Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[Peter_Plato]

This all assumes that everything that happens is entirely, completely and utterly, random in every way. This is a false assumption.

No it doesn’t, this just gives the total number of possible events in the universe since it began. That is the whole point of universal probability bound. This is the sum of all possible events, whether random, determined or designed. It gives the total possible for any probability calculation.

I also see that the math fails to account for gravity, intermolecular forces, molecular orientations, and a gammut of other factors clearly important, yet mysteriously left out. This is part of what I was talking about when I pointed out that even if he can do the math, if he doesn’t use proper data, he’s never going to get the right answer.

Incorrect #2 takes into account all possible events including those brought about by forces, orientations, etc. The UPB is not about specific data, it is about the all possible interaction events under all space and time constraints since the universe began.

In addition, I notice that your own paper that you cite openly admits that the UPB provided is higher than any other estimation by “several orders of magnitude”. One must wonder why the difference.

No, the point was that according to Axe’s calculations the probability of amino acids forming a functional chain of protein exceeds the UPB by a factor of a trillion trillion times. That is, the chance of a functional protein being formed of 150 amino acids exceeds the entire probabilistic resources available in the universe (UPB) since it began by a trillion trillion times.

I also cannot find any record of David’s credentials, making me wonder how much of an expert he really is.

davidlabel.blogspot.ca/

And no, this is not a strong case for the claim that evolution did not happen, which is what ID dictates. One might call it a strong case for the existence of God, but that was never in question here.

This depends upon your definition of ID. If you define ID as strictly the position that opposes common descent perhaps, but that is not my definition.

 

[Bradski]

Science is grounded in philosophy and logic. If you don’t get that, you don’t understand the scope and limits of science. Theology has nothing to do with the arguments in question.

ID would love to keep theology out of the debate. But they are trying to prove God. If you don’t accept that, scroll back up the page and re-read post 434. And after you’ve done that, fire up Google and see if you can find anyone in the Discovery Institute who isn’t a practicing Christian. See if you can find anyone who has published anything on ID who isn’t a Christian. See if you can find anyone who has published anything on ID that belongs to any religion at all other than Christian.

I have read many of his detractors and am not convinced they address his points.

You’re quite entitled to accept the views of ID and reject those views that oppose it. Behe, Dembski and Meyer are smart guys. If the four of us were in a room together, I wouldn’t put any money at all on me being the smartest guy there. Dembski’s UPB is a very complex argument using statistics that most of us, including me, would be hard pressed to follow without a considerable amount of study.

So when we have an argument that boils down to a simple proposal: there is design evident in nature, it is only natural to look for arguments that support that hypothesis and for ones that don’t. It is definitely above my pay grade to critique it from a scientific viewpoint. I need to rely on others that have that level of expertise.

The overwhelming majority of critical articles and papers that investigate the work of all three men – in fact all of them that I can find, reject their findings emphatically. There’s nothing out there that even suggests that they may be right in their conclusions. Any disinterested person could not fail to be convinced that ID, from a scientific viewpoint, is simply wrong. Spectacularly wrong.

As regards a specific critique of UPB, then read this: talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/replynfl.html.

If you have the necessary background to be able to follow the arguments, then I tip my hat to you. If that is the case, then perhaps you can point out to me where Wein is wrong in his dismantling of Dembski’s theory.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Hoyle’s Fallacy:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy

Read it.

Quote from the article:
According to Ian Musgrave in Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations:
These people [ID Proponents?], including Fred, have committed one or more of the following errors.
They calculate the probability of the formation of a “modern” protein, or even a complete bacterium with all “modern” proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
**Not true. Calculations only need to consider the number of functional proteins required for some form of replication, otherwise the mechanisms (natural selection, genetic drift) that could act to reduce probability could not be accessed. Any claim that cells could reproduce and retain inherited characteristics without some reference to protein coding is simply speculation and is irrelevant to the issue. **

They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
The calculation for only one protein far exceeds the probabilistic resources available. Clearly more than one protein would be required. Sequences are essential for functional proteins to come about. Yes these are assumptions, but quite reasonable ones.

