Stonehenge and ID

There is another point that probably should be made, given that stonehenge is basically a stone-age calendar and astronomical observatory (as is evidenced by the alignment of the structure to given celestial phenomena) then its IDer really just put gloss on a design that was predetermined.

Of course the converse is also true it is quite possible to infer design (hence) a designer where there isnt any...examples:
(since we`re talking about Stonehenge I`ll use some British ones)Bedruthan steps.The giants causeway.Both have mythologies which attribute their creation to giants (read ID`er for the sake of analogy) The fact that they were attributed to some sort of ID`er doesnt mean that that attribution was at all correct.....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 01-11-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Good point bud. In cases like that Dembski's Design Explanatory Filter could come in handy. The filter is basically a flow chart. We start with an event (E). If E has a high probability of occurring we attribute E to regularity. If E has an intermediate probability of occurring, we can attribute it to chance. If E has a small probability of we can also attribute it to chance. However if E is specied and has a small probability of occurring we attribute it to design. Now if that specification also involves complexity, design becomes more probable.

---

Ah Dembski, glad he came up...from:
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/evobio/evc/ae/dembski_wa/19990913_csi_and_ec.html"The objection currently numbered as "5" under creationist criticisms is taken from the discussion period for William Dembski's talk at the
"Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise" conference held in 1997. I thought that I had understood Dembski's stance on
evolutionary computation following that discussion, but the recent post indicates that perhaps I overlooked something. When I brought up a test case to apply in that discussion, Dembski's objection seemed to me to boil down to this:Natural selection simulated on computer produces solutions which are informed by the intelligence that went into the operating system, system software, and evolutionary computation software."How can you tell if the CSI arises from a naturally occurring system or a designed one?If you cant it seems to me that in the absence of evidence it is an odd decision to throw naturalism out of the door just yet...

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 01-11-2002]

We should probably discuss methods for differentiating designed systems from natural ones first but....Well some of us would say DNA...(But you probably wouldn't)...The question is if it is impossible to determine if CSI is gained by a law working on a natural system or gained by a law working on a designed system/imbued by a supernatural entity why infer the latter over the former?

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 01-11-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
This reminds me of another analogy, pertaining to Mt. Rushmore. What will people millenia down the road think when they look at the weathered and eroded carving?

---

"....those primitive 2nd millennium buggers sure knew how to bugger a perfectly good mountain up didnt they......."

".....and who`s the ugly sod at the back with the big catapillar on his upper lip...."

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
joz:
We should probably discuss methods for differentiating designed systems from natural ones first but....

​

John Paul:
If DNA happened in nature I would agree. However DNA is only evident in most living organisms. If you could show DNA can arise via purely natural processes... (I know, I know, for another thread perhaps)

​

joz:
The question is if it is impossible to determine if CSI is gained by a law working on a natural system or gained by a law working on a designed system/imbued by a supernatural entity why infer the latter over the former?

​

John Paul:
But have we ever observed CSI forming/ originating via purely natural processes? Snowflakes? Nah, crystals don't exhibit complexity. Crystals are the same pattern, repeated.

​

---

Again we would say DNA, you wouldnt, which raises an interesting point you are claiming that CSI in DNA shows that there was a designer, which shows that the CSI is from design not laws acting on a natural system...Sounds suspiciously circular to me...So how do you tell the difference between a natural system and a designed one? If you cant why infer design....

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Life is only 'natural' if it originated via purely naturalistic processes. So saying life is considered 'natural' is an unsubstantiated claim.

​

Anytime you want to show us that DNA can arise via purely natural processes, please proceed.

---

Yeah bud but what is your reason for claiming that DNA cant arise from natural processes?Anytime you feel like showing us how you differentiate between a created system and a natural system, please proceed.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
There is no evidence that it can or it did.

---

So you attribute a supernatural explanation in the absence of any evidence alarm bells are ringing JP..

quote:

---

joz:
Anytime you feel like showing us how you differentiate between a created system and a natural system, please proceed.....

​

John Paul:
So far the only 'natural' systems that exhibit CSI are the systems that allegedly originated naturally. However with no evidence to substantiate that claim it is no more than a baseless assertion.

---

Hardly an answer JP. In case you missed it first time round I asked how you differentiate naturally occurring systems from created ones.... So how do you?It seems your method is to deny the possibility of natural systems and to thus insist they are all designed.... What is this assumption based on?

quote:

---

I asked for an example of a natural system that exhibits CSI and you gave me DNA (see the last sentence in my above statement). Do you have any examples of a natural system that exhibits CSI?

---

Actually I gave the example of DNA with the qualifier that you would not accept it and asked how you tell if a system is natural or designed...Well how?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Hey bud, what's your problem? It doesn't have to be supernatural, as has been pointed out too many times now.

---

And as we have pointed out ID does logicaly demand a supernatural ID`er...

quote:

---

Natural systems to not exhibit CSI. We went over this already. Do you have an example or not? That way we could discuss something.

---

Um bud it sounds like you are starting with a presupposition that CSI can`t arise from natural systems which leads to your automatic gainsaying of any system that I mention...Thus according to you I will never have a valid example so we must investigate the founding of this idea...So what is this presupposition based on?

quote:

---

And I showed you why that example is invalid. Now do you have a valid example or not?

---

You haven`t actually you just flat denied it and refused to describe why, this is not showing anything (apart from a lack of willingness to discuss your decision making process)....As I said above for you to accept any example I give as valid you must accept that CSI can arise from a natural system then we can discuss it and see if it is a natural system or not.....I am not interested in suggesting a chain of possible systems for you to flatly reject each one.....

Complex Specified Information....

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
1)Logically, the IDer for life on Earth does NOT have to be supernatural.

​

2)Actually it was a challenge.

​

3)Your refusal to give an example of a natural system that exhibits CSI is very telling.

​

4)Observation.

​

5)I explained it. There is no evidence that DNA originated or could originate via purely natural processes. None, nada, zilch, zero.

​

6)Why can't you just give us an example of a natural system that exhibits CSI? Just one undisputable natural system would do fine.

​

7)I haven't flat out rejected anything yet.

---

1)We have been over this before on another thread, yes ID does infer a supernatural agent...2)A challenge how? Sounds like an a priori statement of disbelief to me?3)Not really I have given you one that I think does.... You reject it on the grounds that it cant happen... when pressed you do not answer the question how do you know it cant happen.... Thats the refusal that is very telling...4)Observation eh? What of?5)None that it couldnt either... Oh look we are back to square one... Except that before Magellan did it there was no evidence that you could circumnavigate the globe, doesnt mean you couldn`t.....6)That's kind of my point I cant give you an undisputable example while you hold dogmatically to the idea that CSI cannot arise naturally... So why dont you justify that idea...Otherwise any natural systems I suggest will be rejected "because it cant".....7)"I asked for an example of a natural system that exhibits CSI and you gave me DNA (see the last sentence in my above statement). Do you have any examples of a natural system that exhibits CSI?"Sounds like a flat out rejection to me....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 01-17-2002]

So HOW do you determine between a natural system and a designed one JP?

Cheers for the post Mark...JP if you want to respond on the subject of the natural or supernatural IDer could you start a new thread (or resurrect the old one) so that we can stick with the issue at hand, namely how you John Paul can differentiate between a designed system and a naturally occurring one....

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Quite elegant and beautiful when you think about it.

---

Since I came to Vermont I have learned that there is nothing good about snow. It`s wet, cold, makes the roads dangerous and has to be shovelled..... It is quite pretty though......