Home » Intelligent Design » UK Guardian: Most of the next generation of medical and science students could well be creationists

UK Guardian: Most of the next generation of medical and science students could well be creationists

ID is not the same as Creationism, however, it would be naive to say the following article has no bearing on the future of ID.

I’m personally disappointed to hear some creationist students mingling religious ideas into their scientific views, but on the whole, this report can’t be happy news for Richard Dawkins. :=)

Academics fight rise of creationism at universities

Most of the next generation of medical and science students could well be creationists, according to a biology teacher at a leading London sixth-form college. “The vast majority of my students now believe in creationism,” she said, “and these are thinking young people who are able and articulate and not at the dim end at all. …. Many …were intending to become pharmacists, doctors, geneticists and neuro-scientists.

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

49 Responses to UK Guardian: Most of the next generation of medical and science students could well be creationists

  1. “I’m personally disappointed to hear some creationist students mingling religious ideas into their scientific views”

    I have two responses to this:

    1) I don’t view this as so much of a problem for reasons explained on my website

    2) Being that as it may, I’m not entirely sure that this is indeed happening. The article states:

    “Some are being failed in university exams because they quote sayings from the Bible or Qur’an as scientific fact”

    Since they did not provide any specifics, I am highly skeptical of this claim. Perhaps they are simply referring to concepts compatible with their religious beliefs (intelligent origin of life, separate ancestry of some creatures, etc.), and it is being dismissed and scoffed at simply as “quote sayings from the Bible” even if it is based on scientific fact. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that a scientific argument was mischaracterized as an argument from Biblical authority by dogmatic Darwinists.

  2. I think you have a very valid point johnnyb. There is a possibility the news reports mischaracterized the situation.

    Let me say, as a card-carrying creationist, it is my view that the best way the creation hypothesis has for succeeding as a scientific enterprise is to remove theology from it, and allow nature to speak for itself. If the creation hypothesis is true, the scientific method will self-correct to eventually affirm it. It should not, in the end, need creeds of faith to support it, it should eventually become self evident.

    Creationists must have faith that nature was architected to allow science to see her accurately. If the current scientific views are at variance with one’s theology, one must remember scientific views are provisional, not professions of ones faith.

    I think Phil Johnson said it well when he spoke to various people of faith:

    the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion

    This statement might be alarming to the traditional creationists, but there is for them the admonition by Paul in Romans 1:20 that Nature was architected to give an independent witness to Design apart from the Bible. I think Johnson is inviting others to explore this possibility!

    We can not appreciate the truthfulness of Paul’s assertion if personal theology is mingled in with every step of the scientific method. I point that out to many of the creationists in our IDEA chapter, that they have a small loophole to try the “science alone” approach to origins vs. the “scripture alone” approach with which many of them may have been brought up. Romans 1:20 invites the student of science to see if nature, with no reference to the Bible, will speak of her origins and design.

    The “science alone” approach does not preclude them from carrying personal beliefs, but it permits them to practice science with integrity.

    Salvador

  3. Not being a research scientist myself, I should think it would be somewhat exhilarating to be looking for independent confirmation of the things that I believe from my Bible studies.

  4. Thank you jacktone. Indeed, the situation I find frequently in the IDEA chapters is that we have students of science with a religious up bringing.

    They’re religious views are deeply challenged in science class by sometimes overbearing professors. They would like to hold on to their personal beliefs, and are deeply looking for something in nature which might independently affirm the truthfulness of their personal theology. After all, what good is a body of beliefs if it has no chance of being true?

    I’ve been rather astonished at the number of bio students telling me something to the effect, “The complexity of biology is overwhelming. How could anyone deny that it was designed? I can’t see how my professors can claim a Mind wasn’t behind life.”

    Here is a wonderful essay by Bill Dembski on the Discovery Institute website:

    The Act of Creation: Bridging Transcendence and Immanence

    It follows that the fundamental science, indeed the science that needs to ground all other sciences, is communication theory, and not, as is widely supposed an atomistic, reductionist, and mechanistic science of particles or other mindless entities, which then need to be built up to ever greater orders of complexity by equally mindless principles of association, known typically as natural laws. Communication theory’s object of study is not particles, but the information that passes between entities. Information in turn is just another name for logos. This is an information-rich universe. The problem with mechanistic science is that it has no resources for recognizing and understanding information. Communication theory is only now coming into its own. A crucial development along the way has been the complexity-specification criterion. Indeed, specified complexity is precisely what’s needed to recognize information.

    Information–the information that God speaks to create the world, the information that continually proceeds from God in sustaining the world and acting in it, and the information that passes between God’s creatures–this is the bridge that connects transcendence and immanence. All of this information is mediated through the divine Logos, who is before all things and by whom all things consist (Colossians 1:17). The crucial breakthrough of the intelligent design movement has been to show that this great theological truth–that God acts in the world by dispersing information–also has scientific content.

    Consequently, theologians sometimes speak of two books, the Book of Nature, which is God’s self-revelation in creation, and the Book of Scripture, which is God’s self-revelation in redemption.

  5. Sal, a hypothesis is a testable conjecture. What, precisely, is your testable conjecture?

  6. Salvador –

    The big issue, however, is whether or not historical information can even be determined without the aid of history books. Ultimately, the problem with circumstantial evidence is exactly that — it is only circumstantial. Any interpretation of it only makes sense with the proper framework, which cannot be deduced from itself. As for _experimental_ qualities, you are quite correct. If experimentally-determinable statements are checked, they should be true independent of whether we are reading the Bible or not. But historical statements are of another kind altogether. History is not repeatable, and we have only circumstantial evidence to it. While there can be evidence for and against certain positions, _observables_ take precedent over any circumstantial evidence. And what is history except a collection of observables? Therefore, it is science that should bend to observation, not observations to theories. The only question is which historical documents are deemed reliable or not. That is not a question which is scientifically determinable, but it must nonetheless be determined. Therefore, I do not see how trusting Biblical sources is any less scientific than trusting any other historical source. The only difference is the degree of agreement among colleagues. However, since this agreement or non-agreement is not scientifically based, it is not a scientific argument.

    To say that historical documentation should not be used in science is the same as saying that observation shouldn’t be used in science. There will always be the question of the trustworthiness of sources (and that has also shown to be the case even when reading Nature or Science), but trusting or not trusting a source of historical witness is a question of trust, not of science.

  7. scordova wrote:
    “The “science alone” approach does not preclude them from carrying personal beliefs, but it permits them to practice science with integrity.”

    Yes, if they can truly set aside their personal beliefs when practicing science. The danger arises when their area of study intersects with their personal beliefs. Then they must be willing to follow the evidence where it leads, to coin a phrase :-), even if it contradicts a closely-held belief and upsets their fellow believers. Folks who are unwilling to rock the boat are best advised to pick a different profession, as they will not be able to practice science honestly.

    jacktone wrote:
    “Not being a research scientist myself, I should think it would be somewhat exhilarating to be looking for independent confirmation of the things that I believe from my Bible studies.”

    Change it to “confirmation or disconfirmation” and you are talking about science. Otherwise you are describing the work of a scientific propagandist.

  8. “Change it to “confirmation or disconfirmation” and you are talking about science. Otherwise you are describing the work of a scientific propagandist.”

    Change “Bible studies” to “atheistic beliefs” and you’re describing the work of millions of Darwinian scientists.

  9. Valerie,

    Thank you for you comment. My view about objectivity is summarized here:

    “Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny — and also in a willingness to revise or abandon your theories when the tests fail (as they usually do).”

    — Stephen Jay Gould

    Regarding my personal views, which I nearly rejected 5 years ago, I came around to find them more compelling after I was willing to part with them. I was raised an Catholic and an old-earth Darwinist, but that changed after high school and became a creationist. In 2000, I was willing to part with my creationist views.

    Where I am today is that I see the scientific evidence and theoretical considerations are completely incompatible with Darwinism and some unguided Origin-of-Life (OOL).

    I am reluctant to say that anyone’s interpretation of Christian Scriputres should be taken as absolute truth in regards to historical events pertaining to origins and the great flood. Dave Heddle makes a good case the church fathers may not have been in unanimous agreement over those issues either, and my denomination (same as Dave Snoke and D. James Kennedy), the PCA is reluctant to take a postion. Their non-position is stated at this ID website :
    Report of the Creation Studies Commitee (PCA). It is similar to mine.

    Bill Dembski gives his views about creationism here:
    Bill Dembski’s Reply to Henry Morris

    Salvador

  10. johnnyb wrote:

    The big issue, however, is whether or not historical information can even be determined without the aid of history books. Ultimately, the problem with circumstantial evidence is exactly that — it is only circumstantial. Any interpretation of it only makes sense with the proper framework, which cannot be deduced from itself.

    and Markus wrote:

    Sal, a hypothesis is a testable conjecture. What, precisely, is your testable conjecture?

    Regarding a “science alone” approach to making a forensic inference about the past I will provide links to my ideas. They are the ideas I subscribe to and not necessarily those of the others at Uncommon Descent (especially Bill Dembski). If anyone would like to pursue the ideas in detail, I can suggest the ARN discussion board as an appropriate place to pursue it.

    For a specific “science alone” view of origins from an ID perspective, the most radical creation-sympathetic view is Walter ReMine’s:
    Biotic Message

    Bill Dembski mentioned communication theory. ReMine (an electrical engineer schooled in communication theory) takes communication theory first principles and builds an origins theory.