They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
**No the calculation is about the probability of one functional protein given all the probabilistic resources available in the universe since it began (simultaneous or sequential is irrelevant). An actual prebiotic soup scenario would only be a small subset of this number, and, therefore, far less likely **

They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
The UPB and protein sequencing probability are straightforward calculations.

They underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.
I don’t think this is the case.
See:
toriah.org/articles/axe-2004.pdf

 

[Peter_Plato]

As regards a specific critique of UPB, then read this: talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/replynfl.html.

If you have the necessary background to be able to follow the arguments, then I tip my hat to you. If that is the case, then perhaps you can point out to me where Wein is wrong in his dismantling of Dembski’s theory.

This is not a critique of Dembski’s UPB calculations but regards his application of NoFreeLunch Theorems in critiquing natural selection as a mechanism for changes in biological function (in particular Dembski’s formulation and application of the Law of Conservation of Information).

Wein’s points only pertain to mechanisms for change when natural selection is operative not to initial formation of proteins or origin of life.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Because the very definition of Intelligent Design says that evolution did not occur. Can you believe that God guided evolution? Sure. Can you believe that God specifically created us? Sure. But ID and evolution directly contradict each other. You can no sooner accept both than you can be both an atheist and a deist.

This is simply not true. Here is a key article explaining the position of the Discovery Institute with regards to evolution.

discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=305

Note that six senses of evolution are spelled out.

Principal Meanings of Evolution in Biology Textbooks

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature.
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms
   have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited
   descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random
   variations or mutations.
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended
   from a single common ancestor.
6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

The article clearly states that ID proponents at the Discovery Institute have no qualms about the first four, but take issue with 5 and 6.

#5 specifically because the evidence does not warrant the claim (Cambrian “explosion” is often cited)
#6 because naturalistic mechanisms have not been shown to account for all change and unguided processes, in particular, do not account for origin of life.

Can you believe God guided evolution, as Farsight holds? Not if you accept #6, which is being rabidly promoted by the Eugene Scott, Richard Dawkins, and numerous other atheist scientists.

#5 is not, in principle, contrary to ID, but the point being made regards sufficiency of evidence.

The only truly contentious meaning that is causing a rift between ID and EV is #6, otherwise ID and EV are quite compatible.

I suggest you read the article above before making claims about the irreconcilable features of ID and evolution.

Among Creationists and ID advocates, I would certainly agree with you. They cannot keep the definition straight. However, among biologists, this is not even remotely true. The definition is rather consistent. Their papers and books and textbooks have no problem remaining generally consistent with the definition of the word. You don’t get to call it vague just because the ID advocates can’t keep it straight.

ID advocates do not seem to have an issue with clarity about the meaning of evolution, the issue is with how it is being used as an exclusionary weapon.

Moderators: I understand this is treading the line on the ban of evolution threads, but the reason I bring this up is to show that Intelligent Design is not inherently opposed to evolution, but to one specific but unnecessary add-on, so that the debate on evidence for design can continue without evolution unnecessarily dogging the thread.

 

[Bradski]

I suggest you read the article above before making claims about the irreconcilable features of ID and evolution.

You might have skipped this bit earlier:

The Discovery Institute claimed in the Dover case in 2004 and their book ‘Of Pandas and People’:

“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.”

Note: I got the name of the book wrong earlier.

Do you think that accurately represents the situation now? And if not, why do you think it might have changed?

 

[Peter_Plato]

You might have skipped this bit earlier:

The Discovery Institute claimed in the Dover case in 2004 and their book ‘Of Pandas and People’:

“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.”

Note: I got the name of the book wrong earlier.

Do you think that accurately represents the situation now? And if not, why do you think it might have changed?

I didn’t miss this.

