“Creatures in nature, if viewed as engineering designs…”
IDesign @ UCI points us to a new journal from the IOP called "Bioinspiration & Biomimetics", which seems it will be well worth keeping an eye on. From their front page:
Scientists and engineers are increasingly turning to nature for inspiration. The solutions arrived at by natural selection are often a good starting point in the search for answers to scientific and technical problems. Equally, designing and building bioinspired devices or systems can tell us more about the original animal or plant model.
Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, the essential new journal from IOP, will publish research involving the study and distillation of principles and functions found in biological systems that have been developed through evolution, and application of this knowledge to produce novel and exciting basic technologies and new approaches to solving scientific problems.
The requisite bow to Darwin doesn’t do much to spoil the fun of looking closer at these complex systems. It all reminds me of last fall’s Cohen/Fuller debate at Warwick University, where Fuller went into ID’s value as a heuristic and reminded listeners that they didn’t need to believe there was a designer… just working with the idea of design in nature as a sort of model might be immensely productive.
In the first issue, Yoseph Bar-Cohen gives a through introduction to biomimetics. Quoting:
The term biomimetics, which was coined by Otto H Schmitt (Schmitt 1969), represents the studies and imitation of nature’s methods, mechanisms and processes. Nature’s capabilities are far superior in many areas to human capabilities, and adapting many of its features and characteristics can significantly improve our technology (Bar-Cohen 2005, Vincent 2001).
Finish reading the entire article here.
What is your basis for calling the bow “requisite”?
Comment by Don Baccus — April 30, 2006 @ 11:28 pm
Hmm… interesting question. Any thoughts?
Comment by Freawaru — May 1, 2006 @ 12:13 am
Yeah, but none of them are particularly flattering to you.
Comment by Don Baccus — May 1, 2006 @ 12:31 am
So you wanted to give me the benefit of the doubt? You are very generous.
Really you don’t need to look very hard for your answer. Talk to Allen MacNeill or anyone else on your side who has had the misfortune of being mistaken for a few moments for an ID proponent. Or read Raff’s editorial in the July 2005 issue of Evolution and Development, “Stand Up for Evolution”. where he explains:
.If you aren’t an ID’er willing to put your your scientific career at risk it seems you have to be very, very careful to avoid giving the appearance of aiding or abetting the enemy.
Comment by Freawaru — May 1, 2006 @ 1:53 am
The problem is that IDers are quick to claim that anything that sounds teleological supports their thesis and is thus ID friendly. Look at the ID friendly literature cited by the DI…
Why is it bad to warn against quote mining?
The problem as many see it is that ID is scientifically vacuous and thus more a PR machine and political/religious movement.
Look at some ID ’scientists’ such as Dembski or Behe, what have they done scientifically to explore the ID ideas? What scientific research can ID point to? Is there anything to show here?
Comment by PvM — May 1, 2006 @ 3:53 pm
We may have a different perspective on where the problem lies. But I wasn’t making any judgement calls, or saying it was bad, good, or a necessary evil that the bow is “requisite”.
The point was simply that it is, and everyone involved in this sort of work is obliged to tread very carefully to avoid being taken for an ID’er..
Comment by Freawaru — May 1, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
“The point was simply that it is, and everyone involved in this sort of work is obliged to tread very carefully to avoid being taken for an ID’er.”
No, everyone involved has to tread very carefully to avoid being quote-mined by IDers and having themselves put forward as being ID supporters who reject modern biology. They have to protect themselves from the dishonest people who dominate your side of the aisle.
Comment by Don Baccus — May 1, 2006 @ 5:11 pm
No, everyone involved has to tread very carefully to avoid being quote-mined by IDers and having themselves put forward as being ID supporters who reject modern biology. They have to protect themselves from the dishonest people who dominate your side of the aisle.
Don, please give three examples (with supporting evidence) where a major ID proponent has said someone is an ID supporter when they are not.
Comment by Wulfgar — May 1, 2006 @ 7:16 pm
Don– since you seem to want to pursue this topic: I haven’t done any sort of major study of this, but I can say that the people I know personally who “tread carefully” to avoid being criticized as ID’ers– and I know a fair many such people– do it out of fear of retaliation if they are suspected by your side, not of misrepresentation from ours.
Comment by Freawaru — May 1, 2006 @ 8:45 pm
“Don, please give three examples (with supporting evidence) where a major ID proponent has said someone is an ID supporter when they are not.”
No. If you can type on a computer you should be able to learn to use Google.
Comment by Don Baccus — May 1, 2006 @ 9:59 pm
‘Don– since you seem to want to pursue this topic: I haven’t done any sort of major study of this, but I can say that the people I know personally who “tread carefully” to avoid being criticized as ID’ers– and I know a fair many such people– do it out of fear of retaliation if they are suspected by your side, not of misrepresentation from ours.’
Ah, yes, the ever-effective hand-waving argument from personal authority.
Yes, I believe you. I really do. After all, I’ve never seen an ID proponent lie. Not once in my entire life.
Comment by Don Baccus — May 1, 2006 @ 10:01 pm
Argument from authority? I hardly think so. You made some categorical statements without providing anything to back them up. I observed that my experience contrasted sharply with your claims, and Wulfgar asked if you would be so good as to back one of your points up in a small way. You refuse to do so, and insinuate that you believe I am lying.
Maybe I’m lying. But has it occured to you that I have absolutely no reason to believe you aren’t?
Comment by Freawaru — May 1, 2006 @ 10:56 pm
Look at some ID ’scientists’ such as Dembski or Behe, what have they done scientifically to explore the ID ideas? What scientific research can ID point to? Is there anything to show here?
Maybe if you would clear away the fear-mongering bigots whose arguments rely on phobias about ID being mixed with science in any way and how any mixing will lead to theocracy, the end of civilization as we know it and so on, then there would be more open scientific research dealing with “intelligent design.” Now that it’s all religion in a cheap tuxedo and what not you supposedly want research? Perhaps Behe and Dembski against the world, eh?
And now that fear mongers such as Myers (who you cite approvingly) have won a court case it would seem that research funding for “intelligent design” is downright unconstitutional anyway. On the other hand if it is privately funded then you will say that such a fact taints it, would you not? Let’s not play pretend about evidence here when you believe in an epistemic standard in which your own imagination can be included as evidence. You also already have to overlook reams of empirical evidence to be willfully ignorant enough to believe in the Darwinian creation myth. There’s something else going on that has nothing to do with evidence, probably the same thing that caused you to cling to the old gill slit canard.
Comment by mynym — May 2, 2006 @ 1:35 am
Ah, yes, the ever-effective hand-waving argument from personal authority.
To argue that people supposed fear of misrepresentation by ID types has more impact than the fact that those merely criticizing Darwinism have been the victims of bigotry is itself quite ignorant.
Yes, I believe you. I really do. After all, I’ve never seen an ID proponent lie. Not once in my entire life.
It would seem that given your view of science your text is just an artifact of the biochemical state of your brain in that moment, so to think that you have the intelligence to recognize lies is an illusion. But since I don’t have the urge to merge and my mind of the synaptic gaps isn’t filled in with my own imagination about hypothetical goo, how about examples other than Behe’s one twisted quote? If there are so many lies that shouldn’t be difficult. Given the fact that you are supposedly caught up in evolutionary happenstance and cannot judge and select things to learn as an organism I suppose I’ll just have to rely on whatever Mother Nature happens to select your next brain events to be, naturally. For I wouldn’t want you to be unscientific about things, that just wouldn’t be natural.
Comment by mynym — May 2, 2006 @ 1:54 am
Maybe if you would clear away the fear-mongering bigots whose arguments rely on phobias about ID being mixed with science in any way and how any mixing will lead to theocracy, the end of civilization as we know it and so on, then there would be more open scientific research dealing with “intelligent design.”
I agree, the ID movement would do well to distantance itself from its socio/political foundations and show that it can be scientifically relevant.
So far I have not seen much evidence of either
Now that it’s all religion in a cheap tuxedo and what not you supposedly want research? Perhaps Behe and Dembski against the world, eh?
I’d not say that it is perse all religion in a cheap tuxedo but rather that its scientific claims are vacuous. combined with its religious history, ID becomes in my opinion theologically risky and remains scientifically without any content.
And now that fear mongers such as Myers (who you cite approvingly) have won a court case it would seem that research funding for “intelligent design” is downright unconstitutional anyway.
So many errors… Myers has not won a court case, nor did the court case outlaw research funding for ID. Is that the excuse that ID has no funding to work on a scientifically compelling contribution?
Is that the explanation of the existence of such ID ‘research’ as Icons of Evolution or papers such as Meyers on the Cambrian?
On the other hand if it is privately funded then you will say that such a fact taints it, would you not? Let’s not play pretend about evidence here when you believe in an epistemic standard in which your own imagination can be included as evidence.
You are very creative in weaving a strawman as to what I believe.
You also already have to overlook reams of empirical evidence to be willfully ignorant enough to believe in the Darwinian creation myth.
An unsupported assertion and quite an ad hominem. All I asked for is that people show how ID is scientifically relevant and what happens? I get attacked for the Darwinian creation myth. I hope people appreciate that science has progressed much since Darwinian theory?
There’s something else going on that has nothing to do with evidence, probably the same thing that caused you to cling to the old gill slit canard.
The ‘gill slit’ shows good evolutionary evidence but that’s irrelevant and indeed as you say a canard in the sense that it really fails to address what I said.
Is there anything ID can point to when it comes to science or does the absence of such necessitates the ad hominem response ?
As a Christian and as a scientist this worries me and it also supports my claim that ID is scientifically without content and theologically dangerous and unnecessary.
To argue that people supposed fear of misrepresentation by ID types has more impact than the fact that those merely criticizing Darwinism have been the victims of bigotry is itself quite ignorant.
Sigh… It’s not just a supposed fear my dear… That’s the problem.
If it were all about ‘merely criticising Darwinian theory’ then ID surely deserves the term of being scientifically vacuous. But is ID merely interested in criticizing Darwinian theory? What about evolutionary theory which includes but is not limited to such?
Which brings me back to ID’s scientific accomplishments or rather the lack thereof.
Or am I missing something here?
Comment by PvM — May 2, 2006 @ 8:14 am
People, I know it’s tempting, but let’s try awfully hard to keep from turning our argument into one about who is the most awful liar. Really. It isn’t a terrribly interesting argument, and is extraordinarily unproductive.
If that is the only way you know how to argue there are places you can go where it is considered acceptable. This isn’t one of them. However undeserving of it they might be, you have to give your opponents a minimum of respect around here.
Comment by Freawaru — May 2, 2006 @ 11:16 am
In an attempt to steer back towards the original basis of this post, I found the first sentence of the journal’s self-description very enlightening:
Scientists and engineers are increasingly turning to nature for inspiration.
I can see how it could be seen as “new” that engineers would turn to nature. However, if scientists have not been turning to nature for inspiration, what have they been turning to? Shouldn’t nature be the main and dominant subject of science? What kind of observation is the journal making here?
Comment by Wiglaf — May 2, 2006 @ 1:41 pm
Maybe if you would clear away the fear-mongering bigots whose arguments rely on phobias about ID being mixed with science in any way and how any mixing will lead to theocracy, the end of civilization as we know it and so on, then there would be more open scientific research dealing with “intelligent design.” Now that it’s all religion in a cheap tuxedo and what not you supposedly want research? Perhaps Behe and Dembski against the world, eh?
It appears you are trying to play both sides in a single paragraph. Yes, scientists want research. Taht is what they have always wanted. There has been no research, there is no potential for research, and that is why ID is not science.
Comment by ivy privy — May 2, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
‘Maybe if you would clear away the fear-mongering bigots whose arguments rely on phobias about ID being mixed with science in any way and how any mixing will lead to theocracy, the end of civilization as we know it and so on, then there would be more open scientific research dealing with “intelligent design.”’
In other words, it’s our fault they don’t do research.
Yeah, right.
“Scientists and engineers are increasingly turning to nature for inspiration.
I can see how it could be seen as “new” that engineers would turn to nature. However, if scientists have not been turning to nature for inspiration, what have they been turning to? Shouldn’t nature be the main and dominant subject of science? What kind of observation is the journal making here? ”
“nature” is meant in a biological context, here.
Where do engineers and scientists get their inspiration? Well, historically the engineering of powered aircraft only became possible when people stopped trying to emulate birds etc. Fixed-wing, independent powerplant designs are very different in concept than floppy-winged designs with the wings providing power as well as lift.
As we learn more about biological systems, and as our own technology moves forward, it sounds like they’re claiming that we can increasingly gain useful inspiration from biology.
Comment by Don Baccus — May 2, 2006 @ 6:06 pm
“People, I know it’s tempting, but let’s try awfully hard to keep from turning our argument into one about who is the most awful liar. Really. It isn’t a terrribly interesting argument, and is extraordinarily unproductive.”
Sigh. ID is built on lies and misrepresentations. Hard to argue against it if we’re not allowed to discuss the elephant in the room.
Comment by Don Baccus — May 2, 2006 @ 7:18 pm
Sorry :). But if you feel so strongly about our being unsavory characters are you quite sure you want to waste your time arguing with us at all? There are plenty of other places full of people who feel as you do, where personal attacks are the modus operandi– maybe you would feel more comfortable there?
