Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 256 of 1273 (540163)
12-22-2009 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by PaulK
12-22-2009 2:22 PM


Re: Flaws of CSI
CSI is just a partly-baked idea beset with serious - and likely insurmountable practical problems. The only "use" of it is bluffing the way Smooth Operator is (trying) to do.
We have gone at this before PaulK. Please show me a link of some scientific work which proves CSI has insurmountable practical problems.
Information: (this is just one definition) "The attribute inherent in and commiunicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produces specific effects."
I believe this definition can describe the information used by software programs.
I believe the information in crystals is not CSI. It is specified in order to produce a specific effect but since it is "redundant", it is not CSI.
So what we are looking for is the "exact" place where information becomes CSI or not? Is this not the problem or the essence of the controversy here? Then again, why should I be that naive to think it boils down to this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2009 2:22 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2009 4:11 PM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 257 of 1273 (540168)
12-22-2009 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by hooah212002
12-22-2009 2:33 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
Name a real scientific theory that is so hingent upon another theory failing in order to be correct.
You have me thinking. I don't think science works like that. I think science advances by explaining the evidence better than the other theory did. So the previous one seemingly explained the evidence well but in the light of new discoveries, the existing or previous theory didn't explain things as well as it once did.
Anyway, here is the one that I popped into my mind:
"A Third Way" by Jason Shapiro
http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/index3.html?content=genom...
Look at this quote from the link:
But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.
Human nature doesn't change, does it?
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by hooah212002, posted 12-22-2009 2:33 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by hooah212002, posted 12-22-2009 3:04 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 260 by Percy, posted 12-22-2009 3:11 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 264 by Nuggin, posted 12-22-2009 4:11 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 270 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2009 5:41 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 284 by Peepul, posted 12-23-2009 6:21 AM traderdrew has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 258 of 1273 (540169)
12-22-2009 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by traderdrew
12-22-2009 2:17 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
traderdrew writes:
The gaps in neo-Darwinism are growing and one of the predictions of ID says those gaps will continue to grow.
Religious objections to evolution might be growing, but gaps in our knowledge of evolution continue to narrow as our knowledge expands year after year.
ID is a religious idea, as quotes from ID proponents provided here in this thread make very clear, and knowledge about ID hasn't grown since Paley originally introduced the idea back in the 1800's. Motivated by religion, Dembski has in effect built a mathematical apologetic based upon things he's made up. Psychologists cannot even provide a rigorous definition of intelligence (it's one of those things that you know it when you see it, although as chatbots make clear it is easy to be mistaken), yet Dembski claims he can quantify it through CSI.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 2:17 PM traderdrew has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 259 of 1273 (540171)
12-22-2009 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by traderdrew
12-22-2009 2:56 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
Then how do you quantify ID with real science?
traderdrew writes:
The gaps in neo-Darwinism are growing and one of the predictions of ID says those gaps will continue to grow.
traderdrew writes:
I don't think science works like that. I think science advances by explaining the evidence better than the other theory did.
Are you admitting that ID is not science?
A proper theory should not theorize a failure of another theory to prove itself.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 2:56 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 3:12 PM hooah212002 has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 260 of 1273 (540172)
12-22-2009 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by traderdrew
12-22-2009 2:56 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
Hi TraderDrew,
You understand the way one theory replaces another, but you misunderstood Hooah. He was referring to creation science and ID as theories that are highly contingent upon another theory failing. This is why almost all effort in creation science and ID is expended on criticizing evolution instead of on research, because they falsely believe that creation science and ID would become the default theories were evolution falsified.
They operate this way not because they believe creation science and ID describe the real world better than evolution, but because they believe evolution doesn't describe the real world at all. But most creationists and IDists don't understand evolution sufficiently well to issue accurate criticisms, and this is why we see things like the curious behavior described by Dr Adequate where they claim that things we actually observe in practice are in reality impossible in theory.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 2:56 PM traderdrew has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 261 of 1273 (540173)
12-22-2009 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by hooah212002
12-22-2009 3:04 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
Are you admitting that ID is not science?
I have already stated in this very thread that it is not science. It belongs under philosophy or metaphysics or metascience.
Science cannot prove the existence of the God of the Bible anymore than it can prove the existence of Zeus, Thor or the flying spaghetti monster.
If that last statement proves there is no God then, science is the only begetter of truth and the truth can only be found through science. However, this statement, in itself, cannot be tested with the scientific method. Do you see now why science has its limitations?
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by hooah212002, posted 12-22-2009 3:04 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by hooah212002, posted 12-22-2009 3:24 PM traderdrew has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 262 of 1273 (540176)
12-22-2009 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by traderdrew
12-22-2009 3:12 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
I have already stated in this very thread that it is not science.
Forgive me if I did not see where you said that, but rather, saw you sticking up for ID as a valid theory.
It belongs under philosophy or metaphysics or metascience.
No. It belongs in CHURCH. Mayb not even there...
Science cannot prove the existence of the God of the Bible anymore than it can prove the existence of Zeus, Thor or the flying spaghetti monster.
If that last statement proves there is no God then, science is the only begetter of truth and the truth can only be found through science.
Well then, I guess it's a good thing science could give two shits about god.
Do you see now why science has its limitations?
Science deals with what science applies to. Of course it's not an all encompassing subject. Science can't cover history, feelings, psychology. However, you can use the scientific method for numerous applications which don't ncessarily fall under the umbrella of being "science-y".
If you are saying science is limited in that it doesn't deal with things that cannot be tested, well then, you are partially correct. If science dealt with such things, it wouldn't be science.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 3:12 PM traderdrew has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 263 of 1273 (540186)
12-22-2009 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by traderdrew
12-22-2009 2:42 PM


