Design detection in SETI — just fine; design detection in biology — no way!

_{William Dembski

June 1, 2006

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Skeptics, ever selective in their skepticism, remain convinced that SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is a legitimate scientific program. But applying methods of design detection to biology — well that’s just plain stupid. See Robert Camp’s piece here.

Design from biology fairly smacks us over the head. What about design from SETI (i.e., convincing proof of alien intelligence)? We’re still waiting for a shred of evidence — in this regard Michael Crichton hit the nail on the head: http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html.

Comments

mc87: "As for my claim of a dead endÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Why then are people are able to make predictions on where to look for new fosils based on a previous species? an example of this would be http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/tiktaalik_makes_another_gap.php Allowing for the clain that ID is correct thoughÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Ã¢â‚¬Å“How would I have made this?Ã¢â‚¬Â, is not the natural question to me. . . ." I'm going to answer very cursorially--I'm on vacation. How do they predict it? Because of the existence of 'clines'. We know--and no one disputes this--that over a large geographic area, variations in species exist. When applied to a so-called 'transitional' form, well, you look for a 'transitional' geographic area. I don't think that proves too much since it'a all in a bundle with what might be called 'microevolution' (which I think should be simply called 'adaptation'.) As to Tiktaalik: I'm not too impressed with it as a 'transitional' species. It just looks like the kind of adaptation that can occur given a particular geology/geography. (My thinking is that all the 'information' for this 'adaptation' is already present in the genome, and that some kind of environmental signaling/genomic recombination [again, some kind of stimulated response] causes the adaptation to come about.) "If science does identify the designer, the next series of questions would need to be focussed on identifying the designer, why they made us, and what their future plans are. As you have claimed, ID adds nothing in the adaptation of naturally ocurring features to human designs as scientists already look to adopt these ideas." I don't know why you would "need" to 'identify the designer', ask 'why they made us', or ask 'what [are] their future plans.' To me, that is a completely different genre of questions, essentially dovetailing with theology. My reaction is this: "Oh, we're dealing with a kind of biological computer. I kind of know how computers work. So, DNA/RNA/ribosomes/etc. are a kind of 'program'. So, how is this 'program' written?" That's my first question: How is the 'code' written? What we're learning now about micro-RNAs and siRNAs and their regulatory functions all fits in nicely with the idea of a 'program.' So there are a million of questions that you can ask yourself with, perhaps, the first one being: How would I have 'written this program.' Of course, all of this is anathema to Darwinism because it is the complete opposite of RM+NS. But we KNOW that DNA is code, and is therefore the reflection of intelligence (If, for example, I came across a computer program written by a Chinese man, would I have to learn to speak Chinese in order to understand it? Would I have to know how old he was, or what city he lived in, or what college he went to? DNA is the language of 'reason'. And I happen to be a reasonable man. Therefore, I can understand it--no matter who wrote it!) But no one has demonstrated anything other than very superficial change (and it's usually reversible!!!) brought about by the supposed RM+NS agency. On to my vacation......PaV_{June 10, 2006
June
06
Jun
10
10
2006
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

Hmm, interesting thoughts PaV... although I can't say I agree with all of them. Looking at it another way... Scientifically, we have no reason not to infer that life couldn't of originated on another planet in the Universe, despite how unlikely this outcome may seem, and the reasoning behind the SETI project is sound. No one will deny it is based on small probabilities and the aussumptions of our current scientific threories though. Hmm, I'm not sure your arguement for DNA being designed holds. For one, we can only identify tools of species we know of or can reaonably postulate. Assume a species we had never seen before on the earth, could we identify their tools in the fosil record easily? Or would we mistake it for something else? And again you jump from 2 human (or human like examples), to a divine, something which by it's very definition defies scientific investigation. And to be clear it is the divine which avoids investigation due to it's "mysterious ways", than science's lack of ability and/or reason. On Human vs Divine reason: From the same Bible, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, says the Lord" But while not trying to get too deep into apologetics, since I had thought ID was scietific, that statement you made only works for a version of the god you believe in. Other people may presume that human reason to be too lowly for God, and caught up in the mundane aspects of day to day life that we must struggle with. I should also add, I do not try to limit reason to humans, but human reason I would argue should be ascribed to a human or human like creature as otherwise what makes it human? Unless we go the Greek pantheon of Gods or Norse mythologies, where there are very real concerns for the gods such as war or death, I don't believe it could be said God would reason the way we do, or atleast I feel it would be very self praising to claim as such. I do agree, that in your view of God, we could be on the same continuim, but we are talking about the 2 different ends of it. As for my claim of a dead end... Why then are people are able to make predictions on where to look for new fosils based on a previous species? an example of this would be http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/tiktaalik_makes_another_gap.php Allowing for the clain that ID is correct though... "How would I have made this?", is not the natural question to me. If science does identify the designer, the next series of questions would need to be focussed on identifying the designer, why they made us, and what their future plans are. As you have claimed, ID adds nothing in the adaptation of naturally ocurring features to human designs as scientists already look to adopt these ideas. Therefore all ID can really add is around the designer it postulates. Since without knowing that, we can't know more about our purpose or destiny according to ID. It would make a huge difference our IDer turned out to be an Alien as opposed to God, and nothing so far in ID rules out that possibility.mc87_{June 7, 2006
June
06
Jun
7
07
2006
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

mc87: "One difference I see with ID and SETI? SETI has said something about the intelligence they are looking for. ie That their society will make assumptions about the universe and other intelligence that may be out there and communicate along that EM band, realising it will bea good indicator for other intelligent agents (eg us), out in the universe that they exist." I think the discussion would be better served if instead of 'intelligence', we used the word 'reason.' Animals display 'intelligence'. And, at times, they even seem to approximate 'reason.' But when we're talking about 'design', 'reason' seems to better word to use since it is our ability to reason through things that leads to complicated designs such as microchips. That said, what SETI is doing is no more than taking humankind's ability to reason and to project that ability onto putative alien creatures. What they're doing is really that straightforward. So, how is that different from what ID advocates are doing? In fact, it is much more 'reasonable' to make the kinds of assumptions that IDers make than to make the kind that the SETI people are making. After all, we KNOW that DNA is a quaternary code. We KNOW it. We don't assume it. And the code we see operating has tremendous simlarities to the binary code system that is used in computers. IDers aren't 'assuming' that when you encounter DNA that there is an 'intelligence' present; they know that an intelligence is present--and one that operates in a similar manner to human reason. Let's look at in another way: the SETI people, as 'true believers' in Darwinism, BELIEVE that natural elements, under certain conditions, will produce life (I say 'believe' since this has never been demonstrated.). IF THIS IS TRUE, then it could have happened in other parts of the universe. Their 'search' flows from what they BELIEVE. (Again, nothing of what they believe has been demonstrated.) On the other hand, IDers SEE the presence of DNA, and based on probability arguments, are confidently sure that nothing other than an "intelligence" could have produced something like DNA and the transcription mechanisms and developmental pathways that exist in biological forms. It is LOGICAL/REASONABLE to infer from the presence of 'tools' in fossil finds that 'thinking animals' (i.e., humans/protohumans) were present; it is LOGICAL/REASONABLE to infer that the presence of a person's fingerprints at a crime scene is an indication that that person was present at the crime scene; it is LOGICAL/REASONABLE to infer that a extremely complex coding system, operating at the nano-level, is the sign of intelligence at work. IDers are acting LOGICALLY; SETI people, simply BELIEVE. But, of course, it is the destiny of liberal-minded people to turn reality inside out. So, for example, VW's are beautiful; and it is the IDers, and not the SETI people, who are acting from 'belief.' mc87: "To me personally ID becomes an intellectual dead end, but if ID is assuming a human intelligence behind the design of things like the Bacterial Flagellum, then that is something! " But, mc87, the Bible says that 'man' is made in the image of God. Thus, human reason is on a continuum with the Divine Reason. Why do you automatically limit human reason to humans. As far as 'dead ends' go, what is more of a 'dead end' than Darwinism. We see species A change in some small way to now take on the morphology of species B. That's all we ever see. It's never a sufficient enough change so as to bring about a change in body type, or cell type, etc. And yet, though that's all we ever see, and all we ever will see, this is hailed as the answer to all of the complexity of flora and fauna. This is an absolute dead end. And it's been a dead end since the time of Darwin himself. Now, on the other hand, ID is no such 'dead end' whatsoever. When the time comes that science admits the presence of intelligence as the cause d'etre of life itself, then it will pursue answers and ask questions that are commensurate with that source of causation. In fact, that is what is already being done. Scientist after scientist say something along the lines that when they ask questions of the biological system they're working with, they ask themselves something like: "How would I have made this?" This is exactly how IDers think. Darwinists simply think that NS+RM is the Designer, so they think that there's no gap between asking the kinds of questions that scientists ask themselves and Darwinism itself. But, in fact, they're thought process is EXACTLY THAT OF IDers. Further, the likelihood that random processes could give rise to coded complexity is so infinitessimally small as to vanish away. So, not by LOGIC, but by the 'will to power', they BELIEVE that Darwinism is a viable explanation for floral and faunalc oomplexity. (There are, of course, those who STILL BELIEVE that Marxism is the salvation of mankind---despite the countless millions of people killed in its name, and despite the gross poverty it has forced upon its minions.)PaV_{June 6, 2006
June
06
Jun
6
06
2006
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

Collin, I was not referring to OSC, just that its interesting a hebrew is only now rediscovering what was written over 3000 years ago. Actually, the rhythm pattern may be OSC, but it part of an overall pattern of symbology related to the entire text and therefore I would consider it part of FSC Psalm, just as any text is that relays message. Except this comes with a twist. It relates to the symbols numerically as well to show disruption of order along with the song. Not many musicians go to this amount of trouble. I enjoyed Abel and Trevors work and it clearly draws the lines that need to be drawn in this debate. I wonder if anyone has successfully challenged their null hypothesis yet? It should be a good challenge for the people over at Panda.Michaels7_{June 5, 2006
June
06
Jun
5
05
2006
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Pav: To me it feels you conflate intelligence with human intelligence, admittedly this is easy to do as we only really have experience with human intelligence. One difference I see with ID and SETI? SETI has said something about the intelligence they are looking for. ie That their society will make assumptions about the universe and other intelligence that may be out there and communicate along that EM band, realising it will bea good indicator for other intelligent agents (eg us), out in the universe that they exist. SETI is not going to detect ALL intelligent agents that are sending signals, only those that meet the assumptions we made (whether by intent or accident), whereas something ID could do is propose a method to anylyze the signals and perhaps identify another civilization's signal that SETI overlooked due to SETI's (perhaps limiting), assumptions about the signal it was looking for. This would be a great benefit to the SETI program if achieved and indeed all mankind if it was realised. Just backing up to another point you made... "then why canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t ID assume that the Ã¢â‚¬Ëœintelligent agentÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ it presumes operates along similar lines as human intelligence". I think everyone would be happy if ID did do that... it would allow for some more rigorous assessment. Currently the biggest gripe I understand people to have with ID, is that the process of discovery and further understanding simply stops once you find something qualifies as Designed. You run into a dead end using ID as a tool of inquiry as nothing is stated about who designed it, what methods were used, why is was designed, when, etc. And to my knowledge ID refuses to delve into those topics, claming details of the Designer (and the mechanastic details), is a matter of faith, at which point we have left the realm of science and are well and truly into the realm of subjective belief. To me personally ID becomes an intellectual dead end, but if ID is assuming a human intelligence behind the design of things like the Bacterial Flagellum, then that is something! We can then ask more questions like which humans (or human like beings), created the flagellum? When did they live? Why did they feel the need to give Bacteria a Flagellum? etc, it leads us onto new areas of questioning and discovery.mc87_{June 4, 2006
June
06
Jun
4
04
2006
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

I'm getting into this discussion late, but let me make a few observations about Camp's article. First, Camp attempts to demonstrate that SETI operates in almost the same way as 'forensics'. He writes: "The salient point is that forensics would not work without an acute understanding of the nature of the intelligence being investigated, . . ." Then, shortly later, when it comes to SETI, he writes, "Dealing with the SETI analogy requires a slightly different argument ... because it is obvious that SETI does not assume human intelligence." (N.B.: Having made the last statement, he then, basicaly, changes the subject.) Let me see if I understand this: forensics works as a discipline because it has at its disposal an "acute understanding of the nature of the intelligence being investigated"; but SETI does not assume human intelligence, and, yet, they both work in almost the same way? Assuming something other than 'intelligent agency' (humans) and requiring an 'acute understanding of intelligent beings' sound like methodologies that are miles apart. So, if SETI can ASSUME that the "intelligence" they're searching for is "similar" to human intelligence, then why can't ID assume that the 'intelligent agent' it presumes operates along similar lines as human intelligence? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Yikes, I'm out of time. Let me address just one more point that he makes about 'artificiality.' Camp quotes Seth Shostak as follows: "if SETI were to announce that we're not alone because it had detected a signal, it would be on the basis of artificiality. An endless, sinusoidal signal--a dead simple tone--is not complex; it's artificial. Such a tone just doesn't seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes...." Camp prefaces this quote by saying: " . . . the search [for SETI] is directed toward finding specific evidence of artificiality, not inexplicability, ..." This gives the false impression that the methodology of SETI and ID are in some way dissimilar. That is, SETI is looking for some object that simply cannot be, let us say, 'produced' by nature (thus, artificial), whereas ID is simply looking for things that nature cannot explain. But let's take a closer look. If I understand things here correctly, what Shostak is calling a "simple" tone is as far away from being simple as something can get. In fact, it should be considered a highly complex structure. If I'm not mistaken, a 'simple' sinusoidal wave can be constructed through the constructive interference of a number of electromagnatic waves differing in wavelength and amplitudes. The fact that 'sinusoidal' waves don't exist in nature is very likely due to all the 'noise' that exists in nature, 'noise' that simply never sums up in the proper way so as to form a 'sinusoidal' wave. Now the EXPLANATION for there not being a 'simple sinusoidal' wave found in the microwave band is that the only 'noise' that nature produces in that part of the electromagnetic spectrum is that coming from hydrogen gas. Thus, hydrogen has nothing to interfere with; and, hence, constructive interference in this region is therefore ruled out. Thus, the appearance of a 'sinusodal' wave is, instead of being SIMPLE, is, in fact, too COMPLEX a structure to be created by 'nature' in that part of the EM spectrum; and the INFERENCE would then be that it had to have been PURPOSIVELY produced: hence, 'intelligence.' Sounds a lot like ID, doesn't it? And then there's this: Natural Selection: something Nature does; Artifical Selection (breeding): something intelligent beings do. So why split up 'artificiality' and 'intelligence', since the only 'artificial' things brought about in our world is through the agency of intelligence? In sum, Camp's argument is bogus.PaV_{June 4, 2006
June
06
Jun
4
04
2006
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

GilDodgen: "My AI computer programming experience was a big factor in convincing me of the validity of ID." I'm sure there is no need to mention those endless hours you spent to intelligently develope algorithms and convert them to software code that enables a mindless computer to play checkers. Those who are directly involved in field of AI can experience the real headaches and difficulties of mimicing even a tiny part of human intelligence. Actually, what we create in AI is not really *intelligence*, it is only a very limited imitation of human intelligence.Farshad_{June 4, 2006
June
06
Jun
4
04
2006
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

There is no difficulty in envisioning an interstellar radio message that unambiguously arises from intelligent life. A modulated signal (beep, beep-beep, beep-beep-beep...) comprising the numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31 -- the first dozen prime numbers -- could have only a biological origin... Such a message would be an announcement, or beacon signal, indicating the presence of an advanced civilization but communicating very little about its nature. -- Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain (1974), Chapter 22
A recent History Channel "Modern Marvels" episode (I think) dealing with hypothesized alien technology had Seth Shostak giving his current spiel about how SETI is really only looking for narrow band signals. (As Guillermo Gonzalez has opined, "if we received a narrow band transmission from outside the Solar System, most scientists would probably remain skeptical, at least until it could be shown that it contained an encoded message." See www.idthefuture.com/2006/04/response_to_shostaks_we_believ.html ) Shostak looked genuinely uncomfortable -- even scared -- like someone who suddenly realizes he's in the part of town where people get mugged or worse . (He also looked to me like someone trying to talk himself out of trouble.) It's obvious that they think that everyone is now going to associate SETI with ID, and they're rowing against the current as fast as they can... ----- ftrp11 @27: "If life and conscious beings are indeed GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s intention and God was willing to cheat his own rules to make us why bother with all the pointless creation. Our star is one of hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy which is one in hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe. All that we can observe operates according to natural laws. It makes no sense to me to supernaturally seed just one planet in the midst of such copious creation. It seems more likely that we live in a universe engineered to create complexity according to Natural Law without further assistance." Since you bring up theology: Perhaps God did it just to make us conclude "theism," rather than "deism"?j_{June 4, 2006
June
06
Jun
4
04
2006
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Re #51: The problem with darwinian claims is the assertion that mindless nature could create mind with random trial and error mechanisms. We (well the ID side) still can't agree that arrangement of amino acids in a novel protein can be a product of RM/NS let alone the intelligence. Von Neumann would be surprised if he could see the amount of teraflops we have at our fingertips but still no sign of (real) AI around.Farshad_{June 4, 2006
June
06
Jun
4
04
2006
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

RE #51 Assertions, even those from a genius, should NEVER be conflated with actual data. However I am sure (assertion) that intelligent designers CAN construct something that "thinks". I am also very sure (assertion) that unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes cannot.Joseph_{June 4, 2006
June
06
Jun
4
04
2006
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

From #47: "The most laughable part of those darwinian claims is that intelligence itself is also a result of non-intelligent causes. Our failure to produce artificial-intelligence demonstartes the engimatic nature of intelligence and the absurdity of darwnian claims." I don't see how our lack of understanding about the emergence of intelligence from the actions of billions of neurons can be used as an argument against darwinian claims. John von Neumann, supergenius and inventer of the modern digital computer, when asked after a lecture "but surely you don't believe that machines can think?", answered (roughly): "when you tell exactly what thinking is, I will build you a machine that can do just that".Raevmo_{June 4, 2006
June
06
Jun
4
04
2006
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

Farshad: "There is no AI software that can extend its abilities and limits beyond what the software designer intended it to do." You are very insightful and precisely correct. My AI computer programming experience was a big factor in convincing me of the validity of ID. You can visit my Web site by clicking on my name below, if you would like information concerning my AI programming experience.GilDodgen_{June 3, 2006
June
06
Jun
3
03
2006
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT}

SETI looks for OSC (Ordered Sequence Complexity) in cosmic RF. It is a DSP. SIDI would look for FSC (Functional Sequence Complexity) in genomic intron data. I imagine the neo-darwinst reponse to SIDI success would be - "Oh, they are just finding the rejects in the junkyard of RM+NS". First they call us monkeys, now we are garbage cans. Who are these guys?Collin DuCrÃƒÂ¢ne_{June 3, 2006
June
06
Jun
3
03
2006
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

Mark, Re #42.
I wonder what you mean by Ã¢â‚¬Å“mere chanceÃ¢â‚¬Â. Are you assuming that a 0 or 1 bit is equally likely and that the value is independent of any other bits? Why?
Mathematics and engineering are not my fields, so I am not terribly familiar with all of the technicalities involved in information transmission. I am assuming that the sequence can be understood unambiguously as distinguishable from the unintelligible randomness of cosmic noise just as the message in the stars is distinguishable from the unintelligible randomness of stellar positioning in our general experience.
In the same way you would want to explore possible causes that donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t involve design. It is not a matter of faith to do that. It is exactly parallel to exploring causes that involve design.
My only point regarding faith is that it is necessarily a matter of faith to invoke a natural regularity for which there is no empirical evidence. If we explain away a lengthy sequence of primes by saying that there is some undiscovered natural regularity, then we must necessarily have faith that the regularity is out there and awaits discovery. It may just as easily exist as not. It's important to understand that I'm not saying we should not look for it. If it exists and is discovered, then it will cease to be a matter of faith and will be added to our body of scientific knowledge.crandaddy_{June 3, 2006
June
06
Jun
3
03
2006
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

According to Darwinian logic, if complex patterns, mollecular-machines and digital codes arise inside an oraginsm their source is definitely a non-directed evolution. OTOH, if you discover a few stones in the nature that roughly resemble a trigonometric shape then you must immmediatly look for signs of external intelligence. The most laughable part of those darwinian claims is that intelligence itself is also a result of non-intelligent causes. Our failure to produce artificial-intelligence demonstartes the engimatic nature of intelligence and the absurdity of darwnian claims. Our desktop computers are 1000 times faster than mainframes NASA used to operate in 70's, but still their level of intelligence is the same: equal to zero. Your PC is as intelligent as your refrigerator. The ability of your PC to run complex games based on AI and difficult tasks doesn't make it intelligent. Your PC simply playbacks (runs) what the intelligent programmer coded and dictated it to do, no more no less. There is no AI software that can extend its abilities and limits beyond what the software designer intended it to do. IBM's mainframe computer called Deep Blue which once defeated Gary Kasparav in a chess game is still as intelligent as your refrigerator because the only thing that Deep Blue can do is to do billions of calculations per seconds and run a program coded by intelligent IBM engineers. What Deep Blue certainly can not do is reasoning. For example Deep Blue can not learn rules and tactics of playing Backgammon simply by observing two peolpe playing it because it has no intelligence at all. A machine is not aware of the task it is up to. Actually, human intelligence is a reflection of human awareness. The lack of awareness in the machine is the main reason behind its lack of intelligence. We always see cliches in holywood movies like "AI takeover" and "rise of the robots", however I believe none of you are currently concerned that your PC may do something intelligently *unexpected*, expect generating silly errors and blue-screens from time to time. "There have always been ghosts in the machine. Random segments of code, that have grouped together to form unexpected protocols. Unanticipated, these free radicals engender questions of free will. Creativity. And even the nature of what we might call the soul." Do you remember the above quote from "I, Robot"? Especially I loved this part: Random segments of code, that have grouped together to form unexpected protocols. Hmm! Reminds me of darwinian RM/NS.Farshad_{June 3, 2006
June
06
Jun
3
03
2006
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

"The problem of recognizing an alien intelligence arises, in its starkest form, in that branch of science known as SETI, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. SETI deserves to be taken seriously. SETI scientists do not anticipate meeting extraterrestrial visitors in the flesh but in the form of radio transmissions whose intelligent origin should, it is hoped, be evident from their patterning. - Richard Dawkins " "In fact, the signals actually sought by todayÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s SETI searches are not complex, as the ID advocates assume. WeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re not looking for intricately coded messages, mathematical series, or even the aliensÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ version of "I Love Lucy." Our instruments are largely insensitive to the modulationÃ¢â‚¬â€or messageÃ¢â‚¬â€that might be conveyed by an extraterrestrial broadcast. A SETI radio signal of the type we could actually find would be a persistent, narrow-band whistle. Such a simple phenomenon appears to lack just about any degree of structure, although if it originates on a planet, we should see periodic Doppler effects as the world bearing the transmitter rotates and orbits. - Seth Shostak - SETI Institute" I am not saying that just because the rationale for design used by ID and SETI are different that SETI is worthwhile and ID is not, I personally think SETI is a waste of time unless it actually produces useful research.Chris Hyland_{June 3, 2006
June
06
Jun
3
03
2006
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Michaels7, Thanks for the reference. The acrostics you refer to are an excellent example of Ordered Sequence Complexity (OSC). There are many, many Bible scholars engaged in finding codes of this complexity in ancient texts. Some of them border on the occult, and none seem to be looking for expressions of Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC). Nobody seems to be looking for FSC in genetic data, but there are tanatalizing foreshadows: http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29 FSC has revelevance to ID in that such expressions are considered to originate from intelligent sources only (RM+NS can only preserve, adapt or degrade such a sequence, not improve it) Software is an excellent example of FSC. Software 'patterns' are an excellent means of deciding whether a heap of code is 'intelligent' or the result of battling the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). There is no evidence that any FSC ever originated from an FSM.Collin DuCrÃƒÂ¢ne_{June 3, 2006
June
06
Jun
3
03
2006
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

re: #43 Mung, it looks like Dawkins comes to the rescue of ID once again! ;)russ_{June 3, 2006
June
06
Jun
3
03
2006
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

The problem of recognizing an alien intelligence arises, in its starkest form, in that branch of science known as SETI, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. SETI deserves to be taken seriously. SETI scientists do not anticipate meeting extraterrestrial visitors in the flesh but in the form of radio transmissions whose intelligent origin should, it is hoped, be evident from their patterning. - Richard Dawkins
Mung_{June 3, 2006
June
06
Jun
3
03
2006
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

Re #38. I wonder what you mean by "mere chance". Are you assuming that a 0 or 1 bit is equally likely and that the value is independent of any other bits? Why? However, that is not the main point. A sufficiently long sequence of prime numbers would be a very improbable pattern under any random process that I am aware of. The next step is to try and think if there is a cause that is more likely to produce a bit string that conforms to this pattern. This might be a cause involving design or not. Some form of intelligence might indeed be the source the sequence. The scientific approach is to treat it as a hypotheses and a good way to evaluate that hypothesis would be to ask questions about "who", "how" and "why". In fact if possible you would want to break it down into one or more more detailed hypotheses about possible alternative designers and motives. In the same way you would want to explore possible causes that don't involve design. It is not a matter of faith to do that. It is exactly parallel to exploring causes that involve design. MarkMark Frank_{June 3, 2006
June
06
Jun
3
03
2006
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

I always ask the evolutionitwits what prevents/ bars tried and true design detection methodology from being used on biological organisms. The "answer" I usually get is akin to Judge Jones'- biological organisms reproduce. When asked how biological organisms achieved that ability I am called ignorant. When I clarify myself by telling them reproduction is something that requires explaining in the first place, I am told that evolutionism only deals with living and reproducing organisms. Then when I point out that if life did not arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes there would be NO reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely via those type of processes, all I get is meaningless diatribe. When asked how it was determined the obvious design observed in living organisms is "illusory", I am told I don't know how science operates- (fortunately I know exactly how science operates and evolutionism isn't science). IOW evolutionitwits can out-dance Fred Astair.Joseph_{June 3, 2006
June
06
Jun
3
03
2006
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

Off-Topic-maybe, but a signal nevertheless.... To Collin DuCrÃƒÂ¢ne, Thought you might find the following Title on chaos/disorder pattern recognition in Psalms by Ronald Benun and interesting read: "Evil and the Disruption of Order: A Structural Analysis of the Acrostics in the First Book of Psalms[1]." Buried behind mutational translation(english or otherwise) or loss of information, the original Hebrew symbolic meanings are numbers that form new layer of tapestry when fully developed and seen clearly. The 22 symbols represent both language and math and is an unlocking of significant value when fully understood and rolled out by Mr. Benun. It appears this is a recent discovery across typical Psalms boundaries as we know them in the english translation and even the Hebrew books. Note: after reading his analysis, he did not mark the overall line pattern of 17, 5, 17,[34,39] between Psalms 9 & 10. http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_55.htm He plans on doing a follow up to other acrostic Psalms, most noteably, Psalm 119. Which I'm very curious about since it utilizes all 22 Hebraic symbols in the description of God is Good. In english this is a touchy feely subject by some. But in Hebrew it becomes a sense of complete order. FYI, hope you enjoy it.Michaels7_{June 3, 2006
June
06
Jun
3
03
2006
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

"Darwinists assert that blind, purposeless, undirected, materialistic mechanisms created the minds of Rivest, Shamir and Adleman, and their revolutionary RSA encryption algorithm. This is absurd." Adleman's a molecular biologist, does he think evolution created his brain? "The researchers at Microsoft all agreed that current biology is underserved by its practicioners lack of understanding in the complexity inherant in the systems they work with every day. It will take the hard sciences to unlock the diversity we see on this planet. It will take vast computing power and fundamentals in such areas as signal processing and electronic design." A lot of people seem to be under the impression that engineers, physicists and mathematicians (and vast computing power) aren't studying biological systems and evolution. I'd really love to know where this idea comes from.Chris Hyland_{June 3, 2006
June
06
Jun
3
03
2006
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT}

Mark,

I agree that a lengthy sequence of prime numbers would not provide us with the same depth of information of a potential designer as the message in the stars would, but I still think that it would be evidence of intelligence. Suppose that one day we receive a sequence to 101 or longer and that it comes from a region of space that is highly unlikely to contain life (and likely never contained life in the first place, let's say). The sequence would represent a form of mathematical logic that is recognized and is highly reproducible by at least one species of intelligent agents in the universe. To be sure, we don't know how it could have been produced by corporeal entities, but are material mechanisms really solely responsible? Could there be some as yet undiscovered natural regularity that caused it? Yes, maybe, but until it is discovered it is necessarily a matter of faith. It must occupy the same space as any hypothetical god would. Could it have been produced by mere chance? Well, I suppose. But let's not stop at 101. Let's do like the Energizer Bunny and keep going and going and going.....Do we not eventually reach some point at which chance is reasonably eliminated? My point is that such a pattern would be best understood as the result of intelligence. Of course to say that the pattern is designed would be a bit sticky from a strictly scientific (empirical) point of view since we can't detect a designer and don't know how a designer could have operated. But this does not detract from the fact that we are justified in concluding that intelligent agency is the most salient explanation for the phenomenon in question given the current set of circumstances.
crandaddy_{June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT}

Darwinists assert that blind, purposeless, undirected, materialistic mechanisms created the minds of Rivest, Shamir and Adleman, and their revolutionary RSA encryption algorithm. This is absurd.GilDodgen_{June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT}

Re #34 "If the appearance of a sequence of prime numbers up to 101 is deemed to be sufficient evidence of intelligent design (as in SaganÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Contact), what about a computer program that can generate living systems and the human mind that can design RSA cryptography?" Sorry - I am still not with you. As I hope my example illustrated I am not sure a sequence of prime numbers is evidence of intelligent design. I admit it would be virtually impossible to write a computer program that could generate living systems. So what? As far as I know no one has ever said it was possible.Mark Frank_{June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT}

I think that the environment found on Earth is conducive to its thriving.
I think that the environment found on Earth is conducive to life thriving because of the presence of life in that environment.
...they always insist that the natural laws themselves are adequate to explain emergent properties and increasing complexity.
Which is, to me, incoherent. "Emergent properties" by their very nature cannot be explained by reference to the underlying material. To me, "emergent properties" is the scientific code word for Irreducible Complexity.Mung_{June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank: "I am sorry - you will have to explain to me how this [biological information and biological information processing] relates to the little example I put forward. We werenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t talking about living systems. We were talking about prime numbers ??" The generation of prime numbers, even extremely large ones (on the order of 1024 bits), is a trivial process algorithmically (this is the basis of RSA public-key cryptography -- one of my mathematical/computational research interests -- factoring algorithms in particular). Your computer performs these calculations as the basis of https secure information transfer over the Internet. If the appearance of a sequence of prime numbers up to 101 is deemed to be sufficient evidence of intelligent design (as in Sagan's Contact), what about a computer program that can generate living systems and the human mind that can design RSA cryptography?GilDodgen_{June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

Those who would protect "science" from Intelligent Design, insist that ID requires belief in, and action by the "supernatural". I wonder whether math is really natural, or is it "supernatural"? If there were no cosmos, wouldn't math still work as a concept? Is consciousness essentially natural or "supernatural"? Has this been demonstrated? If there were no cosmos, could there still be consciousness? Are the cosmic birthing equations natural? They presumably existed before they had their effects, or do we postulate that all maths, laws and all we can ever think or imagine is automatically derived from the singularity? This is the faith of modern science. This is what Dennett means by Darwinian Fundamentalism. This is the Ex Nihlo Cosmos and the Ex Nihlo god. This is not true. A more helpful way to see things is that mind is not matter, and that mind is involved in evolving the cosmos and life. Does there need to be anything spooky or "supernatural" about that? Minds are involved in our lives. We experience their effects every day. Why must everything, or anything for that matter, actioned by the Designing Mind be done "supernaturally"?idnet.com.au_{June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

ftrp11@ 27: I think the problem with the conjunction of design and lawfulness comes up a lot for theistic evolutionists as well. I have had some extensive discussions with them about ID, and they always insist that the natural laws themselves are adequate to explain emergent properties and increasing complexity. I disagree, and I disagree with your assumption that intelligent agency acting WITHIN existing laws represents God being "willing to cheat his own rules to make us". The way I think of intelligent agency acting is analogous to a human engineer deciding to build a bridge. In order for this structure to fulfill its purpose, be sound, safe and long-lasting, this engineer must be as conversant with the applicable LAWS of nature as possible. He must know his materials, their limits, gravity, etc. etc. All of this exists before he decides to make the bridge. But to build up the level of complexity required for the bridge, the laws are not enough. THey are the backdrop or framework within which the act of building due to intelligent agency can occur. There is no way to describe this intelligent agency acting within a lawful framework "cheating". It is creating. The developement of life could be similar. Yes you have Laws of Nature, but you need some organizing force acting upon and within those laws to bring about the complexity we witness around us. Incidentally I agree that the idea that we are the only ones is improbable.tinabrewer_{June 2, 2006
June
06
Jun
2
02
2006
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply