”Freelurker, good question.”

Actually, I didn’t ask a question. I asked you to provide an example that would back up a claim you made.

You claimed that the EF could be used to identify designs such as backup systems. Please show how the EF, a tool that is intended to do nothing more than attribute things to law, chance, or design, can do this.

You don’t have to go through the steps of the EF; just start from the end of the EF process, where you have already determined whether or not there was intelligent causation. Then take us to where you have identified a backup system.

From here, it looks like you are just equivocating on the word “design.”

“… nobody here is saying the EF will tell you that this orderly clump of matter(design) is a system designed for doing XYZ or QRS…”

Well, there is still the matter of the EF identifying backup systems. Sal has not changed or clarified his position.

“But you can, I’d argue in most cases, still determine if the clump is designed using the EF (implicity).”

And I would argue otherwise, but I don’t have some new argument to introduce here. (My favorite critique is “The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance.” http://tinyurl.com/hqu4l)

“Then by simply unbiasedly recognizing that there is a design present, one will then inherently be inclined to make a successful discovery of an actual succinct description/abstraction of that design [eg. in naming it’s function and/or purpose].”

Here again, the semantics can be treacherous. This is the area that MIT correctly refers to above as engineering analysis; it’s the part where they “advance fundamental understanding of how biological systems operate.” When people perform engineering analysis they produce models. Saying that they are discovering designs is only adding unnecessary and unsupported teleological assumptions.

The upshot of all my previous comments is that the work of MIT’s Department of Biological Engineering does not fall readily under either ID or Darwinism; it belongs under Engineering.

- New methods for writing error correcting code (ECC)
- New software engineering design patterns
- New compression techniques
- New methods for storage, distributed processing, clustering, or other forms of data and process redundancy
- New approaches to parallel processing

Does anyone know if these kinds of predictions have been made in a more formal manner?

Again, I can see where you might think design is being equivocated; however, nobody here is saying the EF will tell you that this orderly clump of matter(design) is a system designed for doing XYZ or QRS. But you can, I’d argue in most cases, still determine if the clump is designed using the EF (implicity).
Example: I can be handed some device or gadget, and not know what it’s function or purpose is, yet I can know it is designed.
Then by simply unbiasedly recognizing that there is a design present, one will then inherently be inclined to make a successful discovery of an actual succinct description/abstraction of that design [eg. in naming it's function and/or purpose]. I don’t think that the engineer employs EF to do that part specifically; however, EF is used in the process to identify the trail intelligent activity has left(akin to following fingerprints).

JGuy

As a structural engineer, this thread is fascinating to me. In a layman’s attempt to continue Freelurker’s line of thinking, I believe the EF is more of an analysis tool which enables the detection for the effects of design. I would not think the design process itself would be subject to EF. I have never once thought of the finished structure as a product of chance and necessity (C+N) – the first 2 filters of EF – since the two are so far removed from the final product (i.e. iron ore and various elements which form in the crust. While their formation can be considered a product of C+N, the elements go through so much intentional manipulation to create rolled steel shapes that C+N no longer plays a significant role in the end).

Slightly off topic, I’ve noticed redundancy is used as proof for NDE. However, in engineering, redundancy plays a major role in the design process. From a structural viewpoint, it is extremely important that the various loads applied to the structure have multiple paths to the ground. Another way of putting it is redundancy ensures that the failure of a single member will not cause a progressive collapse of the entire structure. An example of this is the Confederation Bridge in Canada.

Therefore, if redundancy plays a significant role in the design of buildings, bridges, and other engineered items, it can also play an important role in the design of nature. Looks to me like the redundancy argument can be made equally in favour of both design and NDE, kind of like homologies.

If you had attempted to present an example of an engineer using the EF (implicitly or otherwise) you would have discovered that you, like Sal, are equivocating on the word “design.”
The EF is intended only to detect intelligent causation. It is not intended to identify the structure of a biological system or to identify how a biological system operates. For example, it will not identify the use of back-up systems. [Darwinism, of course, will not either; that wouldn’t make any more sense than using the EF.]

I will append the above with this:
“While Dembski’s has, simply speaking, outlined that innate process as the Explanatory Filter.”

JGuy,

He said engineers use it implicity to identify designs.

Yes, and I asked him to describe an instance of this. Shouldn’t be hard; he says we all do it.

I think we can all agree that it is common sensical to state that engineers know designs when they see them. And this is implicit use of the EF.

See, implicitly, in that context does not mean the engineers open up Dembski’s book with the EF flow chart. The contrary is true. They do it instinctively. Especially when noting the experience engineers have in the design process!

Well, the discussion is about the activities of MIT’s Department of Biological Engineering. Sal says that use of the EF would be more effective there than Darwinism would be.

It doesn’t matter what the grand discussion is about. It matters what exact context his words were in. For example, we aren’t discussing the nature of MIT’s new course..are we? Anyway. He didn’t say what you misphrased. He said (regarding backup systems designs in life):
“Darwinism will fail to detect and identify such designs, but the explantory filter (which all engineers use implicity) will be far more effective at identifying such designs.”

And he’s correct in his example. Because, I ask, why would Darwinism see something as a potential back-up systems, when we know that such systems are purely foreward looking???? An engineer, presented the diagrams, would recognize this functional design much faster than a Darwinist with the expectation of the something akin to an ad hoc nature.

He said engineers use it implicity to identify designs.

Yes, and I asked him to describe an instance of this. Shouldn’t be hard; he says we all do it.

And further, he did not actually say the filter was used FOR doing engineering work or issues.
Well, the discussion is about the activities of MIT’s Department of Biological Engineering. Sal says that use of the EF would be more effective there than Darwinism would be. Adding to this his parenthetical comment that all engineers use the EF, it is hard to escape the conclusion that he is talking about engineering use of the EF.

While he’s clarifying that, perhaps he will also clarify how MIT would use a tool that is intended to detect intelligent causation, the EF, for the purpose of identifying how biological systems operate (their “designs.”)

Though, you should consider the application of reverse engineering in engineering work.

Actually, I have. Please see comment #28 here.

In case that link does not work, here is a URL:
http://tinyurl.com/32appj
[I've had trouble in the past making links here. Is there a special format?]