Discontinuing research about ID

Hello everyone,

I spent a few years to actually test the predictions of intelligent design at the present time. A paper with about 60 pages and 9 appendices resulted (http://vixra.org/abs/1504.0033) that supports the theory of ID. We sent our paper to other researchers we know to get some feedback and even to ID proponents at the end. They were really thrilled by our results and suggested BIO-Complexity for a peer-review. We submitted our paper to BIO-Complexity but it was not accepted for a peer review, they only accept papers about biology. We asked other conventional research journals whether they accept papers about ID, but they only replied they will neither review nor publish a paper about intelligent design. Therefore we have now given up to search for a journal that would accept our paper. This statement is not only an expression of regret. I also want to warn every scientist who considers to write a research paper about intelligent design to not do so. It's not worth the effort. No one will ever review or publish it. That's sad but it's the truth.

Edit: Concluding statements: Message 289, Message 294 and Message 299
The Result of a peer-review with a changed paper that disavowed ID: Message 390

Edited by Dubreuil, : Concluding statements added

Edited by Dubreuil, : Fourth message added

Do you noticed the URL in the first post?

Review is not necessary. We already got some feedback from other persons who mainly agreed with us about this topic. The previous statement was merely a warning to not engage in research about intelligent design. Even a positive feedback here will not help to publish the paper elsewhere. Therefore a review by laymen in information science is neither necessary nor desired.

Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.

The whole Appendix B is about the falsification test.

Perhaps that is because it appears you haven't completed the requirements for review.

The question was: "Do you accept papers about intelligent design for a peer-review?" and there was always a refusing answer. There was no reason to sent the paper to the journal after this refusal.

The best argument is presented on page 6-7 under "Proving the pattern". The objective empirical evidence for this calculation is represented in Appendix A and Appendix B on pages 16-37. The objective empirical evidence for the reference about a triune God is represented on the pages 39-58.

Seriously, you can't review the paper within a few hours. It takes at least a month to examine the whole paper. Not even experienced reviewers can review a paper of this size in less than a month.

This is still argument by URL. If you want the ideas considered here you will have to post them here. It is far better that you restate them in words more suitable for discussion here than in the form that is best for a scientific paper. I bit like you would if you were making a presentation at a scientific conference. In such a venue you would not simple put parts of your paper up on powerpoint slides.

The paper is not one of the typical intelligent design papers that can be summarised with a few sentences. The objective empirical evidences are presented on 42 pages and this empirical argument can not be shortened. The content of the paper is not suited for a quick discussion. The papers content is comprehensive, exacting and contains only rarely unnecessary words. A removal of sentences will result in decreased understandability. I doubt you will spend some time to understand the paper if you already dislike to follow just an URL. The persons that were asked for a comment before needed at least three weeks to review the paper completely. I doubt anyone here will spend the same amount of time. Therefore I'm sceptical how reviews here could have a good quality.

Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

Quotation from page 6-7

The pattern was created to fit with season 1, 3 and 4 at the actual start of the episode (00:00). Afterwards it was tested on season 5 and 6 and a random data source. For the random data source it was assumed for the first season, that all episodes start at an other time (03:00-07:00) right after the opening credits. With randomized starting times the pattern did fit with 15 episodes and didn't fit with 9 episodes (Appendix B). Therefore the probability for the pattern to be caused through random data is 0.625. The probability for the pattern to be not caused through random data is 0.375. For season 5 and 6 with the actual starting times (00:00) the pattern did fit for 45 episodes and didn't fit for 2 episodes (Appendices A). For the calculation the probability mass function is used [4]. The probability, that it is solely a result of chance that the pattern did fit with at least 45 episodes is:

Url: http://s9.postimg.org/ss30roncf/IMG3.png

This is above 5 sigma that is used in particle physics for the declaration of a discovery [5]. That shows, that the existence of the found pattern is ten million times likelier than its non-existence. For three other series the pattern was tested for, the pattern did fit 66 times and didn't fit 1 time.

Every alteration of this text would decrease the understandability.

