The design inference

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
1. a phenomenon or object matches some pre-defined meaningful pattern ("specificity")
2. the phenomenon or object has a low probability of occuring through purely natural mechanisms without intelligent intervention ("complexity")

---

Its this definition of SC that seems, to me, to cause fatal problems to the EF, after all from 2 above an object or event is complex if it has a low probability of occuring through purely natural mechanisms without intelligent intervention. Note low not no is the word preceeding probability. Its origin, natural or designed, presumeably is independant of its specifity, therefore following these definitions a natural object can be CS....We then look at what the EF has to say:

quote:

---

......If No we ask does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified?
If Yes we attribute it to Design.
if No we attribute it to chance.

---

Where did the possible natural CS go? somewhere between the original definitions and the filter it seems to have gone MIA.....Also if it was included the filter would have to include a line that evaluated the probability of a possible designer exsisting i.e:...... goto 3)3)Does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified?
If No we attribute it to chance,
if yes is there reason to attribute E to a designer?
If yes E could be the result of design OR nature,
if no then E can be attributed to nature.Untill the EF contains the possibility of natural CSI it is spurious and circular.....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-01-2002]

Saw JP around so i thought I`d bump this up the list....

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Are you telling me that when something is observed to exhibit CSI, it is apparently IC, we have never seen CSI or IC arising by purely natural processes, it is not safe to infer ID? Sounds like a pretty limiting PoV to me.

---

Muller, Nobel prize winning biologist, put forward IC as caused by evolution in the 1930`s (originaly proposed said IC in 1910`s) so IC really is not an issue for evolution, I have provided you with this information before, untill you show that his work was flawed and evolution cannot produce IC you cannot base an argument against evolution on IC...The very definition of CSI permits it to occur naturaly, this possibility is absent from the EF, thus EF is inherrantly flawed by definition of CSI.Untill you accept that it is possible in theory for laws acting on a system to produce CSI (as is permited by the definition above) and stop automaticaly gainsaying every proposed example there is no point asking for one as you will say it exhibits CSI and is thus designed.....Which is wrong according to the very definition of CSI....JP your arguments are eliptical with an eccentricity of 0.....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-10-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
I still notice that you can't give us an indisputable example of CSI arising via purely natural processes. Why is that?

​

Stop bitchin' and do it or admit that you can't.

​

Also you have got to be joking about someone in the 1930s refuting something from the 1990s (through this year). That's just absurd to postulate such a thing.

---

Us JP? are you royalty or schizophrenic? Your the only one over there...And I gave you DNA, you have to justify your position of CSI = design because it is in conflict with the very definition of CSI....Then you need to explain the fact that the EF is flawed by the ommision of this possibility of naturaly occurring CSI and repair said flaw...Because untill you do that and show that DNA is in fact designed it stands as a valid example...Oh and the thing about Muller is that he described Irreducibly complex systems (remove one bit and it stops working) and also how they are arrived at by evolution.... In 1939....Which makes it really amusing when a jumped up biochemist with dellusions of grandeur states in the 90`s that IC structures exsist and are evidence for design as they could not possibly evolve....He should have done his homework.....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-12-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
1)Yes us joz. As in the people that actually read your tripe, myself included.

​

2)Are you saying DNA is an indisputable example of CSI originating via purely natural processes? If you really think so, perhaps it's time you read this:
Unraveling the DNA Myth

​

3)This phrase caught my eye: "DNA did not create life; life created DNA".

​

4)Time is not on your side joz. The more we are finding out the more obvious it becomes that life is the direct result of an act of intelligence- ie ID.

​

5)What flaw? That never has anyone observed CSI arising via purely natural processes? Sorry, that's part of life. Bring us an indisputable example of CSI arising via purely natural processes and you will have exposed a flaw. But remeber, it it still the design INFERENCE. What criteria do you use for determining a purposely designed object to a naturallydesigned one?

​

6)If the implications of the article I linked to are any indication, that is all but a foregone conclusion.

​

7)What is really amazing is that of all the people who have tried to refute Behe's premise, not one has brought up Muller to do so. Go figure.

​

8)Apparently he did more than Muller was capable of.