The Discovery Institute was not present at the Dover trial. Michael Behe was and I think one other affiliate (Minnich). Meyer, Dembski and a third person could not agree with how the Thomas More lawyers were planning on portraying ID and so excused themselves.

The reason things have “changed” is precisely because of how terms can be spun and made controversial. There is an increasing understanding on the part of the Discovery Institute (my guess only) that words must be used judiciously or they will be easily twisted to be made to look dangerous to the public good.

I watched a debate between Meyer and Peter Ward from the University of Washington. Ward had not a single counter argument except to say ID is dangerous because it undermines the teaching of science. Meyer made brilliant points all along. At the end, I had to ask myself, under which of the two professors would I likely learn the most? Learning, to me, is about addressing and discussing issues, not hiding behind fear of “what might happen if.” Ward’s points were dogmatic and did not present a good example of what scientific learning and excellence should be about - mainly an appeal to fear and protection of status quo. If he was really concerned about excellence in science, he should have taken on Meyer point by point, but didn’t. Meyer was, for me, an example of a rigorous and unfaltering thinker. That debate compelled me to listen to other talks and debates by Meyer and to read his book. I have not been disappointed. Every critique of Meyer or his book I have seen has been inept, dodgy or dishonest. Most amount to the claim that ID is not science or scientifically verifiable. Mostly they miss the point. Are his claims true? is the question that is always skirted.

 

[Bradski]

The reason things have “changed” is precisely because of how terms can be spun and made controversial. There is an increasing understanding on the part of the Discovery Institute (my guess only) that words must be used judiciously or they will be easily twisted to be made to look dangerous to the public good.

I don’t think that there’s much reason to twist the words quoted. It it is a refutation of evolution. Fish and birds created by God fully formed. That’s creationism. I don’t believe for one second that they’ve changed their mind about it. They just keep backing off until they find a way of describing it in a way that seems relatively harmless to people so that they can get this junk into schools.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t think that there’s much reason to twist the words quoted. It it is a refutation of evolution. Fish and birds created by God fully formed. That’s creationism. I don’t believe for one second that they’ve changed their mind about it. They just keep backing off until they find a way of describing it in a way that seems relatively harmless to people so that they can get this junk into schools.

What you are describing is “young earth creationism.” Not all ID proponents are in that camp.

Yes it may be a knock-out method of winning an argument to pigeonhole the opponent’s thoughts in the worst possible light and dictating to them what they think. But I have always been taught to give the other view the benefit of the doubt and portray my opponent in as fair a way as possible. You certainly weren’t groomed in a “be fair minded” environment, were you?

I consider myself an ID proponent, not because I believe God created things fully formed but because I do not believe the process that brought about all life in its abundance could have been a blind process, it had to be guided. I could never swallow meaning #6 (post 963), it always got caught in my craw, so to speak. I had no problem with common descent. I thought it could be true, but at the same time, if life began somewhere in the pre-biotic soup, why only one beginning? What would preclude a number of starting points arising in different places and engendering different paths to the variety of species we have today? I could never understand common descent as an evolutionary principle. My reading on the topic makes it even more questionable to me today.

However, evolution as an unguided process just seemed a big myth and still does. You could have called me a theistic evolutionist. Kenneth Miller made a lot of sense to me. Along came Meyer and his strong case for the intelligent origin of the coding in DNA and the improbability of functional proteins arising by chance or biochemical processes. He persuaded me that ID in the form he promotes makes a great deal of sense.

You can insist that all IDers follow the same thought pattern, but you would be wrong. I think it is disingenuous of you to tell others what they think without listening to what they actually say. In addition, the transcripts from the Dover trial do not tell the entire story, but one angle of it was the lawyers’ strategy to create an easily dismissible straw man to win the case: all ID proponents are creationists touting fancy rhetoric. Nonsense. That is like insisting all evolutionists are atheists.

There are different meanings or levels of belief that come with evolution (see post 963) and there are nuances to ID theory. You might find it convenient to your presuppositions and straw man attacks to pigeonhole IDers, but that is just your issue. There are even atheists and agnostics in the Discovery Institute.

