Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
40 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,996 Year: 22,032/19,786 Month: 595/1,834 Week: 95/500 Day: 53/42 Hour: 1/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The design inference
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 121 (5741)
02-27-2002 8:59 PM


It's called the design inference, not the materialistic naturalism excludance. It is evidenced by the CSI and apparent IC of living organisms. Mr. P has a point in that Dembski's filter can't detect random looking markings, but it sure could point out any accompanying text. (Sorry Mr. P but DNA and the cell are hardly random markings that may or may not mean something)

All the filter wants you to do is consider the evidence and if you get to the 3rd box, use as much scrutiny of the evidence as technology allows before reaching a conclusion. ID was shut out when the a priori before the black box was even opened.

Today we describe biochemical systems analogous with machines. We observe machines being designed. We observe biochemical systems being engineered (designed). The way information is transported internal to each cell is analogous to a LAN (local are network- packeted, with header containing destination, source, key, data) with ports to the whole system, itself a myriad of complex pathways, in complex metazoans and other multicellular organisms.

So if you are telling me that for some unknown reason, science has to exclude the design inference, based on what we observe plus the fact we have no evidence that life originated via purely natural processes, I would have to conclude that you are 6 cents short of a nickel.

------------------
John Paul

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 02-27-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by LudvanB, posted 02-27-2002 9:45 PM John Paul has responded
 Message 3 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-28-2002 4:02 PM John Paul has responded
 Message 8 by nator, posted 03-10-2002 9:37 AM John Paul has not yet responded

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 121 (5749)
02-27-2002 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by John Paul
02-27-2002 8:59 PM


I really dont get the fuss. I happen to agree with the concept of ID. Its actually as good an explanation as any for life. But Design Inference does not prove YEC in the least. Its everybit as conceivable that God "spkinkled" the universe with basic DNA and then stepped back to watch it grow and become whatever it became. I actually consider this a helluvalot more INTELLIGENT than going through the pains of forming a whole planet filled with creatures only to murder most of em barely 16 centuries later un a fit of psychotic rage. The flood and all it entails is acutally the diametrical opposition of INTELLIGENCE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John Paul, posted 02-27-2002 8:59 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by nator, posted 03-10-2002 9:30 AM LudvanB has not yet responded
 Message 9 by John Paul, posted 03-10-2002 4:08 PM LudvanB has not yet responded

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 5916 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 3 of 121 (5835)
02-28-2002 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by John Paul
02-27-2002 8:59 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[b]It's called the design inference, not the materialistic naturalism excludance. [/QUOTE]

Ok. Let's get one thing clear. Scientists and many others infer design in many ways. What Dembski is claiming is that
: he has identified a technique for inferring design which does not give false positives;
: this technique underlies design inferences that are made in other fields.

Let's kick off with an interesting question regarding Dembski's claim to have formulated a logical filter for inferring design that does not give false positives. Is this filter now knowingly applied in any of the fields Dembski refers to as using design inferences? Let's take SETI and Forensic Science: now that Dembski has codified this tool is it actually being used in thse fields?

This is not a rhetorical question. I don't know the answer and would genuinely be interested to see practical applications of Dembski's filter in real-world situations where decisions have to be made on the outcome.

[b] [QUOTE]It is evidenced by the CSI and apparent IC of living organisms.[/B][/QUOTE]

I can't imagine what you mean here. At the most this sentence can mean:

If FW then (if LC then LD)
LC
Therefore FW.

(Where F = "The Filter Works", LC = "Life is complex and specified", LD = "life is designed".)

This is clearly bunk.

BTW, I presume that having read Dembski, apparently approvingly, you don't mind me using completely superfluous quasi-symbolical forms in his manner?

[b] [QUOTE]Mr. P has a point in that Dembski's filter can't detect random looking markings, but it sure could point out any accompanying text. [/b][/QUOTE]

Well I wound't want it to detect them - I would want it to help me decide whether they were designed or not.

[b] [QUOTE](Sorry Mr. P but DNA and the cell are hardly random markings that may or may not mean something)[/b][/QUOTE]

O don't be sorry, just tell me how DNA is specified in Dembski's sense.

[b] [QUOTE]All the filter wants you to do is consider the evidence and if you get to the 3rd box, use as much scrutiny of the evidence as technology allows before reaching a conclusion.[/B][/QUOTE]

If this is the case then the filter is totally useless, because in the third box you are back to Paley's old argument that this thing looks like it might be designed, and Hume's rejoinder questioning what could be "sufficiently like" to justify the inference.

