Is there a worse argument??

[_Gadianton]

Given that no one here has produced even one example of information arising without intelligence behind it

EA gave the example of a brick wall crumbling.

[_EAllusion]

The problem is the type of information I am refering to is not simply a description of "order" (as you suggest above) but rather a blue-print for the construction of future order.

I don't think you quite got what I was referring to there. I was just referencing[url]basic information theory[/url], where information increases as "disorder" increases. Or put another way, the more it takes to describe something, the more information it contains. Counter-intuitively for you, I think, this means less orderly things have more information than more orderly ones.

That aside, you are skipping around what Dembski was doing and going on to your own definition which, unfortunately, suffers from being incoherent. You're saying information! with a lot of hand-waving, but I don't think you realize just how vague and sketchy you are being on this point.

Given that no one here has produced even one example of information arising without intelligence behind it, there is nothing "utterly bizarre" about infering that the coded information required to produce life in the first place also required intelligence to produce it

I don't think a brick wall crumbling requires any sort of intelligence. If you want the opposite kind of process in terms of "order building," I don't think a snow flake forming requires any sort of intelligence.

I think we're back to the purple problem again. Can you give any examples where it has been shown purple has not been designed? I very much doubt it. Can you give some examples where purple was designed? I bet you can. As far as we know, all examples of purple either were designed or maybe were designed. Yet, for some reason, you don't take your examples of known design of purpleness to infer other examples of purpleness were also designed. Why not? If you can answer that question, I think you'll see what's going wrong here. This is one of the main problems with Paley's watchmaker argument as an argument to analogy.

t. Quite the contrary, what is bizarre is the notion that in spite of the fact that when we look at a computer program (for example) we instantly recognize that intelligence produced it, or when we look at the space shuttle we fully understand that a lot of design was required to produce it, etc. etc, --in spite of all the known examples of design, to still assert that what gives every indication of design in biological organisms instead arose without purpose; without design by an as yet unexplained, uncaring phenomenon --that is utterly bizarre.

The reason we know computer programs and space shuttles are designed is because we know these objects have features we know are apt to be produced by designers we know exist. Humans in this case. This argument does not carry over to things were we have no independent evidence of the designer or any evidence one way or the other about what features it would be apt to produce.

[_Roger]

EA:

I don't think a brick wall crumbling requires any sort of intelligence. If you want the opposite kind of process in terms of "order building," I don't think a snow flake forming requires any sort of intelligence.

Neither do ID theorists: (bold mine)

But low probability by itself is not enough to force an inference to design. The precise distribution of atoms in a given snowflake is extremely improbable, because all snowflakes are different and there are many of them. Snowflakes are also highly ordered and possess a somewhat complex, specified structure. Order is greatly valued in science, and rightly so. Science is a lawbound enterprise, which ensures (to the extent that it can) regularity and predictability in a complicated universe. The structure of snowflakes, while the probability of the exact conformation of each individual flake is quite low, is the infallibly predictable result of matter obeying the laws of chemistry and physics under certain conditions. Snowflakes, then, although low-probability and specified, are also low in information, because their specification is in the laws, which are always and everywhere the same.* So now we have discussed chance, the very opposite of design, and law, which results in some design, although it's endlessly redundant, and has low information content.

A page filled randomly with letters of the alphabet is a low probability event. But the sentence: The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog, has more than a low probability. It is specified as well. There is no algorithm which could generate the sentence in a more economical form than the sentence itself. It obeys the rules and conventions governing the structure of communication in the English language. The rules of grammar and syntax are products of mind, invented to facilitate communication between English-speaking people. A properly phrased sentence, therefore, exhibits specified complexity, the hallmark of design.

So we're back to a mind. When Charles Darwin and his contemporaries were living, in fact pretty much up until Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of DNA, it was generally thought that living cells were made of something called protoplasm. Protoplasm was just a name given to the jello-like substance that seemed to be what cells were made of. When something is merely the result of chemical and physical laws and forces, like snowflakes or salt, there is no reason to infer agency. The laws and forces are sufficient to explain it. Today we know that a single cell is not the product of a simple chemical reaction. Even the very smallest cell is filled with exquisitely precise molecular machinery, highly complex and interdependent, to the extent that, in most cases, if even one machine were to cease functioning, cell death would occur very soon thereafter.

How do these machines come into existence? The cell's DNA specifies the construction of that protein-composed machinery. A transfer of information takes place. A lot of information. It is the specific sequencing of the four nucleotide bases on the strands of DNA that is responsible for all the diversity and complexity found throughout the living world. And this sequencing is not chemically ordained. Any of those nucleotides can bond with equal facility to any spot along the strand. Just as in a sentence in English, there is only one thing known capable of generating the highly improbable, information rich, specified complexity that is found in all living cells, and that is an intelligent agent.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1114

You state:

I think we're back to the purple problem again. Can you give any examples where it has been shown purple has not been designed? I very much doubt it.

How about "three"...? Can you give an example where "three" was not designed? As I see it, you are playing semantics. Purple is neither a machine nor a self-replicating biological system. Purple may very well have been designed, just as "three" was very likely designed. The type of information necessary for life to pop into existence from non-living materials is the relevant question here. Do you disagree that information is necessary in order for life to exist?

The reason we know computer programs and space shuttles are designed is because we know these objects have features we know are apt to be produced by designers we know exist. Humans in this case. This argument does not carry over to things were we have no independent evidence of the designer or any evidence one way or the other about what features it would be apt to produce.

Why not? Give me one good reason why not. Not all design is carried out by humans. We know that much. Animals design things all the time.

Are you telling me that if we were to land on Mars and find (for example) what gives every indication of being an abandoned fast-food restaurant, that we cannot come to the conclusion that some sort of intelligence was responsible for its intentional construction--simply because we don't know the designer(s)? If we were to discover an abondoned fast-food restaurant on Mars, you're telling me it would be more reasonable to conclude it arose by chance or by random processes than as a result of purpose and intelligence, because we couldn't possibly know the designers or anything about them?

Do you know who built the Sphinx? How do you know it was built by humans? How do you know it was built by anyone?

This is not the Dembski technical version, but the common sense layman's version: the reason we know computer programs were designed is because the information they contain has a level of complexity that one simply does not observe arising in the natural world without a designer. Coupled with the complexity is functionality--that works to achieve a purpose.

Yes, you can point to snowflakes or various natural patterns that give the appearance of "order" and may emulate bona-fide information, but there is a difference between a monkey typing on a keyboard in which only the letters "K," "E" and "Y" function and then noticing the words "KEY" and "EYE" showing up frequently, and the monkey somehow typing the Gettysburg address in code on a base three system.

As Steve Renner puts it:(bold mine)

Just as in a sentence in English, there is only one thing known capable of generating the highly improbable, information rich, specified complexity that is found in all living cells, and that is an intelligent agent.

Yet, somehow, you want to infer the opposite apparently based on snowflakes, purple and crumbling walls.

[_JohnStuartMill]

This is not such an insurmountable problem.

As stated, I'm doubtful it is even a coherent problem. Ask Roger to define information.

For the record, the "problem" I referenced was Roger's general inability to conceive of how biological complexity can arise without intelligent guidance, although I can certainly understand your reading of my post. Chalk up another one to my sometimes-opaque writing.

But here's what's really going on: Roger's argument is a species of the Lockean argument that only a mind can produce another mind. Ergo, reading a book that gives an intensely plausible account of how intelligence can come from non-intelligence should solve the "problem" I referenced. Also, I think we all realize that the "there's not enough 'information'!" stuff is just an intellectual smokescreen -- Roger certainly isn't talking about "specified complex information" because it is the reason he believes in God. Roger's desperation here reminds me of a great quote from my namesake:

So long as an opinion is strongly rooted in the feelings, it gains rather than loses in stability by leaving a preponderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, the worse it fares in argumentative contest, the more persuaded its adherents are that their feeling must have some deeper ground, which the arguments do not reach; and while the feeling remains, it is always throwing up fresh entrenchments of argument to repair any breach made in the old. And there are so many causes tending to make the feelings connected with this subject the most intense and most deeply-rooted of all those which gather round and protect old institutions and customs, that we need not wonder to find them as yet less undermined and loosened than any of the rest by the progress of the great modern spiritual and social transition; nor suppose that the barbarisms to which men cling longest must be less barbarisms than those which they earlier shake off.

[_Roger]

JSM:

Roger's desperation here

LOL! I'm appealing to what should be a common sense notion that information arises from intelligence... something most of us observe literally everyday. And yet I am depicted as being in "desperation" (!) LOL.

John... I think my arguments speak for themselves. I have also not made myself out to be an expert in this area but have candidly stated that I am a layman appealing to common sense as well as my understanding of the arguments of the smart people involved. There is no appeal to "feeling" but instead an appeal to reason. Yet you feel obligated to paint me as pathetically "desperate" apparently in order to reject my opinions--something you could do without the blatant prejudicial attempt at stereotyping. But if it makes you feel better about your own world view, have at it.

[_Brackite]

Hello Roger,

I have a Link to an Article that you might be interested in reading.
Here is the Title and Link to this Article:


Theistic Evolution:
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theis ... ution.html




I do believe that the scientific evidence for Human Evolution to be indeed very overwhelming, and I now strongly believe in human evolution.
Please Check Out and Also See:


Modern Darwin: Ken Miller:
http://ngccommunity.nationalgeographic. ... iller.html




However, with me believing strongly in human evolution, I still very strongly believe in [a] God, and I still strongly believe in an afterlife.

[_Roger]

Brackite:

Thanks for the response.

I do believe that the scientific evidence for Human Evolution to be indeed very overwhelming, and I now strongly believe in human evolution.

....

However, with me believing strongly in human evolution, I still very strongly believe in [a] God, and I still strongly believe in an afterlife.

I would find it very hard to believe in the God of Bible if humans evolved from a common ancestor with apes. In fact, if that is truly the case then I would have to agree with (I think it was Gadianton Plummer?) who stated something to the effect that such a God would seem to be deceptive.

If humans evolved from apes, then I see no possible way of reconciling that with Genesis. On the other hand, if humans were created in a somewhat modified state a very, very long time ago (not the typical 6,000 or so years) then Genesis can at least be salvaged as largely metaphorical.

It's not that I have a burning interest in "salvaging" Genesis if Genesis is indeed shown to be contrary to reason, but on the other hand, if I were to completely discard Genesis as unreliable then that has great impact on the reliability of Christ's claims as well since he quoted from Genesis in an authoritative manner. If humans did evolve from a common ancestor with apes, I simply see no way of salvaging Genesis and therefore Christ's claims become suspect as well.

So yes, I have an interest in whether or not humans evolved from a common ancestor with apes, and, no I do not see any physical trace evidence to show that this actually occured, but, yes, I do see a lot of extrapolation from micro-evolution typically given in an authoritative manner.

On the other hand, if humans did evolve from a common ancestor with apes, then it is still quite possible that life itself was designed--in fact, I believe that is what the evidence indicates--but it would be difficult to connect that designer with the God of Genesis.

[_EAllusion]

Roger -

You keep jumping back and forth on definitions. Information is not the same thing as "specified complexity." You asked a question about information, I answered a question about information.

Complexity in the Dembski sense means, "unlikely to have arisen through chance or natural order." He's just redefining it to mean "improbability." To say something is complex in this sense is to beg the question against what you are trying to establish. To say something is complex is to argue it is improbable. You have to establish improbability to establish complexity in this sense, not the other way around. You, like him, are equivocating this with other senses of complexity. Dembski goes further and tries some rather bad arguments to show some features of life are improbable according to natural processes, but thus far you're not even interested in doing that. (It's another matter altogether if you can infer design from the unlikelihood of natural explanations for something.)

These links might be helpful:

http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/Artic ... fault.aspx

http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/Artic ... fault.aspx

Regarding "purple" you don't seem to understand the point there. You want to argue that some property X is only found in designed objects by inferring from its presence in designed objects to objects that may or may not be designed. This is a fallacious leap. You seem to be having trouble with your intuitions about "machines."

Regarding inferring design of space shuttles, it is true that there are non-human designers. That's why I said "Humans in this case." I might have said birds if you were talking about a bird's nest. If we found a Shakey's on Mars, we would suspect design again because it would have features we know are apt to be produced by human designers and therefore would suspect human-like designers. This is what archeologists are doing when they dig up objects out of the ground and try to determine if they were created. We don't infer design of these things because they have some level of "information" in them or nonsense like that.

The discussion in the middle third of the paper might be helpful:

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/design ... 202004.pdf

[_Some Schmo]

I just noticed this. Not sure how i missed it, but anyway...

In the first place, assuming the thousands of predictions you cite is accurate, not disproving something is not the same thing as proving something. Certainly a lot of not disproving something when really trying to, can have value, but it is still not the same thing.

In the second place, since you seem to be aware of "thousands" of such predictions as well as their significance... please summarize one or two of what you consider to be the best examples.

Part of the scientific process is to subject a certain hypothesis/theory to rigorous falsification. It seems to me that putting evolutionary theory to validity tests for over 140 years and not being able to disprove it is significant. True, it doesn't necessarily prove it happened, but at this point, given the preponderance of evidence in its favor, we have no valid scientific reason to not realize it happened (happens).

Had you read from the articles I linked, you'd have seen several such predictions. I find the fact that all species are composed of the same 22 amino acids out of the 102 naturally occurring ones to be a pretty compelling case for universal common descent.

Here’s a prediction: if we say that life all comes from the same common genetic code, we can predict that any time we discover a new species, it will genetically comply with what we’ve come to learn about all life forms on the planet. So far, this prediction has held up. From the article I linked:

Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material. We also make the strong prediction that all newly discovered species that belong to the known phyla will use the "standard genetic code" or a close derivative thereof. For example, according to the theory, none of the thousands of new and previously unknown insects that are constantly being discovered in the Brazilian rainforest will have non-nucleic acid genomes. Nor will these yet undiscovered species of insects have genetic codes which are not close derivatives of the standard genetic code. In the absence of the theory of common descent, it is quite possible that every species could have a very different genetic code, specific to it only, since there are 1.4 x 1070 informationally equivalent genetic codes, all of which use the same codons and amino acids as the standard genetic code. This possibility could be extremely useful for organisms, as it would preclude interspecific viral infections. However, this has not been observed, and the theory of common descent effectively prohibits such an observation.

I also think it’s pretty compelling that closely related species on the phylogenetic tree are all discovered within a particular region, even though they could easily thrive in other far removed habitats. It seems to me that if creation happened, species should be popping up wherever they could thrive, but that’s just not the case. Again, we can predict that closely related species will always have a close geographic relationship, and again, never has such a species been discovered to dispute it.

As I stated before, there are other things in my life at this moment that are more important to me.

I have no doubt you consciously believe this, but other statements you’ve made belie that claim (I saw you say somewhere in this thread something like that if ToE was true, that would be significant to you). What I really think you mean is that retaining your belief is more important than finding out the truth. I have no doubt you deny this, however, so you can save yourself the trouble of writing that down.

or care more about the truth than finding comfort in your belief,

Nice little jab there, but I really don't care a whole lot about whether you think I am justified in my "comfort" or not.

Why should you be? Strictly speaking, I couldn’t care less what you think either. Why would you think real caring was taking place on either side, or that I thought you cared? I was merely making an observation. Preferring comfort over truth is, after all, a pretty common occurrence.

I recommend this series of articles. I'm not telling you to do any homework, however.

Good. I see you've caught on that that is one of my pet peaves.

Well, it’s funny that you don’t like being told to do some work yet you expect others to provide you with information. Do you not also consider that work? Should I resent you for asking for it?

I think it's funny you want people to back up their claims, but you won't look at the substantiation if it feels too much like "homework."

If you choose not to educate yourself on this subject matter, so be it, but don't be surprised when people call bullsh*t on you for making bogus claims from incomplete information.

I love it. So if I follow the not-assigned homework that supports macro I am choosing to "educate myself" whereas if I do my own research which happens to throw doubt on macro I am "making bogus claims from incomplete information." I know how this game works.

Well, you’re certainly playing a game; that’s for sure.

I was just providing you with more information that you seemed to be lacking. It wasn’t a game, it was just an attempt to provide you with the information to make a better informed opinion (although I’m not in the least surprised you’ve chosen to reject it).

I suppose the problem lies with your research, then. Quite frankly, it sucks.

Probably not... as I'm sure you well know, all theists are biased, naïve, superstitious and lack both objectivity and usually satisfactory education. Why would you expect me to be an exception?

Wow, you have a pretty low opinion of "all theists."

You said it; I didn’t.

and come away continuing to claim what you have, I'll be interested in your reasons for doing so.

I don't know you well enough to know if you are actually being sincere in that last statement or simply paying lip-service.

But let's start with this... one of the first things I encounter when following the link you posted is this disclaimer: (color mine)

Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything.

Tell me why I shouldn't rest my case right there?

Because it doesn’t help your case in the least? (Your case being, in this case, that macro-evolution has not been established).

And yes, I was being sincere.

[Guest]

How does Roger get from point A, of "information" to point B, of making his various judgements regarding evolution?

For instance, he says,

Bona-fide Information does not arise by chance. This observation is so basic as to be simple common sense.

Though he's mentioned he doesn't really understand what information is -- and if this understanding will require him to gain a thorough understanding of Fred Dretske's theories, it may be a while -- he has made some confident observations about evolution:

As to evidence of evolution, I grant that micro-evolution (such as Darwin's Finch beaks) is established.

I would like to know if a Finch beak exhibits specified complexity. I also would like to know how much information is in a finch beak, and how it is that a Finch beak arose by pure chance.

I think it would be cheating to evaluate the viability of evolution in the case of Finch beaks or the cellular structures of bacteria (examples Dembski also has granted valid in the same sentence) when we have something as powerful as Dretskeian information theory at our disposal. We don't need the lab, knowledge of antibiotics, knowledge of a habitat, or any other real-world factors to evaluate whether or not a finch beak or a bacteria evolved. We should be able to examine the information content of either and make our determination entirely from this.

I really want to know how it is that Roger came to the conclusion that a Finch beak has no "bona fide information" in it, because he must have come to this conclusion as he has granted the Finch beak is not designed.

If I were on Mars and I were to find a lone Finch, would I think its beak had come about by chance, or by an intelligent designer?