    Regarding the exact historical details, Walter Brown (PhD, MIT), puts together a “science alone” approach in several of his works, and then compares the independently derived scientific theory with historical events. His work can be found at:
    Creation Science.

    Regarding the issue of age of the universe, I should point out a first rate YEC cosmology is available at:
    http://www.setterfield.org. This gets into serious issues of quantum electro dynamics, zero-point energies, and historical measurements of the speed of light.

    For the record, there may have been a decay in the speed of light. I invite readers to compare Nobel Laureate Albert Michelson’s measurements throughout his life!. I invite the readers to look at The Atomic Constants, Light and Time.

    I encourage healthy skepticism be taken pertaining to the above weblinks. My view at this time is the ideas of these gentleman are extremely viable from an empirical and theoretical standpoint alone and are worthy of serious scientific study.

    I should also point out, that Loma Linda University (a real research outfit and school) where Timothy Standish teaches (Timothy will be featured in Darwin’s Nemesis: Phil Johnson), is an institution that by-and-large adopt the approach I suggest. Many of them lean toward Young Earth, but are quite comfortable using the language of Old-Earth Darwinism when doing scientific research. Their scientific excellence earned them the cover of the peer-reviewed journal Geology, February 2004

    My view is that human testimony is notoriously unreliable. Scientific evidence however has a way of affirming who is telling the truth.

    Salvador

  11. Dr Henry Morris died yesterday.

  12. Because their have been minor rifts between creationists and IDists, regarding the document from the PCA above, I offer this encouragement to people of faith from them:

    The present day intelligent design movement would appear to be a good example of how the church in the broader evangelical context can be effective in this manner.
    ….
    In the knowing, that truth will indeed set us free. Until we know, Christ’s Church must not be divided over what we do not yet know.

    PS
    Mats,

    I was not aware of Henry’s passing. My condolences to his family.

  13. My sincere condolences and sympathies to Henry Morris’ family and anybody touched by his passing.

  14. Dr. Luke Randall

    Brithish- immunologist- Creationist

    Long live Henry Morris!

  15. Wow, it’s been quite a while since I have opined on this blog. Well, I’m back! Nonetheless, I can’t believe that Henry Morris, eminent creationist, has passed away. Thanks to him, the creationist movement wouldn’t be the way it is today. Unfortunately, creationism, in a way, has left a bad stain on christianity. It leaves it with the mirror- image of irrationality, ignorance and just plain old stupidity. The result has been legal court cases over school policies and a new front in the day-to-day culture wars. Of course, I don’t judge christians based on their views of Genesis 1. However, denying major portions of science in lue of pseudo-science is quite lamentable. Christianity doesn’t need to be flexed in order to understand one certain interpretation. Instead, it needs to build and make sure that it’s asking the right questions. At any rate, science completely supports the christian position, however, it comes at the price of a billion years.

  16. http://www.setterfield.org

    I’ve looked through this and please do not assume this is reliable physics—it is not.

    As Valerie points out above people looking only for *confirmation* of their current views are not doing science, and this seems precisely what’s going on on the setterfield page.

    There are many better resources for finding out about cosmological physics, and I would be happy to point people in the right directions….

  17. This post has little to do with the topic, except I am from the UK, but I can’t find a better way to get these questions in front of the ID community.

    I have been reading about ID and its opponents for several weeks now and I have come up with a couple of questions which I have not seen posed or answered (there were three but one got sort of covered last week).

    1. What is being designed? (e.g. an individual organism, a species, a biological system, or the processes which generate this type of thing?) Another way to put this – if some aspect of life is designed then where does the designer give up and say “I have designed this much – the way it plays out in detail is up to chance”. Or do we suppose the designer planned every detail?

    2. When given a proposed instance of CSI how do you determine the specification? (e.g. in the case of blood clotting is the specification a system using this combination of proteins to stop bleeding in case of injury, any mechanism that leads to blood clotting, any mechanism that prevents bleeding in case of injury, any mechanism that performs the functions of blood and is resistant to injury). Obviously the broader the specification the more routes there are to meeting that specification and the more difficult it becomes to make any estimate of the probability. On the other hand the narrower the specification the more it looks like drawing the target round the arrow after it was shot.

    I have some more detail on this at http://mark_frank.blogspot.com/ should anyone be interested.

    Cheers

    I answered here.

  18. physicist,

    If you do have weblinks of an educational nature, by all means feel free to post them here on this weblog. I’m appreciative of you taking the time to try to educate readers of our weblog.

