If Science Did Prove Intelligent Design, Would It Make Any Difference?

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Just because you could prove that a First Cause exists, you wouldn’t immediately jump to the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.

 

[John10]

You are misinformed. A duplication mutation increases Shannon information in DNA

Shannon - Kolmogorov information is completely inadequate to explain information in the DNA. Information scientists refer to five levels of information, in increasing complexity.

1. Statistics
2. Syntax
3. Semantics
4. Pragmatics
5. Apobetics

Shannon- Kolmogorov deals only with level 1. But the information in DNA operates at all levels, up to and including level 5.

So, you agree that the information contained in your proposed eternal intelligent designer was not itself designed

You are falling for the circular reasoning fallacy, cause and effect (such as information and a designer) only apply to a universe with time, however a being outside of space-time-matter is immune from cause and effect. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed

However, there are a small number that are beneficial – “useful” in your terminology.

It all depends on how you define “beneficial”, even those useful like antibiotic resistance in bacteria, are not an example of new information being added. Mutations alter a current functional system (i.e., nutrient transport) in the bacteria that is the target of the antibiotic such that the bacteria are no longer affected by it. It has come at the cost of that functional system performing its original function inefficiently or not at all. So overall the bacteria might survive but has lost functionality not added new information. This is the complete opposite of what should happen if evolution was true.

 

[Julian2]

Catholic philosophers have usually do not see a need for the design argument. The complexity of the universe is not as important as the existence of the universe. We should ask why nature even exists. Atheists tend to focus on the design argument when critiquing theism. These atheists do even understand the cosmological argument of Aquinas, so they cannot refute it.

 

[Julian2]

• Once you have established that there is a first cause of the universe, you should try to figure out more about it what this cause is. Could this higher power have been discovered somewhere in history? When Moses asks for God’s name, God says “I am” He is what it means TO BE, to exist. This is the being who is the source of what exists. The God who reveals himself to Moses is also revealed through the other prophets, and it is Jesus who says “Before Abraham was, I AM” He is himself the ultimate being. The fact of the resurrection proves that he was telling the truth. There is historical evidence that the resurrection took place. See the work of Gary Habermas for the details.

 

[PickyPicky]

You are falling for the circular reasoning fallacy, cause and effect (such as information and a designer) only apply to a universe with time, however a being outside of space-time-matter is immune from cause and effect. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect,

Which is, of course, the clinching argument against the universe being caused, and against the concept of a First Cause.

 

[rossum]

Shannon - Kolmogorov information is completely inadequate to explain information in the DNA.

If you are not using Shannon-Kolmogorov information then what measure of information are you using? If you do not have an accurate objective measure than you cannot say whether information is increasing, decreasing or remaining unchanged. I know how to measure Shannon-Kolmogorov information. I do not know how to measure whatever definition of ‘information’ you are using. Without an objective measure you are not doing science, but philosophy or theology.

You are falling for the circular reasoning fallacy, cause and effect (such as information and a designer) only apply to a universe with time, however a being outside of space-time-matter is immune from cause and effect.

So, there is no external cause of the material STEM universe, no creator. In the absence of time (the T in STEM) there is no cause (=creator) and no effect (=material universe).

Your point, though correct, is not relevant to my argument. Your proposed intelligent designer contains information, and that information was not itself designed. Hence is is possible for undesigned information to exist. It is incorrect to assume that all information we observe must be designed.

even those useful like antibiotic resistance in bacteria, are not an example of new information being added.

How do you know that no “new information” is added? Where is your measure of the information present before the mutation? Where is your measure of the information present after the mutation? Unless you have actual numbers from experimental results, all you have is personal opinion, which will not get you very far in science. You are making a statement here and not providing any supporting references. Where are your measurements of the quantities of information involved?

Mutations alter a current functional system (i.e., nutrient transport) in the bacteria that is the target of the antibiotic such that the bacteria are no longer affected by it. It has come at the cost of that functional system performing its original function inefficiently or not at all.

