What exactly is ID?

Hi Smooth,Your diagram assumes the point it is trying to make. For example, by putting DNA on the right hand side it assumes that DNA is the product of intelligence. Here's a more useful diagram showing some sources and examples of information: Anything in reality can be a source of information for us, as long as it can in some way be made apparent to our senses.The central claim of ID is that only intelligence can create information, but this is incorrect. All of reality is creating information all the time, and what humans often do is record that information. For example, if you're keeping a weather log and looking out your window write down that it is sunny, you didn't create the information that it is sunny. You merely transformed the information from one form (the sun shining in the sky) to another (written words on paper).--Percy

Hi Smooth Operator,The concept of CSI is made up. It has no units or method of measure, and the degree to which anything, including DNA, possesses this imaginary quality cannot be determined.Someone could as easily make up the concept of NSC (Naturally Sourced Complexity) and claim that DNA is natural because of the degree to which it exhibits NSC. Like CSI, NSC has no units or method of measure, but it does have one thing CSI doesn't, a method by which it comes about: through the physical laws of nature which we've observed and know exist, in marked contrast to your designer.That's the problem with entities like your designer - it's just not possible to tell the difference between the imaginary and something that's never been seen or detected.--Percy

Hi Smooth Operator,CSI is made up because it is not based upon observations from the real world. Shannon information, Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, Maxwell's laws, etc, are not made up because they developed out of observations of the real world with whose laws they are consistent. CSI is measured in bits? And you have a reference that shows you how to calculate CSI? Then could you please show us the calculation for the CSI of something, preferably something simple? For instance, how much CSI is in the single DNA codon AGT? How would you contrast it with the CSI for a tiny fragment of rock with three minerals in a row, say, quartz-calcite-magnetite?I only ask in order to focus attention on the inability of anything from Dembski allowing you to perform this simple task, one that I've done many times at this forum using Shannon information. If you'd like to see it again just ask.This is why your diagram is false when it defines DNA as an example of design. No one's ever researched the relationship between CSI and intelligence, nor the threshold of CSI that might indicate the involvement of an intelligence, plus CSI is based upon the false assumption of instantaneous formation of structures that actually took billions of years to evolve (this is the 10¹²⁰ coefficient that appears in Dembski's equations).Since there is no empirical nor even theoretical foundation for CSI, classifying things like DNA and books as being instances of design based upon their CSI is completely bogus.I'm sure the people here would be delighted to discuss with you the details of Dembski's CSI calculation to the extent you understand them, so whenever you're ready to start presenting his method in this thread then please proceed, by all means. No kidding! You can tell the difference between the imaginary and the undetectable! Could you explain for us how you do this?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

I think you're right that, "A theory such as Darwinism can be rationalized into something that serves evil." The Nazi's did draw upon ideas from social Darwinism, which in turn drew its ideas from evolution. Nazi ideas also drew strongly upon Christianity. If I understand you correctly, I agree that when evil people employ an idea that it doesn't suddenly make that idea evil.Religion is just one framework among many for the expression of inherent human irrationality. Science is another framework, as demonstrated by creationists, climate-warming deniers and vaccine scaremongers, among many others.--Percy

Hi Smooth Operator,When I said that CSI was not developed out of observations of the real world, I meant scientifically developed. Specifically I was referring to Dembski's work, the work you keep referring to, as being made up. That's because it isn't based upon real world scientific observations. It is instead based upon the kind of superficial unscientific observations contained in your Leslie Orgel quote. Those kinds of observations are fine as a starting point from which to initiate scientific research, but the concept of CSI still hasn't developed beyond that point. That's why it's made up. The absence of any research underpinning this claim is why CSI is made up, unless you can describe for us how it was demonstrated that 400 bits is the threshold for CSI that is evidence of intelligence.By the way, please stop including this as a bare link: It you have points to make which depend upon material in this link, then please make the points in your own words and use the link as a supporting reference. Since it's 41 pages long, please include page numbers. But before we could detect radio waves, how would one tell whether they were imaginary or not?So right now we're in roughly the same situation with respect to your designer as we once were with radio waves. Since we have no evidence of the designer at this time, how do you tell whether he's imaginary or just not yet detected? CSI cannot be the answer, because CSI is as made up as your designer.--Percy

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

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

I assume the other replies already noted this, but you're being given the runaround. Your link is to an article that claims Dembski has applied his calculations for CSI to the flagellum, and that article contains a link to a page at Amazon.com for Dembski's book, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, which I presume you haven't read. Nowhere in anything associated with that link is there a description of how Dembski calculated the CSI of the flagellum, but you're claiming it is so anyway. What's actually happening is that you're just repeating the claim in the article, which is just repeating the claim of the book, which is full of nonsense.In other words, you're not repeating the claim because you've seen and understood the calculation. You've never seen the calculation. You could never have seen the calculation, because no one's ever seen the calculation, not even Dembski. That's because the calculation doesn't exist. You're just repeating what you've been told and hoping it is true. If it were true then you'd be able to find somewhere on the net someone saying something like, "Dembski has calculated the bacterial flagellum to have 1,423 bits of CSI, and you can find the calculation on page 127 of his book," because no such calculation appears anywhere in his book. If it did actually exist people would be able to go to that page in his book and say, "Omigod, Dembski has done it, CSI is real!"But nothing like this will ever happen because Dembski's books are just a gigantic hand wave with no substance. His books belong in the same bookstore isle as books like 2012, the Bible, and the End of the World.Stop letting yourself be led on this wild goose chase. Keep seeking that calculation until you actually find it, and until then stop telling us it exists.--Percy

Consider a single gene of a simple organism like a bacterium for which you then measure the CSI of that gene and get a number.The bacterium then divides into two bacteria, and one of the bacteria experiences a single insertion mutation in that gene of a single codon (three nucleotides). You measure the CSI of this modified gene and get a different number. The CSI of the gene is now different than it was before, and it came about by completely natural means, no intelligence required.Note that this also invalidates Smooth Operator's mathematically nonsensical argument that the CSI of genes can only be changed by an intelligence and not naturally. His claim couldn't possibly be true if CSI is a function of the actual sequence of nucleotides in the gene.Of course, CSI is actually made up, so no one will ever present here anything as concrete as an equation for CSI that is a function of the nucleotides in a gene the way we can with Shannon information. For example, the amount of Shannon information in a gene with 253 codons is (assuming a codon represents one of 20 amino acids): All that need be done to answer the claim that CSI is made up is to produce the equivalent equation for CSI showing how much is in this gene of 253 codons.--Percy

So in other words, you can't tell us any of the science behind CSI. No surprise, because there's no science in Dembski's books.As described in the Forum Guidelines, references should be provided in support of, not in place of, one's own arguments. If all you're going to provide is book titles and links then please stop doing this. If you've already provided the information elsewhere in this thread, then please provide a link. If you need help linking to messages, just ask. I was hoping for a better explanation than the handwave you provided in Message 105: This is just nonsense. If we consider the observable universe a closed system, then of course information is conserved. No additional information can be produced, and no information can be destroyed (the debate about black holes notwithstanding). This is a known law of physics, because of the equivalence that has been demonstrated between the laws of thermodynamics and information theory.But you can increase information in one part of the universe by decreasing it in another. The information in our part of the universe could have increased an enormous amount simply by taking it from another part of the universe. And in fact, the earth gains an incredible amount of information from the sun everyday. We also radiate a lot of information back into space.Given the amount of information the Earth is gaining and losing everyday, as it has been doing for billions of years, it isn't possible to place limits on the amount of information that might have been gained, and certainly not a 400 bit limit.So no limitation exists on the amount by which information can increase locally, and more importantly, no connection has been made limiting the creation of information to intelligence. Information theory tells us that all matter in the universe is exchanging information with all other matter in the universe all the time.Even worse for you and Dembski, no quantifiable definition of intelligence suitable for use in physics equations even exists, another reason why it's undeniable that Dembski is making things up. Of course, nothing else is possible since there's no body of scientific literature that was produced as a result of the research establishing CSI as a valid scientific concept, since no such research has ever been done. Then show your evidence. Show us one single application of CSI using Dembski's mathematics, just one little example, and we'll tell you what's wrong. Just take one little stretch of DNA and calculate the CSI, then do the same for a rock, and compare the two. But you can't do that, can you? Because if it could be done Dembski would have done it a long time ago, and you wouldn't have marched off unarmed into battle.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

I'm not an atheist. Most people who don't agree with you are not atheists. Information theory is no more atheistic than any other branch of mathematics.As I said, if you've already provided the information elsewhere in this thread, then please provide a link. If you need help linking to messages, just ask. In a closed system information cannot increase or decrease. For example, if you're in a room and the window blinds are closed you could not write a description of what is going on outside. In that respect the room is a closed system. Only when you open the blinds and allow information into the room can you write down what is happening outside. Now the room is no longer a closed system because information is entering it from outside.That information in a closed system cannot increase or decrease is a known law of physics directly related to the laws of thermodynamics.That is why this description from your Message 105 is nonsense: Again, if we consider the observable universe a closed system, then because information cannot increase or decrease in a closed system the amount of information in it could not have increased by 400 bits, not by random chance or intelligence or any other means. If you can provide the mathematical equation for calculating CSI in the same way as I have done for Shannon information then I would have something concrete to go on. If it is contained somewhere in your 41-page link (http://www.designinference.com/.../2005.06.Specification.pdf) then please copy-n-paste the relevant equation or equations into your message. Aren't you confusing Gitt information with CSI? The words "syntax," "semantics," "apobetics" and "pragmatics" appear nowhere in your Dembski link. But I wasn't speaking of Kolmogorov Complexity. I was speaking of CSI, an invention of Dembski. Dembski invokes Kolmogorov Complexity as a means of detecting randomness, but the sequence of nucleotides in DNA is not random. The sequence is a result of a lengthy process of consecutive selection over many generations across changing environments.Demski's CSI assumes that DNA nucleotide sequences are random when they are not. For this reason alone, CSI is bunk.--Percy

Hi everyone!I am not resuming participation in this thread. Since my name came up, I'm responding to Iblis with some more up to date information. I've have since read voluminously about the Dover trial, and have just completed yet another book on the topic, one I received for Christmas titled The Devil in Dover: An Insider's Story of Dogma v. Darwin in Small-town America by Lauri Lebo.All this reading makes one thing very apparent: there can be no question that Buckingham and Bonsell lied during their depositions and on the stand.I continue to believe that creationism's greatest contribution to science lies in the field of psychology. Despite the evidence that they lied, as did other board members to lesser extents, none believe that they lied or did anything wrong.The lies in Dover committed by board members were of an unbelievable magnitude.First, all creationist members of the board lied when they denied discussing creationism at board meetings and mentioning it in their public comments. They committed these lies both in their depositions and on the stand at trial. The decision to deny was made at the Thomas Moore Law Center (the board's law firm) the day before these board members were deposed by the plaintiff's lawyers. Compounding their misdeeds, board members then falsely accused the local news media of lying in their stories reporting the creationist and religious comments, stories that were filed and printed over a period of many months, and that were never questioned at the time. Conveniently, recordings of the board meetings were destroyed, but some direct evidence did turn up on video tape from a local TV station, for example, of Buckingham advocating for creationism.Second, Buckingham, the most visible advocate for creationism and ID on the board, lied on numerous occasions about many things. The board's defense team decided to give up defending Buckingham and simply cited his OxyContin addiction to explain his behavior. But whatever the reason, Buckingham lied when he denied advocating creationism, he lied when he denied promoting religion (he famously remarked on one occasion while advocating for creationism, "Two thousand years ago someone died on a cross, isn't someone going to take a stand for him?"), and he lied about the source of the money for the book Of Pandas and People that was anonymously donated to the school (he took up a collection at his church, deposited the money in his bank account, wrote a check to Donald Bonsell (Alan Bonsell's father) with the notation "Pandas and People" on it, then gave the check to Alan Bonsell to give to his father).Third, Alan Bonsell lied when he denied knowing where the money for the book Of Pandas and People came from. As described above, Buckingham gave Bonsell the check, and Bonsell gave the check to his father. Bonsell's father then purchased the books and donated them anonymously to the school.The federal district court where the trial was held investigated whether to pursue charges of perjury but decided against.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Spelling.

Hi all!Now that Smooth Operator is temporarily dormant, I'm going to return to normal participation until the situation changes.--Percy

Hi Brad,Things seem to have calmed down in this thread, so I'm going to attempt to resume participating in the discussion. The only part of this that is accurately about Shannon information is when you say, "We will both agree on only dialing seven digits (which carry equal amounts of information)." That one string of digits is a phone number you can call to get 'information' (and I put it in scare quotes to denote that now I'm referring to the everyday meaning of information, not Shannon's) has no bearing on issues related to information theory. As Shannon himself wrote in his seminal paper introducing the field of information theory (A Mathematical Theory of Communication): One of your digit strings could be the phone number for Oxford University's Department of Cosmology and it would contain no more information than any other random digit string of the same length. In information theory it is important not to confuse information with meaning. Information theory is the problem of how to communicate a string of digits (more accurately, bits) from point A to point B. What the digits mean is irrelevant. I know that meaning isn't irrelevant to people, but it is irrelevant to information theory.--Percy

The argument from authority is, "This is true because scientist X says so."The argument from authority definitely is not, "This is likely true because the body of research of various scientists working in this field strongly suggests that it is true."Citing evidence and research published in the peer-reviewed literature is the opposite of the argument from authority. It is the epitome of, the zenith, even, of how we hope people support their positions here at EvC Forum, surpassed only by doing and submitting for peer-review one's own original research.--Percy