A simple case for intelligent design

[Subduction Zone]

Well then

1 find an argument, assertion etc. that I have made that you would reject (something that you would affirm is wrong)

2 Prove that I wrong with evidence (that way I would understand how burden proofs and evidence works)

i don't need to affirm that an argument you made is wrong. I merely need to point out that Dembski uses terms that he has not and cannot seem to define. If he cannot properly define his own terms then how can he test his idea?

 

[Subduction Zone]

well what part of his position is not clear for you?

It is all clear to me. That is why I know that it is garbage.

 

[Subduction Zone]

well what part of his position is not clear for you?

It is all clear to me. That is why I know that it is garbage.

 

[rational experiences]

Human sexual intercourse has been occurring for over 100,000 years. Please explain how that has made science irrational.

A human is not 100,000 years old.....we survive for about 100 years and then die.

No sex....no human life continuance. Talking history places that science theme with deceased human beings to claim a history of strung together information.

 

[shunyadragon]

Wrong, even if evolution where true and successful in producing CSI you would still have to deal with the origin of life, (the origin of the first organic thing that can reproduce)

Arguing from ignorance gets you no where, and changing the subject gets you less.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is not a God of the Gaps,

it is an appeal to the best explanation based on the scientific evidence that we have to date, but if you have a better explanation for the origin of life feel to share it, and explain why is that explanation better than design

Scientifically the hypothesis for design uses the same evidence as natural origins and fails because the hypothesis must falsify that it cannot happen naturally, which is impossible because it cannot prove the negative. At present natural laws and processes is the best explanation as supported by 95%+ of all the scientists of the world regardless of their religious beliefs.

 

[tas8831]

If you think there is a better explanation than design, please share it and explain why you think the explanation is better.


ID supporters like Demski have already provided positive and testable evidence for ID, it is your turn to:

1 refute the argument
2 make an argument of your own supporting naturalism

Please link to direct evidence that Dembski has applied his test to living things in some fashion and concluded 'design' .

I should then like to see evidence that this method was tested on knowns first to rule out false positives and to see if it actually works.


Testing it on things like computer do not count, as that is not a living thing, and analogies are not evidence.

 

[tas8831]

When applying Demskies test one can have a false negative.

And false positives.
CI111.1: False positives of complexity-specification

For example if you show me text in a language that I don't understand I might confuse it with random letters and dismiss it as non-design

That is relevant to biology how?

But what you have to do to refute the test is provide an example of a false positive, something that passes the test, that was not design.

CI111.1: False positives of complexity-specification

In your DNA example, my response would be "I don't know" , because I personally can't read DNA "letters"

So how can you possibly know that Dembski's antics have merit when it comes to biology?

In order to apply the test I would have to ask 3 questions

1 does the set of letters have an independent pattern like a meaning or a function?

How would you determine this?

2 according to the laws of nature, can those letters be arrange in many possible orders, where only 1 or few combinations would have a meaning or a function?

Which laws of nature are you referring to? Be specific, please.

And why the arbitrary criterion "one or a few"? Why would that matter? And how would you determine if that was the case?

3 according to the natural laws, is there a bias towards creating a pattern with a meaning or function.

Which laws of nature are you referring to? Be specific, please.

How do you define "meaning" or "function" in a living thing? In DNA?

This is what I referred to when I mentioned my past experiences with Dembski acolytes - when presented with DNA, they wanted to know what it was FIRST (gene? regulatory sequence? noncoding or junk DNA?), that is, they have to know if the sequence 'has meaning or function' BEFORE applying the filter, which, I thought, was supposed to be able to make that determination.

If you need to know what the DNA sequence is prior to employing the filter, then it is useless.
A sham.

If the answers are yes, yes no, then it would pass the test and design could be inferred.

Provide an example in biology please.

As a naturalist you have 3 options
1 show that the test is wrong by showing a false positive

Why not show that the filter is inapplicable?

2 show that the first living thing (say the first organic thing capable of reproducing) didn't pass the test

Please identify the first living thing.

3 play semantic games. Send red herrings, lie, and pretend that you have already falsified the argument.

or, I could just parrot the rantings of my favorite YEC hero as if they are proven to be 100% true and accurate for all time and ignore the problems with his claims.

 

[leroy]

This is what I referred to when I mentioned my past experiences with Dembski acolytes - when presented with DNA, they wanted to know what it was FIRST (gene? regulatory sequence? noncoding or junk DNA?), that is, they have to know if the sequence 'has meaning or function' BEFORE applying the filter, which, I thought, was supposed to be able to make that determination.
.

Yes, that is true; one needs to know the properties of “stuff” (text, genetic material, rocks etc) BEFORE, applying the test. And yes one needs to know if “stuff” has meaning, function or some other independently given pattern BEFORE applying the test.

If you can’t tell if “stuff” has a function or a meaning or some other independently given pattern, then you can’t apply the test. So the answer would be “I don’t know”

My question is, why is this a problem?

 

[leroy]

Please link to direct evidence that Dembski has applied his test to living things in some fashion and concluded 'design' .

