Evidence of design

[Mobezom]

You still don't get it. Natural causes can be directed in the sense of having a direction.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It simply doesn't support your claim Behe admitted it was falsified. Weren't you the one who said a scientific theory is based on an objective standard?

I said that Behe admitted that if ID qualifies as science, then so does astrology.
That's a fact and it's right there in the transcript of the trial.

You don't have to believe me. Go ahead and read it for yourself. In fact, I encourage you to do so. You might learn something.

 

[sfs]

There are experimental tests for CSI done by forensic scientists, fire inspectors, and people at SETI to name a few.

None of those fields detects CSI. They detect the actions of humans, or human-like beings. If you wish to claim otherwise, please point to any publication in these fields that actually calculated CSI.

"The term “specified complexity” goes back at least to 1973, when Leslie Orgel used it in connection with origins-of-life research:

Quite true. It's unfortunate, then, that Dembski decided to use the same term but with a different meaning. In particular, Dembski's use of "complexity" as low probability is unrelated to Orgel's.

Also, there is a connection between CSI and irreducible complexity. The irreducibe element of irreducible complexity is a specified pattern.

The only thing that the two concepts have in common is that the system has a function. Specification does not imply irreducibility, and irreducibility does not imply specification. Complexity in Behe's sense (lots of connected parts, basically) does not imply low probability (Dembski's meaning of complexity), nor does low probability imply Behe's complexity. They're simply different arguments, and one is not an example of the other.

If you find some particular application of CSI persuasive, present it here. Tell us how Meyer calculates CSI, for example, so we can assess the argument.

ETA: The only example I've seen of someone actually calculating CSI was Dembski's treatment of the flagellum, which can charitably be described utterly wrong-headed.

 

[Loudmouth]

There are experimental tests for CSI done by forensic scientists, fire inspectors, and people at SETI to name a few. The design inference by Dembski is validated all the time. It's only when people use unspecified complexity or specified simplicity are there false positives.

But not in biology?

"The term “specified complexity” goes back at least to 1973, when Leslie Orgel used it in connection with origins-of-life research: “Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.” See Orgel, The Origins of Life (New York: Wiley, 1973 ), 189."
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-specified-complexity-orgel-and-dembski/

Dembski said this about the work of Hubert Yockey, Robert Sauer, Peter Rüst, Paul Erbrich, Siegfried Scherer, and Douglas Axe:
"I'm not enlisting these individuals as design advocates but merely pointing out that methods for determining specified complexity are already part of biology."
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm
We can't go back in time to do experimental tests in biology, so a vera causa is used as an inference to the best explanation. Meyer laid out a vera causa in 'The Signature in the Cell'. Invariably intelligent agents cause long sequences of complex specified information. Using a known cause to explain past events was used by Darwin too. Using that known cause to explain the CSI in DNA is an inference to the best explanation. It can be falsified by showing undirected natural causes making long sequences of CSI.
Also, there is a connection between CSI and irreducible complexity. The irreducibe element of irreducible complexity is a specified pattern.

Then apply this measure to DNA sequences and show us how mutations can not increase CSI.

 

[Vaccine]

I said that Behe admitted that if ID qualifies as science, then so does astrology.
That's a fact and it's right there in the transcript of the trial.

You don't have to believe me. Go ahead and read it for yourself. In fact, I encourage you to do so. You might learn something.

Here's what I read:
Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?

A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time.

No reasonable person would believe "that Behe admitted that if ID qualifies as science, then so does astrology."

 

[Vaccine]

None of those fields detects CSI. They detect the actions of humans, or human-like beings. If you wish to claim otherwise, please point to any publication in these fields that actually calculated CSI.

Quite true. It's unfortunate, then, that Dembski decided to use the same term but with a different meaning. In particular, Dembski's use of "complexity" as low probability is unrelated to Orgel's.

The only thing that the two concepts have in common is that the system has a function. Specification does not imply irreducibility, and irreducibility does not imply specification. Complexity in Behe's sense (lots of connected parts, basically) does not imply low probability (Dembski's meaning of complexity), nor does low probability imply Behe's complexity. They're simply different arguments, and one is not an example of the other.

If you find some particular application of CSI persuasive, present it here. Tell us how Meyer calculates CSI, for example, so we can assess the argument.

ETA: The only example I've seen of someone actually calculating CSI was Dembski's treatment of the flagellum, which can charitably be described utterly wrong-headed.

How exactly does one 'detect' the actions of humans?
You can say 'because I say so' if you want to. But if you wanted to test that, what do you suggest?

Dembski didn't change the meaning only formalized it.