An explanation of basic probability calculations for laymen (not part of the paper):

A pattern has to be proved in a scientific and comprehensible way. In particle physics a pattern is proved, if there is only one chance in nearly two million that a random fluctuation would yield the result [5]. To prove this, the probability mass function is used [4]. Assuming there is a coin that can be tossed over and over again. The coin has a probability for heads with 0.5 and a probability for tails with 0.5. Now gadget A is switched on, the coin is tossed 100 times and there are 52 times heads and 48 times tails. The probability, that a difference that is not larger than two coin tosses (48/52, 49/51, 50/50, 51/49, 52/48) can be caused out of chance is:

Url: http://s4.postimg.org/3yn1efxzh/IMG1.png

Therefore there is no proof that gadget A influences coin tosses. Now gadget B is turned on. The coin is tossed again 100 times and there are now 3 times heads and 97 times tails. The probability, that there are not more than 3 times heads (3/97, 2/98, 1/99, 0/100) out of chance is:

Url: http://s22.postimg.org/akd4ahmnl/IMG2.png

The probability that 3 times heads and 97 times tails can be caused out of chance is lower than 1:10^6, therefore this is a proof that the result is not only a random fluctuation [5].

Edited by Dubreuil, : Equations added

Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.

In plain English and without a reference to the paper: What is the season, and what is the pattern, and how was the fit tested?

I can't explain here what the pattern is unless someone explains me how to post images and tables here. How I said, I'm sceptical how a review here could have a good quality. The presentability appears to be limited here.

what is the pattern

Quotation from page 2-3:

There wasn't the resources to sustain large experiments with a lot participants like [2], so a free accessible data set fulfilled this purpose.

Before creating a pattern, the basic outline must be defined. According to [2], every time a person is avoided, every time a person gets a positive benefit and every time a person just appears will be observed. These are equal outlines to the study that found patterns in preferences regarding approaching or avoiding objects.

	E1	E2	E3	E4
Jean-Luc Picard	*	*, +	-	*
William Riker	*
Geordi La Forge	*	*		*
Worf		*	*, +

To describe over time which person gets a positive benefit or gets a disadvantage (are avoided) the pattern will be divided into different events that allows appearances and a person to be affected positively or negatively. Every „*“ allows an appearance and every „+“ or „-“ allows a person to be affected positively or negatively. If a person appears who does not appear at the current event but can appear at the next event, the pattern moves on, and other persons can be affected positively or negatively. An example: If E1 is the current event, then „Jean-Luc Picard“ and „William Riker“ (ST:TNG) can appear and discuss. If „Worf“ appears the next event is triggered and „Jean-Luc Picard“ can be affected positively at E2. The event after E2 can only be triggered if „Worf“ is affected positively or „Jean-Luc Picard“ is affected negatively and so on.

A person counts as appeared if this person is clearly visible, is named or if the person starts to speak. If a person gets interrupted while speaking through someone else and then starts to speak again it counts as an-other appearance. Equally if a person walks away and becomes visible again after this disappearance. Otherwise a person that started speaking once or appeared once would never appear again and no consistent pattern could be created.

In this situation (3x03 E11):

Data: „Captain!“

first Data appears because he started to speak. Then Picard appears because he is named. If Data wasn't already visible but is visible shortly after he asked for the Captain, Data appears again.

The following short forms will be used:

„Jean-Luc Picard“ = P.Pi
„William Riker“ = P.Ri
„Geordi La Forge“ = P.LF
„Worf“ = P.Wo
„Deanna Troi“ = P.Tr
„Data“ = P.Da
„Beverly Crusher“ = P.BeC
„Wesley Crusher“ = P.WeC
„Tasha Yar“ = P.Ya

If „Jean-Luc Picard“ appears, *P.Pi will be used. If „Jean-Luc Picard“ is affected positively or negatively P.Pi+ or P.Pi- will be used.

what is the season

One season are 26 succeeding episodes.

how was the fit tested

E1 is the starting point and how the events have to appear after each other looks like this: E1 -> E2 -> E3 -> E4

An episode is quantisied for example to:
*P.Pi, *P.LF, *P.Wo, P.Pi+, P.Pi-, *P.LF

This episode fits with the pattern:
E1: *P.Pi, *P.LF /E2: *P.Wo, P.Pi+ /E3: P.Pi- /E4: *P.LF

Quantisations that fit:
*P.Pi, *P.LF, *P.Wo, P.Pi+, P.Pi-, *P.LF
E1: *P.Pi, *P.LF /E2: *P.Wo, P.Pi+ /E3: P.Pi- /E4: *P.LF
*P.Ri, *P.LF, P.Pi+, *P.LF, P.Wo+, *P.Pi
E1: *P.Ri, *P.LF /E2: P.Pi+, *P.LF /E3: P.Wo+ /E4: *P.Pi
*P.LF, *P.Pi, *P.Wo, P.Wo+, *P.LF
E1: *P.LF, *P.Pi /E2: *P.Wo /E3: P.Wo+ /E4: *P.LF

Quantisations that doesn't fit:
*P.Pi, P.Pi-, *P.Ri, *P.LF, P.Wo+
E1: *P.Pi, P.Pi-??
*P.Pi, *P.Wo, *P.Ri, *P.Wo, P.Wo+
E1: *P.Pi /E2: *P.Wo, *P.Ri??
*P.LF, *P.Wo, P.Wo+, P.LF+, *P.LF
E1: *P.LF /E2: *P.Wo /E3: P.Wo+, P.LF+??

This is an exemplary pattern with 4 events, 4 persons and 1 starting point (E1) that explains what the pattern is and how the fit was tested. The actual pattern has 15 events, 13 person, 12 additional marks that were looked for and 4 starting points.

An example for a row of appearances that doesn't fit with the actual pattern (Appendix B 1x11)

*P.Al, {*P.Tr, *P.Ri}, *P.Pi, M13, *P.Al, *P.Mi, *P.Ri, *P.Tr, *P.Mi, *P.Pi, *P.Tr, P.Tr-

E1: *P.Al, {*P.Tr, *P.Ri??}
E3: *P.Al, {*P.Tr, *P.Ri}, *P.Pi, M13??
E4: *P.Al, {*P.Tr??, *P.Ri}
E5: *P.Al??

{} means that both persons appear at the same moment together.

Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.

The flaw that I see with theories of intelligent design is that they all seek to compare similarities between naturally occurring patterns and patterns created by intelligent agents. The flaw lies in the fact that intelligent agents design things based on what they see in nature. So the fact that an airplane resembles a bird in no way supports the idea that the bird was designed. The concept of ID requires the assumption that patterns will not occur without intelligent input.

The probability, that the pattern is a result of chance was calculated to 1.063*10^-7. Therefore the chance that the pattern occurred naturally is only one to ten million. The pattern is not about the plot as for example "the new ensign in the red shirt that beamed down to the planet with the main characters is going to die". The pattern is about appearances and affected persons. Appearances are mostly coincidental triggered and depend on camera positions and environmental conditions, for example a tree that covers a person. There are also offscreen voices that coincidental add appearances and affected person to the usual onscreen appearances, as in 1x01 ST:TNG. Because the pattern quantises coincidental appearances that emerge to a pattern that was not created by chance with a probability of 1:10^7 it is assumed that there is a bias or an intelligent agent in chance itself.

He seems to think that the TV show qualities he's chosen should be random and that therefore any patterns he finds indicate an outside influence on chance. The fact that patterns repeat in TV shows (and indeed in all human activities) over and over again hasn't seemed to have occurred to him.

There are actually patterns that repeat in human activities. If there are 10 fanatic ID proponents and only one of them can reconsider his or her own opinion, then the fanatism is a repeating pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10. To distinguish important and unimportant patterns a discovery is defined with at least 5 sigma. The found pattern has a probability of 1:10^7 and 5,3 sigma. If you are not familiar with the maths about the paper or if you don't want to address these sciences in your post, then I suggest that you don't post comments about it. I'm not interested in opinions. Opinions are not science. Anyone who is not familiar with the sciences about the paper should not comment here, it's a giant waste of time to bother with pure opinions.

Calculations of improbability mean nothing unless you have included ALL the possibilities. See the old improbable probability problem for common mistakes.

I agree. There were also a few mistakes in the paper before we got comments about it some time ago.

In the White Mountains of California there grows a species of tree call the Bristlecone pine. They are very long lived, and as a consequence a dendrochronology was developed from their ring patterns extending over 8,000 years. Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

ID supports an old earth. Have you forgotten about that?

..or the writers and directors set the appearances specifically to further the plot but to the artistically ignorant these appearance seem coincidental.

Page 13

It is unlikely that ST:TNG was produced with the intention to let people always appear and be affected in a similar way. Even if a few writers had decided to consciously write all episodes in a similar way, this series heavily relied on fan scripts, who were certainly not informed about any secret guideline. It is not known of any writer of series plots to have once included intentionally a complex pattern like the found one (table 4). There are no cultural differences. Other series were examined and the same pattern was found. The series „Mr. Bean“, produced in England, does fit for all 14 episodes (Appendix C). Different intentions, different series, and different cultures (USA, England, Japan, India) don't change the pattern.

Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.

Yea but it is possible that people are wired to tell stories in a similar way. You may have just found the pattern we use to tell stories. Wfrom what i gether you want to show that random data is not random ie god made it nonrandom. What about Pi a never ending stream of numbers never repeating. And how the hell do you get the Christian god mixed up in this oh picard is associated with 3, storries where god that have god in them also associate him with the noubmer 3, ergo holy trinity i mean cmmon really u sure that that does not point to the tree little pigs creating the universe? If there is a pattern assuming you are not lying for Jesus, there are plenty of simpler and better explanations for it then god, and it might be worth further study, not worth publishing at this point.

In this case it would still be a discovery. That there is one significant pattern in every told story hasn't been shown before. The found pattern contains patterns on its own with E11 and E13 being virtually identical and E12 being triggered by a temporary interruption. Over 100 persons were involved in cutting, directing, editing, filming, producing and writing the different episodes. Even if a unconscious determined pattern would be imprinted with a low error rate, the overall error rate would significantly increase if all these persons frequently modified the episodes. That contradicts the high quality of the pattern with 1:10^7.

The reference about the triune God comprises over 20 pages. The results are summarised on page 15

The pattern itself contains information, for example the person P.Ya appears related to the number 3. Appendix F proves that the number 3 is part of P.Ya. If there is a triune God as designer that wants to be known, then a person called „God“ could always appear as P.Ya. For this purpose it was looked for series that include „God“ at the beginning. If God appears always as P.Ya, then this would strongly indicate the existence of a triune God as the designer of intelligent design.
Series that include God at the beginning are difficult to find. Two series were found, first „Bible stories for kids“ that includes Jesus as person and God as voice from above and second „Superbook“ that includes the Bible speaking like a person. The Bible itself states to be the word of a triune God. Appendix G proves that the Bible can only appear as P.Ya. Appendix H proves that Jesus can only appear as P.Ya. Appendix I proves that God can only appear as P.Ya. Appendix D and Appendix E show all episodes fitting with the pattern and these persons. There are 13 persons these three persons can appear as. Assuming chance as cause for all the three persons to appear as P.Ya only has a probability of 1:2197 ((1/13)^3). For 1x09 Bsfk (Appendix I) the persons Abraham, Sarai and God must appear as P.BW, P.Wo and P.Ya. The pattern is highly definite and for 1x09 Bsfk no other persons are possible. That God, Jesus and the Bible always appeared as P.Ya is an unique intrinsic characteristic of the pattern.

You have no prediction, no test, no science.

I already presented this points. From Message 14: "The pattern was created to fit with season 1, 3 and 4 at the actual start of the episode (00:00). Afterwards it was tested on season 5 and 6 and a random data source.".

I predicted that the quantised appearances are arranged in a single pattern, not randomly. A testable pattern was created from season 1, 3 and 4. This hypothesis would predict that other season would be virtually identical to the first, a prediction that would be invalidated by observing an other arrangement of appearances. For season 5 and 6 with the actual starting times (00:00) the pattern did fit for 45 episodes and didn't fit for 2 episodes (Appendices A). The arrangements of season 1, 3, 4 and season 5, 6 were virtually identical. How the fit was tested is explained in Message 28.

dwise1 writes: But that is not how TV screen plays are created. Yes, fan scripts could very well be submitted and even used, but only after having been rewritten by the writing staff. If you doubt that, try sitting through an interview with Harlan Ellison some time. He wrote and received credit for the script for the award-winning episode (also voted best episode of the original series), The City on the Edge of Forever (1967). He goes on and on about how his beloved baby had been evisserated and stitched back together like some kind of hideous monster that he could not even begin to recognize. The staff writers had reworked it and rewritten it. Though according to the article, Ellison apparently finally found some degree of satisfaction in the outcome of a 2009 lawsuit he filed.

There were 3 other series (England, Japan, India) with the same pattern that were examined, created from 1980 to 2015. Writers wouldn't try to create all of them in a similar way.

Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.

You have failed to eliminate possible causes for your pet probability, and the fact that it is thousands of orders of magnitude more probable than the observed tree ring pattern -- which IS natural -- shows that your incredulity at the size of improbability is misplaced: that something is improbable does not mean it HAD to be designed.

The improbability is not a prove of design, it's a prove of existence. For the Higgs boson the level of certainty was only 4.9 sigma and it was accepted as discovery: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...d-Particle-has-been-found.html. A certainty of 1:10^5136 is a high level of certainty, but 1:10^7 is also a good level of certainty and not irrelevant to science. Would you also name the causes I have failed to eliminate in your opinion?

It appears that you make the common (creationist) mistake of thinking that ALL the elements of a protocell need to be present in order for the protocell to form in one fell swoop. This has been demonstrated to be a false assumption.

I referred to [3]. "The question of how simple organic molecules formed a protocell is largely unanswered." is a quotation: https://www.boundless.com/...tions-about-early-life-521-5399. An other quotation: "Several problems exist with current abiogenesis models, including a primordial earth with conditions not inductive to abiogenesis, the lack of a method for simple organic molecules to polymerize, and the mono-chirality of molecules seen in life.". A bias or an agent in chance itself would make abiogenesis models more credible.

dwise writes: We're not saying that the writers would try to create their shows in a similar way, but rather that they would create their screenplays in the manner in which they had been trained to.

The arrangement of the quantised appearances is to unimportant to affect the survival of the most popular script. An example from Appendix B 1x21:

Quantisation that doesn't fit:
*P.Al, *P.Pi, M14, P.Al-, P.Al+

E1: *P.Al, *P.Pi, M14??
E3: *P.Al, *P.Pi /E9: M14 /E12: P.Al-, P.Al+??
E4: *P.Al /E5: *P.Pi, M14, P.Al-??
E5: *P.Al??

M14: smoke, gas

First P.Al appears visually, then P.Pi starts to speak offscreen, then M14 appears visually, then P.Al is affected negatively and then positively offscreen.

Quantisations that would fit:
*P.Pi, *P.Al, M14, P.Al-, P.Al+
E5: *P.Pi /E6: *P.Al /E7: M14 /E8: P.Al- /E9: P.Al+
M14, *P.Al, *P.Pi, P.Al-, P.Al+
E5: M14 /E6: *P.Al /E7: *P.Pi /E8: P.Al- /E9: P.Al+

In the first quantisation that would fit, *P.Pi and *P.Al were interchanged. In the second quantisation that would fit, M14 appeared first. Both changes doesn't change the plot. The first five seconds determine whether the pattern fit or not. Such changes are unimportant for the survival of the most popular script.
In this case an offscreen voice also add appearances and affected person to the usual onscreen appearance. You have to assume that the writers defined the talking speed of the offscreen voice to make an intentional origin credible. A faster or slower talking speed results in an other arrangement of appearances that can change whether the appearances fit or not.
The high matching rate of one to ten million also contradicts the theory that the pattern could be a result of a creative process by writers.

RAZD writes: That tv episodes are necessarily non-random by-products of humans developing the episodes within certain fixed parameters.

Car traffic is regulated through traffic lights. You hold before a red traffic light and drive if it turns green. The car traffic is defined to be non-random about this rules. But humans don't always observe the rules. There are emergency ambulances and traffic offenders. Therefore this rules are only non-random with a residual uncertainty of maybe 1:10^4. Statistically important is not whether something is non-random, it is important how certain this non-randomness is. The lower the residual uncertainty, the higher the certainty about the non-randomness. 5 sigma was defined to be certain enough for a discovery.

It was mentioned that the probability for the pattern was only obscurely determined. I have now extended Message 14. It contains now the absent equations and an explanation how the probability mass function is generally used.

Cat Sci writes: Okay, I think I get it. You've outlines Star Trek episodes with notations, and tested them for a pattern and found one that couldn't have come about by chance. Is that right?

Yes, mostly.

Cat Sci writes: How have you eliminated that you have just found a naturally ocurring unintelligent pattern that did not come about by chance?

From Message 31: "The probability, that the pattern is a result of chance was calculated to 1.063*10^-7. Therefore the chance that the pattern occurred naturally is only one to ten million."

Dr Adequate writes: I think we would all be prepared to consider the existence of an agency other than chance that produces Star Trek scripts. Have you considered the possibility that it might be the scriptwriters?

The quantisations rarely comprised more than the first two minutes. They are often different and unique: 5 persons appear at the same moment (3x09), an offscreen voice add appearances and affected person to the usual onscreen appearance (1x01, 1x05), three different persons appear repeatedly at the same moment (1x07), and so on. The writers tended to create diverse scripts that are not equal to each other.
Also it wouldn't explain the patterns within the pattern. The reference about the trinity or E11 and E13 are virtually identical and E12 is triggered by a temporary interruption. It would take more time to create and incorporate a pattern that contains patterns by its own, than to create a plot.

RAZD writes: And you still fail to make any kind of rational reason to claim that patterns in a tv show mean that ID is involved in the origin of life.

The papers topic is about testing ID at the present time, not in the past. It was not the main topic to show that ID is involved in the origin of life in this paper.

Oh, well that's a problem. That's a non sequitur. Just because something is not a result of chance does not mean that it did not occur naturally.

Yes, that it isn't a result of conscious human behaviour is explained in Message 58. That it isn't a result of unconscious human behaviour is explained in Message 39. Any other ideas for an natural origin?

I don't see how Message 39 shows that it isn't a result of unconscious human behaviour. Can you explain that differently?

Assuming that an unconscious determined mechanism imprints the pattern. Then this mechanism would have an error rate. If you consciously multiply 11 and 12 or any other two numbers, then you will make a mistake sometimes. The found pattern is a lot more complex than to multiply 11 and 12. It has 15 events, 13 person, 12 additional marks, 4 starting points and at least two patterns within the pattern. Calculating this pattern would demand a lot of brain capacity that would be a selective disadvantage and this unconscious behaviour would disappear fast.
If there is after all an unconscious pattern-calculating behaviour with a low error rate, then the overall error rate would significantly increase if all these persons frequently modified the episodes. Over 100 persons were involved in cutting, directing, editing, filming, producing and writing the different episodes.

TV shows just follow patterns because of the way they're made.

From Message 58: "It would take more time to create and incorporate a pattern that contains patterns by its own, than to create a plot."

It's not only a trivial pattern and every episode is made in an other way. From Message 58: "They are often different and unique: 5 persons appear at the same moment (3x09), an offscreen voice add appearances and affected person to the usual onscreen appearance (1x01, 1x05), three different persons appear repeatedly at the same moment (1x07), and so on. The writers tended to create diverse scripts that are not equal to each other.".
There were 3 other series this pattern was found in. It was suggested in Message 52 that all the patterns are equal to each other because it represents the best way to create a popular script. But the quantisations rarely comprised more than the first two minutes and such changes are unimportant for the survival of the most popular script (Message 58). If you say "TV shows just follow patterns because of the way they're made.", then every different episode would have a different pattern because it was made by different people (USA, England, Japan, India) in different times (1980-2015) in different ways.

Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.