A simple case for intelligent design

[Astrophile]

then one applies that criterion 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 certainty that the test works

Isn't this the wrong way round? If one applied the criterion to things that are known to be designed (such as a pencil or an arrow) and the criterion decided that the thing was not designed, that would be a false negative. To get a false positive, one would have to apply the criterion to things that are not designed (such as rainbows or snowflakes) and find that it falsely decided that these things were designed.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Nope. Wrong test. You want to test against things that are known *not* to be designed and see if any are mistakenly designated as designed. THAT is a false positive.

What you attempted to do is give a way of testing for false *negatives*.

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

In practice, you would need to look for false positives in situations that are close to the target (fair choice of population). In other words, you need a suitably randomized collection of test subjects, with known design or lack thereof, that are close enough to the target subject (first life) for the test to be well tested for things similar to the target.

And how, precisely, was that done?

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

And what, precisely was that hypothesis?

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

I'd love to see the detailed comparisons.

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 line of reasoning is already so broken by stage 3 that it isn't necessary to go on.

 

[leroy]

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.

This is just a forum, I will not elaborate an argument from zero,.... Do some reaserch on Demski in ether the sources that I provided or in any other source...... The find specific clear and unabigous points in which you disagree and I will be happy to adress them

 

[Ayjaydee]

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.

No one said it was forced

 

[leroy]

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

Ok for context this is 4

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

In this context I would define life an organic thing that can reproduce.

I would argue that any self replicating molecule would have many aminoacids, (say more than 100)

There are many ways and possible combinations in which one can organice aminoacids

ONLY 1 or few combinations would produce a self replicating protein.

There is not a bias in natural laws to produce that order.


I can't prove any of these statements with 100% certainty but they seem more likely to be true than wrong

If any of those statements is wrong then Dembskies argument would be wrong

I will only answer if you are willing to asert that atleast 1 statement is probably wrong and if you are willing to share the burden proof with me.

If you have specific and honest questions I will also answer to them

 

[leroy]

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

From the fact that chemestry exists it doesn't follow that chenestry is responsable for the origin of life.


The evidence for design is that life has the attribute of specified complexity and SC can only come from a mind.... both statements are testable and falsifiable, and evidence for each if them has been presented both in the forum and in literature..

ID is falsifiable..... How can one falsified naturalism?

 

[leroy]

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.

Complex, with many parts or units

Specified, with an independently given pattern

To me those definitions are easy to understand

 

[leroy]

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

Sure I can provide an example

This text is both complex and specified therefore

Complex because it has many letters, specified because these letters form meaningful words and sentences. And there is not a bias in natural laws to create meaningful words.

In the same way life has many letters (many aminoacids) and they are organice such that they can perform functions (like self replicating systems)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Complex, with many parts or units

Specified, with an independently given pattern

To me those definitions are easy to understand

Whew,the wind is picking up again. Is someone furiously waving his hands?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is just a forum, I will not elaborate an argument from zero,.... Do some reaserch on Demski in ether the sources that I provided or in any other source...... The find specific clear and unabigous points in which you disagree and I will be happy to adress them

Then what are you doing here?

I am not doing your work for you. If you feel there is some point in Dembski that supports your view, then YOU need to make it. Otherwise it can be ignored.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

From the fact that chemestry exists it doesn't follow that chenestry is responsable for the origin of life.

Life IS chemistry. Complex chemistry, but chemistry nonetheless.
Chemistry demonstrably happens. The supernatural does not.

That, in and of itself, already makes chemistry a more likely candidate.

The evidence for design is that life has the attribute of specified complexity and SC can only come from a mind....

Define "specified complexity" and then explain how it has been determined that it can "only" come from a mind; how it can be ruled out that it can also come about through natural processes.

The word "only" smells enormously like an argument from ignorance.
ie: "we don't know how this can happen naturally, therefor it didn't"

both statements are testable and falsifiable

How?
What reasonable test would falsify it?

, and evidence for each if them has been presented both in the forum and in literature..

Where?

ID is falsifiable

How?

..... How can one falsified naturalism?

False equivalence.
Naturalism is not a specific claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Complex, with many parts or units

Specified, with an independently given pattern

To me those definitions are easy to understand

To me, they aren't.

