Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[Sister_Terese]

“In the absence of a brain, hydrogen and oxygen atoms combine to form H2O, not H6O or HO2. When you calculate the odds of a few billion atoms behaving in exactly that way, you get the usual hugely improbable number. Chemistry does not require design, all it requires is valency.”

I’m not sure I understand your point, so I am going to respond based on what I THINK you are saying.

Atoms and the electrons in each valence do not happen by chance. One elemental atom can never be another elemental atom. When atoms share electrons in the outer valence to form chemical changes, what causes these electrons to do so? Some scientists say it is a magnetic/electronic attraction. Well then, what causes the attraction? I believe in the Big Bang theory–but not the conventional concept of it. I believe that God created all things from nothing and brought them into being…perhaps a BIG BANG. It seems to me that as we go back further and further, at some point there has to be a question of WHAT CAUSED THE FIRST CAUSE? There can only be ONE FIRST CAUSE because if there isn’t one cause, then whatever came before it IS the FIRST CAUSE. Scientists have not been able to answer that question because that would mean considering a Creator or Designer. To many scientists, that is anathema.

I am not a scholar or a philosopher. I can’t debate the issue on the scholarly level that most appear to do here. All I know is that until the First Cause can be scientifically determined absolutely (which would be to acknowledge a Supreme Being as creator), I simply believe that God exists, created all things out of nothing, and keeps everything in existence and in perfect harmony.

 

[tonyrey]

Valency itself is not self-explanatory. As one of the functional principles of our universe, it, too, makes up a part of the “design.” There is no self-evident reason that the forces that create the property of valency should exist.

Valency is an invalid “explanation”!

Calculating exactly such a probability requires material data. As God is understood to be an immaterial being, such a calculation, in its purest sense, is impossible. Nevertheless, since I don’t have time right now to elaborate in my own words I’ll quote a leading theistic authority on the matter:
“So let’s talk first of the existence of contingent beings. Here I explained that contingent beings are more probable given God’s existence than on atheism. Dr. Krauss will have to say that the existence of contingent beings is just as probable on atheism as it is on theism. But that seems incorrect because atheism has no explanation for the existence of contingent beings.”

“…given the absolute beginning of the universe, the beginning of the quantum vacuum, God’s existence is obviously more probable than it would have been without it.”

“As to the fine-tuning of the universe, all Dr. Krauss said was that the universe is not fine-tuned for human life. I agree completely. It is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent, embodied, interactive agents, but not necessarily human beings. And the chances of that happening are so infinitesimal that it’s far more probable to think that this is the result of design.”

"In tonight’s debate I’ve tried to show you that God’s existence is more probable given certain facts, than it would have been without them. And that is, by definition, what it means to say that there’s evidence for God’s existence.

First of all, we looked at the existence of contingent beings, and I explained that given the existence of God, it is more probable that contingent beings would exist than on atheism because **on atheism there is no explanation **for the existence of contingent beings. And to try and say that there need not be an explanation for the existence of the universe is arbitrary and unjustified. It commits the Taxi-Cab Fallacy. So I think the very existence of contingent beings makes God’s existence more probable than it otherwise would have been.

Secondly, what of the origin of the universe? I used both philosophical arguments and scientific evidence to show that the universe began to exist. Dr. Krauss dropped his objections to the philosophical arguments. We saw that while the infinite is a useful mathematical concept, when you try to translate it into the real world, it results in self-contradictory situations and, therefore, the past must be finite. And we saw, secondly, that this is indeed what science has confirmed. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that the quantum vacuum out of which our material state has evolved cannot be eternal in the past but must have had a beginning. The Hartle-Hawking model itself that Dr. Krauss has appealed to involves an absolute beginning of the universe.

He says, however, that this universe explains how it came into existence from absolute non-being.

Sheer nonsense!

And I contradicted that by saying that the point from which the universe quantum tunnels is not nothing on these models. Listen to what Hartle and Hawking write in their scholarly article on this. They say,

The volume vanishes . . . at the north and south poles, even though these are perfectly regular points of the four-geometry. One, therefore, would not expect the wave function to vanish at the vanishing three-volume.

In the case of the universe, we would interpret the fact that the wave function can be finite and non-zero at the zero three-geometry as allowing . . . topological fluctuations of the three-geometry.17

So there they’re clearly not talking about something from nothing. Indeed, I mean, think about it, folks: there is no physics of non-being. That’s absurd! There’s only a physics of things that exist, that are real. So it’s impossible for physics to explain how being could arise from non-being. There is no physics of non-being. And, therefore, given that the universe did have an absolute beginning, I think it fairly cries out for the existence of transcendent cause of the universe, which is most plausibly identified as God, rather than some abstract object.