    If I may point out, 3 professors from my university (a secular university) are displeased with the Big Bang theory, including Menas Kafatos, the head of our Center for Earth and Space Observation who is a PhD physicist from MIT. These dissenters are, as far as I know, not creationists. Were it not for dissent from secular quarters over the Big Bang (www.comsmologystatement.org) and dissent over the immutability of the speed of Light (Davies, Magueijo, Barrow, etc.), I might not have gotten interested in Setterfield’s hypothesis, which is certainly not mainstream.

    I am certainly fine with the Big Bang and Old Earth theory, if that’s the way it happened. It strikes me as a well-reasoned theory, and one beloved by many IDists and old-Earth creationists. But there are aspects of the theory that strike me as quite serious problems. Even my former professor, James Trefil, who endorses the Big Bang has been open about it’s theretical challenges.

    I would be interested in your specific comments. This is significant enough that if you’d be willing, I would welcome your specific comments at ARN. If not, you may simply list the resources you would recommend here at uncommon descent. Thank you again for your comments.

    Salvador

  19. dear scordova

    You’re welcome. I’m a bit busy right now but I will think about the best resources and try to post something.

    i am aware of the VSL work of the people you mention (Barrow, Magueijo), but much of it (they would themselves acknowledge) is speculative, and Setterfield takes things several steps further—beyond what I (and I suspect any other physicist) would describe as reasonable.

    Progress in physics is certainly about doubting the existing consensus, we agree on that. But the doubts of the people you mention are extremely unlikely to be intended as support for setterfield.

  20. physicist, I agree with you, as well as valerie, but I also think that there is a distinct prejudice in science against evidence that indincates purposeful structuring in nature.

    I see this as a counter-fanatical imbalance, and I can prove that this political aspect of science creates willful ignorance of any evidence that suggests that we’re not here by accident. It has been my honest experience that the mentioned “counter-fanatical prejudice” affects many scientists willingness… to follow the evidence where it leads, (to borrow valerie’s coined phrase)… even if it contradicts a closely-held belief and upsets their fellow believers.

    There is no doubt in my mind, (from much experience with this as a previously naive and honest scientist), that this puts an honest scientist at an unfair disadvantage when attempting to offer evidence for first principles that are open to closed-minded interpretations.

    What you “think” that you *know* can be completely turned around to mean exactly the opposite of what you think that it means, given one new missing piece of the puzzle, so be very careful with what you think that we really “know”, for as long as we have no ToE.

    http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr.....73295.html
    http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr.....73252.html
    http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr.....73181.html
    http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr.....72820.html

  21. Mark Frank,

    Welcome to our weblog and thank you for reading. I tried clicking on the links you provided, and I was unsucessful in getting to the websites. My apologies if there was something there you were hoping for me to comment on.

    1. Regarding your first questions, really, anything is subject to investigation for design. Somethings, however, are much amenable to rigorous mathematical analysis, some are not.

    Seeing the design in a statue of pharoah is quite easy, but making a rigourous mathematical case that it’s designed is far more challenging. I think ID is in it’s infancy as far as finding objects which we can subject to rigourous mathematics.

    The blood clotting cascade is a great candidate, but we might find it easier to compute the design content of certain parts of the system, versus the entire system. For example, the protein lock-and-key pairs within the system are amenable to mathematical estimates.

    2. Regarding the problem of where specificaitons come from. If I may offer a radical answer, which many IDists may not feel comfortable with: “the specifications come from existing human engineered systems.”

    In fact, unless the systems can be demonstrated to be analogous to something a human-like intelligence would make, we would not be able to recognize the system as designed!

    Salvador Cordova

  22. Salvador

    Thanks for replying. I guess the blogspot web site must have been down. However, it is working now and Dave Scot has kindly replied using that site. I don’t want to clog up this blog with my questions so I have responded there: mark_frank.blogspot.com

    (In essence my response is – all the specifications I offer for blood clotting meet both Dave and your criteria. My concern is how you choose between them given the large difference it makes to the complexity. It seems to me there has to be a principle for doing this or ID has a major problem.)

    Cheers

    It’s the same principle we use to discriminate between hypothetical Darwinian pathways in the evolution of blood clotting. You know what that is, right? ;-) -ds

  23. DS – I can differentiate between hypothetical Darwinian pathways. But you still haven’t told me how you decide which is the right specification to use. What makes one specification more appropriate than another?

    I think it’s the same way you know which hypothetical Darwinian pathway to use. Tell me how you do that then I’ll tell you if it’s the same way to choose between specifications in ID. -ds

  24. DS

    I would examine the relative pathways and choose the one that seems most likely. So will you choose the specification that gives the greatest chance of being actualised i.e. the lowest complexity?