Meyers argument is an inference to the best explanation using a vera causa. Meyer defines complexity in term of highly improbable sequences and specificity as 'necessary to function'. Invariably, software is caused by an intelligent agent, therefore is a vera causa. Software is a long sequence of csi, so is DNA. Inferring an intelligent agent caused DNA is the best explanation

 

[Loudmouth]

Here's what I read:
Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?

A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time.

No reasonable person would believe "that Behe admitted that if ID qualifies as science, then so does astrology."

Q: Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
​

Behe states outright that in order for ID to be science you would have to use a definition that also has astrology as science.

 

[Loudmouth]

How exactly does one 'detect' the actions of humans?

Tool marks, cast off scraps, association with human fossils, and plenty of other factors. When we design organisms we regularly violate a nested hierarchy, so that would be another way to detect intelligent design.

As it turns out, we see none of those pieces of evidence in organisms.

Dembski didn't change the meaning only formalized it.

Meyers argument is an inference to the best explanation using a vera causa. Meyer defines complexity in term of highly improbable sequences and specificity as 'necessary to function'. Invariably, software is caused by an intelligent agent, therefore is a vera causa. Software is a long sequence of csi, so is DNA. Inferring an intelligent agent caused DNA is the best explanation

Still waiting for you to show how to measure CSI in a DNA sequence, and demonstrate how mutations do not increase CSI.

 

[sfs]

How exactly does one 'detect' the actions of humans?
You can say 'because I say so' if you want to. But if you wanted to test that, what do you suggest?

I take it from your response that none of these fields does actually use CSI. Correct?

Dembski didn't change the meaning only formalized it.

He took a concept that had nothing to do with probability and defined it exclusively in terms of probability. That's a change in meaning.

Meyers argument is an inference to the best explanation using a vera causa. Meyer defines complexity in term of highly improbable sequences and specificity as 'necessary to function'. Invariably, software is caused by an intelligent agent, therefore is a vera causa. Software is a long sequence of csi, so is DNA. Inferring an intelligent agent caused DNA is the best explanation

So how does Meyer calculate CSI for DNA? How does he determine how probable a DNA sequence is?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here's what I read:
Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?

A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time.

Here's another passage, and I'll hightlight the important bits in bold:

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.


And it goes on and on....

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

So he goes on to produce excuse after excuse after excuse... But actually starts his "defence" by saying "...under my definition of the word 'theory'..."

Well, it's not about YOUR definition of the word, Behe. We're talking about science. The definitions are what they are. He's flat out admitting that he's using other, personal definitions, just to be able to call ID a "scientific" theory.

No reasonable person would believe "that Behe admitted that if ID qualifies as science, then so does astrology."

Well, you are wrong. Behe indeed did admit to that. I know, right...

 

[Vaccine]

Here's another passage, and I'll hightlight the important bits in bold:

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.


And it goes on and on....

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

So he goes on to produce excuse after excuse after excuse... But actually starts his "defence" by saying "...under my definition of the word 'theory'..."

Well, it's not about YOUR definition of the word, Behe. We're talking about science. The definitions are what they are. He's flat out admitting that he's using other, personal definitions, just to be able to call ID a "scientific" theory.



Well, you are wrong. Behe indeed did admit to that. I know, right...

You're using a quote from Behe to impy he has the opinion astrology is valid science. That's textbook quote mining. He doesn't consider Astrology correct.
"So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories."

 

[Vaccine]

I take it from your response that none of these fields does actually use CSI. Correct?

These fields identify intentional design. Apart from How exactly do think they do that?

He took a concept that had nothing to do with probability and defined it exclusively in terms of probability. That's a change in meaning.

Dembski's inference of design may be in terms of probabilities but his definition of specified complexity isn't.
If you think Orgel's concept had nothing to do with information theory what do you think he meant by specified complexity?

So how does Meyer calculate CSI for DNA? How does he determine how probable a DNA sequence is?

Meyer identifies a cause for sequences of complex specified information, the stuff Orgel talks about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're using a quote from Behe to impy he has the opinion astrology is valid science. That's textbook quote mining. He doesn't consider Astrology correct.

"So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories."

No, you completely misunderstood the point being made.
Nobody here is saying that Behe believes that Astrology is correct.

The point is that Behe and his cohorst redefined what a sicentific theory is, just to be able to call ID a scientific theory. And what Behe had to admit, as is shown in the quote, is that under that altered definition, Astrology is ALSO a scientific theory.

But the fact of the matter is that astrology never qualified as such. Not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow. Astrology is pseudo-science.