What about the fine-tuning of the universe? Here Dr. Krauss attacked one example of fine-tuning, the low entropy condition, and he says that this is explicable by a mechanism that determines the fine-tuning. I beg to differ. Robin Collins, who has occupied himself extensively with this, writes, “The universe started in a very low entropy state. . . . It is enormously improbable for the universe to have started in the macro-state necessary for the existence of life. . . . The various ways of avoiding this improbability are all highly problematic.”18 And, in particular, he looks at Penrose’s suggestion that the low entropy is the result of a special law and says that Penrose’s proposal has not been accepted by the majority of physicists today.

So, look, we’ve got this universe that in multiple ways is fine-tuned for our existence. And that obviously, I think, makes the existence of God more probable than it would have been without them.

It is highly improbable that this fine-tuning is going to go away. Ernan McMullin of the University of Notre Dame says, “It seems safe to say that later theory, no matter how different, will turn up approximately the same . . . numbers. And the numerous constraints that have to be imposed upon these numbers . . . are too specific and too numerous to evaporate entirely.”19 So fine-tuning is a physical feature of the universe, and I think it’s better explained by God.

Accidents produce nothing but cacophony!

Quickly then, what about moral values and duties? Here Dr. Krauss said you can define “kind” and “compassionate” independent of God. Of course, you can! That is a question of moral semantics. Mine is a question concerning moral ontology, that is to say, not the definition or meaning of terms but their grounding in reality. Apart from God there is no foundation for objective moral values and duties. Therefore, if you believe they exist, then you should believe in God.

Finally, the resurrection of Jesus. He’s never denied those historical facts concerning the fate of Jesus of Nazareth. And that gives us good reason to believe that the best explanation of these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead and was who he claimed to be. And that entails that God exists."

Read more: reasonablefaith.org/the-craig-krauss-debate-at-north-carolina-state-university#ixzz23NSPTT31

Morality in an amoral universe is an immoral fantasy!

 

[rossum]

Valency itself is not self-explanatory. As one of the functional principles of our universe, it, too, makes up a part of the “design.” There is no self-evident reason that the forces that create the property of valency should exist.

Valency is explained in terms of electron shells. Electron shells are not a brain either. What appears to be design is not actually design, it is like a mirage: not what it appears to be.

Calculating exactly such a probability requires material data. As God is understood to be an immaterial being, such a calculation, in its purest sense, is impossible.

So, your argument rests on the comparison of two different probbabilities, but you are unable to calculate one of the two probabilities. I am sure you will agree that this does not make for a very convincing argument. It certainly does not convince me.

rossum

 

[rossum]

In Stephen Meyer and William Dembski’s formulations of the intelligent design argument there is no need to demonstrate the actual existence of the “actor” performing as designer, instead they rely on demonstrating that an activity itself can be shown to be impossible without an agent.

Which is one of my problems with Dembskian ID, its refusal to examine the properties of their designer. I can see why they do it, to keep everyone in their “big tent” while simultaneously avoiding any mention of God so as to avoid the US Constitution’s bar of teaching religious doctrine in schools…

Both rely on demonstrating their claim using the idea of information as having either specified or functional complexity or both. They both demonstrate that in the case of the origin of life the insufficient probabilistic resources available to bring about the event (the origin of biological information in the cell that has highly specified and functional complexity) make the event impossible without some kind of intelligent agent.

They fail to specify how the functional complexity of the intelligent agent originated. ID fails to explain the origin of complexity, since the designers must themselves also be complex. Who designed the designers?

There are also immense problems with Dembski’s idea of specified complexity. It is simple to change the measured value of complexity by changing the specification. For example, I pick the specification, “a design for a working perpetual motion machine.” With that specification, then the entire universe contains exactly zero specified information, since no such design can exist. If there is zero specified informaiton in the universe, then there is nothing to explain the origin of. Dembski agrees that small quantities of specified information can arise through natural processes. Producing zero quantity is even easier.

Unless there is a rigorous and objective way to determine the specification, then any definition of “specified information” has to be subjective, rather than objective, and hence of limited scientific use.

