Home
» Intelligent Design » Complex Specified Information? You be the judge…
Complex Specified Information? You be the judge…
| February 20, 2009 | Posted by Dave S. under Intelligent Design |
Is it chance or design?
This Google Ocean image is 620 miles off the west coast of Africa near the Canary Islands. It is over 15,000 feet deep and the feature of interest is about 90 miles on a side or 8000 square miles.
In another thread ID critics complain there is no rigorous definition or mathematical formula by which everyone can agree on whether or not something exhibits complex specified information. Believe it not, they say it like mainstream science isn’t chock full of things that not everyone can agree upon. Like duh.
95 Responses to Complex Specified Information? You be the judge…
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Mark Frank #90,
I’ve always felt that individual ID-compatible hypotheses should be evaluated separately from the initial design inference, and I’ve already given my reasons why before. In fact, this thread about Atlantis and grids-based-upon-designed-sonar-patterns is a good example of why this should be.
Mark (#90):
I am rather comfortable with what you write. I think I basically agree with you on those points.
You ask:
“why are there so many aspects of life which patently don’t lead towards that end? Why did the designer create so many designs that work dramatically against that same purpose in other livings things (or were there many rival designers?”
Those are very good questions, and absolutely valid and pertinent. I don’t have final answers, especially not scientific answers. But the answers can certainly be searched.
Obviously, I have philosophical answers. But my answers have not to be necessarily shared by others. My answers, like anybody else’s, can anyway be the basis for scientific theories, and there is no doubt that scientific research can in time help to clarify what scenarios are more likely.
I have no reason to believe that everything in the biological world is due to one designer. I have no reason to believe that there is only one purpose expressed in biological design. I have no reason to believe that the designer, even if he were a God, has worked in the biological world free from any constraint. Those are assumptions which, for strange reasons, seem to be cherished especially by darwinists, when they try to misrepresent IDists, as though we had to believe necessarily in a magic God who creates everything out of nothing, by some sacred magic wand.
Let’s be clear about one thing: the implementation of biological design has happened inside natural history, and not at the beginning of the universe. So, there is no reason to believe that the designer, however we may imagine him, worked independently of any constraint: he obviously worked in a context, and with tools which can themselves be context dependent.
And just a final note: my personal and strong belief is that survival is not the main purpose in the design of life: it is certainly a very important intermediate purpose, but not the final one. The main purpose of life, IMO, is the expression of life itself and of the qualities inherent in it. The focus of darwinian thought on survival alone, and the tendency to consider everything else as a byproduct of that, are IMO one of the most desolate aspects of that kind of culture.
Rob
In order to be scientifically useful, measures must give the same results when different people apply them independently to the same objects.
Actually to be scientifically useful lots of measure only need to be accurate to a factor of 10.
Get out of my thread, Rob. You’re either uninformed or a troll or both. Either way your welcome is worn out.
Simple question to those asking about mechanism:
A person reading this page might read any post and simplistically think they were looking at typeing on a page, or the output of a laser printer, or a “ditto” machine, or a fax, or a xerox machine; they might not realize they were looking at electronic pixels ; but is there any chance they wouldn’t assume what they read is the product of the intent of a mind? does the medium, or the process of how it came to be have “any” impact on that decision at all?
I posted a link to my blog earlier in this thread, but all of sudden the code was changed and the image that was there was gone. So here again:
http://hawaii.gov/hdoa/pi/ppc/.....111507.jpg
http://img100.imageshack.us/im.....fgod21.jpg
What these images show is that we can see intelligent design not only in life forms, but also in earth’s geographical features.