I’m not asking you to leave; we like having people of all points of view around, and if you can bring yourself to stick to the rules– which I don’t think are so entirely unreasonable– you are more than welcome here. You’ve brought up some interesting points since you first began commenting. And note that while personal attacks are off-limits, you are perfectly free to suggest a particular statement is untrue or a misrepresentation, and if you provide arguments or citations to back up your point of view you might actually be found convincing.
Comment by Freawaru — May 2, 2006 @ 7:48 pm
Thinking about this statement–
There was one particular aspect (wing rigidity) which was abandoned, sure. But where do you think we would be in the road to flight if we hadn’t had flying creatures to emulate at all?
Comment by Freawaru — May 2, 2006 @ 7:52 pm
How was that a personal attack on Don’s part? Granted, i might choose to give you the benefit of the doubt and use words other than “lies and misrepresentations,” but I would not give that benefit of the doubt to a great many other IDers (e.g. Dembski and the Uncommon Descenters, Cornelius Hunter, several other DI fellows, etc.).
But for your part, you still have yet to concede that you have no testable predictions, empirical data, etc.
Some of you have even tried the horrid “Mount Rushmore” argument on me, which just makes a mockery out of archaeology.
I mean really, many of us try and give you all the respect and patience we can, but the level of the scientific discourse with the IDEA club is usually not much above “amateur hour” or layperson discussions.
So I’m wondering - despite the bluntness of such statements, how are they untrue, ad hominem, or otherwise off-limits?
Comment by Dan — May 2, 2006 @ 8:00 pm
Don’s last post wasn’t a personal attack– or I didn’t consider it one, anyway. But he was contesting my earlier suggestion that we should try to get past the “who, among the present company, is the most damnable liar” sort of argument, by saying that was ignoring the elephant in the room. That suggestion of mine had been in response to the general direction of the thread, not him in particular, but since he was the one who objected to it I tried to clarify it further.
And make the point that even if ID proponent’s lies and misinterperetations are the “elephant in the room” it is quite possible to deal with them and call them what they are without resorting to personal attacks.
Ok, I should also clarify that Don’s earlier insinuation that I was a liar wasn’t an ad hominem attack, since it was relevant to the question at hand– whether my statement about personal experience was valid or not. I haven’t proved it is untrue either; and I won’t, since I don’t want to provide signed letters from the people who “tread carefully” around ID-related things to prove my point. We do, though, try to discourage all manner of personal attacks here, relevant or irrelevant, as they tend to “poisin the well”, and make any sort of argument unproductive.
Maybe Don is correct in believing that I am a liar, but though I haven’t provided conclusive proof that I’m not, he hasn’t provided any sort of support for his opinion either, so I can’t say I find his reservations terribly convincing. Right now it just makes him look like he hasn’t any better arguments, and makes me wonder if there are some places (his hometown, maybe?) where the presumption is in favor of everyone who disagrees with you being a liar. An interesting thought… what would that do to general communication?
Comment by Freawaru — May 2, 2006 @ 8:43 pm
And since I’ve been so exceedingly verbose on this topic, I should say that we TDP contributors are not immune to breaking the “rules of engagement” ourselves, especially if we get caught up in an argument or if you are extremely annoying :). So if one of us begins making personal attacks a reminder of this sort from you would be appropriate.
Moreover–I’m not sure if I can speak for all of the TDP contributors here, but I’ll speak for myself anyway–if you feel a need to tell me what an awful person I am my email is listed in the sidebar, so you are welcome to write and tell me so. If you feel a need to tell the world what an awful person I am you are welcome to do so on your own blog. Just let’s try to keep this particular space clear from attacks from both sides.
Comment by Freawaru — May 2, 2006 @ 8:53 pm
I can’t say I see what is so horrid about the argument, though I prefer looking at Stonehenge myself. It’s an illustration of a very simple point: we all have intuitive ways of telling whether something is designed or not. The question then becomes: how can we make these ways rigorous?
Comment by Freawaru — May 2, 2006 @ 9:02 pm
You might have a hunch on something, but let me tell you, most of my “hunches” in my own field of expertise are dead wrong. Maybe one in ten for most researchers turn into publishable research and are actually added to the collective literature because they turn out to be true.
That, plus both Stonehenge and Rushmore have evidence that “Designers” were actually present. Can you say that about life’s “Designer.”
Now - and this is just a statement of fact - that’s just plain stupid.
Comment by Dan — May 2, 2006 @ 9:11 pm
No :) but I see beginning with simple intuitive concepts a good way to begin explaining otherwise apparently-impenetrable ideas to people.
Comment by Freawaru — May 2, 2006 @ 9:16 pm
Also, along this line of thinking comes Cornelius Hunter’s “Black Obelisks.”
LOL - stupid, moronic, etc. - you take your pick, but pointing to ridiculous hypotheticals just makes it much, much harder to be patient with you.
…let’s get back to the lack of empirical evidence for ID, shall we?
Comment by Dan — May 2, 2006 @ 9:16 pm
Comment by Dan — May 2, 2006 @ 9:19 pm
Now this could lead to a whole series of questions that might perhaps be considerably more interesting than looking for synonyms for moronic. What sort of evidence do we want before we postulate a force or an intelligence? What constitutes evidence? How has science dealt with this problem in the past? Are there particular considerations we should know about that are brought in by the limitations of historical science?
Comment by Freawaru — May 2, 2006 @ 9:27 pm
For more, I’ve seen a well-written debunking of such arguments at a blog by a Northern CA archaeologist called “Northstate Science,” and his blog post titled “Archaeology and Creationism:
So, until you find the Designer’s footprints by the garden of Eden, his house where he stayed while cooking up some life, his initial attempts at cooking up life, his blueprints, his tools, etc., continuing this argument just makes you more and more moronic.Now really, would you care to get back to talking about something, *ahem*, intelligent?
Comment by Dan — May 2, 2006 @ 9:45 pm
I wasn’t talking archeology, I was thinking about science there. What sort of evidence do we want before we postulate a force in physics and chemistry? What constitutes evidence that would support such a postulate in those fields? Usually it isn’t that the force is “observable”. Come, it isn’t such an unanswerable question– we do have historical precedent for such things.
Comment by Freawaru — May 2, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
Now we finally have some intesting questions, here. If I may rephrase to more closely fit my own personal obsession, how can we tell if something has a purpose (i.e. is designed for a purpose)? We all know from an extraordinarily early age (i.e. less than 12 months) what a purposeful entity is, as shown by some very interesting experiments in which infants are shown computer simulations and their “gazing time” measured (they spend much more time looking at “purposeful” entities - I have several references, if you are interested).
But how, exactly, do we do this? I originally read Dembski’s articles and books because he was ostensibly trying to answer the same question, but clearly he was not. I say this because his conclusion was that “complexity” was one of the hallmarks of design, but it is a trivial matter to show that this is not the case.
So, if complexity alone is not enough (and “specified complexity”, by extension, isn’t enough either), then how do we know when something is purposeful/designed?
Comment by Allen MacNeill — May 2, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
To try and answer Allen’s pondering on teleology (from my point of view), and to Freawaru’s point of not addressing archaeology but chem/physics, I still think that any burden of proof must lie in the empirical evidence of the telic entity (i.e. God, or at least a God-like entity). Hence, one would need to find the archaeological equivalent or other remnants of such a God-like entity.
Of course that’s an absurd notion though, scientifically-speaking.
Comment by Dan — May 2, 2006 @ 10:02 pm
Thanks Allen for joining the discussion. That complexity is not a hallmark of design is definitely trivial, but from that it doesn’t follow that specified complexity is not a hallmark of design. If one condition of a two conditioned criterion doesn’t imply a given property, it doesn’t mean the union of the two can’t.
Similarly if you look at information: new information can be produced by chance all the time; and an increase in the amount of information is not any sort of sign of intelligence working. But it seems complex specified information is not produced by chance, nor by natural laws, and therefore it may well be a reliable indicator of design. The main problem appears to be that it is somewhat difficult– though not impossible– to quantify.
Comment by Freawaru — May 2, 2006 @ 10:08 pm
But it seems complex specified information is not produced by chance, nor by natural laws, and therefore it may well be a reliable indicator of design. The main problem appears to be that it is somewhat difficult– though not impossible– to quantify.
The problem with information as used by ID is that it conflates two concepts, namely the concept of information versus the concept of probability. Remember that according to ID, information is just the negative log2 of the probability.
Additionally information can be trivially shown to arise under the processes of selection and variation.
The concept of specified complexity in biology merely means: something with a function (specified) which cannot (yet) be explained by chance and/or regularity pathways.
Since algorithms can be shown to trivially generate complexity, Dembski has since long differentiated between apparant and actual CSI without giving much guidance as to how to distinguish between the two.
The suggestion that CSI is an indiator of design is flawed, that it is claimed to be reliable makes it even more flawed since false positives can be shown to trivially arise.
This is nothing new however, countless ID critics have carefully documented these major problems with the design inference. And while Dembski has valiantly tried to improve upon his concepts, not much has changed.
Is it not time for ID to face up to these problems? Whaddaya think?
Comment by PvM — May 2, 2006 @ 10:29 pm
Good one, PvM - to which I have only to add a more concrete question concerning “CSI”:
Has Dembski (or anyone else) actually come up with an example of something in the extensive Tree of Life that has Specified Complexity? Anything at all?
Comment by Dan — May 2, 2006 @ 10:43 pm
It appears you are trying to play both sides in a single paragraph. Yes, scientists want research. Taht is what they have always wanted. There has been no research, there is no potential for research, and that is why ID is not science.
My paragraph is about scientists who claim ID is religion and therefore must be excluded from science and work to exclude the very idea through fear-mongering, censorship and discrimination, yet then turn around and claim that the scientific research that they’ve worked so ardently to exclude as a supposed matter of principle ought to be provided.
Your argument as to how I’m supposedly playing both sides is based on this:
Yes, scientists want research. Taht is what they have always wanted.
Wrong, they don’t want research and will not allow ID type researchers into various places that scientific dialogue takes place, although they seem to engage in an awful lot of scientific dialogue and dialectic on the web. They did the same thing on creationism. It is probably because Darwinism was the prevalent milieu around the time of the professionalization of science. It still seems to be linked to their professional identity, so they are a bit phobic about it all. Thus the pattern of projecting their fear and inane arguments about the collapse of science, progress, civilization as we know it, etc. Can you sense the fear? It’s an identity issue, which is probably why Darwinists spend the majority of their time murmuring about what science is or not while trying to identifying themselves with it. When pressed, they may engage in a bit of scientific dialectic on the very things that they claim are not scientific but if they control a journal and the like then they will not allow dialogue, apparently as the result of their internal psychological issues, phobias, etc. As the so-called wedge of the ID types gets thinner and thinner these patterns will only become more and more apparent to more and more people because in the end the Darwinist seems to want you to believe that there is no way that intelligence can select anything in the universe, all is “natural selection.” Maybe when they say that the developmental pattern of their brain events are revisiting their common ancestry in fish brains just like embryos have gill slits or some such drivel. It’s a little known fact that Darwinists have fish brains at one end of development and gill slits at the other, don’t you know. How? It would seem that you need not ask how or why according to them given that criticism of the inanities typical to Darwinian reasoning are probably scientifically vacuous or some such. So you can imagine what you will about it and then claim your own imagination as evidence for your hypothesis.
It may be difficult. I suppose you’ll also have to try to imagine that it is science and not charlatanism.
Comment by mynym — May 2, 2006 @ 10:47 pm
Comment by Dan — May 2, 2006 @ 10:53 pm
My paragraph is about scientists who claim ID is religion and therefore must be excluded from science and work to exclude the very idea through fear-mongering, censorship and discrimination, yet then turn around and claim that the scientific research that they’ve worked so ardently to exclude as a supposed matter of principle ought to be provided.
So many strawmen and unsupported accusations. Sure people have carefully documented the religious foundations of intelligent design and the religious implications of intelligent design but many have also shown the many scientific flaws with ID and why ID is scientifically vacuous.
To suggest that scientists only reject ID based on the well argued links between ID and religion somehow ignores that scientists have since long reject ID based on its flawed premises and its scientific vacuity.
So perhaps it would help to drop the persecution argument and simply answer the question: What are ID’s scientific victories? Why should we not accept the well argued argument that ID is scientifically vacuous?
Why, when challenged with such observations, IDists seem to have knee jerk reactions and attack with ad hominems rather than arguments? Sure blame all those mean scientists, many of them Christians for ID’s and creationism’s failures… After all ID itself could hardly be blamed for being scientifically vacuous now could it?
Geez…
Comment by PvM — May 2, 2006 @ 11:04 pm
Darwinist seems to want you to believe that there is no way that intelligence can select anything in the universe, all is “natural selection.”
Can you support the many arguments you make about what Darwinists think or are they just strawmen? Because even you above statement does not reflect even the most anti-ID arguments.
It’s not that design envisioned by ID could not do any selecting, its just that science cannot address such issues in any meaningful manner.
You have mentioned gill slits various times now, could you in your own words best decribe your objections to this and support any arguments you assign to Darwinists or evolutionary scientists?
Let’s show how ID can be at least a bit scientifically relevant…
Comment by PvM — May 2, 2006 @ 11:08 pm
I agree, the ID movement would do well to distantance itself from its socio/political foundations and show that it can be scientifically relevant.
So far I have not seen much evidence of either.