Unless the filter can actually get you to the point of saying "this is designed" then it is as much use as the proverbial chocolate teapot.[b] [QUOTE]ID was shut out when the a priori before the black box was even opened.[/b][/QUOTE]

I don't understand. Can you clarify? Thanks.[b] [QUOTE]Today we describe biochemical systems analogous with machines.[/b][/QUOTE]

Analogy isn't going to do the trick, mate. What about the other way round? Let's say I compare the claw on the production line robot to a human hand. I remark how similar they are - how they have "fingers", "joints", how they move, how they grasp, how they have "tendons." I ponder on how they came about ... Does the hand help me accurately guess that the robot claw was made from cast and machined steel parts, that it was wired and soldered? Does the robot claw help me accurately guess that the hand was formed by cell division? Analogy clearly doesn't help in pondering their manufacture - why do you think analogy is going to get you any further when considering if they are "designed"?[b] [QUOTE]
The way information is transported internal to each cell is analogous to a LAN (local are network- packeted, with header containing destination, source, key, data) with ports to the whole system, itself a myriad of complex pathways, in complex metazoans and other multicellular organisms.[/b][/QUOTE]

Same thing. The human mind likes analogies because it enables us to reuse existing knowledge - but argument from analogy is illogical.
[b] [QUOTE]So if you are telling me that for some unknown reason, science has to exclude the design inference[/b][/QUOTE]

Science does not have to exclude the design inference, it is purely that so far no one has come close to showing how it applies to living things in a way that helps scientists to understand them better than other methods. The really sad thing about Demsbki's work is that, rather like Goss's in the 19th century, it is irrelevant to the work being done in the field.(Which brings back to wondering if there are examples of his work being explicitly used in fields where it is of immediate relevance.)

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 02-28-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John Paul, posted 02-27-2002 8:59 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by John Paul, posted 03-17-2002 10:03 AM Mister Pamboli has responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 4 of 121 (5882)
03-01-2002 7:26 AM


John Paul: There are a couple of things I don't understand about Dembski's model.

If I understood "Design Inference" correctly (and I'm not an information specialist), he defines specified complexity thus:

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")

It would seem to me that it would be impossible to determine the specificity of an object without detailed knowledge of its causal history, otherwise how do you determine meaningful pattern (or determine whether a given pattern was meaningful)? I have a similar question about complexity - how do you determine the difference between "apparent complexity" (Dembski's term, I think) and true complexity?

Dembski defines a designed phenomenon or object as one that displays specified complexity, because SC can only come from intelligence. Therefore, when Dembski asserts that living organisms display specified complexity, he is essentially asserting it is designed. This appears circular: since SC can ONLY come from intelligence, the pre-requisite for something like a living organism to be designed is that it is complex (i.e., designed). The filter appears to be set up only to accept positives. IOW: anything the user wants to declare designed will automatically be selected as designed, and anything the user doesn't want to declare designed will be an example of "apparent" design.

I'd appreciate your explanation for this seeming paradox.


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by joz, posted 03-01-2002 8:19 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 121 (5883)
03-01-2002 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Quetzal
03-01-2002 7:26 AM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Quetzal, posted 03-01-2002 7:26 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by John Paul, posted 03-10-2002 4:13 PM joz has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 121 (6399)
03-09-2002 10:53 AM


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

  
nator
Member (Idle past 508 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 7 of 121 (6465)
03-10-2002 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by LudvanB
02-27-2002 9:45 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by LudvanB:
[B]I really dont get the fuss. I happen to agree with the concept of ID. Its actually as good an explanation as any for life.[/QUOTE]

No, it isn't, really.

No philosophy is a good explanation for naturalistic phenomena.

ID is a philosophy, not science. It is also dependent upon a lack of evidence, rather than evidence, which contributes to it's inability to be taken as science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by LudvanB, posted 02-27-2002 9:45 PM LudvanB has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by John Paul, posted 03-10-2002 4:21 PM nator has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 508 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 8 of 121 (6466)
03-10-2002 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by John Paul
02-27-2002 8:59 PM


quote:

Today we describe biochemical systems analogous with machines. We observe machines being designed. We observe biochemical systems being engineered (designed). The way information is transported internal to each cell is analogous to a LAN (local are network- packeted, with header containing destination, source, key, data) with ports to the whole system, itself a myriad of complex pathways, in complex metazoans and other multicellular organisms.

Your problem is that you have only analogy.

You don't have evidence.

An analogy is often the way scientific theories begin, but after the analogy is made, testable hypothese must be developed, potential falsifications need to be identified, and tests of those hypothese must be undertaken to determine the likely validity of the initial idea.

IDers are simply willing to make the analogy, but are unwilling to do all the rest of the work to make it real science.

Until this work is done, ID will remain a philosopical idea and nothing more.

[QUOTE]So if you are telling me that for some unknown reason, science has to exclude the design inference, based on what we observe plus the fact we have no evidence that life originated via purely natural processes, I would have to conclude that you are 6 cents short of a nickel.


[/B][/QUOTE]

Lack of evidence for a natural phenomena is not positive evidence for anything.

It simply means that we don't know something today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John Paul, posted 02-27-2002 8:59 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 121 (6483)
03-10-2002 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by LudvanB
02-27-2002 9:45 PM


quote:
ludvanB:
I really dont get the fuss. I happen to agree with the concept of ID.

John Paul:
Good for you.

quote:
ludvanB:
Its actually as good an explanation as any for life.

John Paul:
Thank you for your support.

quote:
ludvanB:
But Design Inference does not prove YEC in the least.

John Paul:
That’s OK, it’s not supposed to.

quote:
ludvanB:
Its everybit as conceivable that God "spkinkled" the universe with basic DNA and then stepped back to watch it grow and become whatever it became.

John Paul:
That could be but from what we do know about DNA more than that (sprinkling) would be required.

quote:
ludvanB:
I actually consider this a helluvalot more INTELLIGENT than going through the pains of forming a whole planet filled with creatures only to murder most of em barely 16 centuries later un a fit of psychotic rage.

John Paul:
How do you know pain, or any stress for that matter, was involved when God Created? Perhaps it is your concept that is incorrect.

quote:
ludvanB:
The flood and all it entails is acutally the diametrical opposition of INTELLIGENCE.

John Paul:
That’s your opinion and you are entitled to it.

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by LudvanB, posted 02-27-2002 9:45 PM LudvanB has not yet responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 121 (6484)
03-10-2002 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by joz
03-01-2002 8:19 AM


joz:
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")

joz:
Its this definition of SC that seems wrong to me it seems 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....

John Paul:
And to understand this you should read Dembski’s Law of small probabilities.

joz:
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.....

John Paul:
Until you can come up with an indisputable example of CSI originating via purely natural processes, your point is moot. Also the filter says you can infer design. You do know what infer means…

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.

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by joz, posted 03-01-2002 8:19 AM joz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by joz, posted 03-10-2002 4:28 PM John Paul has responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 121 (6485)
03-10-2002 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by nator
03-10-2002 9:30 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
No, it isn't, really.

No philosophy is a good explanation for naturalistic phenomena.

ID is a philosophy, not science. It is also dependent upon a lack of evidence, rather than evidence, which contributes to it's inability to be taken as science.


John Paul:
Yes it is, really.

There is no evidence to substantiate the claim that life could arise from non-life via purely natural processes.

The evidence for ID is abundant. It can be found in the CSI exhibited by life and the apparent IC of life. It is supported by the fact that no purely natural processes or mechanisms are known that would allow life to arise from non-life.

Also knowing the genetic code is a product of ID could better aid us in deciphering it. Just like when we intercept an enemy's encrypted message, knowing there is a verifiable, readable message to decrypt aids us in decrypting it.

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nator, posted 03-10-2002 9:30 AM nator has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 121 (6486)
03-10-2002 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by John Paul
03-10-2002 4:13 PM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by John Paul, posted 03-10-2002 4:13 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by John Paul, posted 03-11-2002 6:20 PM joz has responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 121 (6617)
03-11-2002 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by joz
03-10-2002 4:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
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.....


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.

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by joz, posted 03-10-2002 4:28 PM joz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by joz, posted 03-11-2002 6:37 PM John Paul has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 121 (6620)
03-11-2002 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by John Paul
03-11-2002 6:20 PM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by John Paul, posted 03-11-2002 6:20 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by John Paul, posted 03-12-2002 4:53 PM joz has responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 121 (6699)
03-12-2002 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by joz
03-11-2002 6:37 PM


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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

joz:
Us JP? are you royalty or schizophrenic? Your the only one over there...

John Paul:
Yes us joz. As in the people that actually read your tripe, myself included.

joz:
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....

John Paul:
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

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

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.

joz:
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...

John Paul:
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 naturally designed one?

joz:
Because untill you do that and show that DNA is in fact designed it stands as a valid example...

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

joz:
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....

John Paul:
One more time- Muller did NOT know what he was up against. Maybe he asked Edgar Caycee...

To even think that someone writing in the 1930's could have understood the complexity and specifity of life's biochemical systems is absurd.

joz:
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....

John Paul:
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.

joz:
He should have done his homework.....

John Paul:
Apparently he did more than Muller was capable of.

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by joz, posted 03-11-2002 6:37 PM joz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 03-12-2002 6:44 PM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 18 by joz, posted 03-13-2002 9:34 AM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-13-2002 1:14 PM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 88 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-20-2002 7:14 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019