---

1)Look up this thread JP everyother poster (apart from Ludvan who said he didn`t see what the fuss was about) is critical of ID and IC which means that "we" should have been "I" (unless you are schizophrenic or royalty)....2)Hey your disputing it so its obviously not (indisputably so), the discussion has now moved on to your method of assessing whether it was designed or not....Mark seems to have beaten me to it but did you bother to read that article JP? It suggests that Cricks "central dogma" has been shown to be false.Somehow you seem to have warped that to DNA was designed, How? Where in that article does it even mention design?What do you think the fact that genes code for more than one protein does to any claims that DNA is specified? Remember if it isn`t specified it can`t be CSI and thus ain`t designed under the EF....3)Your "DNA did not create life; life created DNA" is hardly unexpected given that we think that RNA or PNA arose before DNA, it also doesn`t say "DNA did not create life; An IDer designed DNA" and thus really doesn`t support your point at all....4)Really guess we`ll have to wait untill Behe follows his own advice to "publish or perish" to find out....Whats it been 6 years now?5)Wow not only is the EF flawed but so is your logic...Look up to post 5 on this board, there you will find my explanation of why I see the EF as flawed...You keep asking for an example (which you will never accept) of naturaly occuring CSI, your method of verifying if it occured naturaly or not? Run it through the EF which doesn`t permit the possibility of naturaly occuring CSI...This isn`t even circular reasoning JP, its not that elegant, its merely the equivalent of deciding that CSI must be designed and putting your brain on standby and screaming DESIGN, DESIGN at the top of your lungs....6)The only foregone conclusion I got from reading that article JP was that you hadn`t...7)H. Allen Orr:
http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br21.6/orr.htmlI posted this on page 8 of the study of ID debate thread to you, have you not been reading again JP?8)Yeah thats why one of them has a Nobel prize and the other has acquired a reputation as a crank...Lets see Muller comes across IC and works out how evolution can produce it, Behe comes across IC and gives up goes home early and writes a popular press book claiming Goddidit....Honestly now who do you think achieved more?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
By the way, Behe has responded to Orr's article.

​

http://www.trueorigin.org/behe06.asp

---

And Orr has replied to Behe`s response:
http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br22.1/orr.htmlI like the bit that reads..."So how does Behe respond to this criticism? Well, he doesn't. He eagerly talks about everything else--what evolutionists versus biochemists have achieved, who's the podiatrist and who's the brain surgeon--but when it comes to telling us why the Darwinian explanation of irreducible complexity is wrong, he's astonishingly silent. The closest he gets is to trot out his favorite fancy object, the mousetrap, for our renewed consideration. Parodying my description of Darwinism--we start with some part A that does some job; a part B then gets added on that helps A; A then changes in a way that makes B essential--he writes, "Some part does some job? Which part of the mousetrap is [Orr] talking about? A mouse has nothing to fear from a `trap' that consists of just an attaching holding bar, or spring, or platform, with no other parts." This is the sum total of his response to my chief criticism of his book.But it's just substantive enough to betray Behe's colossal misunderstanding of Darwinism. For under the Darwinian scenario, all the parts can change through time and there's no reason to think we started with anything like a holding bar, spring, or platform. Indeed this is the whole point of the scenario: no single current part can do the job, so none could possibly represent the ancestral system. Instead most or all of the parts likely changed through time, growing, in the process, more interdependent. Behe's failure to get this point represents a fundamental--and fatal--error which likely explains his refusal to buy evolutionary accounts of biochemistry. We may well see here the source of Behe's whole misguided campaign against Darwinism.Our argument does not, of course, show that complex objects are never designed (the mousetrap was); it just shows that design is not the sole and so necessary explanation of irreducible complexity. But if design isn't necessary, is it at least plausible? Behe thinks so, assuring us that design "is both natural and obvious." His argument is straightforward: "Just as in the everyday world we immediately conclude design when we see a complex, interactive system such as a mousetrap, there is no reason to withhold the same conclusion from interactive molecular systems," even though such a hypothesis might have "theological implications." I hate to be a party-pooper, but it seems to me there's a pretty good reason why the design hypothesis is a bit more "natural and obvious" when considering a mousetrap than a cell: We know that there are people who make things like mousetraps. (I'm not being facetious here--I'm utterly serious.) When choosing between the design and Darwinian hypotheses, we find design plausible for mousetraps only because we have independent knowledge that there are creatures called humans who construct all variety of mechanical contraptions; if we didn't, the existence of mousetraps would pose a legitimate scientific problem. Needless to say, we have considerably less independent evidence for a Tinkerer who spends His days soldering cells. As it stands, then, mousetraps and cells are far from analogous and the hypothesis of intelligent design of cells remains distinctly supernatural and unobvious."

First up unless you think abiogenesis spawned a non complex intelegence that designed all other life Goddidit is the only possible solution to ID...Second by claiming an unobserved supernatural designer before rigorously eliminating the possibility of a natural origin Behe did the scientific equivalent of hitting the showers early...The components can also evolve however....e.g A component A does a process X (just not very well) a component B evolves and together A and B do a better job, A then mutates to A` which requires the prescence of B, together A` and B do a pretty good job, B then mutates to B` which requires A` to work and together they do a very good job and are *gasp* IC.....Those comments don`t look at all out of place to me Behe says Goddidit ergo God created life ergo he is in some sense of the word a creationist...Oh and why would he want to say such terrible things about creationists... Possibly because they have been denigrating his and many other scientists work for many a year from a position of ignorance in any popular media they can get to listen.... Just a thought...Haven`t you lot got a saying as you sow so shall ye reap?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
And Behe "goes home early?" Behe's a quitter, I'm sure his mother would be upset. You may not like it very much, but Behe provided evidence for a theory that is *gasp* NOT Darwinian. I am not sure what could possibly drive you to claim that Behe is essentially a quitter. Perhaps if you commited yourself to earning a degree in biochemistry and then writing a 300-page book, you would be in a better position to argue that Behe is essentially a quitter.

---

So you`d put credence in a Biochemist saying the same thing? Look here... http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/Behe_bios.htmlI really like this bit...(the two examples were of things that Behe claimed were IC in his book BTW....)

quote:

---

These two examples are merely a small sample of the literally THOUSANDS of articles that have been published about the details of molecular evolution in the past two years. It is important to bring up these examples, because this shows a real weakness in the logic that says "we don't know how this happened, so God must have done it!". What happens when someone calls your bluff and actually DOES provide a step-by-step mechanism for the gradual evolution of the immune system?

---

As for the the fact that his theory is non darwinian so what this excerpt from the original review by Orr answers that very nicely...

quote:

---

So when the Christian Right tries to tell you that evolutionists instinctively circle the wagons whenever anyone dares question the Darwinian status quo, you should ask yourself why Wright and Kimura got through, but Behe not. The answer is, I think, straightforward: Wright and Kimura knew what they were talking about.

---

On the subject of being qualified to critisize a theory does that only apply to non creationists or should I just tell TC to shut up and get educated every time he posts?

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-14-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
1)Once again, I found a few of Orr's statements rather interesting. The first paragraph consists of an insult of the creationist position, as well as a claim that Behe is basically a creationist. Not off to a good start.

​

2)Interesting choice of words. "Crusade against Darwinism." It's not as though disagreeing with Darwinism is blasphemy. Besides, Behe is arguing for his theory, which seems perfectly acceptable to me.

​

3)I suppose those people up at SETI should give up then.....

​

4)His "pet" theory" Seems to me professor Orr is a bit frustrated. This statement is completely false. Behe admits that some cellular processes could have evolved because they don't display irreducible complexity, which is the main argument of his book.

​

5)Actually, Behe considers this potential argument in his book on page 66. He explains the problems with glossing over the difficulty with the argument Orr uses. So it is definitely not true that Behe fails to grasp this potential argument (perhaps he was more informed of Muller's work than you thought?) Basically, the problem is that the parts would eventually have to modify themselves to work together, and while doing this, could not serve a useful purpose.

---

1)Behe believes that certain structures are IC and must have an origin of design (i.e certain building blocks at least were created). Ergo while not being a ye creationist he is a creationist at some level....2)And yet Orr has no problem with Wright and Kimura both of whom proposed non Darwinian theories...Orr (et al) takes issue with the fact that saying we don`t know how it arose naturaly is not evidence that it didn`t arise naturaly....3)Not at all we have pretty compelling evidence that there exsists intellegant life in this universe (us humans), given the size of the universe it is a fair assumption that life may exsist elsewhere and that this life may be intelligent...4)Yes pet project, given that it is not adopted by any significant proportion of scientists and he attempts to validate it at every opportunity it is indeed a pet theory...5)Strange I thought Behe failed to accept that components can adapt over time....Hence the words :"have to be there from the beginning" (in reference to the components that make up an IC object)....And why could they not serve a useful purpose?What stops some object A that does a job X in parralel with B from adapting to become A` which relies on the presence of B but performs X in a better fashion?

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-15-2002]

You know JP you still haven`t answered this from post 5 in any substantive fashion.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
1. a phenomenon or object matches some pre-defined meaningful pattern ("specificity")
2. the phenomenon or object has a low probability of occuring through purely natural mechanisms without intelligent intervention ("complexity")

---

Its this definition of SC that seems, to me, to cause fatal problems to the EF, after all from 2 above an object or event is complex if it has alow probability of occuring through purely natural mechanisms without intelligent intervention. Note low not no is the word preceeding probability. Its origin, natural or designed, presumeably is independant of its specifity, therefore following these definitions a natural object can be CS....We then look at what the EF has to say:

quote:

---

......If No we ask does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified? If Yes we attribute it to Design. if No we attribute it to chance.

---

Where did the possible natural CS go? somewhere between the original definitions and the filter it seems to have gone MIA.....Also if it was included the filter would have to include a line that evaluated the probability of a possible designer exsisting i.e:...... goto 3)3)Does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified?If No we attribute it to chance,if yes is there reason to attribute E to a designer?If yes E could be the result of design OR nature, if no then E can be attributed to nature.Untill the EF contains the possibility of natural CSI it is spurious and circular as a means of discerning design from nature.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
John Paul has REPEATEDLY pointed out to you that the Intelligent Designer is not the priority of the study of ID. However, it seems to me that this statement is nothing other than religous discrimination. You should not be able to use Behe's religion to undermine his theory.

---

JP has REPEATEDLY tried to evade the question given that Behe considers bacteria to be IC its a pretty fair bet that a naturally occuring IDer is not a viable solution to the ID of the IDer as it were....So that leaves us with..... Goddidit...I agree that under normal circumstances a persons religion should not be used against their theories, however in this case his theory is based solely on religious conviction...

I can say circular....I`d also throw in the EF is spurious and simply an assertion that CSI=Design with meaningless mathematical garnish.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
1)Yeah, well on a different planet, anything is possible.

​

2)Nope. That leaves us with: Intelligentdesignerdidit.

​

3)a)Really? Actually, Behe claims that he was perfectly fine with the idea of a God that used evolution... but then he looked into it.

​

b)In fact, many God-fearing men are perfectly fine with the idea of evolution.

​

c)It seems to me that it is the atheists that are driven mostly by religous conviction. But you don't see me going around saying "Evilution is only for atheist non-believing scum!"

---

1)Only if you assume that on another planet the natural laws we observe in the rest of the universe are completely meaningless...2)And given that Intelligentdesigner is semanticaly equal to God that leaves us with Goddidit.....3)a)So if its a scientific theory rather than a religious belief in a lab coat why has the dear Dr not published his work in any form other than a popular press book? Its been 6 years, if he hasn`t published yet the chances are that he has nothing that validates his claims...With no proof it is a belief, and by dragging in an intelligent designing entity, for which there is no evidence for the existence of, it becomes a religious belief...b)Yes the rational ones...c)Athiests driven by religious conviction????? Que?????And WTF is the last bit about?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Except of course that in Islam, Jesus Christ is only a prophet, not the Son of God, and he died on the cross and didn't come back. In the last days, according to Islam, Jesus will be reborn and will break the crosses, re-educate the surviving Christians, and then die (for the last time).

​

It does seem to me rather remarkable that the two dominant monotheistic religions of the world share common parentage. Why is that?

---

Actually they don`t think that Jesus, or Isa as they call him, died. They believe he was taken up to "heaven" still alive and at their "day of judgement" Isa will return to fight the "antichrist" (and as I remember it become king and father a line of kings before dying and returning to heaven)...

yep... http://imrannazir.tripod.com/islam/christ/isa.html