EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack

quote:

---

Sounds pretty Hitlerish to me, though as a man Darwin would likely recoil at Hitler's actions.

---

It's an observation, not a call to action. Would you call a historian who wrote about what European settlers and adventurers did to the inhabitants of the Americas - without approving of it - "Hitlerish" ? Wouldn't that adjective be better applied to those who were actually responsible ? Or those who encouraged it or glorified it ?Now if you called the Biblical book of Joshua "Hitlerish" I would have to agree. THAT is a glorfication of racial genocide, no question about it.

quote:

---

Not saying evos are NAZIs or anything, but to act like evolutionist thinking didn't play a role in Hitler's ideas when he extensively used the concept is just misunderstanding history.

---

It doesn't seem to have played that great a role. In fact it seems entirely dispensible. It seems likely that Christianity and the long history of Christian anti-semitism (dating back to the time of the Gospels, at least) played a greater role in the persection of the Jews. There is a certain irony when a known anti-semite appears in the movie - speaking FOR ID. I wonder if Ben Stein knows or cares.

I think it is fair to say that Percy has a good idea of what happened. It was discussed here at the time. See the thread starting here Message 1You do realise that sites controlled by the ID movement are hardly unbiased and that claiming persecution is one of their tactics ?

quote:

---

Well then, I am sure you can provide us with competing reasonable explanations that can explain things like 500 bits of CSI formed by natural causeations.

---

Just as soon as you find an example that needs explaining. Oh, thats right You can't. Nobody has found one. Nobody even has a practical way of finding one.It's been more than 10 years since The Design Inference was published.And still not one valid example from biology, and no way to find one.Not much of an argument, is it ?

quote:

---

I have already asked you to post a link but since you didn't I guess you only have your "see no CSI" opinion of the genome.

---

Whar exactly am I supposed to post a link to ? How can I show that a calculation hasn't been done by posting a link ?

quote:

---

If there is no CSI in biology, then what are the sequences of amino acids in DNA used for? After that, then tell us why DNA is transcribed in the RNA polymerase and then tranlated by the ribosome which then produces a chain of polypeptides which then become various types of functional proteins.

---

That's a non-sequitur. The "bits" of CSI are units of improbability - so you need a probability calculation to show that there are 500 bits. And you haven't even offered a valid specification. Where is the specification and where is the probability calculation ?

quote:

---

Each bit of information is represented by each amino acid along the middle of DNA

---

NO! Dembski's measur e of information is improbability. That is the very basis of the argument that evolution cannot produce CSI !

quote:

---

What is the probability of calculating the chances of getting specific proteins?

---

I'll tell you what it is - it's completely irrelevant. Unless you can produce a valid specification (by Dembski's rules) that requires *that* protein and no other.

quote:

---

I would say 100% if you eliminate minor errors. Quoting the work of James Shapiro, the sophisticated error correction mechanisms catches errors and ensures a 99.99999999% duplication accuracy rate.

---

So that is almost no "information" (by Dembski's measure) at all. It's less than 1 billionth of 1 bit.

quote:

---

It seems that it is improbability from the perspective of information forming by chance. It is like finding a series of the same species of palm tree lined up in a specific orderly sequence.

---

No, you are expected to include EVERY factor other than design. In other words the argument is basically all about trying to prove that the evolution of some feature is too improbably to have occurred. But it doesn't give you any help in actually doing the calculation.

quote:

---

If each amino acid is not used as a part of CSI, then what are the amino acids used for?

---

I'd guess that they are used for their biological functions.

quote:

---

I will have to read Dembski's rules. I never read his book.

---

In other words you are trying to use an argument that you don't understand.

quote:

---

Are you interested in making this hard on me in an attempt to discredit what I think is the obvious?

---

The requirements are Dembski's not mine. If they are too difficult for you then blame him. In fact you should blame yourself for trying to use an argument that you don't understand.

quote:

---

Superficially, it is obvious that things like orderly sequencing such as the palm tree example or specific messages that serve specific functions are not something that has been produced by forces within chaos. The debate stems from this.

---

Superficially, yes. But the genome is not a nice simple orderly line of palm trees. And then again on a "superficial" level a "fairy ring" looks designed - unless you know how it forms. That is the whole point of formalising CSI instead of relying on superficial appearances.

quote:

---

The debate stems from this. Sometimes I get the impression that some of you are trying to escape metaphysical reality. "See no CSI, hear no CSI."