It will probably come inevitably as people’s metaphoric understanding changes in the Information Age. Essentially, Darwin projected the capitalist system he saw around him onto Nature while assuming Victorian era theology, from “natural law” to the divine Watchmaker, etc. It is Victorian era theology that he relies on in his negative theology from pointing at his own nose to parasites. Ironically, that theological argument is often referred to as the best evidence for Darwinism. That’s where the Panda’s Thumb got its name. Yet now we’re supposed to believe that theology has nothing to do with anything? You want ID to depart from its social and theological foundations yet you are blind to the fact that Darwinism has hardly even done so, as Darwinists rely on negative theology to this day. As for me, I’m fine with ID coming to be associated with positive theology. It has been atheists lose, given that they were mentally retarded enough to hitch their wagon to Darwinism. It seems it will be the crowning irony that atheists missed out on the new metaphors being projected on to Nature as things are turned back around as they usually inevitably are.
I’d not say that it is perse all religion in a cheap tuxedo…
I’m sure you have not, “per se.” But it is a basic talking point of the general Herd. So maybe you should set to work herding the Herd out of the way a bit if you really want to see scientific research into ID.
…ID becomes in my opinion theologically risky and remains scientifically without any content.
To begin with at the very beginning, ID has all the content of the notion of knowledge in that you can design some symbols and signs here by an act of intelligence as language unfolds and evolves. Shall we assume that you are intelligent or reject the notion that you have a capacity to bring about intelligent design in the symbols and signs of an evolving and unfolding language?
So many errors… Myers has not won a court case…
His fear mongering was part of the drive to win it. He is a part of winning it and would not object to the notion of being on the winning side. Perhaps next you’ll be telling me that he’s never said that ID is creationism/religion in a cheap tuxedo, per se?
…nor did the court case outlaw research funding for ID.
If ID is “religion”/creationism and the State cannot support religion then based on that principle the State cannot fund research involving ID, although the way Darwinists structure their arguments and negative theology it seems that they’ll probably argue that the State can fund research disproving ID “scientifically.” For it seems that by their reasoning they can publish supposed science about why ID is wrong, although it was supposedly never even a “scientific” issue in the first place. How is it that science is so often being used to disprove something that supposedly isn’t even a scientific issue to begin with, anyway?
Is that the excuse that ID has no funding to work on a scientifically compelling contribution?
Combined with a broad pattern of discrimination that goes back to the way Darwinists have discriminated against pretty much everyone who has ever disagreed with them, let alone proferred an alternative.
Is that the explanation of the existence of such ID ‘research’ as Icons of Evolution or papers such as Meyers on the Cambrian?
So you think you have answered the issues Wells brings up based on the nit-pick type of charlatanism typical to talk.origins, yet very broad and basic facts remain like the fact of Haeckel’s frauds, the fact about the old “gill slit” canard that you still cling to and so on.
An unsupported assertion and quite an ad hominem.
Your ignorance isn’t necessarily my responsiblity. If you’re too busy imagining gill slits and the like then don’t blame me that you do not know about the evidence against Darwinism.
All I asked for is that people show how ID is scientifically relevant and what happens? I get attacked for the Darwinian creation myth.
You can be my victim, as you like. I’m not going to flop down with you and pretend to be even more victimized by your charlatanism about gill slits and embryos. Yet I do believe that you’re victimizing people by distorting their knowledge based on nonsense like the gill slit canard and Myer’s other charlatanism.
I hope people appreciate that science has progressed much since Darwinian theory?
Science has but Darwinian theory hasn’t, all the arguments are generally the same from over a century ago. Examples: negative theology: “Why would God make things this way? I don’t think he would. This serves as the best evidence for evolution.”
Biologists wanting to be physicists: “It’s just like gravity somehow.” (well over a century old)
Just plain moronic: “This embryo looks a little like that one or somethin’. Say, I bet they are swimming around in there revisiting a fish stage or somethin’!”
The argument for a degenerate epistemic standard: “If I can imagine a way of this happening in a way that I call natural, then that can serve as evidence for my theory. If I cannot imagine a way then my theory absolutely breaks down. Say, I can always imagine a way naturally enough. Well, I’m feeling overwhelmed, how about you?”
And so on, the basic pattern of these arguments can be cited now as then. Darwinism and its theological roots groan with age yet here are the same arguments, a century later, like Haeckel’s frauds they seem to live on based on the urge to merge. That has little to do with progress and science, despite whatever it is that you think you said about such links above.
The ‘gill slit’ shows good evolutionary evidence….
It would seem that your brain must revisit its fish-like state at this point in its development and that’s that. You can believe in your imaginary evidence, as you like. It’s almost touching the way that some with the urge to merge want to suck on the tittles of Mommy Nature and then crawl back in her womb. Another example:
(At the Water’s Edge, Fish With Fingers Whales with Legs and How Life Came Ashore but Then Went Back to SeaBy Carl Zimmer :2)
It would seem that technology acts as the intermediary for him to interact with his creator, Mommy Nature. My eyes are almost getting wet, as they probably want to revisit their origins in a fish-like state too!
Darwinism seems to be a sort of cosmic Oedipus complex, thus the urge to merge and all the imaginary evidence.
“…that’s irrelevant and indeed as you say a canard in the sense that it really fails to address what I said.”
Oh, you thought that my mental states were going to be governed by what you feel is relevant?
Is there anything ID can point to when it comes to science or does the absence of such necessitates the ad hominem response ?
Ad hominem? Is it not the case that all that I can respond to are your personal brain events and the like? It would seem that I’m being scientific by breaking them down, don’t you know.
As a Christian and as a scientist this worries me and it also supports my claim that ID is scientifically without content and theologically dangerous and unnecessary.
I suppose that as a Christian you supposedly support all the negative theology that has always been wound around Darwinism, yet reject the positive theology that tends to be wound around ID these days? Is negative theology Christian?
“To argue that people supposed fear of misrepresentation by ID types has more impact than the fact that those merely criticizing Darwinism have been the victims of bigotry is itself quite ignorant.”
Sigh… It’s not just a supposed fear my dear… That’s the problem.
Cite me names and cases where people have lost their jobs or been discriminated against because and ID type quoted them wrong or some such. How many examples do you want of ID types being discriminated against?
If it were all about ‘merely criticising Darwinian theory’ then ID surely deserves the term of being scientifically vacuous.
If so, that is only the result of Darwinian theory being scientifically vacuous in being reliant upon the usual neurosis and imaginary evidence of its supporters.
Or am I missing something here?
Yes, you’re missing something here but there is no way of moving on until imaginary evidence like the gill slit canard and the epistemic standard it relies on is cleared away. Just so I have things clear so far, you are fine with the Darwinian reasoning in which imaginary evidence is included in textbooks and so on yet feel that you can judge ID as “scientifically vacuous”? The problem here seems to be your own epistemic standard that allows for charlatanism, etc. So before sitting in judgment on ID that sort of thing has to be cleared up.
Comment by mynym — May 2, 2006 @ 11:49 pm
Hi Freawaru,
Thanks for highlighting that iDesign post! Biomimetics is a great field. Not only can intelligent design provide the conceptual underpinnings, but it can be a useful heuristic for inspiring new technologies.
Comment by Art — May 2, 2006 @ 11:57 pm
Can you support the many arguments you make about what Darwinists think or are they just strawmen?
Hiding in strawmen, eh? I’ll tell you what, I’ll go back through my satires of Darwinian reasoning from “Biologists wanting to be physicists…” and show the text of Darwinists so that you may complain of quote mining and then I can drive a point through that argument, and so on.
Arguing with a mind of the synaptic gaps that refuses to unfold is rather programmed, after all.
It’s not that design envisioned by ID could not do any selecting, its just that science cannot address such issues in any meaningful manner.
So scientifically, what you just said is merely an artifact of your brain events. Now your mind can try to live as a parasite based on the metaphysical reasoning of philosphers by claiming what they define based on the metaphysical as ad hominem, yet I will keep shaking you off of philosophy so that you cannot engage in such parasitism. For as you argue, that is the scientific thing to do given the separation of the metaphysical and the physical.
You have mentioned gill slits various times now, could you in your own words best decribe your objections to this and support any arguments you assign to Darwinists or evolutionary scientists?
We already went through the bit of charlatanism that Myers engaged in. It was your own link. But at your request I will beat the dead horse again and again, as it’s rather fun. Don’t worry, I’ll use your link again and cite it in full if you want to avoid all the “quote mining” that those with the urge to merge sometimes complain of once text is used to define their mental states and their metaphoric excrement.
I may have to do it on my own blog because I have things to do and need to kill two birds with one stone. Besides, the ID types are a bit weak on knowledge here and are also apparently willing to let you live as a metaphoric parasite on the metaphysical ideas of the philosophers even as you support and engage in scientism.
Take it or leave it. Your supposed brain events are good material, more matter in motion, so I’ll put a little motion in them.
Let’s show how ID can be at least a bit scientifically relevant…
If Darwinism is scientifically relevant then even mere criticism of it is as well. Again, you are apparently willing to let Darwinists weave negative theology throughout their argumentts and then claim it is some of the best evidence for evolution yet ID’s tendency towards positive theology is a problem for you, as a Christian no less! You are willing to engage in the Darwinian reasoning in which people can count their own imagination as evidence for a theory, yet ID is probably “scientifically vacuous” if they go into Nature and amass empirical evidence about things that “look designed.”
And so on. I don’ t even believe you, yet you’re good material. To the mind hidden away in your synaptic gaps that apparently believes that every gap is a problem I would say, “I wish I had the time to draw you out, little fella, I really do.” But it seems to be hidden and merged away in there somewhere trying to engage in “biological thinking,” so it cannot be drawn forth to even admit to little things about the urge to merge like the old gill slit canard.
Comment by mynym — May 3, 2006 @ 12:18 am
“There was one particular aspect (wing rigidity) which was abandoned, sure. But where do you think we would be in the road to flight if we hadn’t had flying creatures to emulate at all?”
This is a bit like saying “we would’ve never invented the automobile if the earth weren’t covered with creatures motoring around on four wheels”.
Oh, wait a minute …
“Thanks for highlighting that iDesign post! Biomimetics is a great field. Not only can intelligent design provide the conceptual underpinnings, but it can be a useful heuristic for inspiring new technologies.”
Biomimetics doesn’t use intelligent design as a useful heuristic for anything.
Biomimetics mimics function found in nature. Scientists believe these functions arose through evolution, not design.
If biomimetics were to use ID as its conceptual framework, biomimetics would only copy items from nature that could be proven to have CSI. Since nothing in nature has been shown to exhibit CSI, biomimetics would be a fruitless endeavor.
Comment by Don Baccus — May 3, 2006 @ 12:24 am
Mynym– would you be so good as to reread the comments on our “rules of engagement”, reread your own posts and see where you’ve violated them, and make a very strong effort to abide by them in the future? If you can’t I have to ask you to make your posts on your own website.
Since “no personal attacks” seems meaningless to some people, here are a few more specific pointers that might help:
1) If you find yourself using the word “moronic”, please consider how you might rephrase what you’re saying. Ideas are wrong. People are moronic. We’re discussing ideas.
2) No-one on this blog cares if you think that “Darwinists are evil liars and cheaters who want to lock everyone up who doesn’t agree with them” or “ID folk always lie and misrepresent.” Please don’t repeat such arguments.
3)Comments on someone else’s reasoning powers are not appropriate. If you feel they are making a fool of themselves, you can demonstrate it by demolishing their arguments, not by insulting them.
And thanks to everyone who has made an effort to stick to real arguments. It is appreciated.
Comment by Freawaru — May 3, 2006 @ 12:36 am
Trying to bring God in seems to me to be setting up a strawman. No-one is positing “God”. The question is what manner of emperical evidence do we need in order to postulate an intelligent force? And finding “archeological evidence” is not really the way anyone does things in physics and chemistry.
For PvM’s comment on CSI– absolutely no one is arguing that simple “information” is a valid criterion of design. Information is generated by chance processes. Complexity is also generated by chance processes. CSI is a particular subset of information, which does not arise by chance processes.
Really! Let’s not make up our own definitions just to make them easier to demolish, deal with the issue at hand. No-one I know uses that definition of Specified Complexity. Are you quite sure about its validity? Where does it come from?
Comment by Freawaru — May 3, 2006 @ 1:23 am
Would you hold that biomimetics was useless in the engineering of flight?
Comment by Freawaru — May 3, 2006 @ 1:26 am
Freawaru wrote:
“…new information can be produced by chance all the time; and an increase in the amount of information is not any sort of sign of intelligence working.”
It’s interesting that you should assert this, as Dembski has asserted just the opposite. In “No Free Lunch” and other works, Dembski has asserted that no amount of genetic mutation nor recombination can produce new information, it can only rearrange or degrade existing information (i.e. his soi dissant “law of conservation of information.” In saying this, he displays his basic ignorance of simple genetics, as literally every genetic mutation produces new information. Granted, most mutations produce new information that has virtually no effect on fitness (i.e. most mutations are either neutral or nearly neutral, according to Kimura and Ohta). However, some mutations produce new information that lowers fitness, and a few mutations produce new information that increases fitness.
As a first approximation to my earlier question, I would propose (following Mayr’s 1974 paper on teleonomy) that “purpose” (i.e. teleonomy) is essentially equivalent to adaptation, insofar as adaptations are the result of “programs” that code for the construction and operation of structures and functions that have consequences for fitness (i.e. are correlated with significant changes in reproductive success). As Mayr points out, such programs are the hallmark of teleonomy, and I concur (with some reservations, which I will elaborate on in a later post).