I should then like to see evidence that this method was tested on knowns first to rule out false positives and to see if it actually works.


Testing it on things like computer do not count, as that is not a living thing, and analogies are not evidence.

Testing things like computers don’t count? Why not? Shouldn’t we apply the test to things that are known to be designed to see if the test passes?

This is the line of reasoning

1 First one makes the hypothesis that things with the attribute of specified complexity can only come from a mind

2 then one applies that criteria to things that are known to be design to see if there are any false positives

3 If there are no false positives, then one can conclude with a high degree of certanity that the test works

4 Then one makes a hypothesis on how the first living thing looked like

5 One determines if such living thing had the attribute of specified complexity

6 One accepts or rejects the design inference based on weather if it had the attributes of specified complexity or not.

So do you grant this line of reasoning? Would you say it´s valid? If not please be specific and explain why not?

Which of these steps do you find problematic? And why?

In fact I woudl like
@Polymath257 to answer to these 2 questions, because I know that he is the only one would answer directly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well so far I have provided evidence (Dembkies test) and you haven’t provided any.

What you have to do is explain why is Demskies test worng and then provide a positive case of your own showing that life had a naturalistic origin.

Prediction:, you will make a stupid semantic game, but you will not explain why is the test wrong, and you won’t provide a positive case for naturalism

You made claims and are citing the claims of others as evidence supporting your claims. That is not valid. It is a false attribution.

You need to explain and demonstrate for Dembski now in addition to arguing your prior claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And I can refute naturalism too-----Hitchens razor

@Subduction Zone didn't say "refute". He said "dismiss".

Do you know what is meant by "hitchens razor"?

It refers to his infamous statement: That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Testing things like computers don’t count? Why not? Shouldn’t we apply the test to things that are known to be designed to see if the test passes?

This is the line of reasoning

1 First one makes the hypothesis that things with the attribute of specified complexity can only come from a mind

2 then one applies that criteria to things that are known to be design to see if there are any false positives

3 If there are no false positives, then one can conclude with a high degree of certanity that the test works

4 Then one makes a hypothesis on how the first living thing looked like

5 One determines if such living thing had the attribute of specified complexity

6 One accepts or rejects the design inference based on weather if it had the attributes of specified complexity or not.

So do you grant this line of reasoning? Would you say it´s valid? If not please be specific and explain why not?

Which of these steps do you find problematic? And why?

In fact I woudl like
@Polymath257 to answer to these 2 questions, because I know that he is the only one would answer directly.

This would never work. All the time and effort would be spent on number 4 and no testing could be done.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok so do you claim that life had a naturalistic origin? Based on the evidence that we have to date would you say that naturalism is a better explanation than design? Yes or no?............o yes you don’t like to answer questions

Prediction, you will not answer with a simple yes or no

A natural explanation is the only explanation with evidence. All other explanations are belief with nothing to show one is better than another and certainly nothing to show any is better than explanation with evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok so do you claim that life had a naturalistic origin? Based on the evidence that we have to date would you say that naturalism is a better explanation than design? Yes or no?............o yes you don’t like to answer questions

I'ld say that a natural origins of life is far more likely, which is to say: some kind of chemistry.

The reason I think it is far more likely:
- life, at bottom, is just complex chemistry
- life as we know it is made from the most common materials in the universe, which we find abundantly, even outside the solar system
- we know chemistry exists

While on the supernatural side.... there is nothing.
There's about as much reason to think it has a "supernatural" origin as to think life is the byproduct of an interdimensional unicorn farting. As a matter of fact, what is "supernatural" even?

So right out the gates, even if we forget everything we know about life (how it works, what it's made of etc...) then STILL natural origins would be more likely. For the simple fact that nature demonstrably exists while the supernatural does not. One can't even define it properly.

Occam's razor, basicly. Natural origins requires far less assumptions.
Supernatural origins requires nothing BUT assumptions. And to make matters even worse, every single one of those assumptions is undemonstrable, unfalsifiable, unverifiable and just indistuinguishable for sheer fantasy.

Prediction, you will not answer with a simple yes or no

Prediction: you'll handwave my post away and come back with some ridiculous retort without addressing the actual points made.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, that is true; one needs to know the properties of “stuff” (text, genetic material, rocks etc) BEFORE, applying the test. And yes one needs to know if “stuff” has meaning, function or some other independently given pattern BEFORE applying the test.

If you can’t tell if “stuff” has a function or a meaning or some other independently given pattern, then you can’t apply the test. So the answer would be “I don’t know”

My question is, why is this a problem?

Dembski cannot properly define his terms. This is a paraphrase but it amounts to say "if it is complex enough and specific enough it is evidence for ID". What sort of nonsense is that? You were given where examples using that poor definition refuted his claim.

Dembski faces quite a dilemma. If he properly defines his terms he is shown to be wrong. If he can't define his terms all he has is handwaving and an argument from ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

well what part of his position is not clear for you?