---

Well I have to wonder why telling the truth is supposed to be an "escape" from any sort of reality. THe fact is that Dembski made the rules. If you want to claim that you have a real example of Dembski's CSI - and you did - then you have to follow his rules to show it. Human intuition is often a poor guide in dealing with probabilities even in simple cases - and any significant evolution will be a massively complex situation to calculate.And that is the fundamental flaw of Dembski's argument. He set himself up for failure.

quote:

---

There is a simple answer. The accuracy rate isn't physical. Amino acids are physical.

---

The right answer is that the accuracy rate is a probability - and the physical amino acid isn't. So which one would you use in a probability-based measure of information ? (Hint: it's the one that is a probability).

quote:

---

Smooth Operator just posted a link that refutes your position.

---

No, he hasn't.

quote:

---

It says that information is condensed on a molecular scale in DNA. If this information is absent, no living being will exist. Where did it come from?

---

So that quote - somehow - proves that somebody has successfully applied Dembski's method ? Bearing in mind that it was published in 1972 (when Dembski was a boy of 12) it is incredibly unlikely that it is even referring to Dembski's measure of information - let alone anything else.

quote:

---

No, I think that certain features can evolve.

---

The opposite of "some" is all. So if you think that there are ANY features in biology that could not have evolved, you are not disagreeing with my point.

quote:

---

According to "Signature in the Cell" the most simple one celled organism might have been able to survive with as few as 250-400 genes

---

Which - even if correct - does not consider the possibility of simpler life.

quote:

---

See no CSI, hear no CSI.

---

Making false attacks on me doesn't change the fact, that you did not even know how CSI is defined.

quote:

---

The two statements that convey a similar meaning above is what I mean when I say someone is trying to equivocate my information.

---

Presumably you mean people who correct your misinformation[/i].

quote:

---

Yes, it wasn't specific sequence of amino acids but I just posted the link. Why fight it? Don't try to equivocate it. Maybe you should calm down. ID is not so bad.

---

I'm not equivocating anything. I'm simply pointing out the facts - because I know more about ID than you do. Apparently you don't like that - which is why you have to make these false accusations. And ID's reliance on false accusations IS one of the reasons that it IS bad.

quote:

---

Did that man need Dembski to hold his hand and show him that DNA has information?

---

Since I'm not arguing that DNA doesn't have information that is irrelevant.I am arguing that there are no known examples of Dembski's CSI. If you want to deal with other measures of information then you're talking about something entirely different.

quote:

---

Perhaps I can offer you a solution. I don't just wish to argue with you and it is more or an argument than a debate at this point.

---

A good solution would be for you to be honest - intellectually honest as well as simple honesty. Admit the limitations of your knowledge instead of using bluster and bullying when you get corrected. Do your research properly. Don't claim that a link "refutes" my position when it doesn't even say anything of relevance.

quote:

---

If it is a god that you are concerned about, I will offer you a metaphysical escape hatch. Guided transpermia does require a God. It just requires some sort of energetic intelligence that doesn't require irreducibly complex systems to exist.

---

You mean that if I agree to lie for you, you'll let me choose a less offensive lie ? No thanks. The fact is that there are no known examples of Dembski's ID in biology. None.
So we don't need to invent anything to account for it. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Forget about Dembski's definition. Unless you want to make the CSI argument as brittle as possible and then attack it.

---

You seem to be forgetting some things. For a start you were the one who insisted on using Dembski's definition. For another Dembski is the ID proponent behind the CSI argument in the first place.But OK if you want to use a completely different measure of information - and one for which the 500 bit limit simply doesn't reply I can deal with that. It's not a problem for me.

quote:

---

I did give you an idea of what CSI is (in another thread) but you rejected it. I will illustrate it in simplistic form again. Why does it have to be complicated?

---

I don't think that you did. Anyway since now you are using a definition of CSI where "complex" means "complex" (instead of "very improbable") real CSI does need to be complex - by definition.Anyway, we know that evolution can produce specified information (even microevolution at the biochemical level would count). And we know that evolution-like processes can produce quite complex specified information (genetic algorithms) - and even IC functions (experiments with the so-called "artificial life" of Avida)And if you are going to deal with "specified information" in DNA you need to deal with the fact that the 64 possible triplets of codons only code for 20 amino acids - so there is some significant redundancy there - and proteins tend to be tolerant of mutations for much of their length. It's really rather less specific than you might think.

quote:

---

I'm not well versed on this case, but it appears that the reason he was fired and "intimidated" was because he didn't follow the rules of getting an article into the journal, not because of the content of the art

---

Nobody was fired. Sternberg left his position as editor before that issue went out, as had been planned in advance.