Now further suppose that some cultural anthropologist pays a visit and finds the objects lined up in a neat row. He may assume from the neatness of the display that it was deliberate, but he has no way of knowing anything about the order of the objects. With the evidence at hand, he can see a form of order–the alignment of the objects–but that’s all. He would have no basis for thinking that the placement of the object was the result of any type of deliberate ordering–it appears to be random, even if it wasn’t, because he knows nothing about the significance of the order.

Seems to me this is entirely possible and consistent with the idea of specified complexity. In your thought experiment, the arrangement is specified but the anthropologist is not able to recognize it as such. Therefore he is unable to infer intelligent agency (at least not as much as a cultural insider would).

But as others have pointed out, in biological systems, we *do* know some things about what patterns will be meaningful: for example, arrangements that function well; and especially, ones that require all their parts to work well. So we are unlike the anthropologist; we *can* recognize the specificity of certain patterns (but there may be patterns whose meaning we’re unaware of).

You say:

“If we encounter a deck of cards (or any other group of 52 unique objects, the probability that they will be in *any* particular order is 1 in 52!. Thus it seems possible to say, in encountering even a well-shuffled deck, that some sort of miracle or intelligent agency must have been involved, because there is only a 1 in 52! chance that they could be in that particular order”

Briefly, because this subject has been already discussed many times:
the example of the deck of cards completely misses the point. The point in the concept of Dembski’s CSI is: complexity “plus” specification. Each of the possible combinations of your deck of cards is a legitimate example of complexity, because each one is very unlikely, but only a tiny subset of combinations can be said to be specified in one way or another. Therefore, only a tiny subset of combinations is specified, and exhibits CSI. The others are random.

Now, you can ask what specification means. That’s really the big question, and the answer is not necessarily simple and not necessarily final, and specification is often context dependent, but that does not mean that clear answers have not been given. Please, read Dembski and especially his paper on specification, on his site.
Again briefly, I’ll try to give here my simple personal view of specification, just to discuss.

Specification is everything which allows us to “recognize” a subset of combinations of a system as not random. It has a strict relationship with the more general (and equally elusive) concept of meaning (at least in its cognitive sense).

Specification can be of at least 3 different kinds:

1) Pre-specification: we can recognize a pattern because we have seen it before. In this case, the pattern in itself is probably random, but its occurrence “after” a pre-specification is a sign of CSI (obviously provided that complexity is also present, but that stays true for each of the cases).

2) Compressibility: some mathematical patterns of information are highly compressible, which means that they can be expressed in a much shorter sequence than their original form. That is the case, for instance, for numbers like 3333333333, which can be written as “10 times 3″. Such compressible patterns are usually recognizable by a conscious mind, for reasons that are probably much deeper than I can understand. In this case, specification is in some way intrinsic to the specific pattern of information, we could say that it is inherent in its mathematical properties.

3) Finally there is perhaps the most important form of specification, at least for our purposes: specification by function. A few patterns of information are specified because thay can “do” something very specific, in the right context. That’s the case of proteins, obviously, but also of computer programs, or in general of algorithms. In this case specification is not so much a characteristic of the mathemathical properties of the sequence, but rather of what the sequence can realize in a particular physical context: for example, the sequence of an enzyme is meaningless in itself, but it becomes very powerful if it is used to guide the synthesis of the real protein, and if the real protein can exist in a context where it can fulfill its function. Function is a very objective evidence of specification, because it does not depend on pre-conceptions of the observer (at least, not more than any other concept in human knowledge).

So, this is the theoretic frame of CSI: complexity “plus” specification. And, obviously, the absence of any known mechanical explanation of the specific specified pattern in terms of necessity (that is, we are observing apparently random phenomena). The summary is:

a) If you have a very complex pattern (very unlikely) and

b) If no explanation of that patterm is known in terms of necessity on the basis of physical laws (in other words, if that pattern is equally likely as all other possible patterns, in terms of physical laws, and is therefore potentially random) and

c) If that pattern is recognizable as specified, in any of the ways I have previously described:

then

we are witnessing CSI, and the best empirical explanation for that is an intelligent agent.

That’s just that simple.

suit = "hearts", "diamonds", "spades", "clubs";
rank = "ace", 2...10, "jack", "queen", "king";
for(i=1; i<=4; i++)
  for (j=1; j<=13; j++)
    output(suit[i], rank[j]);


Whether or not some other arrangement might have a significance to another culture still doesn’t address that the probability of arriving at one of those arrangements randomly is vanishingly small. Also, I may not understand the meaning of the arrangement, but I could still identify the involvement of agency with astonishing reliability. Finding things in neat rows, when arrangement by row is not a property inherent to the objects, is a clear indicator of design.

However another thing to consider are properties intrinsic to a rank/suit arrangement. I touched on this briefly in my previous post.

Just to note, the rank/suit ordering of the deck is not only meaningful, it’s compressible and subject to simple semantic expression. These features are not shared by more than a few other arrangements.

The rank/suit arrangement conforms to logical patterns that are a property of the deck’s design. A deck of cards has 4 categories of repeating indices from 1 to 13. This can be expressed this way:

suit = "hearts", "diamonds", "spades", "clubs";
rank = "ace", 2...10, "jack", "queen", "king";
for(i=1; i

This gives a tiny minority of patterns properties not shared by the majority, making design detection of these arrangements objectively possible without equivocation.

With the evidence at hand, he can see a form of order–the alignment of the objects–but that’s all. He would have no basis for thinking that the placement of the object was the result of any type of deliberate ordering–it appears to be random, even if it wasn’t, because he knows nothing about the significance of the order.

Try reading Dembski’s books. That’s called a false negative, which is a valid minor issue with formalized design detection. But we’re really only concerned if there is a false positive.

While there are specifications that are context sensitive other specifications are independent of culture and such. The flagellum provides motility, for example.

Suit/rank is only meaningful to an observer who recognizes its significance. Thus to say that “You don’t get to impose the pattern after the deck is shuffled and revealed,” is correct, but misses the point. There must be prior knowledge of the significance of ordered relationships in order to be able to recognized them as ordered. This seems fundamental to me.

To illustrate my point, let’s forget about decks of cards for the moment, and take some other group of 52 unique objects. Let’s say that in some isolated culture, a particular ordering of these things has some cultural or religious significance, and the members of the culture all recognize it as such. Now further suppose that some cultural anthropologist pays a visit and finds the objects lined up in a neat row. He may assume from the neatness of the display that it was deliberate, but he has no way of knowing anything about the order of the objects. With the evidence at hand, he can see a form of order–the alignment of the objects–but that’s all. He would have no basis for thinking that the placement of the object was the result of any type of deliberate ordering–it appears to be random, even if it wasn’t, because he knows nothing about the significance of the order.

“If we find a deck of cards ordered by rank and suit, there is an assumption that they were ordered that way intentionally, but only because that particular order is meaningful to the observer.”

Exactly. If we find a deck of cards ordered by rank and suit, we can assume without doubt that they were ordered by agency, especially because that order is meaningful to the observer.

The meaning isn’t arrived at after the fact. The arrangement conforms to a preexisting pattern. It’s not as if meaning is derived after the deck is shuffled.

Only specific arrangements have meaning and could reasonably be attributed to agency. The fact that any arrangement is equally improbable is irrelevant.

If we encounter a deck of cards (or any other group of 52 unique objects, the probability that they will be in *any* particular order is 1 in 52!. Thus it seems possible to say, in encountering even a well-shuffled deck, that some sort of miracle or intelligent agency must have been involved, because there is only a 1 in 52! chance that they could be in that particular order.

The tautology is introduced by your imposition of a straw man. You don’t get to impose the pattern after the deck is shuffled and revealed. According to your wording of the issue, there is a probability of nearly 1 that the deck will be reordered after it’s shuffled. There’s no miracle there.

“Sufficiently shuffling the deck will sufficiently randomize its order.”

This is the tautology and thereby says nothing meaningful.

“After the deck is sufficiently shuffled the deck will be ordered by rank and suit.”

That’s the miracle, and the reason why this analogy is appropriate to CSI.

Just to note, the rank/suit ordering of the deck is not only meaningful, it’s compressible and subject to simple semantic expression. These features are not shared by more than a few other arrangements.

I think this may help you understand.

What makes an event improbable in biology is that a particular order (shape space) in a particular protein is required to be generated to match the configuration of other protein shape spaces to accomplish a specific novel task,,,,

Maybe the following article will help you understand a bit better than that general description.:

The simplest bacteria ever found on earth is constructed with over a million protein molecules. Protein molecules are made from one dimensional sequences of the 20 different L-amino acids that can be used as building blocks for proteins. These one dimensional sequences of amino acids fold into complex three-dimensional structures. The proteins vary in length of sequences of amino acids. The average sequence of a typical protein is about 300 to 400 amino acids long. Yet many crucial proteins are thousands of amino acids long. Proteins do their work on the atomic scale. Therefore, proteins must be able to identify and precisely manipulate and interrelate with the many differently, and specifically, shaped atoms, atomic molecules and protein molecules at the same time to accomplish the construction, metabolism, structure and maintenance of the cell. Proteins are required to have the precisely correct shape to accomplish their specific function or functions in the cell. More than a slight variation in the precisely correct shape of the protein molecule type will be for the life of the cell. It turns out there is some tolerance for error in the sequence of L-amino acids that make up some the less crucial protein molecule types. These errors can occur without adversely affecting the precisely required shape of the protein molecule type. This would seem to give some wiggle room to the naturalists, but as the following quote indicates this wiggle room is an illusion.