It has also gained the function of being able to live in an environment containing that antibiotic. That is a loss and a gain. You need to measure to determine whether the loss outweighs the gain or vice versa. You cannot merely assume the answer you want. Again, we are back to measurement.

This is the complete opposite of what should happen if evolution was true.

Someone has misinformed you as to what evolution says. I suggest that you stop looking at sources which mislead you so badly.

One common example of evolution is blind cave fish. They have lost all vision because they live in lightless caves. Instead the resources which their ancestors devoted to building eyes are devoted to other functions, such as feeding and reproduction. That is exactly what evolution says. A useless system will be eliminated over time and the resources directed to something more useful.

 

[John10]

I see you are ignoring the other levels of information, so the statement that new information is being added to DNA by natural causes is false.

Your proposed intelligent designer contains information, and that information was not itself designed.

You are again beating a dead horse by applying circular reasoning to a being outside of time/space/matter with the information and designer faulty logic. It’s already been addressed that outside of time, there is no cause and effect. However once time exists causes exist. Time/Space/Matter were created and all three had a beginning and a creator, so there is still a cause of the universe and a creator.

How do you know that no “new information” is added? Where is your measure of the information present before the mutation?

Because such mutation is simply editing, existing genetic information, it is not adding anything new, just like I could edit a computer program to run faster, but that would not mean I created a new program.

It has also gained the function of being able to live in an environment containing that antibiotic. That is a loss and a gain

It might be better suited to survive the antibiotic, however it also came at the cost of another system now being not efficient or even functional, so there is a huge drawback, no new added genetic information is ever created, as again this is simply editing existing genetic information.

One common example of evolution is blind cave fish.

But this classic example of mutation/selection causing adaptation to a new environment is also a classic example of a mutation causing a downhill change. It very important to note that the genetic information for eyes, is still there, is simply not “activated” in the ones living inside the cave, so again no new information is being added, it is again simply activating or deactivating within existing generic information, based on the environment circumstances. So that does not help the evolution theory at all

 

[PickyPicky]

It’s already been addressed that outside of time, there is no cause and effect. However once time exists causes exist. Time/Space/Matter were created and all three had a beginning and a creator, so there is still a cause of the universe and a creator

You imply that time existed before its creation.

 

[EndTimes]

I’ve heard Pop-Icon Bill Nye adored by some as being Mr. Science Know It All,
referred to as, Bill Nye - the Scientism Guy…

To the best of my knowledge, Bill is not a scientist … yet does appear to represent Scientism.

Which is as a religion which pits Science against God/Religion - as the Source of Truth

We do not live in such an Either/Or Matrix/Reality…

The Catholic Church’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences puts all LIES to rest.

Science is an activity of Man …

 

[IWantGod]

You are obviously incorrect here.

How can it obviously be incorrect when you have asserted that physical reality is the sufficient cause of intelligence?

It can, but there are other processes that can produce information.

That doesn’t mean that they can be the sufficient cause of intelligent information… There can certainly be intermediate causes. But physical activity alone cannot be said to be the reason why there is such a thing as intelligent information without making an assertion .

For example, it could be said that a load of immortal monkeys bashing keys on type writers could eventually after millions of years type out Alice in wonderland by chance. One person could say that the intelligent information in the book came together naturally through chaos, and he would be correct. Another person could say that the monkeys were only able to produce Alice in wonderland because the symbols have been given meaning and therefore function by an intelligent mind and that only an intelligent mind can be the sufficient cause of the goal directed meaning that would allow there to be such a thing as Alice in wonderland; and he would also be correct because the symbols produce nothing without meaningful information. It is not either or.

It can, but there are other processes that can produce information. You are assuming that those other processes do not exist. They do. In my previous post I showed two ways unintelligent mutations can increase the information in DNA.

You are missing the point. The physical expression of D.N.A and how it is processed is irrelevant. It is the meaning contained within the D.N.A. that prompts somebody to ask where it came from?

Evolution does not have foresight.

And therefore there shouldn’t be traits like the flight or fight response or any traits that drive a creature to act toward the goal of survival, since physical reality is blind to life and the environments in which these organisms exist. We shouldn’t be able to produce meaningful goal directed information or activity if only blind natural forces and processes exist.

The mere fact that there are traits in reality that presuppose an environment or situation should at the very least cause you to question any materialistic assertion about the ultimate nature of reality.

Natural selection is irrelevant.

 

[IWantGod]

Science does not deal with “ultimate nature”, that is for theology or philosophy. For me it is a reification and can be ignored.

What you are arguing is your own philosophical bias. It is not a scientific teaching that intelligent information is nothing more than a blind natural process.

 

[rossum]

I see you are ignoring the other levels of information, so the statement that new information is being added to DNA by natural causes is false.

I am ignoring information I cannot measure. Show me how to measure it and I will talk about it. If you cannot measure it then any talk of “increase” or “decrease” is unsupported and ignorable.

However once time exists causes exist. Time/Space/Matter were created and all three had a beginning and a creator, so there is still a cause of the universe and a creator.

So time was only created after time already existed? Neat trick that! Obvious logical errors like this will not do you any favours. Time cannot be created. Creation/causation can only happen after time starts.

Because such mutation is simply editing, existing genetic information, it is not adding anything new,

So, the Bible contains no new information because it was made by simply editing existing linguistic information. Nothing written or spoken in any language contains new information, it is simply an editing of existing information from the appropriate dictionary. This is the reason I need to see how you are measuring information. Unless you have a specified measure, you can make up any measure you want, even something as ridiculous as this.

It might be better suited to survive the antibiotic, however it also came at the cost of another system now being not efficient

So, humans have devolved from chimpanzees because we are not as good at climbing trees. Our tree-climbing system is less efficient than that of chimps, so our DNA obviously contains less information than a chimp’s. Their short-term memory is better than ours as well, see Chimp vs Human. That is two places where our DNA has less information than chimps.

Your attempts to devise a measure for information are not having much success currently. That is why I stick to Shannon and Kolmogorov. There we have agreed measures which are well understood. None of your measures proposed so far can stand up to scrutiny.

 

[rossum]

But physical activity alone cannot be said to be the reason why there is such a thing as intelligent information without making an assertion .

How do I tell “intelligent information” from “non-intelligent information”? Is the information contained in a pebble on a beach intelligent information or not? Why?

It is the meaning contained within the D.N.A. that prompts somebody to ask where it came from?

Meaning is not information, and cannot be objectively measured. Here is some text with meaning:

skad cig ma ste mig dang ni,
rnam shes khams dag so so dang,
lhan cig tu yang 'thob pa yod,
nang gi bcu gnyis gzugs la sogs,
ma gtogs chos zhes bya ba ni,
sten pa dang bcas lhag ma ni,
de dang mtsungs pa dag kyang yin,
gang zhig rang gi

Unfortunately, the meaning is only clear to someone who can read Classical Tibetan. If your measure of information depends on who is looking at the text, then that measure is not objective, and hence is unlikely to be of much use scientifically.

Shannon information ignores meaning, and so can be measured objectively. Meaning is not objective, and so is less useful in science.

 

[IWantGod]

Meaning is not information

And yet you say there is information to be obtained so long as i understand what the Tibetan meant by those symbols.

Obviously we produce information by way of symbols, and that is the meaning that those symbols represent.

If your measure of information depends on who is looking at the text,

No the measure of information is what is meant by the text. Otherwise it’s not information at all in any real intelligent sense.

If your measure of information depends on who is looking at the text, then that measure is not objective, and hence is unlikely to be of much use scientifically.

Meaning is not just subjective, it exists, it just doesn’t physically exist. And it’s use scientifically is irrelevant. Science has nothing to do with the question of whether or not intelligent information is proof of an intelligent cause, and that was never the point of my argument…

 

[John10]

If you cannot measure it then any talk of “increase” or “decrease” is unsupported and ignorable.

You need to first learn about the levels of information that I mentioned previously and prove the missing levels are also added by natural process, because they too are present within DNA. You have not do so, and not provided any proof to the contrary so the statement remains true.

Time cannot be created

Space and time were created. Space and time had a beginning. Which means there must be an agent beyond space and time that created our universe of matter, energy, space and time. If time was infinite, “today” could never be reached, since there would be an infinite amount of days that precedes it.

Bible contains no new information because it was made by simply editing existing linguistic information

You are again applying the incorrect criteria to know if new information is added to the Bible, I’ve already stated the information levels used to discern it, but you keep on going back to level 1 statistics which is unsuitable to know if meaningful info has been added or not.

That is why I stick to Shannon and Kolmogorov. There we have agreed measures which are well understood. None of your measures proposed so far can stand up to scrutiny.

You keep there because it is the only safe place to try to justify your opinion, however you are missing the various other levels of information stated before and the need to go beyond the Shannon and Kolmogorov, which is completely unsuitable to understand DNA on it’s own or make claims that new information has been added.

 

[rossum]

You need to first learn about the levels of information that I mentioned previously and prove the missing levels are also added by natural process, because they too are present within DNA. You have not do so, and not provided any proof to the contrary so the statement remains true

I need to know how to measure those additional levels. Without an objective measure then any talk of increase or decrease is useless.

You are again applying the incorrect criteria to know if new information is added to the Bible, I’ve already stated the information levels used to discern it, but you keep on going back to level 1 statistics which is unsuitable to know if meaningful info has been added or not.

You have stated them, but you have not provided any way to measure them. You are making an unsupported assertion about the quantity of information. You need to support your assertion with an argument including worked measures: “This piece of original DNA contains 42 quatloos of information, while the altered DNA contains 53 quatloos.” Absent actual measurements, all you have is opinion and no quatloos.

You keep there because it is the only safe place to try to justify your opinion, however you are missing the various other levels of information stated before and the need to go beyond the Shannon and Kolmogorov, which is completely unsuitable to understand DNA on it’s own or make claims that new information has been added.

How do I measure those other levels? If you do not provide a way to measure information, then you cannot scientifically show that intelligence in needed to increase information content. If you do not know how much there is to start with, then you cannot determine if it has increased or decreased, obviously. That is why I stick with Shannon information; I can measure it and determine if it is increasing or decreasing. Only when you can provide me with a objective measure of those other levels of information will I talk about increases or decreases. If there is no measure, then all talk of increase or decrease is unsupported.

 

[John10]

You first need to understand how information is created, transmitted and received.

DNA goes way beyond Shannon information’s level, and it is completely inadequate to only use that for DNA, since as stated before DNA has all five levels of information, not just level 1 (which is where Shannon statistical information resides)

Shannon’s definition of information exclusively concerns with the statistical properties of sequences of symbols; meaning is completely ignored.

 

[Barnesy]

Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed

So if time started when the big bang happened there was no dimension of time before it happened so there couldnt have been a cause for the big bang. You have said that it always existed and thats whats a lot of people think. If it always existed and didnt need a cause then we wouldnt need god to make it happen.

 

[Barnesy]

rossum:

If you cannot measure it then any talk of “increase” or “decrease” is unsupported and ignorable.

You need to first learn about the levels of information that I mentioned previously and prove the missing levels are also added by natural process, because they too are present within DNA. You have not do so, and not provided any proof to the contrary so the statement remains true.

Space and time were created. Space and time had a beginning. Which means there must be an agent beyond space and time that created our universe of matter, energy, space and time.

But you said that before time was created there was no need for a cause. Its in the post above this one. So maybe you didnt mean to say it the way you did. But if you did it doesnt make any sense.

 

[John10]

You are making a logical error, time had to have a beginning out of both common sense and scientifically corroborated.

When Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, the results showed that time has a beginning - at the moment of creation.

As I said before if time had no beginning, “today” would never be, since an endless amount of days would precede it.

Hence God is eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist a finite ~13.8 billion years ago. The only possible escape from this is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific).