Irreducible Complexity and TalkOrigins

And how does anyone know that? Has anyone calculated the probability that an intelligent agent designed the IC system under discussion? The intelligent designer hypothesis does not win by default -- it stands or falls on its own merits regardless of the weaknesses of any other explanation.

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

Dembski's argument is bogus since the point of Dawkin's Weasel program is not what he claims it is. The weasel program is not intended to be an example of dgital evolution but merely an example of the power of cumulative selection. The fact that Dawkin's chose a particular target phrase is one of the key reasons the example is not analogous to evolution.Dembski sets up the weasel program as a strawman and is astonished when it fails to do something it was never intended or expected to do. Its hardly a novel creationist tactic.As for SCI it is an even more tenuous and febrile concept than IC.TTFN,WK

Again, you're assuming that there is such a thing as "irreducible" complexity when you're really talking about "improbable" complexity. You're not even calculating what the probability is. You're just saying it's "too improbable".And how can an "intelligent agent" that you can't explain be the best explanation of anything?

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

The system that evolved (disulphide bond) was akin to IC but as Behe explains IC systems vary in their complexity, and for some, design is easily inferred, and for others it is not so easily inferred. As for the quantitative point at which systems become irreducibly-complex-beyond-Darwinian-explanation, Behe extends on this in his The Edge of Evolution which I haven't yet read or purchased but intend to - I guess an expansion on the probability argument (for Ringo) is also contained in that work.

I was addressing your question, not turning my back to Behe. He mentions SC in biology and says IC systems are SC and EA cannot account for them. Nobody disputes this. But because Darwinian evolution may have some hand in creating some level of "design", it is the ID argument that at the highest level of complexity, at the edge, EA does not have the capacity to produce this level of complexity - and which requires an intelligent agent.

Yes Dawkins does say the point of the program was to distinguish between one-step and cumulative processes and he admits it is misleading as Darwinian evolution has no end goal. However, if its purpose was only to delinate single step and cumulative selection, the program was mostly redundant, and it shows no real evolutionary algorithm exists to explain complexity. Edited by Suroof, : english

So we all agree that evolutionary processes can create a great deal of complexity.In fact, it appears that they can create almost ALL of the complexity we see in life. Behe and others pick a few (very few) things out to suggest a need for some other "help". Of course, the few they have picked on have been shown to be evolvable too. So the question is just where is this edge? Which does not answer my question about the different kinds of design at all. In fact, since he simply asserts that they can not be accounted for he shows nothing useful to you at all. Since you brought this in as a reference it would be nice if you would explain just how SC can not be accounted for?I would need you to explain just what SC is so I can recognize it when I see it. I don't get it out of the paper you referenced.

Even assuming the intelligent agent cannot be explained, it doesn't rule it out as the best explanation. For example somebody who views Mt Rushmore for the first time even if he/she doesn't know the designer he/she will immediately correctly assume it was designed (despite the problem of explaining the designer).ID goes as far as saying there is a designer; as for identifying and explaining the designer that is the job of metaphysics, philosophy, theology - it isn't really science (not the conservative naturalistic take on science anyway) unless you assume the intelligent designer is natural (aliens).

No they haven't - the blood clotting cascade, the cilium, phototransduction (http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm) and many others Yes that is the question - and I have yet to read Behe's latest book which attempts to address that question. I suppose we could start by asking how Darwinian evolution could account for systems way beyond the edge like the blood clotting cascade or the cilium Well the default is intelligence, and the claim that there are alternatives must be proven:"But this raises the obvious question, whether there might not be a
fundamental connection between intelligence or design on the one hand and
specified complexity on the other. In fact there is. There's only one known
source for producing actual specified complexity, and that's intelligence.
In every case where we know the causal history responsible for an instance
of specified complexity, an intelligent agent was involved. Most human
artifacts, from Shakespearean sonnets to Drer woodcuts to Cray
supercomputers, are specified and complex. For a signal from outer space to
convince astronomers that extraterrestrial life is real, it too will have
to be complex and specified, thus indicating that the extraterrestrial is
not only alive but also intelligent (hence the search for extraterrestrial
intelligence-SETI).Thus, to claim that laws, even radically new ones, can produce specified
complexity is in my view to commit a category mistake. It is to attribute
to laws something they are intrinsically incapable of delivering-indeed,
all our evidence points to intelligence as the sole source for specified
complexity. Even so, in arguing that evolutionary algorithms cannot
generate specified complexity and in noting that specified complexity is
reliably correlated with intelligence, I have not refuted Darwinism or
denied the capacity of evolutionary algorithms to solve interesting
problems. In the case of Darwinism, what I have established is that the
Darwinian mechanism cannot generate actual specified complexity. What I
have not established is that living things exhibit actual specified
complexity. That is a separate question."Dembski explains why EA cannot generate SC - do not ask me to explain it! - http://www.leaderu.com/...es/dembski/docs/bd-algorithms.htmlEdited by Suroof, : Include supplementary site

I've asked IDist this before, but I've never really gotten an answer.How could we know that Mt. Rushmore was designed?This isn't a silly question; discussing this question will illuminate why this analogy really isn't a good one.If I had absolutely no knowledge of Mt.s or Rushmores, how could I determine whether Mt. Rushmore was designed by an intelligent agency?

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

Only because Mt Rushmore is carvings of human heads. In other words, it is something we are all familiar with. This is a weak argument.

Yes they have. Behe was put on the stand and exposed.You haven't explained what SC is yet. So your quotes don't mean much yet.

The topic is irreducible complexity. How does Mt. Rushmore relate to that?The reason most of us would conclude that Mt. Rushmore was intelligently designed is because we can imagine the steps in the process. We've all made stuff out of clay, carved a turkey, played with Tinker Toys. We see design that mimics what we know.When we look at something really complex, like the layers in the Grand Canyon, we ask, "How the heck did that happen?" We don't see design in it.Your example seems to argue against you. The complexity of Mt. Rushmore is reducible. We've already been through that. A natural designer just moves the problem. Natural aliens would supposedly have "irreducibly complex" systems too, wouldn't they?

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

What sort of logic is that? How does the existence of a simple program to illustrate a point, and which does illustrate that point as a counter to the strawman 'tornado in a junkyard' type calculations so beloved of creationists, which is not intended to be an evolutionary algorithm to produce complexity show that no real evolutionary algorithm exists to explain complexity. It is, once again, a complete non sequitur. Its like saying that the fact that my rabbit isn't a dog shows that no dogs exist.TTFN,WK

A good review of this is : http://www.designinference.com/...2003.08.Encyc_of_Relig.htm.We can detect design - for example SETI looks for patterns in radio signals received. As that essay shows if signals were received with beats and stops corresponding to the prime numbers scientists would conclude intelligence. Dembski goes on to explain why we infer this: firstly because the signal doesn't HAVE to be that way - it isn't necessay, it is contingent; secondly because the signal is long, therefore the probability of getting any known sequence is low - it is complex; and thirdly we can relate to the signals through an independent information/ known patter in this case prime numbers - it is specified.If aliens did observe Mt. Rushmore they would conclude intelligence because the complex arrangement corresponds to an independent known pattern (the human face).IC systems also exhibit this feature of SC as arriving at IC through Darwinian evolution (indirectly) is amazingly small (therefore the system is complex) and the system complies to an independent function beyond the capacity of the parts themselves (therefore the system is specified). Dembski goes into a bit more detail here: http://www.designinference.com/....Irred_Compl_Revisited.pdf