Mayr points out that, although teleonomic programs are indeed purposeful (hence their name), the process by which they have arisen (i.e. natural selection) is itself NOT purposeful (or rather, we have no evidence to indicate that natural selection has any purpose).
Dembski’s “law of conservation of information” has been shown to be fatally flawed, especially insofar as it is not (contrary to his assertion) a version of Wolpert’s “no free lunch” theorem. As such, Dembski has a serious (and I believe fatal) problem, in that if naturalistic genetic processes can indeed produce new information, and (as Fisher, Haldane, and Wright showed) selection can cause dramatic changes in the frequencies of alleles (and allele combinations) in natural populations, then Dembski’s essentially negative assertion that genetic/phenotypic variation and natural selection cannot produce “comples specified information” is rendered nugatory.
Comment by Allen MacNeill — May 3, 2006 @ 2:00 am
Quoting Dembski:
I think the crux of the argument that is being badly misunderstood here is exactly what complex specified information means. And no, it isn’t simple information. And no, it isn’t “whatever I’m not sure of an explanation for.”
Comment by Freawaru — May 3, 2006 @ 2:09 am
The problem with “complex specified information” is in the word “specified.” What, exactly, does Dembski mean by “specified?” I believe, from reading his articles and papers, that “specification” is essentially equivalent to “choice,” in the sense that given a very large number of possible outcomes, only a “choice” of one (or a few related) outcomes can increase the probability of a particular outcome leading to biological structures and functions.
However, what Dembski never proposes (as it would be fatal to his metaphysical program) is that the environment itself can make the “choice” that “specifies” a particular combination of properties, and in so doing results in the production of adaptations that are (as described in the previous post) “purposeful.”
According to this view, the environment itself is the “intelligent designer” that “specifies” the adaptations of living organisms. The fact that the “intelligence” exhibited by the environment is relentless retrospective (unlike the prospective intelligence exhibited by at least some people) is irrelevent: intelligence is intelligence, even when it is entirely “natural.”
Comment by Allen MacNeill — May 3, 2006 @ 2:15 am
And thank you Freawaru for trying to keep the debate on a more respectful and intellectual plane. Once again, I am impressed with your committment to reasoned argument…even though (or perhaps because) I don’t agree with many of your positions :-)
Comment by Allen MacNeill — May 3, 2006 @ 2:18 am
If you don’t mind a rather mathish description probably the best is this one on his website. Is this one you’ve read? One of my summer goals is translating it, so don’t ask me to now :). He concludes by defining specified complexity as a number rather than a property: χ = - log_2[1^120 • ψ _s (T) •P(T|H) )]. ψ _s (T) represents the specificational resources, and if the number χ is greater than one the system is defined as specified.
Comment by Freawaru — May 3, 2006 @ 2:29 am
Allen,
I thank you for your willingness to dialogue with the IDEA members here. The questions you ask are very relevant to the problem of describing teleology in biology. As you said in your weblog, we wouldn’t normally think of a falling rock being goal directed, but we would think that of a sidewinder missile.
To everyone especially the IDEA crew at Cornell,
Why is it then that we use teleological language to describe biology when the same language is used for cybernetic systems such as robots and guided missiles? The answer is that the biological artifacts are amenable to humans projecting their pre-conceived ideas of design onto biological systems. It is interesting to note, that there is no requirement to affix the idea of “ear” to ears, that is a mentalist projection, but why is it that this mentalist projection seems so natural to describe vary diverse “ears” among various animals. This is strongly suggestive of pre-concieved platonic architectures. There is nothing that scientifically justifies calling an eye and eye, unless one is already implicitly projecting teleological menatlist notions onto biology.
A shakespeare poem is more than ink and paper. When we see his poem written on ink and paper, we call it a poem, we don’t describe it in terms of the chemistry of the ink and paper. In like manner, we are projecting human conceptions onto physical objects in biology. We are affixing mentalist symbolism on material substrates much like we do with anything else that convey’s symbols.
We see a cell and computer scientists think “computer”. We see a flagellum, and mechanical engineers think “rotary motor”. We see communication and decoding systems and electrical engineers think “signal processing”, etc. In fact, especially with the Turing Machine (computer), the specificaitons were well described long before we actually saw them in the cell, thus the complaint of post dictive specification is negated in that case.
Dembski’s work address the mathematics of whether such a human mental projection of preconceptions onto a physical artifact is possible unless the artifact were designed. In our minds, humans walk around with mental templates of what looks designed (watches, computers, motors, signal amplifiers, music, etc.).
Dembski lays out the criteria for making the design inference quantitative in terms of information theory. For example, in the not too distant future we will be able to encode music into DNA and store it in bacteria much like we do with CD’s. We can make a design inference if we ever detected such music in the genome. Of course, such a design detection is detection of a human design.
However, in a somewhat similar manner, engineers are already recognizing designs in biology which they have seen in their own human sphere much like a human stumbling on a bacteria that has the song It’s a small world (encoded in in E. Coli). Dembski argues this recognition would not be possible unless biotic reality was designed by a human-like intelligence with the strong intention of having His designs detected.
Since I expect Perakh, Shallit, and Elsberry’s criticisms of Dembski may appear, I would like to point out my counter to their criticisms here:
Response to Elsberry and Shallit 2003
Hopefully that informal thread will enlighten readers about CSI.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 3, 2006 @ 3:03 am
Hi Don,
Biomimetics mimics function found in nature. Scientists believe these functions arose through evolution, not design.
You are correct; many of these scientists posit that these “designs” found in nature are a result of millions of years of fine-tuning by natural evolution. But the existence of these efficient designs seems to be very compatible with intelligent design. In my opinion:
P (intelligent design is possible | biomimetics) >= P (Iintelligent design is not possible | biomimetics).
Comment by Art — May 3, 2006 @ 3:09 am
Dear Admin:
Do you think it would be possible to add “preview” functionality for comments?
Comment by Art — May 3, 2006 @ 3:11 am
(My apologies for an earlier typo which caused a failed link)
The corrected link to describing CSI and my response to Elsberry and Shallit are here:
Response to Elsberry and Shallit 2003
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 3, 2006 @ 3:29 am
“Would you hold that biomimetics was useless in the engineering of flight? ”
I made the point in my first post that successful powered flight was made possible by abandoning efforts to mimic nature.
And it was Bleriot, not the Wright brothers, who made flying safe, by moving even further from a mimetic model. They got rid of the Wright brother’s canard (unflattering french term for the horizontal stabilizer in the front of the Wright Flyer), got rid of the Wright brother’s wing warping (somewhat like the way birds control their wings) in favor of unnatural hinged ailerons (french word), added a fuselage (french word) to put the horizontal and vertical stabilizers behind the center of pressure.
I emphasize the french terms to make clear how thoroughly the Wright Flyer was discarded in aviation, in particular the canard and wing warping.
Comment by Don Baccus — May 3, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
“P (intelligent design is possible | biomimetics) >= P (Iintelligent design is not possible | biomimetics)”
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that P(intelligent design is possible) > 0.
IDers can huff and puff all they want, but that’s the truth.
Comment by Don Baccus — May 3, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
“Would you hold that biomimetics was useless in the engineering of flight?”
I don’t think my post was very clear. The point I’m making is that the Wright brothers’ wing warping mechanism was mimetic in nature, as it is inspired by how birds maintain level flight or bank.
Bleriot abandoned that mechanism and substituted hinged ailerons. Hinged wing sections are as unknown in nature as are four-wheeled beasts.
Moving further from a biomimetic approach is what led to safe airplanes.
There is nothing in nature analogous to the helicopter, in either of it primary configurations (main rotor with tail rotor that counters torque, or two main rotors rotating in opposite directions countering each other’s torque).
Comment by Don Baccus — May 3, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
My paragraph is about scientists who claim ID is religion and therefore must be excluded from science and work to exclude the very idea through fear-mongering, censorship and discrimination, yet then turn around and claim that the scientific research that they’ve worked so ardently to exclude as a supposed matter of principle ought to be provided.
Scientific research? What scientific research? I will quote from an article Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker by Laurie Goodstein, NY Times, Dec. 4, 2005:
The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.
“They never came in,” said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.
“From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don’t come out very well in our world of scientific review,” he said.
Comment by ivy privy — May 3, 2006 @ 3:30 pm
Since I expect Perakh, Shallit, and Elsberry’s criticisms of Dembski may appear, I would like to point out my counter to their criticisms here:
Response to Elsberry and Shallit 2003
Not much of a counter but thanks for sharing. As to the issue at hand, can Salvador perhaps show us some examples supporting his claims of what Dembski is doing? His flawed approach using ‘information theory’ which in fact is nothing more than a negative log2 of the probability of an event shows an attempt which causes much confusion through its somewhat ideosyncratic use of these terms. In the end all it comes down to is: We don’t understand how this function arose in biology, hence it must have been designed. Never mind the obvious false positives in such a gap approach, never mind that regularity and chance processes can in fact generate CSI…
Never mind that Dembski’s math is written in Jello… Full steam ahead and ignore the valid criticisms
Comment by PvM — May 3, 2006 @ 6:29 pm
PvM: Not much of a counter but thanks for sharing.
OK, this motivated me to skim Sal’s masterpiece again. “Not much of a counter” is being generous, IMO. As far as I can see, it says NOTHING that counters Shallit. There’s a bunch of handwaving of the “I can detect human design therefore I can detect biological design (CSI)” variety. There’s a primer on the applying probability theory to coin-flipping, as though that’s supposed to be important to biological evolution (evolutionary events, unlike coin flips, are not independent of each other), etc. But nothing that takes Shallit head-on.
Computer passwords crept in there, I see. Last time Sal got started on computer passwords over at PT, he got schooled and ran away.
Comment by Don Baccus — May 3, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
PvM– I am at a loss to understand why you think that definition of information is such a problem. Everyone has been very clear that simple information is not a useful criterion for determining the effects of intelligence. So what point are you trying to make by repeating yourself here?
Comment by Freawaru — May 3, 2006 @ 8:04 pm
Art– Good suggestion, we’ll look into it! Maybe after finals though.
Comment by Freawaru — May 3, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
PvM– I am at a loss to understand why you think that definition of information is such a problem. Everyone has been very clear that simple information is not a useful criterion for determining the effects of intelligence. So what point are you trying to make by repeating yourself here?
Sorry, I was under the impression that Dembski’s argument was all about information which is nothing more that a transformation of a probability that we can explain something. Of course Dembski also adds complexity (basically meaning that something cannot yet be explained) and specification which in biology merely means function.
I am ‘repeating’ myself because it seems that IDers seem to fail to understand the actual nature of the design inference which is basically a gap argument.
Does this help?
Comment by PvM — May 3, 2006 @ 8:31 pm
A bit, thanks. Your summary of complexity and specification seem vast oversimplications and rather open to the charge of strawmen, but… :)
So you do agree with us that information is not the only thing being looked for, but are emphasizing it because you think it is the most interesting (or most likely to be thought convincing by undergraduates) of the various components of CSI?
Comment by Freawaru — May 3, 2006 @ 11:59 pm
A bit, thanks. Your summary of complexity and specification seem vast oversimplications and rather open to the charge of strawmen, but… :)
What part? In fact when it comes down to it, my description is in fact accurate.
So you do agree with us that information is not the only thing being looked for, but are emphasizing it because you think it is the most interesting (or most likely to be thought convincing by undergraduates) of the various components of CSI?
Information/complexity is the central part, specification in biology is trivially met by ‘function’. What I am stating is that the concept of information/complexity in ID is just a clever way of hiding the concept of the gap argument based on probabilities.
Or in other words, ID claims that something is designed if present chance and regularity explanations fail to describe a sufficiently plausible pathway for a system with a function.
That’s it… Nothing more, just a negative argument based on the existence of a (temporary?) gap. And that’s just the start of the many problems of the ID thesis
Comment by PvM — May 4, 2006 @ 8:23 am
I am sure that you have read the actual court ruling and come to realize that the ruling says nothing of that kind? Of course what research is ID involved in anyway? I’d really like to know what research follows logically from the basic ID premises?
Perhaps we can continue our discussion of the vacuity of the ID thesis?
Comment by PvM — May 27, 2006 @ 4:50 pm
And now that fear mongers such as Myers (who you cite approvingly) have won a court case it would seem that research funding for “intelligent design” is downright unconstitutional anyway. On the other hand if it is privately funded then you will say that such a fact taints it, would you not?
—
It seems we won’t have to worry about that last question. The following is from an article by Laurie Goodstein in the NYTimes, Dec. 4, 2005, “Intelligent Design Might be Meeting It’s Maker”:
—
The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.
“They never came in,” said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.
“From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don’t come out very well in our world of scientific review,” he said.
—
So it seems that private funding has been available. If more funding is necessary, the Discovery Institute could conceivably redirect some of its existing revenue stream from the writing of press releases and the hiring of Swift Boat PR firms to actual research. But this won’t be necessary, as no one is actually doing research or applying for available research funds.
Comment by ivy privy — June 11, 2006 @ 6:19 pm
Getting back to the original topic, doesn’t the acknowledgment of biomimetics; that many human-engineered designs are based on nature, specifically biological systems, make the Paleyist design analogy difficult to carry off with a straight face?
Comment by ivy privy — June 14, 2006 @ 12:27 am