    Cheers

    I would examine the relative patterns and choose the one that seems most likely. -ds

  25. Mark Frank, it’s probably best if you purchase Dembski’s books on the subject. They’re not that expensive and they’ll definitely do a better job of explaining ID than the short responses you will receive in the comments section.

  26. Mark Frank,

    There are multiple specifications which can be used as templates to detect design. An important requirement is the specification have sufficient information content (500 bits is customary, but not necessary). The answer to your question is you can use one, two, any and all the specications provided each specificaiton is sufficiently complex.

    Salvador

  27. But specifications aren’t alternative hypotheses like evolutionary pathways. They are patterns. It makes no sense to to talk of one being more likely than another. Look at the examples of specifications above for blood clotting. The blood clotting system meets them all. You can’t say that the specification “a system that clots blood” has a probability or likelihood – it is just one of many patterns that the actual system happens to conform to.

    I am surprised that in this forum – the very centre of the ID movement – I can’t get a coherent answer to such a basic question. Maybe someone else knows the answer? Or at very least tell me what the specification is for the blood clotting system and why it has been selected :-)

    Blood clotting conforms to the independently given pattern of patches or barriers – a class of structure that stops the loss of critical fluids (or gases) and/or forms a barrier against the entry of contaminants. There are analogs in plants, many kinds of human engineered machinery, and even artificial substitutes like bandages or holding your hand against a wound. Was it really that hard? Specifications in biology are usually function or utility. It was chosen as a good example of irreducible complexity. -ds

  28. Mark Frank,

    I already pointed out there are multiple-specifications and one need only identify a component for a rigorous analysis such as a protein lock-and-key to infer design.

    You’re insisting on spec, and I’ve already pointed out that is invalid, yet you ignored what I said.

    Salvador

  29. First thanks for all your answers.

    Patrick – I haven’t bought the books but I have read several of Dembski’s papers on the Internet and none of them deal with the question – how do I choose which specification? I might well buy one of the books shortly (especially if you can tell me which one contains the answer!) – but surely it is not such a difficult question that one of you can give me the answer?

    Salvador – you say there are multiple specifications – which was precisely my point. The problem is how to choose between them. I don’t believe information content is much help. How can a template have information content as Dembski defines information as a function of probability (see http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm)and templates don’t have a probability?

    Dave – thanks you have at least told me what the template is for blood clotting. Does everyone else agree? However, you didn’t answer the second vital part of the request. How did you choose that one as opposed to the many other templates that blood clotting conforms to? Or are your last two sentences meant to answer that question?

    Specifications in biology are usually function or utility. It was chosen as a good example of irreducible complexity

    The first sentence clearly doesn’t answer the question, as all the alternatives I proposed were to do with function or utility. The second sentence is almost as incoherent as saying specifications have a probability. It is outcomes that are irreducibly complex (if anything is) not specifications.

    I am sorry – but I still don’t see an answer that makes sense. I hope you can see my concern?

    I see your concern. But just as the picking the best Darwinian pathway isn’t a function of an equation with a rote answer neither is choosing the most apt independently given pattern. -ds

  30. I see your concern. But just as the picking the best Darwinian pathway isn’t a function of an equation with a rote answer neither is choosing the most apt independently given pattern. -ds

    But I can give criteria for choosing the best pathway. It is the one that is most probable given what we know. It may be hard to assess which one is best but we know the kind of argument that we can use in favour of one over another. You don’t give any reason for preferring one specification over another. They are all functional. None of them have probability or information content – that’s not the kind of attribute a pattern can have. So far it seems to be completely arbitrary – which surely is not right?

  31. Mark wrote:
    “The problem is how to choose between them. I don’t believe information content is much help.”

    Then you believe wrong. You don’t need to choose between them. Matching any single one of them is sufficient.

    One cannot possibly list all the 500 bit specificaitons possible, that is why even having a trillion trillion of 500-bit specs to choose from does not substantially increase the probabilty the pattern match was due to some post dictive fluke. You’re being argumentative, and I’d appreciate if you’d take time to study the material you presume to criticize.

    Salvador

  32. Salvador, my understanding is that the event must be at least 500 bits in order to meet the complexity threshold. I don’t understand your reference to 500-bit specifications.

  33. Salvador

    I am sorry if you think I am being argumentative for the sake of it. I am not. I believe that unless this question is answered then there is a major flaw in the design inference. If that is true, then surely it is important and not just an undergraduate quarrel. And I have read quite a bit of the relevant papers. Dembski has provided a clear definition of information in the paper I referred to and it is clear that patterns are not the kind of thing that can hold information because there is no such thing as the probability of a pattern. The only things that can hold information are outcomes which may or may not conform to patterns. So information content cannot guide me in choosing patterns.