What if, as the afternoon continues, you watch the ants continue to build new letters on the sidewalk. As they work you recall that you tried to eradicate this anthill a week before using a pesticide that wasn’t as effective as you had hoped. An hour later the complete message from the ants comes through. It states, “ROSSUM WE WILL INVADE YOUR HOUSE AT MIDNIGHT!”

Unfortunately, they are Tibetan ants, and their message is in Tibetan:

nyer zhir 'khrid mdzad gang yin dang 'gro la phan par byed
rnams lam shes nyid kyis 'jig rten don sgrub mdzad pa gang
gang dang yang dag ldan pas thub rnams rnam pa kun ldan

Since I don’t speak Tibetan, that message contains zero information as far as I am concerned. Since there is zero information in the message, then I have no need to explain any information content.

Information, as you have defined it, depends on the knowledge of the person reading it, and so is subjective, not objective.

Dembski and Meyer would both argue, I think, that this event, having specified and functional complexity to a degree that the probabilistic resources available - time, nature of ant brains and ant behaviour, would make an inference to intelligence “of some kind” behind this event not merely highly probable but definite. You would have to conclude there is some kind of intelligent agent behind this event even though you have no idea who or what the agent is.

What probabilistic resources are needed to produce the “intelligence”?

This shows that there are times that we are justified in inferring an intelligence, contrary to your claim, despite the fact that we have no independent evidence of the existence of the agent. The event itself is the evidence.

The existence of the designer is evidence of the existence of a complex entity of some kind. Hence we can deduce the existence of a designer designer, which designed the designer. The existence of the designer designer is evidence of the existence of a complex entity of some kind. Hence we can have an infinite regress of designers, each of which is complex and requires a designer.

In his book Signature in the Cell, Stephen Meyer, develops a very cogent argument of precisely this kind to show that the complexity of the highly specific and functional information contained in cells could not have arisen without intelligence of some kind given the probabilistic resources available and the state of prebiotic chemistry and the laws of chemistry and physics.

Meyer’s probability calculations fail because they do not correctly model evolution. They include random mutation, but not the non-random filter of natural selection. Failing to include the filter renders his calculation useless.

What are the chances of getting 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, … 6, 6 for 100 consecutive sixes on a fair die? Simple probability tells us that the chance in 1 in 6[sup]100[/sup] = 1 in 6.5e77

Now change the situation somewhat. We will still use a fair die as (name removed by moderator)ut, but we will pass the numbers from the random die through a non-random filter. Call the filter “Survival of the Sixest”:

    if (die_roll = 6) then
        pass the number to the output
    else
        reject the number
    endif

The filter only passes sixes, rejecting every other number.

Now, with the modified system of random (name removed by moderator)ut from the die combined with a non-random filter, what are the chances of getting 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, … 6, 6 for 100 consecutive sixes? The chances are 1 in 1, of course. The modified system is guaranteed to produce a continuous stream of sixes, and only sixes. A random (name removed by moderator)ut passed through a non-random filter produces a non-random result.

Meyer’s calculation fails to take the non-random filter of natural selection into account. Hence his numbers are not relevant to evolution.

rossum

 

[prodigalson2011]

Valency is explained in terms of electron shells. Electron shells are not a brain either. What appears to be design is not actually design, it is like a mirage: not what it appears to be.

You are missing the point. You are devolving into an infinite regress. Again, the forces or properties that produce valency, electron shells or anything else, do not explain themselves. All of the forces that undergird our universe work towards the final cause of their subsequent effects, and none of them, right down to the smallest quantum fluctuation, are self explanatory. You stating that these forces were not designed, or tuned if you like, to the achieve the effects they have is a) just as “unscientific” and b) statistically more improbable than the possibility that they were a product of design.
Not everyquestion can be resolved by the scientific method.

So, your argument rests on the comparison of two different probbabilities, but you are unable to calculate one of the two probabilities. I am sure you will agree that this does not make for a very convincing argument. It certainly does not convince me.

rossum

Your argument suffers the same flaw. However, as Dr. Craig amply illustrates, we can use the available data to work backwards and show that present conditions are exceedingly more likely given the hypothesis of design than not. This counts as evidence.

 

[tonyrey]

If design is an activity, then you have to show evidence of the existence of actor performing that activity.

According to that argument it is necessary to show evidence of the cause of the Big Bang befpre you can believe it occurred!

No. I am talking in this case about human beings. We disagree on the different forms of non-material beings that exist: devas, asuras, kinnaras etc. That would only distract from the argument.

On the contrary belief in non-material beings supports belief in **purposeful activity which does not have physical causes.
**

Remember also, that the Buddhist analysis of a human being differs from the Christian one. There is no soul, and all the constituents, both material and immaterial, change.

The topic is not human beings.

The constituents present in an early embryo are not sufficient to form a purpose. Consciousness is lacking, for example.

You are assuming consciousness is physical. Aren’t non-material beings conscious?

 

[rossum]

You are missing the point. You are devolving into an infinite regress.

No. I am looking for evidence. See ‘Multiverse’ theory suggested by microwave background.

You stating that these forces were not designed, or tuned if you like, to the achieve the effects they have is a) just as “unscientific” and b) statistically more improbable than the possibility that they were a product of design.

How improbably is your proposed designer? If the designer is an omnimax entity, then it is infinitely improbable.

Not every question can be resolved by the scientific method.

Agreed. But you have not yet shown that this particular question cannot be so resolved. You are in danger of making a god of the gaps argument here. If it does turn out that science is able to resolve this question, then your small god has no place to hide any more. “We are to find God in what we know, not in what we do not know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.” - Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

rossum

 

[rossum]

According to that argument it is necessary to show evidence of the cause of the Big Bang befpre you can believe it occurred!

It was a zero-energy quantum fluctuation, similar to the quantum foam of virtual particles we see in a normal vacuum.

The topic is not human beings.

Why not? Human beings are our principal example of designers. Some would say our only example.

You are assuming consciousness is physical. Aren’t non-material beings conscious?

A zygote is a material being. It is not a conscious material being. Consciousness arises later during its development. Feelings and perceptions also arise later. Form is initially rudimentary and develops over nine months, and longer. Impulses, (samskāra), are present from the start.

Remember that I do not subscribe to the Christian analysis of a human being.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Which is one of my problems with Dembskian ID, its refusal to examine the properties of their designer. I can see why they do it, to keep everyone in their “big tent” while simultaneously avoiding any mention of God so as to avoid the US Constitution’s bar of teaching religious doctrine in schools…

Ad hominem. It could be argued with equal facility - and far greater cogency - that scientists of the Dawkins variety want to prevent any mention of Design in schools or anywhere else, such is their aggressive hatred of religion.

They fail to specify how the functional complexity of the intelligent agent originated. ID fails to explain the origin of complexity, since the designers must themselves also be complex.

Would your **physical **complexity prevent you from being found guilty if you had committed a crime? Are immaterial beings complex? If so does their spiritual complexity imply that they don’t exist?

Who designed the designers?

How did the power of design originate?

There are also immense problems with Dembski’s idea of specified complexity. It is simple to change the measured value of complexity by changing the specification. For example, I pick the specification, “a design for a working perpetual motion machine.” With that specification, then the entire universe contains exactly zero specified information, since no such design can exist. If there is zero specified informaiton in the universe, then there is nothing to explain the origin of. Dembski agrees that small quantities of specified information can arise through natural processes. Producing zero quantity is even easier.

Unless there is a rigorous and objective way to determine the specification, then any definition of “specified information” has to be subjective, rather than objective, and hence of limited scientific use.

Unlike **an information system **your specification is arbitrary.

Information, as you have defined it, depends on the knowledge of the person reading it, and so is subjective, not objective.

Information is objective because it is a product of** in**telligence which does not need to be understood in order to exist.

The existence of the designer is evidence of the existence of a complex entity of some kind. Hence we can deduce the existence of a designer designer, which designed the designer. The existence of the designer designer is evidence of the existence of a complex entity of some kind. Hence we can have an infinite regress of designers, each of which is complex and requires a designer.

Would your **physical **complexity prevent you from being found guilty if you had committed a crime? Are immaterial beings complex? If so does their spiritual complexity imply that they don’t exist?

NB Evolution is a banned topic.

 

[tonyrey]

According to that argument it is necessary to show evidence of the cause of the Big Bang before you can believe it occurred!

That is an unsubstantiated hypothesis which infringes the principle of causality.

Moreover scientists accept many facts without knowledge of their causes.

The topic is not human beings.

Why not? Human beings are our principal example of designers. Some would say our only example.

There is no reason to suppose the power of reason is restricted to human beings because it transcends physical causality and entails insight into abstract truths about reality - such as logical principles, mathematical relations and spiritual development.

You are assuming consciousness is physical. Aren’t non-material beings conscious?

A zygote is a material being. It is not a conscious material being. Consciousness arises later during its development. Feelings and perceptions also arise later. Form is initially rudimentary and develops over nine months, and longer. Impulses, (samskāra), are present from the start.

A person is not a material being. Aren’t non-material beings conscious?

Remember that I do not subscribe to the Christian analysis of a human being.

I do not subscribe to the Buddhist analysis of a human being but we both believe in spiritual beings.

 

[tonyrey]

In Stephen Meyer and William Dembski’s formulations of the intelligent design argument there is no need to demonstrate the actual existence of the “actor” performing as designer, instead they rely on demonstrating that an activity itself can be shown to be impossible without an agent.

Both rely on demonstrating their claim using the idea of information as having either specified or functional complexity or both. They both demonstrate that in the case of the origin of life the insufficient probabilistic resources available to bring about the event (the origin of biological information in the cell that has highly specified and functional complexity) make the event impossible without some kind of intelligent agent.

As an example to demonstrate their reasoning, suppose you spend an afternoon observing the behaviour of ants milling about an anthole. After some hours you notice the dark colour and positioning of the ants on the light concrete appears to resemble the letter R. There is in some sense, a complexity in the shape of the letter R that makes it highly improbable, however, given the time you have spent observing them and all the random arrangements the ants have produced with their bodies, there is some degree of probability that the R appeared by chance, despite the fact that it has somewhat of a complex shape. No need to infer intelligence.

Now suppose you keep watching the ants at work and after a few minutes their bodies have taken the arrangement of the letters ROSSUM. This becomes more intriguing to you because the shapes of the letters are not merely complex but also specific because, you notice that the letters match precisely and specifically the letters of your name. This specified complexity of the letters, makes it highly improbable that the event happened by chance. Are you justified in inferring some kind of intelligence behind the action of the ants? Is there a better explanation? Do you need to have evidence of the agent before being justified in claiming there is “some kind” of intelligence at play here? Doesn’t the degree of the specified complexity in the letters warrant an inference to an intelligent agent?

What if, as the afternoon continues, you watch the ants continue to build new letters on the sidewalk. As they work you recall that you tried to eradicate this anthill a week before using a pesticide that wasn’t as effective as you had hoped. An hour later the complete message from the ants comes through. It states, “ROSSUM WE WILL INVADE YOUR HOUSE AT MIDNIGHT!”

Notice this complete message is not only complex, not only highly specified as it uses many letters from the English alphabet but it has taken on a new quality in that the letters precisely match a functional and intended purpose, I.e, to communicate with you in response to your failed attempt at destroying the anthill.

Would you not agree that any explanation not entailing some kind of intelligence would fail despite the fact that you have no evidence for an “actor” other than the message itself?

Dembski and Meyer would both argue, I think, that this event, having specified and functional complexity to a degree that the probabilistic resources available - time, nature of ant brains and ant behaviour, would make an inference to intelligence “of some kind” behind this event not merely highly probable but definite. You would have to conclude there is some kind of intelligent agent behind this event even though you have no idea who or what the agent is.:banghead:

This shows that there are times that we are justified in inferring an intelligence, contrary to your claim, despite the fact that we have no independent evidence of the existence of the agent. The event itself is the evidence.

In his book Signature in the Cell, Stephen Meyer, develops a very cogent argument of precisely this kind to show that the complexity of the highly specific and functional information contained in cells could not have arisen without intelligence of some kind given the probabilistic resources available and the state of prebiotic chemistry and the laws of chemistry and physics. He provides strong biological, chemical and physical evidence throughout the book for a very difficult to deny conclusion.

Especially when it is taken into account that intelligence is required to understand anything whatsoever! To derive insight from things which lack insight is sheer folly.

 

[grannymh]

Which is one of my problems with Dembskian ID, its refusal to examine the properties of their designer. I can see why they do it, to keep everyone in their “big tent” while simultaneously avoiding any mention of God so as to avoid the US Constitution’s bar of teaching religious doctrine in schools…

It is my problem, too. And I did come to the same “reason” you have. Only I was a tad more cranky. Codswallop, I said.

 

[prodigalson2011]

No. I am looking for evidence. See ‘Multiverse’ theory suggested by microwave background.

It has already been demontrated that even a multiverse requires a beginning.

How improbably is your proposed designer? If the designer is an omnimax entity, then it is infinitely improbable.

Demonstrate this, scientifically or philosophically.

Agreed. But you have not yet shown that this particular question cannot be so resolved. You are in danger of making a god of the gaps argument here. If it does turn out that science is able to resolve this question, then your small god has no place to hide any more. “We are to find God in what we know, not in what we do not know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.” - Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

rossum

I am not doing any such thing. Invoking a physical reality as an explanation of itself is a logical fallacy. No matter how many things we learn about the universe, no matter how many new properties, forces, fluctuations, etc. we discover, it will never eliminate the possibility of those things having been created. The only honest way to address it is via statistics: i.e. given what we know, how likely is it that our universe came about by chance versus having been designed? Direct evidence of divine activity within the universe is irrelevant to the question.

 

[rossum]

Ad hominem.

You have a strange idea of “ad hominem”. I was criticising Dembskian ID, not Dr Dembski.

Unlike **an information system **your specification is arbitrary.

By what measure? What is the objective set of criteria use to distinguish arbitrary from non-arbitrary specifications?

Information is objective because it is a product of** in**telligence which does not need to be understood in order to exist.

Shannon information can be produced without intelligence. Kolmogorov information can be produced without intelligence. What measure of information are you using that can only be produced by intelligence? Be specific please.

rossum

 

[rossum]

That is an unsubstantiated hypothesis which infringes the principle of causality.

Yes, it is a hypothesis, which has some evidence to support it. Quantum mechanics does indeed infringe the principle of causality. The principle of causality works well in the macroscopic world, but it fails in some cases in the quantum world. Many radioactive decay events are acausal for instance; they can be treated statistically, but not individually.

A person is not a material being. Aren’t non-material beings conscious?

A Buddhist person includes a material component: form or rūpa. In the absence of the material component, there is not a person but something else. For example, the gandharva which transitions from one life to the next has no material component, and is not a person.

Some non-material beings are conscious, others are not. There is a category of gods called the “unconscious gods” from the sphere of non-consciousness.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

Which is one of my problems with Dembskian ID, its refusal to examine the properties of their designer. I can see why they do it, to keep everyone in their “big tent” while simultaneously avoiding any mention of God so as to avoid the US Constitution’s bar of teaching religious doctrine in schools…

This is a classic example of the genetic fallacy. The motives or origin behind a claim does nothing to falsify the claim. Even if there are religious motives behind Meyer’s and Dembski’s presentation of intelligent design that, by itself, does nothing to nullify the claim of actual design.

You apparently do not understand the idea of “warrant” behind the claim of an argument. Philosophically speaking we are only warranted to conclude what the premises and logic of an argument allow us to. Meyers and Dembski both clearly state that their versions of the design argument do warrant a claim of “some kind of intelligence” is necessary, but do not claim the argument can fully justify a claim of “God did it.” There is not enough warrant to make that jump.

They fail to specify how the functional complexity of the intelligent agent originated. ID fails to explain the origin of complexity, since the designers must themselves also be complex. Who designed the designers?

This is an attempt on your part, al la Dawkins, to sidestep the issue. It has been answered by Meyers, Craig and a number of others. It is simply false. The message of the ants to you fully warrants a claim that there is intelligence behind the message even though we have uncertainty of who or what could have brought it about. Obviously ant brains and social behaviors could not have, at least, to our present knowledge. To stubbornly deny that intelligence could be the cause of the message until an agent is brought forth is clearly unwarranted. The message proves intelligence and then leads naturally to a second question of “Where is that intelligence located?” The sheer fact of intelligence, however, is undeniable.

There are also immense problems with Dembski’s idea of specified complexity. It is simple to change the measured value of complexity by changing the specification. For example, I pick the specification, “a design for a working perpetual motion machine.” With that specification, then the entire universe contains exactly zero specified information, since no such design can exist. If there is zero specified informaiton in the universe, then there is nothing to explain the origin of. Dembski agrees that small quantities of specified information can arise through natural processes. Producing zero quantity is even easier.

This says nothing and means even less.

Unless there is a rigorous and objective way to determine the specification, then any definition of “specified information” has to be subjective, rather than objective, and hence of limited scientific use.

Unfortunately, they are Tibetan ants, and their message is in Tibetan:

nyer zhir 'khrid mdzad gang yin dang 'gro la phan par byed
rnams lam shes nyid kyis 'jig rten don sgrub mdzad pa gang
gang dang yang dag ldan pas thub rnams rnam pa kun ldan

Since I don’t speak Tibetan, that message contains zero information as far as I am concerned. Since there is zero information in the message, then I have no need to explain any information content.

Information, as you have defined it, depends on the knowledge of the person reading it, and so is subjective, not objective.

Your point is “beside” the point. It reveals desperation on your part.