Do you really want to insist that I must believe God created all forms of life as is because I am an ID proponent? Well, you’d be wrong! I suspect the origin of life had multiple starting points, not just one, but I also suspect the genetic code to get things started was not a chance event. Probability and biochemical limitations preclude that.

 

[prodigalson2011]

See if you can find anyone who has published anything on ID that belongs to any religion at all other than Christian.

How about no religion at all?

David Berlinski - Agnostic Jew
Michael Denton - Agnostic
Paul Davies - Agnostic

P.S. the past two chairmen of the Discovery Institute have been Jewish and agnostic, respectively.

 

[Peter_Plato]

They just keep backing off until they find a way of describing it in a way that seems relatively harmless to people so that they can get this junk into schools.

In any case, the Discovery Institute is not the only proponent of ID. What do you say about Hugh Ross and his group?

reasons.org/

Dr. Ross is a rigorous astrophysicist who happens to be a specific kind of old Earth creationist and has the science to back it up.

See, for example:

[Origin-of-Life Predictions Face Off: Evolution vs. Biblical Creation - Reasons to Believe

](http://www.reasons.org/articles/origin-of-life-predictions-face-off-evolution-vs.-biblical-creation)

 

[Farsight001]

This is simply not true. Here is a key article explaining the position of the Discovery Institute with regards to evolution.

I feel like I’m talking to a brick wall. I explained this already. They say one thing in public, and another thing entirely in private. They are liars to the extreme. When they say there is a difference in their public words, they are lying to you. They have said many, many times over that ID is creationism in disguise in private documents (that were leaked by honest Christians who don’t like the lies, and thus chose to expose them). So stop linking me to their official public speeches. You will no more convince me to believe them at their word than you would convince me to take Hitler at his word when he claimed to remain a faithful Catholic his whole life.

Note that six senses of evolution are spelled out.

THEIR “six senses”. These divisions are concocted by them. Again, evolutionary biologists have one definition of the word and they have no trouble keeping to it.

Can you believe God guided evolution, as Farsight holds? Not if you accept #6, which is being rabidly promoted by the Eugene Scott, Richard Dawkins, and numerous other atheist scientists.

Promoted as an aspect of their personal beliefs, not as any official part of the meaning or process of evolution. They have no trouble separating the two. Why do the ID advocates, then, intentionally conflate them?

ID advocates do not seem to have an issue with clarity about the meaning of evolution, the issue is with how it is being used as an exclusionary weapon.

When they invent five new definitions to a scientific concept that has only one definition, it is painstakingly obvious that they most certainly do not have clarity.

 

[Peter_Plato]

When they invent five new definitions to a scientific concept that has only one definition, it is painstakingly obvious that they most certainly do not have clarity.

So feel free to provide the one definition you hold to be the true one and see if Richard Dawkins agrees with you.

Then we’ll talk clarity.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Promoted as an aspect of their personal beliefs, not as any official part of the meaning or process of evolution. They have no trouble separating the two. Why do the ID advocates, then, intentionally conflate them?

Where have you been the last 20 years? The claim is that atheism is indeed part of the meaning of evolution. That claim is made by evolutionists, not ID promoters.

Dawkins, for one, makes it very clear that the Blind Watchmaker view of evolution is integral. He even wrote a book about it; several, in fact. This did not come from ID advocates, it comes straight from the mouths of atheist scientists/philosophers. Lewis Wolpert, Peter Atkins, Will Provine, Michael Ruse, Daniel Dennett, and many others claim evolution essentially means no God.

For certain, Meyer and company live under no delusion about their opponents in the debate.

 

[Farsight001]

So feel free to provide the one definition you hold to be the true one and see if Richard Dawkins agrees with you.

Then we’ll talk clarity.

Put simply, though it may be worded differently depending on the audience it is directed towards, evolution is the “change in allele frequencies from generation to generation”. Most basic biology textbooks will say “over time” instead of from generation to generation, which is also correct, but is more easily confused.