    I think you may be getting confused with patterns that turn out to be hard for outcomes to match i.e. only outcomes with high information content match them. But that cannot be our basis for choosing patterns because the whole point is that the pattern should detached and independent of the probability of the outcome.

    You say matching any pattern is sufficient. OK then I will pick a pattern for blood clotting – blood clotting clearly conforms to the pattern that it is a system that helps organisms live longer. What are the chances of a species randomly evolving something that helps it live longer? Very high indeed – we see it happen in microevolution all the time – ergo the complexity of blood clotting is low – ergo there is no design argument.

    To be a bit more down to earth – you can wonder at the sequence of chances that led to a particular set of proteins combining to clot blood. By itself it may be appear incredibly improbable (I have my doubts – but I will assume it). But this is to ignore the other paths that evolution might have blundered down and come up with a workable solution. It might, for example, have come up with hardened blood vessels that rarely punctured. So if you change the question to – how likely is it that evolution would come up with an answer to the problem of bleediing then the answer might actually be much higher and is certainly very hard to calculate. How do you decide which is the right question? What justifies the decision to only look at that probability of evolution coming up with particular combination of proteins?

    Anyhow I will leave this now. I have asked the question and I believe no one has been able to provide an answer. I suspect further discussion would not be productive. Thanks for trying.

  34. Secondclass,

    The following link gives highly shortened tutorial of the concepts:
    http://www.iscid.org/boards/ub.....tml#000001

    When I say a 500-bit specification, it is a shorthand for a specification that would identify an event or set of events that have 500 bits of information.

    The specification must create a region within the space of possible outcomes. That specification has a number of bits associated with it. I made a simplification of saying each specification must be 500 bits.

    To be excruciatingly formal, we would actually take the union of all specifications we can reasonably enumerate, and that set itself will form a specification of slightly less than 500 bits.

    For example, the union of a million 500-bit disjoint specifications would result in a composite specification of about

    500 – log2(million) = 480 bits

    Given we can’t explicitly list more specifications than the number of atoms in the universe, the largest possible union of 500-bit specification would be around:

    500 – log2( 10^60 ) = 300 bits which is a very tiny target even though it has as many specifications as there are atoms in the known universe.

    One could of course require the individual specifications be 700 bits instead of 500, and then, the net result is the most general composite specification could not be more than 500 bits. But I’ve simplified some of the considerations above.

    Salvador
    PS
    Everyone, we’ve gone off topic, but that’s ok, since I think all the commentary on the original has been said already, and this would be a good place as any to talk about the new issues while I have people’s attention.

  35. Mark,

    The ULR for mark_frank.blogspot.com does not work so I have no access to the papers you are talking about. You say you’ve read the relevant papers, what books by Dembski have you read?

    “Dembski has provided a clear definition of information in the paper I referred to and it is clear that patterns are not the kind of thing that can hold information because there is no such thing as the probability of a pattern.”

    Please give the definition or the name of the paper you are referring to. Page 78 of NFL indicates complexities associated with specifications. There are probabilities associated with outcomes matching an independent pattern. You’re not even phrasing the ideas properly. Please list the books by Dembski you have available to continue this discussion, otherwise we have no common base to argue what he actually said.

    Salvador

  36. Salvador, thank you for your clarification. That makes sense.

  37. Salvador

    The URL I was referring to was http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm which I mentioned in #29 above. As I said there are probabilities associated with outcomes matching patterns – but you were talking about the information content of specifications – not the outcomes! You even confused secondclass and then you corrected yourself 35. I humbly submit that you were the one who was phrasing things incorrectly. Incidentally which ideas am I phrasing incorrectly? You don’t say.

    You still have not given me a basis for choosing a specification when I have several to choose from (which is pretty much always the case in nature). You seem to waver between “it doesn’t matter – choose whichever one you like” and “choose one that gives a high complexity/information content for the observed outcome”. Does NFL have the answer to that question? Is it so very complex that I need to read a book to get the answer?

    (NFL is not available in the UK – I can only get it at a large price and long delay from the USA – so I need a pretty strong justification)

    Cheers

    The pattern you used “something that helps an organism survive” is fine. The point of a specification is merely to distinguish signal from noise. Any independent pattern will do. In biology, specification will usually simply be function or purpose. You defined a purpose and the blood clotting mechanism fits that purpose. Many moons ago someone here kept insisting that we run junk DNA through the design filter to see if was really junk or not. I kept telling the guy, but he didn’t understand, that junk DNA has no specification. Until we know something has a purpose we can’t make a design inference. Just so, someone here (possibly you) offered me the string DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD and asked me what the specification was. I had no clue. Then he gave me link where it was explained that D and R have specific meaning and more of one than the other represents a survival advantage (for politicians in elections). Thus it became specified but only when my background information was sufficient to see a detached pattern that the string conformed to.

    Finding complex specified information isn’t the end of a design inference. It’s just the beginning of the hardest part and that is determining if there are sufficient probalistic resources to generate the CSI without intelligent agency. In other words, assessment of chance hypotheses. Random mutation + natural selection is a chance hypotheses and in fact it’s the only known chance hypothesis for biological complexity which is why it gets all the criticism targeted at it from ID proponents. -ds

  38. Dave thanks for a clear and productive response.

    Not surprisingly it raises some interesting follow-on questions. The choice of specification will affect the probability of the observed outcome conforming to that specification so if any independent pattern will do how are we to handle the case where on person has chosen an independent pattern with low probability and another chosen a pattern with high probability?

    Take the SETI example, suppose I am studying radio signals and one day receive a stream that can be digitized and turns out to be the binary for the first 10 prime numbers. I could use the specification “generates the binary for the first 10 prime numbers”. I could then make some calculations of the chances of this happening in a random sequence of digits. The answer would be extraordinarily low. However, another independent specification might be “generates the binary for any recognised sequence of ten numbers” (the first ten squares, the first ten in the fibonnaci series etc etc). This probability is considerably higher. In fact it would be surprising if this did not happen from time to time if you were watching a random sequence of bits day after day. Using the first specification one might invoke the design inference. Using the second sequence the case for invoking the design inference is much weaker. Which is the right one to use? Why?

    I am sorry that my previous response to Salvador was rather self-defensive. I really want to keep this polite and constructive. If this is well-worn terroritory with established responses then give me the reference and I will stop.

    Rgds

    PS Do you get up extraordinarily early or are you based somewhere other than the USA?

    The choice of specification will affect the probability of the observed outcome conforming to that specification

    Blood clotting is something that aids survival. It conforms to the specification by definition. If it didn’t conform it wouldn’t be a specification and we couldn’t make a design inference. What we don’t know is the probability of chance forming the clotting mechanism. Whether specified or not won’t change that probability. If the probability is above what Demski calls the “universal probablility bound” of 1 in 10^150 and it is specified then we have warrant to infer design. Specification in biology is only a matter of identifying a practical function the pattern of interest serves. -ds

  39. Oh dear – we are going round in circles. If the specification is simply “aids survival” then the calculation you need is not the chance of forming a clotting mechanism – it is the chance of forming something that aids survival – a very common occurence – it happens every time a bacterium evolves resistance to a drug. That’s what I mean when I say the precise wording of the specification affects the complexity dramatically.

    That is wrong. The chance calculation is the formation of the clotting mechanism not the formation of anything that aids survival. -ds

  40. A few comments directed at various folks…

    To all bloggers: I’m still confused by the specification that DaveScot attributes to the Caputo sequence. If there were no advantage to being first on the ballot, would the sequence be unspecified? What if the lone R were a D? What if it were an isomorphic bit string?

    To Mark Frank: In Dembski’s definition of specificity here, σ = –log2[phi(T)·P(T|H)], the latter T presumably refers to a composite of all events that conform to the given pattern. Therefore, a more general specification would tend to result in lower specificity. To determine whether design can be inferred, one would presumably choose the specification that gives us the highest specificity. This would entail a description that is both narrow and simple.

    To DaveScot: It seems to me that the chance calculation can be meaningful only if it corresponds to the chosen spec. If the spec is “aids survival,” then the chance calculation should give us the probability of any event that aids survival. Likewise, if the spec is “clotting mechanism,” then the chance calculation should be appropriate to that spec.

    If there were no advantage to being first on the ballot, would the sequence be unspecified?

    yes

    What if the lone R were a D?

    Still specified.

    What if it were an isomorphic bit string?

    I’m not sure what you mean by that.

    Specifications only serve to separate meaningless random events from events that are possible cases of design. You’re reading way too much into specifications.

    For instance take the string “kriemvpoaignkodaaarwf”. If we know nothing about it it’s just a random string of numbers and letters with a probability of 1 in 1144561273430837494885949696427 of appearing by random chance. Is it designed? We don’t know. Random chance generates highly improbable patterns all the time. If we find out it’s the combination to a lock then we have a design inference. No say the pattern is 114 which has only a 1 in 1000 chance of occuring randomly. If it turns out to be a lock combination we can’t make a design inference because 1 in 1000 isn’t sufficiently improbable. Specifications merely separate meaningless patterns from meaningful patterns. -ds

  41. Dave

    You *must* calculate the probability of conforming to the template – otherwise the probability you have calculated is an unspecified probability. Suppose I draw a large target on the wall so the archer has a 50% chance of hitting it by accident. There are a hundred bricks within the target area. The archer shoots and duly lands in the target and, of course, hits one of the bricks. I then announce that the chances of the archer hitting that particular brick by accident were 1 in 200 so he must have been intending to hit it. I think you can agree that would be rather misleading?

    If you don’t believe me – ask Dembski. I am sure he will concur with the statement “to calculate the complexity you need to estimate the probability of the event conforming to the specification”

    Cheers

    PS I beginning to wonder if I shouldn’t be answering the questions – not asking them :-)

    Your analogy breaks down where you switch from a target of 100 bricks to a target of 1 brick. You definitely shouldn’t be answering questions and I’m beginning to wonder if you should be asking your questions on another blog. You have come here with a preconceived notion that you’ve discovered a fatal flaw in making design inferences and won’t take no for an answer regardless of the fact that design inferences using the same procedures are routinely used in forensics, fraud, cryptanalysis, SETI, paleontology, and anywhere that chance vs. design is relevant. -ds

  42. Dave, so if I told you that I flipped a coin 41 times and got 40 heads and 1 tails, you would not infer design unless you knew of some advantange offered by flipping heads?

    Correct! :mrgreen: If you bet me beforehand that you could do that and then did it you bet I’d infer design. -ds

  43. Mark Frank asked,

    “You still have not given me a basis for choosing a specification when I have several to choose from (which is pretty much always the case in nature). “

    That’s because I essentially pointed out you can try them all. Try them all, assuming each specificaton has a sufficient number of bits. The link secondclass gave will give you the background you need without buying the book.

    The link you provided from ARN, which you base your ideas had this to say:

    ” A full exposition of specification requires a detailed answer to this question. Unfortunately, such an exposition is beyond the scope of this paper. …. Although these conditions make good intuitive sense, they are not easily formalized. For the details refer to my monograph The Design Inference.”

    I pointed out the most tractable specification to apply where bits can be arrived at and where bits are effectively used in practice today is the specificity of protein lock-and-key systems. It is not too far from the question : “if a login requires a password with 500 bits, how many bits does the passwords’ specification have? ” Answer : 500 bits.

    A lock and key protein system is analogous to the login/password system.

  44. Oh well. I guess there is no future in pursuing this. Thanks for participating.

  45. Cellular Biologist Albert Voie, whom I mentioned at Another Pro-ID Paper Passes Peer Review

    writes at ARN:

    The problem of calculating the probability for the emergence of a new functional protein in evolution is that we do not know the size of function-space. Function-space is less than sequence space, but we do not know how much less. If it is much lesser, the estimated upper limit for exploration of sequence space over the history of time (ref Gary) do not support blind search.

    But we do know something. We know that the key and lock systems between proteins and between proteins and ribozymes/DNA must be:

    A) “for a high degree of specificity the contact or combining spots on the two particles must be multiple and weak.” An array of many weak interactions, such that all are needed to provide the necessary stability, will form a specific site for interaction. If only a few very strong interactions are used, there is an increased chance that a protein will find a similar interaction with improper proteins.

    B), “one particle must have a geometrical arrangement which is complementary to the arrangement on the other.” In other words, the shape of the interacting surfaces must form a good fit, and this fit must be different from that with other proteins.

    Co-evolution of one key and lock system to another key and lock system is prohibited by the fact that mutations do not occur in parallel, both in the key and the lock. Therefore, and as shown by various studies point mutation in these domains impairs the system. This is also supported by studying the sequences of these proteins over a variety of different organisms where variation is zero or minimal.

    The probability of a key and lock system is thus general for all systems depending upon the complexity involved in the domain.

    The probability of a key with 25 amino-acids sites involved in the domain is thus ~ 1/20^(25) = 1/3.35e+32. In addition come the other domains that says something about what kind of a task this system really does. The suggested probability is thus a lower limit.

  46. 46

    Dave, so I suppose that if I reported flipping a coin a thousand times with a result of all heads, you would not infer design unless I had a motive for cheating. Is this correct?

    (Sorry that I’m beating this to death. I’m just trying to determine the extent of our disagreement. Thanks for bearing with me.)

    I’d wonder what was causing nothing but heads to come up. -ds

    Upon further reflection I think “statistically unexpected results from a well characterized physical process” is an independently given specification that fits this situation. -ds

  47. Dave, aren’t all coin-flipping results equally unexpected?

    If the coin is random, yes. The sequence you describe is statistically unexpected from a random coin and the improbability of it exceeds the universal probability bound. -ds

  48. 48

    Dave, since all 1000-bit coin sequences conform to your specification, it follows that all 1000-bit coin sequences imply design. Is that your position?

    No, they don’t all conform and you’re become quite boring. Consider yourself warned. -ds

  49. [...] UK Guardian: Most of the next generation of medical and science students could well be creationists [...]

Leave a Reply