Sounds like that could be applied to nothing and everything at the same time.
Just about every object has many parts and an "independently given pattern".

You're going to have to be more specific.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure I can provide an example

This text is both complex and specified therefore

Complex because it has many letters, specified because these letters form meaningful words and sentences.

Only because you know what english is.
You don't derive that it has meaning based on this silly dembski drivel. You derive meaning from it, becouse you are aware of the convention of the language english. Because you contrast it against something of which you already know was the product of design.

Because that's really how one determines design... By contrasting it against what is known to be designed and what is known to be natural.

And there is not a bias in natural laws to create meaningful words.

Because it is a known product of humans................................

In the same way life has many letters (many aminoacids)

Those aren't letters. Those are molecules. Molecules which are the result of chemical reactions.

and they are organice such that they can perform functions (like self replicating systems)

Through chemistry.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure I can provide an example

This text is both complex and specified therefore

Complex because it has many letters, specified because these letters form meaningful words and sentences. And there is not a bias in natural laws to create meaningful words.

In the same way life has many letters (many aminoacids) and they are organice such that they can perform functions (like self replicating systems)

Let's make this a little more interesting.

Here's a picture:

Please apply Dembski's method to determine if it was designed.
How would you go about it?
Descibe it step by step.


When you're done, repeat the same steps on this one:

 

[tas8831]

Yes, that is true; one needs to know the properties of “stuff” (text, genetic material, rocks etc) BEFORE, applying the test.

Ah, so you admit the Dembski filter is worthless without prior knowledge.

So if I present 2 nearly identical sequences of DNA, one from a gene, one from a pseudogene, you could tell that one had all kinds of CSI, and the other almost none?

And yes one needs to know if “stuff” has meaning, function or some other independently given pattern BEFORE applying the test.

So then the common use of SETI as justification for Dembski-style ID stuff was bogus after all, thanks!

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... how would you determine function or a meaning or some other independently given pattern in a sequence of DNA to determine if it has sufficient CSI or not?

Are you familiar with the concepts of begging the question and circular argument?

So the answer would be “I don’t know”

My question is, why is this a problem?

No problem at all - for me.
It shows how useless the Dembski filter is.

Hey - still waiting for you to explain how these papers:

The tested methodology:
Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

[...]

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

[...]

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

[...]


We can hereby CONCLUDE that the results of an application of those methods have merit.

Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

[...]

Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

[...]

A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

[...]

Are all about 'selectionism.' Especially how you gleaned that from just the titles.

 

[tas8831]

Testing things like computers don’t count? Why not?

If you are going to claim that this filter can detect 'design' in living things, then testing it on computers seems rather... stupid.

The papers I cited that you ignorantly claimed were all about 'selectionism' were, in fact about testing a method of analysis using known biological entities, then applying those methods.

You think testing a detection method on a computer then merely asserting it works for the flagellum (it didn't) and thus all biology seems rather stretch, no?

Shouldn’t we apply the test to things that are known to be designed to see if the test passes?

So you are claiming that Demsbki's filter is used to detect HUMAN design?

This is the line of reasoning

'reasoning'... snicker...

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

What is the basis of this hypothesis when trying to detect "design' is not to detect human design?

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

Ah, so since HUMANS design things that are being tested, then the filter can detect HUMAN design (if it works)

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

How was this high degree of certainty calculated?

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

Show us your hypothesis regarding what the first living thing designed by a human looked like.

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

And show how this is done.

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

Human design, right?
I mean, you've only tested it on things a human designed, so you can really only test for human design.

So do you grant this line of reasoning? Would you say it´s valid?

No and no.

If not please be specific and explain why not?

See above.

Of course - in your walk-through, you never demonstrated how you knew in the first place that the first human-designed living thing had 'purpose' or 'meaning' such that CSI could be deduced.

 

[tas8831]

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?

If this stuff has a meaning, then I can use the Dembski filter to determine if it has CSI, and thus, was designed.

What if you don't know what the meaning is, or if you can't tell if there is a meaning?

 

[rational experiences]

Very simple answers for a human being male living on a stone planet.

A Sun is not a stone planet and you cannot stand on it.

Very basic notified information to a mind psyche who is a liar....who applies studies to self, whilst not being the self who is being studied....claiming a superiority of being, who is identified as our Destroyer, for the complexity of what he studies he tries to then anti with enough SUN UFO metallic mass radiation to cause it.

Exactly how our historic science destruction has always been taught.

So a simple functional statement to advise a bio life who keeps on claiming superiority to self as only an equal bio life form. To look at others and ask why they do not act like you do?

Acceptance of who you are, just a natural being in a natural environment in a naturally owned living condition.....acceptance, which is part of spirituality of self.

You do not use nor imply that condition.

Then you infer your studies are for complex medical reasonings in science, yet the science of your studies is not motivated for medical purposes at all....they imply that you can bring hot radiation, to where cold radiation evolution exists and forcibly change it....meaning to destroy it.

The Bible an AI, artificial male machine caused encoding....of utilising from the ancient science beginnings a radiation mass for force change to natural God O The Earth...as a male, and a group of males...as your owned truth.

You encoded your own want of self destruction by the machine and then it spoke back to you....for you did in fact invent AI your own male human self in the states of science.

2 forms of humans live on Earth, natural spiritual humans who accept their equality with each other and also the Nature, and would do little harm to its body.

or the Destroyer human being male self who proves he is the Destroyer by how he expresses his mentality in an argument that is easily argued.

If humans stopped having sexual intercourse.....and we all were allowed to just age....we all would die....and no humans would even be living on Planet Earth.

As your scientific answer to all of your lying themes....how to force it to occur before its allotted inherited natural living conditions.

 

[rational experiences]

'>Job 9:22
Verse Concepts

"It is all one; therefore I say, 'He destroys the guiltless and the wicked.'

24 Bible verses about God Kills

A simple explanation that says......God as natural stone owns natural cold radiation, that ended in spatial zero conditions.

As God was a pre existing cooling irradiating body....the space around that body was not cold spatial zero.....deep colder empty space, as said by science mind the big pit was drawing heat down into its pressure and massive depth.

God as a history says I will destroy you all no matter if you are without guilt or even wicked for trying to change the natural form of God O the stone mass as a history.

Which includes males taking God stone mass, burning/melting it and building machines from it. The worse sort of machines, that allow natural cold radiation mass to be attacked/destroyed.

Males in science claim I want to know history, when his life bio body, chemicals and bio conscious living presence a human did not even exist.

So first of all he looks at all animal bodies...and compares self to that body. And their consciousness cannot do science, think on behalf of science or be a scientist.

Which for a natural spiritual aware human says....therefore science does not exist in their bio life form....as evidence to self. A statement told to self, yet you all ignored what natural said.

No, says the machine scientist I am not talking those bio strings.....when in science he is....for we live in the atmospheric mass as a bio Nature.....with no machine...so that is his owned first lie.

Involved in his lying is his ownership, male and human. And so as he thinks science/machine reaction he also is a selfish egotist who says....but I do not want to be harmed. So I have to falsify the information to claim to self, but I will not be harmed....but studies with machine atmospheric experiments the bio life attacked and being harmed.

Does not argue nor share that information in the public forums...but just in his owned science community.

Therefore why should any scientist be allowed to argue on our forums? For you do not include nor reveal as most of us do...our feelings and personal beliefs or personal experiences as a sharing of information to argue or to interact reasoning with!

Water is created as water for a very long time as the state water before any bio human owns presence living in a water/oxygenated atmosphere as a self, nearly mainly water their own form.

And when a male in science talks about water life, he talks a microbe.

So if a human compares the living presence of a microbe and detail a listing of its physical form to their own, they would see how much of a liar a scientist is...to claim that a microbe began our formation processes.

Whenever a scientist looks back to water life, he is thinking about removing the higher living bodily presences out of it.....and is not in reality including us existing in his science reactive, from out of space to machine theme.

For in modern day life a male says before a microbe in water, electricity was in water as compared to water mass existing, and radiation mass.

2 forms of stated history when no life whatsoever even existed and then says he is talking rational self advice today. Not likely.

 

[Ayjaydee]

Cold radiation!! Good one!!