“A common rebuttal is that not all amino acids in organic molecules must be strictly sequenced. One can destroy or randomly replace about 1 amino acid out of 100 without doing damage to the function or shape of the molecule. This is vital since life necessarily exists in a “sequence—disrupting” radiation environment. However, this is equivalent to writing a computer program that will tolerate the destruction of 1 statement of code out of 1001. In other words, this error-handling ability of organic molecules constitutes a far more unlikely occurrence than strictly sequenced molecules.” Dr. Hugh Ross PhD.

It is easily demonstrated mathematically that the entire universe does not even begin to come close to being old enough, nor large enough, to ally generate just one small but precisely sequenced 100 amino acid protein (out of the over one million interdependent protein molecules of longer sequences that would be required to match the sequences of their particular protein types) in that very first living bacteria. If any combinations of the 20 L-amino acids that are used in constructing proteins are equally possible, then there are (20^100) =1.3 x 10^130 possible amino acid sequences in proteins being composed of 100 amino acids. This impossibility, of finding even one “required” specifically sequenced protein, would still be true even if amino acids had a tendency to chemically bond with each other, which they don’t despite over fifty years of experimentation trying to get amino acids to bond naturally (The odds of a single 100 amino acid protein overcoming the impossibilities of chemical bonding and forming spontaneously have been calculated at less than 1 in 10^125 (Meyer, Evidence for Design, pg. 75)). The staggering impossibility found for the universe ever generating a “required” specifically sequenced 100 amino acid protein by would still be true even if we allowed that the entire universe, all 10^80 sub-atomic particles of it, were nothing but groups of 100 freely bonding amino acids, and we then tried a trillion unique combinations per second for all those 100 amino acid groups for 100 billion years! Even after 100 billion years of trying a trillion unique combinations per second, we still would have made only one billion, trillionth of the entire total combinations possible for a 100 amino acid protein during that 100 billion years of trying! Even a child knows you cannot put any piece of a puzzle anywhere in a puzzle. You must have the required piece in the required place! The simplest forms of life ever found on earth are exceedingly far more complicated jigsaw puzzles than any of the puzzles man has ever made. Yet to believe a naturalistic theory we would have to believe that this tremendously complex puzzle of millions of precisely shaped, and placed, protein molecules “just happened” to overcome the impossible hurdles of chemical bonding and probability and put itself together into the sheer wonder of immense complexity that we find in the cell.

Instead of us just looking at the probability of a single protein molecule occurring (a solar system full of blind men solving the Rubik’s Cube simultaneously), let’s also look at the complexity that goes into crafting the shape of just one protein molecule. Complexity will give us a better indication if a protein molecule is, indeed, the handi-work of an infinitely powerful Creator.
In the year 2000 IBM announced the development of a new super-computer, called Blue Gene, that is 500 times faster than any supercomputer built up until that time. It took 4-5 years to build. Blue Gene stands about six feet high, and occupies a floor space of 40 feet by 40 feet. It cost $100 million to build. It was built specifically to better enable computer simulations of molecular biology. The computer performs one quadrillion (one million billion) computations per second. Despite its speed, it is estimated it will take one entire year for it to analyze the mechanism by which JUST ONE “simple” protein will fold onto itself from its one-dimensional starting point to its final three-dimensional shape.

“Blue Gene’s final product, due in four or five years, will be able to “fold” a protein made of 300 amino acids, but that job will take an entire year of full-time computing.” Paul Horn, senior vice president of IBM research, September 21, 2000
http://www.news.com/2100-1001-233954.html

In real life, the protein folds into its final shape in a fraction of a second! The computer would have to operate at least 33 million times faster to accomplish what the protein does in a fraction of a second. That is the complexity found for JUST ONE “simple” protein. It is estimated, on the total number of known life forms on earth, that there are some 50 billion different types of unique proteins today. It is very possible the domain of the protein world may hold many trillions more completely distinct and different types of proteins. The simplest bacterium known to man has millions of protein molecules divided into, at bare minimum, several hundred distinct proteins types. These millions of precisely shaped protein molecules are interwoven into the final structure of the bacterium. Numerous times specific proteins in a distinct protein type will have very specific modifications to a few of the amino acids, in their sequence, in order for them to more precisely accomplish their specific function or functions in the overall parent structure of their protein type. To think naturalists can account for such complexity by saying it “happened by chance” should be the very definition of “absurd” we find in dictionaries. Naturalists have absolutely no answers for how this complexity arose in the first living cell unless, of course, you can take their imagination as hard evidence. Yet the “real” evidence scientists have found overwhelmingly supports the anthropic hypothesis once again. It should be remembered that naturalism postulated a very simple “first cell”. Yet the simplest cell scientists have been able to find, or to even realistically theorize about, is vastly more complex than any machine man has ever made through concerted effort !! What makes matters much worse for naturalists is that naturalists try to assert that proteins of one function can easily mutate into other proteins of completely different functions by pure chance. Yet once again the empirical evidence we now have betrays the naturalists. Individual proteins have been experimentally proven to quickly lose their function in the cell with random point mutations. What are the odds of any functional protein in a cell mutating into any other functional folded protein, of very questionable value, by pure chance?

“From actual experimental results it can easily be calculated that the odds of finding a folded protein (by random point mutations to an existing protein) are about 1 in 10 to the 65 power (Sauer, MIT). To put this fantastic number in perspective imagine that someone hid a grain of sand, marked with a tiny ‘X’, somewhere in the Sahara Desert. After wandering blindfolded for several years in the desert you reach down, pick up a grain of sand, take off your blindfold, and find it has a tiny ‘X’. Suspicious, you give the grain of sand to someone to hide again, again you wander blindfolded into the desert, bend down, and the grain you pick up again has an ‘X’. A third time you repeat this action and a third time you find the marked grain. The odds of finding that marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row are about the same as finding one new functional protein structure (from chance transmutation of an existing functional protein structure). Rather than accept the result as a lucky coincidence, most people would be certain that the game had been fixed.” Michael J. Behe, The Weekly Standard, June 7, 1999, Experimental Support for Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to be Highly Isolated from Each Other

“Mutations are rare phenomena, and a simultaneous change of even two amino acid residues in one protein is totally unlikely. One could think, for instance, that by constantly changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually be possible to change the entire sequence substantially… These minor changes, however, are bound to eventually result in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but has not yet begun its ‘new duties’. It is at this point it will be destroyed – along with the organism carrying it.” Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetski, Unraveling DNA, 1997, p. 72. (Professor at Brown U. Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering)

Even if evolution somehow managed to overcome the impossible hurdles for generating novel proteins by totally natural means, Evolution would still face the monumental hurdles of generating complimentary protein/protein binding sites in which the novel proteins could actually interface with each other in order to accomplish specific tasks in the cell (it is estimated that there are least 10,000 different types of protein-protein binding sites in a “simple” cell). What does the recent hard evidence say about novel protein-protein binding site generation from what is actually observed to be occuring on the protein level of malaria and HIV since they have infected humans? Once again the naturalists are brutally betrayed by the hard evidence that science has recently uncovered!

The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by ) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable. Dr. Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book “Edge of Evolution”)

Mickey, I Hope that help explain why just any random event can’t be considered a complex specified event.

We seem to be talking past one another, in that the argument you quote from R. Totten seems to assume its own conclusion, thus I still don’t know how the tautology may be logically escaped.

If we find a deck of cards ordered by rank and suit, there is an assumption that they were ordered that way intentionally, but only because that particular order is meaningful to the observer. The cards being ordered by rank and suit is, in fact, a state that is no more or less likely than any random order.

You have to understand that my personal faith as a Christian is not swayed in any way by my struggles to reconcile the reality of Intelligent Design with what appears to me to be attempts to force round pegs into square holes. If there’s a difference between what my faith tells me and what I actually observe, I know that what I’m *able* to observe is severely limited by my human condition.

To which I refer you to kairofocus’s work On Thermodynamics, Information and Design
http://www.angelfire.com/pro/k.....tm#thermod

And I also refer you to Dr. Dembski’s work on Conservation of Information;
http://cayman.globat.com/~trad.....veInfo.pdf

I have to humbly admit that much of the math is beyond me,,,but I am sure if you have any questions the Author’s themselves, or someone who has a better grasp of the details than I, will be more than happy to answer your questions on this site!