Evidence for Design?

[grannymh]

If a Catholic makes an honest attempt to answer them they will quickly find the difficulty with the TE position.

I am a Catholic and I see no point in connecting a theological question with some kind of agent. In addition, on CAF, there are so many different kinds of theistic positions, no wonder people opt for a simple agent. No disrespect for any person is intended.
I am simply looking at the basic idea of ID as I read about it on CAF.

I do get both ID and natural science e-mail updates. The science presented on both is interesting per se. However, I have yet to see a discussion on Catholic theology as it pertains to the first two human beings. Even Biologos skirts the issue of monogenism.

 

[reggieM]

Yes, you wisely enclose the word in quotes, because of course the “design” of these natural phenomena is merely the appearance of such.

What are the characteristics of something that has the appearance of design – versus something that does not have the appearance of design? Can you refer to some scientific literature that defines and distinguishes between the two things (true design and appearance of design)?

There is no intelligence, no purpose, no intent behind the structure of these things.

Has science been able to determine what purpose and intent are? If so, where are they be found, and how are they measured and tested?

 

[buffalo]

¿Que TE? Traffic Engineering. Tax Exempt. Transitional Employee.

scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/06/dishonest_dembskithe_universal_1.php

I was asking Wanstronian. But, this already has been answered.

 

[reggieM]

Only 3,226 participants in the survey???

raosoft.com/samplesize.html

 

[buffalo]

I am a Catholic and I see no point in connecting a theological question with some kind of agent. In addition, on CAF, there are so many different kinds of theistic positions, no wonder people opt for a simple agent. No disrespect for any person is intended.
I am simply looking at the basic idea of ID as I read about it on CAF.

I do get both ID and natural science e-mail updates. The science presented on both is interesting per se. However, I have yet to see a discussion on Catholic theology as it pertains to the first two human beings. Even Biologos skirts the issue of monogenism.

I am very confused by your post? Scientists routinely overstep their bounds and venture into philosophy.

Biologos just recently pronounced on Adam and Eve. There was much fuss about this.

I think I am missing something in reading your posts. Simplify please for a simple man.

 

[reggieM]

I am a Catholic and I see no point in connecting a theological question with some kind of agent.

The term agent is a philosophical term. You are an agent. Therefore, in order for you to do any theology, you have to connect theological questions with at least one agent – namely, yourself. Keep in mind that this is the philosophical forum – it exists for the discussion of philosophical topics, and that requires the use of philosophical terms.

 

[grannymh]

¿Que TE? Traffic Engineering. Tax Exempt. Transitional Employee.

scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/06/dishonest_dembskithe_universal_1.php

I need a shower. Even my keyboard is holding its nose.

But, before I go get human again, I have been wondering what the probability for two human lovers to exist at some point in millions of years covering the entire scope of planet earth, except for the flood regions. I would think that the difficulty would be finding enough data.

 

[grannymh]

The term agent is a philosophical term. You are an agent. Therefore, in order for you to do any theology, you have to connect theological questions with at least one agent – namely, yourself. Keep in mind that this is the philosophical forum – it exists for the discussion of philosophical topics, and that requires the use of philosophical terms.

Dang!

Here I thought reality was a topic of philosophy.

 

[reggieM]

scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/06/dishonest_dembskithe_universal_1.php

Computational capacity of the universe
Seth Lloyd (MIT)
(Submitted on 24 Oct 2001)

Merely by existing, all physical systems register information. And by evolving dynamically in time, they transform and process that information. The laws of physics determine the amount of information that a physical system can register (number of bits) and the number of elementary logic operations that a system can perform (number of ops). The universe is a physical system. This paper quantifies the amount of information that the universe can register and the number of elementary operations that it can have performed over its history. The universe can have performed no more than $10^{120}$ ops on $10^{90}$ bits.

arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110141

 

[inocente]

Computational capacity of the universe
Seth Lloyd (MIT)
(Submitted on 24 Oct 2001)

Merely by existing, all physical systems register information. And by evolving dynamically in time, they transform and process that information. The laws of physics determine the amount of information that a physical system can register (number of bits) and the number of elementary logic operations that a system can perform (number of ops). The universe is a physical system. This paper quantifies the amount of information that the universe can register and the number of elementary operations that it can have performed over its history. The universe can have performed no more than $10^{120}$ ops on $10^{90}$ bits.

arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110141

As the article I posted points out, these numbers have nothing to do with what Dembski is trying to prove. The saying is “lies, lies and statistics”, and he misuses statistics in a way that I’d have thought anyone with even a basic understanding of probability would spot. Apart from that, natural selection occurs in many steps, it isn’t a once and for all process, so his whole concept is irrelevant anyway. (We shouldn’t go further on that due to the ban).

Do you know if he has any training in statistics or information theory, or is he just winging it?

Here’s the paper I posted earlier on the thread - “As we will show, Dembski’s work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others’ results.”

talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf

 

[grannymh]

I need a shower. Even my keyboard is holding its nose.

But, before I go get human again, I have been wondering what would be both the probability and the possibility (in mathematical terms) for two human lovers to procreate unified humanity at some point in millions of years covering the entire scope of planet earth, except for oceans and large lakes. I would think that the difficulty would be finding enough data.

By the way, I consider human nature as designed by a transcendent Pure Spirit without restrictions on His love for the greatest “evidence” of “design”. I am referring to you and me as evidence.

:grouphug:

John 3: 16 & 17

 

[tonyrey]

Now that is an ad hominem.

It is a fact.

 

[reggieM]

As the article I posted points out, these numbers have nothing to do with what Dembski is trying to prove. The saying is “lies, lies and statistics”, and he misuses statistics in a way that I’d have thought anyone with even a basic understanding of probability would spot.

Those numbers calculate limits on probabilistic actions in the universe. It was not written by Dembski.

Apart from that, natural selection occurs in many steps, it isn’t a once and for all process,

I didn’t say anything about natural selection. You could provide your own calculations on probabilistic limits if you want.

so his whole concept is irrelevant anyway.

If the concept is irrelevant, then the paper that you posted (apparently claiming that there are no boundaries on what one can expect on random events?) is equally irrelevant.
But it seems like you want to dismiss the concept now once you realize that other scientists have been working on this very same idea for a long time.

Do you know if he has any training in statistics or information theory, or is he just winging it?

Again – you can give your own calculations if you want.

Are there limits to what chance events in the universe can produce?

 

[tonyrey]

*How do you **know ***

I note that you have avoided answering these questions:

1. What are your sources of information?
2. Haven’t you heard of cases of persons thought to be dead who have recovered?
3. Do you believe no miracles have occurred for two thousand years?

 

[reggieM]

By the way, I consider human nature as designed by a transcendent Pure Spirit without restrictions on His love for the greatest “evidence” of “design”. I am referring to you and me as evidence.

:grouphug:

John 3: 16 & 17

That’s very good also.

You find evidence of design in the cell – and you consider human nature as designed, I think.

Why do you put quotes around the word “designed”? The word, in this discussion, means planned or intended.

 

[tonyrey]

Those numbers calculate limits on probabilistic actions in the universe. It was not written by Dembski.

I didn’t say anything about natural selection. You could provide your own calculations on probabilistic limits if you want.

If the concept is irrelevant, then the paper that you posted (apparently claiming that there are no boundaries on what one can expect on random events?) is equally irrelevant.
But it seems like you want to dismiss the concept now once you realize that other scientists have been working on this very same idea for a long time.

Again – you can give your own calculations if you want.

Are there limits to what chance events in the universe can produce?

Apparently not!

 

[tonyrey]

Are you trying to close the thread?

Some individuals prefer not to see all the evidence for Design “paraded” because it conflicts with their parochial scheme of things!

 

[grannymh]

That’s very good also.

You find evidence of design in the cell – and you consider human nature as designed, I think.

Why do you put quotes around the word “designed”? The word, in this discussion, means planned or intended.

My apology, but I can no longer deal with this thread.

 

[tonyrey]

*1. To live without recognising any higher authority or source of knowledge is hubris and belief in one’s own infallibility. *

Which has nothing to do with the interpretation of reality - apart from the legal presumption of responsibility for one’s actions (which presupposes free will).

What I don’t submit to, is the made-up authority of a made-up deity. Why? Because it’s not arrogance to defer to an imaginary phenomenen, it’s stupidity.

It’s stupidity to attribute the existence of rational beings to purposeless particles.

Prove that your God exists, and I’ll recognise and submit to its authority.

Prove that purposeless particles have produced rational beings and I shall submit to your authority…

2. An appeal to science is absurd because even in science there are divergences of opinion - particularly regarding development in the universe.

Well it wasn’t even an appeal to science - it was a recognition of the fact that Catholic-sponsored evolution is not the generally-accepted scientific theory. If Catholicism had invented evolution, then science had hijacked it to exclude God, then it would be the other way around. But what’s actually happened is that the Catholic church has realised that denying the facts is futile, so has adopted a hybrid version that still allows them to retain their mythical deity.

You are still overlooking the fact that** science is not metaphysics**. It is only physicalists who believe science replaces metaphysics and explains the whole of reality - but unfortunately for you materialism is a mere hypothesis and it is self-destructive…

3. Your invective is a flagrant breach of the forum rule that there should be respect for the beliefs of Catholics.

I can’t see how. I just stated the truth.

You have stated your opinion and expressed it in a manner which is a flagrant breach of the forum rule that there should be respect for the beliefs of Catholics.

.

The Catholic version of evolution differs from the established scientific theory, by adding a supernatural element. This adversely effects the power, beauty and simplicity of the original.

You are still overlooking the fact that science is not metaphysics. There is no established scientific theory accepted by all scientists that adversely affects the power, beauty and simplicity of Design because science is a subsection of human knowledge…

 

[buffalo]

Those numbers calculate limits on probabilistic actions in the universe. It was not written by Dembski.

I didn’t say anything about natural selection. You could provide your own calculations on probabilistic limits if you want.

If the concept is irrelevant, then the paper that you posted (apparently claiming that there are no boundaries on what one can expect on random events?) is equally irrelevant.
But it seems like you want to dismiss the concept now once you realize that other scientists have been working on this very same idea for a long time.

Again – you can give your own calculations if you want.

Are there limits to what chance events in the universe can produce?

The latest findings are showing the limits of NS. It is now thought to be a conservative process not a creative one.