The message is clearly objective, whether in English or Tibetan. There are standards of grammar, syntax and meaning in English that are objectively adhered to by hundreds of millions of people in the world. Those are what make the message objective. Merely because the message was aimed at you does not make it subjective by any means. By your standards, every scientific field of study would be subjective and therefore of limited scientific use because these are demonstrably less objective (adhered to by fewer practitioners) than the conventions of English. That is if you wish to claim that a message in the English language is merely “subjective.”

What probabilistic resources are needed to produce the “intelligence”?

Now this is an important question, but assumes, falsely, that intelligence must be governed by chance in some respect

The existence of the designer is evidence of the existence of a complex entity of some kind. Hence we can deduce the existence of a designer designer, which designed the designer. The existence of the designer designer is evidence of the existence of a complex entity of some kind. Hence we can have an infinite regress of designers, each of which is complex and requires a designer.

This, however, is meaningless.

Meyer’s probability calculations fail because they do not correctly model evolution. They include random mutation, but not the non-random filter of natural selection. Failing to include the filter renders his calculation useless.

What are the chances of getting 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, … 6, 6 for 100 consecutive sixes on a fair die? Simple probability tells us that the chance in 1 in 6[sup]100[/sup] = 1 in 6.5e77

Now change the situation somewhat. We will still use a fair die as (name removed by moderator)ut, but we will pass the numbers from the random die through a non-random filter. Call the filter “Survival of the Sixest”:

    if (die_roll = 6) then
        pass the number to the output
    else
        reject the number
    endif

The filter only passes sixes, rejecting every other number.

Now, with the modified system of random (name removed by moderator)ut from the die combined with a non-random filter, what are the chances of getting 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, … 6, 6 for 100 consecutive sixes? The chances are 1 in 1, of course. The modified system is guaranteed to produce a continuous stream of sixes, and only sixes. A random (name removed by moderator)ut passed through a non-random filter produces a non-random result.

Meyer’s calculation fails to take the non-random filter of natural selection into account. Hence his numbers are not relevant to evolution.

rossum

Meyer addresses this in his book many times.

For my part, you are confounding the issue of probability. The six filter is not a guarantee of the next output because it does not guarantee another roll of the dice. That is assumed. Likewise, natural selection does not guarantee that a suitable organism for survival will arise. Natural selection could, in effect, stop all life from continuing, just as the six filter could act to stop the sequence when the first non-six integer comes up. You are assuming a continuation of the sequence, just as natural selection assumes a continuation of life, thereby begging the question. Which life is most suited for survival? The one that survived. What made it survive? It was most suited to.

This is also beside the point because Dembski and Meyer, and others like Hugh Ross clearly make the point that the origin of information in the cell is not addressed by natural selection because natural selection only comes into play after replication and therefore cannot be invoked for explaining the probability of the origin of the information necessary to “kick off” the sequences of replication where natural selection can have an effect. So your non-random filter argument is a non starter.

 

[prodigalson2011]

No. I am looking for evidence. See ‘Multiverse’ theory suggested by microwave background.

Also, after looking into that article, I can’t help but wonder if you actually read the study itself. My impression was that the article greatly oversold the significance of the tests, and that the findings were inconclusive and actually unpromising. I decided not to trust my own scientifically inadequate analysis though and did some further reading. This, I think, says it all:

“The researchers developed a computer algorithm to analyze CMB observations for patterns that would fit. In data from NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), the program found four regions in the universe that were flagged as promising. However, statistical analyses suggested these patterns were likely to be random, resembling the circular shapes of collisions simply by coincidence.”

My prediction is that this is just the flavor of the week. Theories like this come and go every other week these days.

 

[rossum]

This is a classic example of the genetic fallacy.

I said that I had a problem with Dembskian ID in this regard. I did not say that made it false, merely that I had a problem with it avoiding an important question. I gave the reasons for its falsity further on – the difficulties in deciding what is, and what is not, a valid specification.

This says nothing and means even less.

You are avoiding the crux of my argument. Specified complexity requires a specification. By changing the specification I can change the measured value of specified complexity. Using the specification, “a system for clotting blood”, the bacterial flagellum has zero specified complexity, because it does not clot blood. Using the specification, “an outboard motor for a cell”, the bacterial flagellum has some non-zero value of specified complexity. The value depends on the specification chosen. That makes the value subjective, and hence of very little use in science. Both these specifications are valid, and used by Professor Behe as examples.

It is also worth pointing out that Dembski’s claim that regular or chance processes cannot produce specified information is incorrect.

I pick as my specification: “The text of the King James Bible.”

I examine a long text string that starts:

“Va gur ortvaavat Tbq perngrq gur urnira naq gur rnegu. …”

This fails to meet the specification, since it is obviously not the text of the KJV, and so contains zero specified information. It contains information, but the information does not meet the specification and hence there is zero specified information.

I now apply a regular process, ROT13, to the text, and the result is:

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. …”

This now meets the specification, and so contains a large amount of specified information. A regular process has produced a large amount of specified information from a string containing zero specified information. Dembski’s claim is incorrect. Regular processes can produce specified information, and do so in large quantities.

Meyer addresses this in his book many times.

Please indicate where he shows his calculations, and how he deals with the effects of natural selection.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

This is a classic example of the genetic fallacy. The motives or origin behind a claim does nothing to falsify the claim. Even if there are religious motives behind Meyer’s and Dembski’s presentation of intelligent design that, by itself, does nothing to nullify the claim of actual design.

You apparently do not understand the idea of “warrant” behind the claim of an argument. Philosophically speaking we are only warranted to conclude what the premises and logic of an argument allow us to. Meyers and Dembski both clearly state that their versions of the design argument do warrant a claim of “some kind of intelligence” is necessary, but do not claim the argument can fully justify a claim of “God did it.” There is not enough warrant to make that jump.

This is an attempt on your part, al la Dawkins, to sidestep the issue. It has been answered by Meyers, Craig and a number of others. It is simply false. The message of the ants to you fully warrants a claim that there is intelligence behind the message even though we have uncertainty of who or what could have brought it about. Obviously ant brains and social behaviors could not have, at least, to our present knowledge. To stubbornly deny that intelligence could be the cause of the message until an agent is brought forth is clearly unwarranted. The message proves intelligence and then leads naturally to a second question of “Where is that intelligence located?” The sheer fact of intelligence, however, is undeniable.

This says nothing and means even less.

Your point is “beside” the point. It reveals desperation on your part.

The message is clearly objective, whether in English or Tibetan. There are standards of grammar, syntax and meaning in English that are objectively adhered to by hundreds of millions of people in the world. Those are what make the message objective. Merely because the message was aimed at you does not make it subjective by any means. By your standards, every scientific field of study would be subjective and therefore of limited scientific use because these are demonstrably less objective (adhered to by fewer practitioners) than the conventions of English. That is if you wish to claim that a message in the English language is merely “subjective.”

Now this is an important question, but assumes, falsely, that intelligence must be governed by chance in some respect

This, however, is meaningless.

Meyer addresses this in his book many times.

For my part, you are confounding the issue of probability. The six filter is not a guarantee of the next output because it does not guarantee another roll of the dice. That is assumed. **Likewise, natural selection does not guarantee that a suitable organism for survival will arise. **

This is the fatal flaw in many materialists’ arguments. They attribute physical necessity to many events without the slightest justification. The belief that something has happened by no means demonstrates that it had to happen!

Natural selection could, in effect, stop all life from continuing, just as the six filter could act to stop the sequence when the first non-six integer comes up. You are assuming a continuation of the sequence, just as natural selection assumes a continuation of life, thereby begging the question. Which life is most suited for survival? The one that survived. What made it survive? It was most suited to.

This is also beside the point because Dembski and Meyer, and others like Hugh Ross clearly make the point that the origin of information in the cell is not addressed by natural selection because natural selection only comes into play after replication and therefore cannot be invoked for explaining the probability of the origin of the information necessary to “kick off” the sequences of replication where natural selection can have an effect. So your non-random filter argument is a non starter.

A superb post!

 

[tonyrey]

That is an unsubstantiated hypothesis which infringes the principle of causality.

“some evidence” is an inadequate basis for an argument.

Quantum mechanics does indeed infringe the principle of causality. The principle of causality works well in the macroscopic world, but it fails in some cases in the quantum world. Many radioactive decay events are acausal for instance; they can be treated statistically, but not individually.

The Big Bang was a macroscopic event!

A person is not a material being. Aren’t non-material beings conscious?

A Buddhist person includes a material component: form or rūpa. In the absence of the material component, there is not a person but something else. For example, the gandharva which transitions from one life to the next has no material component, and is not a person. Some non-material beings are conscious, others are not. There is a category of gods called the “unconscious gods” from the sphere of non-consciousness.

I regret to say that specific religious beliefs are irrelevant to a philosophical discussion about Design.