Whether Dawkins agrees with me or not is irrelevant. He is not the official definer of words. Textbooks give us definitions. We can either use that definition, we can use our own definition presented as our own definition and not the official one, or we can be wrong. Though I’m willing to bet that the words of Dawkins you’re thinking of are in no way a definition anyway.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I feel like I’m talking to a brick wall. I explained this already. They say one thing in public, and another thing entirely in private. They are liars to the extreme. When they say there is a difference in their public words, they are lying to you. They have said many, many times over that ID is creationism in disguise in private documents (that were leaked by honest Christians who don’t like the lies, and thus chose to expose them). So stop linking me to their official public speeches. You will no more convince me to believe them at their word than you would convince me to take Hitler at his word when he claimed to remain a faithful Catholic his whole life.

Are you still harping on the “Wedge” document? If so, have you ever read this? They republished the entire thing in there and pointed out that virtually everything in it was already available to the public, either through their website or Philip Johnson’s books. I think the reaction to it was largely paranoiac, personally. I didn’t find anything in it surprising.

As I said before, as a Catholic, overthrowing the materialistic paradigm that has been ravaging our society for the past century is not an unpalatable idea to me, if it can be done legitimately.

Are there any other incriminating documents you could direct us to?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Are you still harping on the “Wedge” document? If so, have you ever read this? They republished the entire thing in there and pointed out that virtually everything in it was already available to the public, either through their website or Philip Johnson’s books. I think the reaction to it was largely paranoiac, personally. I didn’t find anything in it surprising.

As I said before, as a Catholic, overthrowing the materialistic paradigm that has been ravaging our society for the past century is not an unpalatable idea to me, if it can be done legitimately.

Are there any other incriminating documents you could direct us to?

The “Wedge Strategy” is about cutting between the conflation of evolution theory and atheistic materialism which has become an assumed marriage in modern culture. I see no problem with that. It is not a political regime and it is not anti-science. It seeks to open up science from the restrictions imposed artificially by materialism as a philosophy so that science can pursue a more open agenda. That does not entail some nefarious scheme but to bring science out of dogmatic materialistism to be more in line with neutrality of method.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Put simply, though it may be worded differently depending on the audience it is directed towards, evolution is the “change in allele frequencies from generation to generation”. Most basic biology textbooks will say “over time” instead of from generation to generation, which is also correct, but is more easily confused.

Whether Dawkins agrees with me or not is irrelevant. He is not the official definer of words. Textbooks give us definitions. We can either use that definition, we can use our own definition presented as our own definition and not the official one, or we can be wrong. Though I’m willing to bet that the words of Dawkins you’re thinking of are in no way a definition anyway.

If only things were that simple.

See bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/What_Is_Evolution.html

It seems that your definition is not as widely held as you think. There is much dispute among scientists, not merely among ID proponents.

 

[Farsight001]

If only things were that simple.

See bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/What_Is_Evolution.html

It seems that your definition is not as widely held as you think. There is much dispute among scientists, not merely among ID proponents.

Uh…the definitions of evolution within that article are all pretty consistent and similar to the definition I provided, with different levels of technical speech and precision because they’re geared towards different audiences. Your article actually proves that it is precisely as I said it was.

 

[Farsight001]

The “Wedge Strategy” is about cutting between the conflation of evolution theory and atheistic materialism which has become an assumed marriage in modern culture. I see no problem with that. It is not a political regime and it is not anti-science. It seeks to open up science from the restrictions imposed artificially by materialism as a philosophy so that science can pursue a more open agenda. That does not entail some nefarious scheme but to bring science out of dogmatic materialistism to be more in line with neutrality of method.

Lol, no. Clearly, you have not even read the wedge strategy. They blatantly say that their intent is to instill in people’s minds the idea that evolution is intrinsically atheistic to convince them to pick one or the other. They injected atheism into evolution to dupe you.