Re: Flaws of CSI
quote:
We have gone at this before PaulK. Please show me a link of some scientific work which proves CSI has insurmountable practical problems.
Since nobody has ever managed to apply it to a non-trivial case, there musty be some problem. Why hasn't the ID movement come up with a single valid example of CSI in biology in all the years since Dembski published ?
quote:
Information: (this is just one definition) "The attribute inherent in and commiunicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produces specific effects."
Unfortunately that's not the information in CSI.
quote:
I believe the information in crystals is not CSI. It is specified in order to produce a specific effect but since it is "redundant", it is not CSI.
It's specified but low information because the probability of the crystal forming is high.
quote:
So what we are looking for is the "exact" place where information becomes CSI or not? Is this not the problem or the essence of the controversy here? Then again, why should I be that naive to think it boils down to this?
Well you're completely wrong. The biggest problem is calculating the probabilities. Since the information measure is the negative base 2 logarithm of the probability of the specification being met without a designer without those calculations you haven't got anything. ANd nobody knows a sensible way to do those calculatione for any living thing.
That's why all we see is bluff, instead of real examples.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 2:42 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 4:53 PM PaulK has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 264 of 1273 (540187)
12-22-2009 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by traderdrew
12-22-2009 2:56 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
I think science advances by explaining the evidence better than the other theory did.
You fail.
Science advances by creating models which BETTER PREDICT future evidence.
ID offers NO predictions. ID further does not adequately explain EXISTING data. Nor does it describe a mechanism by which anything it claims is happening could happen.
That's NOT a theory. That's barely even make believe.
You keep trotting it out, but you have YET to provide ANY evidence in support of your claims.
All you do is ask us to prove that your unproven claims have been disproved.
It's not our job to disprove something for which you've offered no evidence. It's YOUR job to offer evidence to support your claim, then we get to poke holes in that evidence.
Obviously we haven't been able to poke holes in your lack of evidence because your claim that the Jew Wizard uses undetectable Jew Beams is present with absolutely no support whatsoever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 2:56 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 5:10 PM Nuggin has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 265 of 1273 (540196)
12-22-2009 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by PaulK
12-22-2009 4:11 PM


Re: Flaws of CSI
Since nobody has ever managed to apply it to a non-trivial case, there musty be some problem. Why hasn't the ID movement come up with a single valid example of CSI in biology in all the years since Dembski published?
Dembski applied it to the flagellum. See the following link.
Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological History of Intelligent Design | Discovery Institute
Unfortunately that's not the information in CSI.
Well you're completely wrong.
Am I the only one who consistently gets the impression that you twist things around in certain ways? Do you do it to preserve your fragile viewpoints?
The biggest problem is calculating the probabilities. Since the information measure is the negative base 2 logarithm of the probability of the specification being met without a designer without those calculations you haven't got anything.
In other words, we need to test what the designer would or could have done? Yes, fragile indeed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2009 4:11 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by hooah212002, posted 12-22-2009 5:01 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 268 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2009 5:24 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 285 by Percy, posted 12-23-2009 8:12 AM traderdrew has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 266 of 1273 (540197)
12-22-2009 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by traderdrew
12-22-2009 4:53 PM


Re: Flaws of CSI
Dembski applied it to the flagellum. See the following link.
Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological History of Intelligent Design | Discovery Institute
was this not debunked in the Dover trial?

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 4:53 PM traderdrew has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 267 of 1273 (540199)
12-22-2009 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Nuggin
12-22-2009 4:11 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
ID offers NO predictions. ID further does not adequately explain EXISTING data. Nor does it describe a mechanism by which anything it claims is happening could happen.
And you never even asked.
All you do is ask us to prove that your unproven claims have been disproved. Obviously we haven't been able to poke holes in your lack of evidence because your claim that the Jew Wizard uses undetectable Jew Beams is present with absolutely no support whatsoever.
The bible says God is hidden. So the evidence seems to match up with this piece of scripture. Obviously there are other parts which don't. Obviously the original Hebrew term which translates into "hidden" doesn't mean absolutely hidden 100% of the time. I don't think aliens would have the patience for 3.8 billion years of development and research. Maybe the aliens are not physical beings but they are outside of our physical reality. It can drive me crazy to think about it. Whether the bible is correct or not is the subject of investigation for me. Obviously, the bible is not compatible with science but it was written in a pre-scientific age and it has been reinterpreted and translated into other languages. CSI in language loses its exact meaning when it is translated because particular words may have slightly different meanings.
You fail
I don't know about failing but I could apply my time more adequately rather than participating in debate with Darwinists and atheists who seem to be almost as dogmatic as the religious are. Yes, you are dogmatic but in a different way. Your dogma insists your way is the way or the highway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Nuggin, posted 12-22-2009 4:11 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Briterican, posted 12-22-2009 5:59 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 272 by Nuggin, posted 12-22-2009 6:03 PM traderdrew has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 268 of 1273 (540202)
12-22-2009 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by traderdrew
12-22-2009 4:53 PM


Re: Flaws of CSI
quote:
Dembski applied it to the flagellum. See the following link.
You mean that Dembski completely screwed up his own method. What better proof that it is unusable, if even it's inventor can't even come close to getting it right.
quote:
Am I the only one who consistently gets the impression that you twist things around in certain ways? Do you do it to preserve your fragile viewpoints?
You're not the first person to falsely accuse me. But of course I am twisting nothing, simply reporting the truth.
quote:
In other words, we need to test what the designer would or could have done? Yes, fragile indeed.
Since I never said any such thing it seems that you are the one who is "twisting things around". Perhaps it is your viewpoint that is fragile.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 4:53 PM traderdrew has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 269 of 1273 (540205)
12-22-2009 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by traderdrew
12-22-2009 2:17 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
It depends on your frame of reference. If you are using the book of Genesis then yes. If you are using history itself, the trend for intelligent design is up for sure! We knew nothing about punctuated equilibrium ...
Wrong.
The period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change. --- Charles Darwin, On The Origin Of Species
... or irreducible complexity ...
Wrong again.
Of course biologists have known of the existence of irreducibly complex structures, such as the mammalian middle ear, even before the invention of the word "biologist". Then they discovered from the fossil record exactly how it evolved. And then creationists invented the words "irreducible complexity" and went around pretending that such things couldn't evolve, blithely unaware that that ship had already sailed.
... or CSI ...
CSI is "knowledge"?
No, it's obfuscation.
All Dembski's doing is rehashing the Great Creationist Petitio Principii:
(1) This is complex.
(2) Complex things have designers.
(3) Therefore this was designed.
(4) Therefore this did not evolve.
... where the second premise assumes the thing to be proved.
This is not knowledge, it's a logical fallacy. Nor is it new --- steps (1) - (3) are Paley's argument. Modern biology can be dated from the point at which biologists realized that it was wrong.
The gaps in neo-Darwinism are growing and one of the predictions of ID says those gaps will continue to grow.
At last a prediction from ID!
It is false.
Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision.
--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Acadmie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Acadmie des Sciences et Techniques du Sngal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Fsicas, Matemticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).
What if? What if? What if? Don't trip.
I don't follow you, but then perhaps you don't follow me. Let me clarify my point. If an observation tends to confirm a hypothesis, then the opposite observation would tend to disconfirm it. You claim that the discovery that genetic information is digital lends support to ID. Would the discovery that it was analog have tended to cast doubt on ID, and if so, how?
It can't be "heads I win, tails you lose" --- so explain to me how the information being analog would have struck a blow against ID.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 2:17 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by traderdrew, posted 12-23-2009 12:09 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 270 of 1273 (540207)
12-22-2009 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by traderdrew
12-22-2009 2:56 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.
Wow, he's really laying in to that straw man, isn't he?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 2:56 PM traderdrew has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024