Maybe you should demonstrate his test with an example, to clarify how it supposedly works.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1 First one makes the hypothesis that things with the attribute of specified complexity can only come from a mind

First, for clarity, can you clarify what is meant by "specified complexity"?
Secondly, after you clarified that, explain how it is determined that "only a mind" can make that happen.

2 then one applies that criteria to things that are known to be design to see if there are any false positives

Don't you mean "..to things that are known NOT to be designed"?

4 Then one makes a hypothesis on how the first living thing looked like

It kind of sounds to me that when you use the word "hypothesis", you really mean "assumption".

So do you grant this line of reasoning? Would you say it´s valid? If not please be specific and explain why not?

I don't think it's valid. Sounds like a giant assumed conclusion on the one hand and an argument from ignorance on the other.

Which of these steps do you find problematic? And why?

Certain terms need defining. The mysterious "criteria" are also unclear.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

First, for clarity, can you clarify what is meant by "specified complexity"?
Secondly, after you clarified that, explain how it is determined that "only a mind" can make that happen.



Don't you mean "..to things that are known NOT to be designed"?



It kind of sounds to me that when you use the word "hypothesis", you really mean "assumption".



I don't think it's valid. Sounds like a giant assumed conclusion on the one hand and an argument from ignorance on the other.



Certain terms need defining. The mysterious "criteria" are also unclear.

I missed number 2 completely. It seems so glaringly obvious now.

 

[Bear Wild]

People tend to complicate things, but the concept of inteligetn design (as proposed by Behe, Demski and many others) is very simple and easy to understand.

The theory of ID is based on 2 premises

1 Intelligent design is detectable: there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial; for example forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, detectives, cryptographers, and many other professionals detect design all the time. For example If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not. And one could (in principle) conclude that these pyramids where intelligently design even if nobody knows who the designer, or where did it come from, or “who created the designer” the answer to those question could simply be “I don’t know”

2 if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design: If we look at living things at apply the same methods that we already know that are reliable, to detect design, we would infer that life was designed by an intelligent designer (even if we might not know who the designer is, or were did he come from)


The objective method that Dembski and others propose is “specified complexity” something is specified and complex if:

1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters

2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.

Something requires all (1,2 and 3) in order to call it “specified complexity”


The argument is that life is specified and complex

even the simplest life forms would require many amino acids (1) organized in a very specific order and pattern (2) and nothing in nature forces the amino acids to organize themselves in such a way that they would produce functional self replicating “things”


*For simplicity lets define life as: something organic that can reproduce.


In my experience those who deny ID don’t really present an argument, and usually they don’t spot their point of disagreement, they simply troll and call ID “creationism with another name” instead of providing an actual argument.

So lets look at some of these Dembski ideas

FALSIFIABILITY
If anything can be found false in evolution theory then the theory is false.
His example
"So apparently we know enough about the bacterial flagellum to know that it is designed or at least design-like."
The complex flagellum is impossible to evolve is incorrect.
The dna that codes for the flagellum did not need all of the mutations and recombination's of the dna to occur in a sequence or all at once. Each aspect can develop at different times with less functional ability until the current sequence gave the best advantage and then remains genetically conserved. All of the mechanisms for this to occur have been demonstrated in genetic research. The existence of a bacterial flagellum does not falsify evolution theory except for those who are unaware of the creative potential of genetic material given sufficient time. First worthless testable evidence.

CONFIRMATION

"complexity is reliably correlated with the effects of intelligence."
This is a completely egotistical opinion and has no relevance. Evolution theory accounts for increased complexity without the need of an intelligent designer. The fact that the author "thinks" that way has no bearing on what is real. Second worthless testable evidence.

PREDICTABILITY
"
"Natural selection and random variation applied to single-celled organisms offers no insight at all into whether we can expect multi-celled organisms, much less whether evolution will produce the various body-plans of which natural history has left us a record."

"Intelligent design can accommodate plenty of evolutionary change and allows for natural selection"
Evolution clearly predicts that changes in the environment will select for organisms that are better adapted. The mechanism is clear. New genetic sequences give rise to different expressions. Some changes create significant changes structures that can then diversify. If there is a new environmental niche, evolution predicts the niche will lead to new changes in the organisms. Since environment and new niches are happening all of the time those that propose an intelligent designer need to explain or show evidence how often that designer has to come to earth and then make the genetic changes needed to exploit those niches. Since new niches are occurring now it should be easy to uncover this designer at work.
Third usless proposal by Dembski.

EXPLANATORY POWER


Are there things that might occur in biology for which a design-theoretic framework could give a better, more accurate account than a purely Darwinian and therefore non-teleological framework? The answer is yes

This statement is clearly a desperate attempt by Dembski. There is nothing in nature were there need for a designer to explain but there a lot of things in nature which a using a designer theory makes no sense.

For the designer to be true is we would need the designer to either be actively working inside every cell reconstructing the genetic material for new designs to be at least frequently returning to the world with new designs. So far even electron microscopes have not seen even the imprint of a designer - only the genetic material. Changes in life are occurring all of the time without even the hint of an supernatural designer appearing in our world.