Intelligent Design in Universities

My goodness! Isn't it blatantly obvious what should be the research subject? Could that be why Mick doesn't bother to mention it?You call ID a paradigm. Don't you think that the first thing a scientist must do when starting to operate under a new paradigm, is to check whether the paradigm holds water?What did physicists do when Einstein overthrew their existing paradigm, Newtonian physics, with a completely new one - relativity? Did they say: "OK Einstein, new paradigm? Fine, we'll accept it", and left it at that? Business as usual?They didn't. They started to devise experiments that could show that the paradigm Einstein presented actually worked. They concentrated on the essence of the paradigm, namely that time and space weren't absolute, as Newton would have it, but relative to motion, as Einstein had figured out. Their research concentrated on the central tenets of the new paradigm.Now, the essence of ID is that the design we see in biological nature necessitates a designer, and an intelligent one at that. If you want to work under that assumption, then the least you must do is show that the assumption can stand up to criticism. You must try to think of ways to falsify it, carry out the necessary tests and observations, and subject the results to peer-review.If someone were to propose that we do science under the assumption that the centre of the universe is located in a basement just three blocks away from his own house, would you take that seriously? Even if he would say that it doesn't change anything in the way science must be done? That it's just a new epistemological paradigm, carry on?Sounds cranky, doesn't it? Cranky and familiar, even?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

If ever there was one!

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

What is an "upper probability barrier"?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

No science at all? Schrafinator mentioned six scientific papers on the evolution of whales and you call that "no science a all"? But then again, we've seen you shy away before, when real scientific papers were presented to you, using the pathetic excuse that there's no direct link to the papers, so you have to go looking for their content yourself. Poor you, having to do some actual research...You also conspicuously dodge Schrafinators question about the broken vitamin C gene. Is it perhaps because you don't know what a retrovirus is? Is that the usual modus operandi for ID-ists, when faced with some real opposition? Just run away? Aren't your fellow ID-ists ashamed of you?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Speak for yourself. Again, speak for yourself. If there is any way of demonstrating directly that intelligence is not a prerequisite for design to arise, it is by making use of genetic algorithms. The fact that you've never even heard of genetic algorithms doesn't mean nobody has, but it does put your hubris in a new light. It's pathetic.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 05-May-2005 10:25 AM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

As long as you keep spouting nonsense, the answer is yes. Why not? Because you can't handle it?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

In Message 148, Jar asked Jerry: In Message 155, Jerry answered : I don't know what Jerry meant by 'specified', but it's nonsense to say that group 1 "has the lowest odds of occurring". If the order of the coins matters, which, judging by the fact that the last two groups are mirror images of each other, I suspect is what Jar intended, then each group has exactly the same chance of occurring, namely 1/2¹⁰, which comes down to about 0.00098.Incidentally , Jerry has written this expos (at the site he advertises in his signature), about the so-called "universal probability bound". In it, it is stated that something with a probability of 1/10¹⁵⁰ will never occur in reality.
He uses a coin example to explain this, which makes the following reply to Jar, in Message 169, seem a bit disingenuous: If I understand the article correctly, (which Jerry, if he reacts to me at all, will no doubt tell me in no uncertain terms I don't), then the heads/tails configuration of a thousand numbered coins, released all at once from a container, is impossible. After all, any one outcome has the odds of 1/2¹⁰⁰⁰, or about 1/10³⁰¹, and something with those odds "cannot happen".The error Jerry makes is that he compares evolution to someone who aims for the outcome of all heads. Such a person would have to flip coins for a long, long time before all heads came up, is the argument. But evolution has no goal. Whatever happens, happens. Just like an upended bucket of coins must result in a certain heads/tails configuration, no matter what the odds of that particular configuration are.Back to Jar's question:If I had to say which group has more information, I'd express that in terms of how much information is needed to recreate each group from ten coins.The first group can be specified minimally as follows:
All coins are heads.The second group would be minimally specified thus:
1. The first coin is heads;
2. The next coin is tails;
3. The next three coins are heads;
4. see 2;
5. The next coin is heads;
6. The next two coins are tails;
7. see 5;The description of the third group would resemble that of the second and would be about just as long.The length of the minimal description needed for recreating the group is a measure of the information content of that group. Therefore, group 1 has the least information and groups 2 and 3 have equal amounts of information, but more than group 1.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 07-May-2005 11:34 PM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

No.Group 4 can be specified as:
1. The first coin is heads;
2. The next coin is the opposite of the previous.
3. Repeat 2 until you run out of coins.This description is shorter than that of group 2 or 3, but still longer than that of group 1. So the order of information content, from least to most is: group 1, group 4, group 2/3.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 07-May-2005 11:42 PM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Unworthy? I don't think so: "Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers." - Francois Marie Arouet (a.k.a. Voltaire) I'd say yes, yes and yes.The more randomness in the series, the longer your description of it becomes. Repeating subseries reduce the amount of information needed to recreate the series. So you'd think no repetition would maximize the information content. But no repetition at the smallest scale actually creates repetition on a larger scale, as your group 4 illustrates.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

2LOT applies to closed systems only, and earth's biosphere isn't a closed system, there's a continuous input of energy from the sun. As some of the more knowledgeable physicists here have pointed out, if I understand them well, thermodynamics is not applicable to evolution. I am not a physicist, so I will have to go by what they say. That's what I think too. Yet, creationists/ID-ists consistently claim that mutation means loss of information. What do you mean by "information that can be used" as opposed to "absolute information content"?I am sorry, but I am going to bed now. Hope to see you tomorrow.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Jonf quotes me: And answers: You are most probably right, my mistake. As I said, I'm not a physicist and I'm glad that a more knowledgeable physicist corrects me. Would I be correct in thinking that this is only logical because the ultimate system, the universe, is closed by definition (as far as the input of energy is concerned, anyway), and thus any part of it would have to have its entropy maximized in the long run - the long run being the time left until the heat death of the universe? Could you give an example of that?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Yet another example of your very sloppy style of arguing: Mick was talking about design and for no apparent reason you switch to the designer. Why? Are you having trouble reading?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

You know Jerry, I don't have a problem with that. Because I too think there is design in biological systems. And in some cases I wouldn't even use the word 'detect' to describe what we do to find it, as it implies a certain level of difficulty we would have in determining the presence of design in biological systems. For example, it's all too easy to see that the lens in the human eye is designed to focus light on the retina. I don't think evolutionists need to deny that.But I am convinced that this design has arisen through a mindless process of random mutation and natural selection. The presence of design does not necessitate an intelligent designer. Assuming a designer where one is not needed, just needlessly complicates things.Science is hard enough as it is.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Limbo,As soon as real arguments are posted, Jerry isn't willing to discuss the details anymore. Instead, he uses dodgy tactics. He is doing your side a great disservice.Besides, he slings around condescending remarks and comes over as extremely arrogant, yet when he is treated in the same manner, he starts whining about it. And when he is really cornered, he takes his patented escape route and runs.You may be impressed by his 'scientific' approach, but even those of us who are only moderately informed about science, like myself, aren't in the least. Let alone those here who really know their stuff, like Wounded King, who did a great job of taking him on.I wonder how many people have been watching this thread develop in the last hours. For me it was great entertainment. I had to restrain myself from posting "Booooo!" when Jerry ran.Good show, WK!

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Do you do this debating as part of your job?
If not, I won't tell. But if so, I envy you.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins