 on in the sums up thread — expose the fallacies and willful obtuseness.

    Chirp, chirp, chirp here, multiplied by slander elsewhere.

    all too revealing on what we are dealing with.

    KF

  65. Joe, Thanks for watching my 6. I posted for record, here. KF

  66. PS: You will see who has been put up as poster child no 1 for irresponsible and willfully deceitful misrepresentation of design theory on the Internet.

  67. It is not logically possible to transfer information (the form of a thing; a measured aspect, quality, or preference) in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow.

    Nice post @61 Upright BiPed.

    Did you ever see that demonstration promised by Elizabeth Liddle?

  68. kairosfocus- those people lack self-awareness, diginity and integrity. All they can do is misrepresent their opponents, equivocate and overstate their position.

    And to top it off they start out with a conclusion, materialism, and try to make the data fit, then try to say we are the side that starts with a conclusion.

    Yeah, our “conclusion” is that we can differentiate between nature, operating freely and agency, ie we can do science.

  69. 69

    Thanks very much, Mung.

    And yes, I got a demonstration for sure.

    Did you know that if I hand you a book, I have tranferred information? I bet you didn’t know that.

    Then I got a scorned physicist with the personal disposition of Benito Mussolini. He didn’t realize that symbols and representations must have a material foundaion in a material universe. I suppose he thought it was all up in the aether or something.

    Then there was another guy who was one tough customer. He asked me to lay out my definitions and premises. So I did – and he must have really hated them because he rewrote them and added all this other stuff. He then asked me if that was what I had meant all along. I had to tell him that none of his additions were in the material evidence, but that didn’t seem to matter much. Apparently it didn’t matter to a lot of them because they all kept repeating his question.

    Then there was another guy who is certain that the world is out to get him and his family. Not acknowledging material evidence is apparently part of a larger plan to protect their intellectual welfare.

    Anyway, in one of his last posts he informed me of the truth of the matter, he said “this isn’t about any material observations”, which is a statement I am forced to agree with. He then went on to scold me for not answering the other guy’s question.

    And there was of course, Dr Liddle. After she conceded all my points, she then demanded I stop calling her “Dr” Liddle, and left. Thats probably understandable at some level.

  70. 70
    critical rationalist

    Barry: David, it is true that Darwinists have been working feverishly for over 150 years. It is NOT true that they have demonstrated – I said “demonstrated,” not assumed – that a chance/necessity process can produce an abstract digital code

    It’s unclear why you would expect Darwinists to “demonstrate” that evolution is true. Can you elaborate as to why you think this a reasonable expectation?

    Barry: On his side Upright Biped has common everyday experience demonstrated billions of times each day – intelligent agents routinely create abstract digital codes.

    Given that we’re referring to events that occurred in the distant past, how is this a “demonstration” that the biosphere was designed?

    Barry: On their side Darwinists have 150 years of question begging.

    Darwinism represents a hard to vary explanation as to how the knowledge to build biological adaptations, which is found in the genome, was created. What is ID’s explanation for how this knowledge was created?

    What do I mean by knowledge? I’m referring to Popper’s definition, which is independent of anyone’s belief. So, the genome contains knowledge of how adapt matter into biological features.

    Why don’t you start out by explaining how knowledge is created, then point out how Darwinism doesn’t fit that explanation. Please be specific. Or perhaps you do not think the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations was created at all?

  71. 71

    Given that we’re referring to events that occurred in the distant past, how is this a “demonstration” that the biosphere was designed?

    You switched the phrasing around. The question you should ask is:

    “How is this a “demonstration” that chance and necessity intelligent agency can produce an abstract digital code?”

    To answer your question:

    Firstly, it is not a demonstration that agency can create digital code, that is a demonstration that no one even needs. Instead, it is a demonstration to those who think that the information in the genome is only “analogous” to other forms of information (and therefore can come into being by some mysterious process of chance and necessity).

    The information in the genome is no different than any other form of information – it requires a representation and a protocol. I am happy to point you to post #61 for an explanation.

  72. Upright BiPed:

    Did you know that if I hand you a book, I have tranferred information? I bet you didn’t know that.

    If I had tossed that book into the fire without ever knowing what was in it, would you still have transferred information?

    Would I have transferred that information to the fire?

    I’m still trying to figure out how this transfer of information stuff works.

    Did you know that if I hand you a book, I have tranferred information? I bet you didn’t know that.

    I did not know that. You would have handed me the book, and I would have said, why are you giving this to me?

    You may have supposed you were transferring information to me, while I would have been wondering what you thought you were doing.

    That’s hardly a transfer of information!

  73. I suppose he thought it was all up in the aether or something.

    Isn’t the aether where physicists send their minds when confronted with Darwinism?

  74. UBP:

    Then there was another guy who was one tough customer. He asked me to lay out my definitions and premises. So I did – and he must have really hated them because he rewrote them and added all this other stuff. He then asked me if that was what I had meant all along. I had to tell him that none of his additions were in the material evidence, but that didn’t seem to matter much.

    Sounds just like a reenactment of your encounter with “Dr.” Liddle right here at UD.

Leave a Reply