In other words, Behe and his cohorts redefined 'scientific theory' to include pseudo-science, in order to be able to call ID a 'scientific theory'.

That is the point.

It's not about them believing in astrology or not.

It's about the fact that under the actual definition of 'scientific theory', ID is NOT such a theory, just like Astrology isn't such a theory. Because the actual definition, does not include pseudo science.

All this comes down to a simple obvious point: ID is the same category of idea as Astrology. Not science, but pseudo science.

 

[sfs]

These fields identify intentional design. Apart from How exactly do think they do that?

You said, "There are experimental tests for CSI done by forensic scientists, fire inspectors, and people at SETI to name a few." Do these fields have experimental tests for CSI or not?

Dembski's inference of design may be in terms of probabilities but his definition of specified complexity isn't.

"The "complexity" in "specified complexity" is a measure of improbability" (No Free Lunch, p. 111). "For an object to be complex means that it is improbable." ("On the Improbability of Algorithmic Specified Complexity", Ewert and Dembski). I suggest you learn more about the position you're advocating.

If you think Orgel's concept had nothing to do with information theory what do you think he meant by specified complexity?

I didn't say his concept had nothing to do with information theory; I said it had nothing to do with probability. If you think Orgel meant "improbable" by "complex", why don't you provide some evidence?

Meyer identifies a cause for sequences of complex specified information, the stuff Orgel talks about.

I'll repeat my question: how did he calculate CSI?

 

[Vaccine]

No, you completely misunderstood the point being made.
Nobody here is saying that Behe believes that Astrology is correct.

That's not what was said earlier, "if ID qualifies as science then so does astrology." #123

The point is that Behe and his cohorst redefined what a sicentific theory is, just to be able to call ID a scientific theory. And what Behe had to admit, as is shown in the quote, is that under that altered definition, Astrology is ALSO a scientific theory.

But the fact of the matter is that astrology never qualified as such. Not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow. Astrology is pseudo-science.

In other words, Behe and his cohorts redefined 'scientific theory' to include pseudo-science, in order to be able to call ID a 'scientific theory'.

That is the point.

It's not about them believing in astrology or not.

It's about the fact that under the actual definition of 'scientific theory', ID is NOT such a theory, just like Astrology isn't such a theory. Because the actual definition, does not include pseudo science.

All this comes down to a simple obvious point: ID is the same category of idea as Astrology. Not science, but pseudo science.

So Behe doesn't agree with the narrow definition laid out by the NiH. It was a feeble attempt to prevent it from being considered science. They do research, have testable models and peer reviewed publications. Behe is still publishing peer reviewed papers.

 

[Mobezom]

Science must be testable and falsifiable. That's not a "narrow definition".

Science must be naturalistic - this means no "miracles." This follows from the above. Only cause and effect and laws of nature are allowed explanations - suppose that diabetes were explained as an angry, invisible demon inside one's body! That would dramatically hinder science.

This last part might be hard to accept, so think of it this way: "it was a miracle" or "Goddidit" can explain anything equally well, which is another way of saying that it cannot explain anything well. If there is no way to disprove it, then it is not science.

Science is usually fertile. It raises new questions, opens up new fields of research. Creationism is sterile. This on its own is insufficient to deny Creationism a place in science, but it helps.

Science accepts error and lack of surety. Creationism avoids uncertainty like the plague.

When theory and reality contradict each other, science changes its theories. Creationism never does. It holds the Bible to be the absolutely correct and inerrant Word of God, and so if reality contradicts the Bible, reality itself must be wrong!

 

[Vaccine]

You said, "There are experimental tests for CSI done by forensic scientists, fire inspectors, and people at SETI to name a few." Do these fields have experimental tests for CSI or not?

SETI is an experimental test for intelligent life. Specified complexity is a reliable 'test' for design.

I didn't say his concept had nothing to do with information theory; I said it had nothing to do with probability.

How can you possibly think information theory has nothing to do with probabilities?

If you think Orgel meant "improbable" by "complex", why don't you provide some evidence?

Orgel:
"These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information."
–The Origins of Life (New York: Wiley, 1973 ) p. 190

It's plain to anyone who knows something about information theory that Dembski and Orgel are talking about the same concept. Dembki is just made it 'more precise'.

 

[Vaccine]

Science must be testable and falsifiable. That's not a "narrow definition".

Science must be naturalistic - this means no "miracles." This follows from the above. Only cause and effect and laws of nature are allowed explanations - suppose that diabetes were explained as an angry, invisible demon inside one's body! That would dramatically hinder science.

This last part might be hard to accept, so think of it this way: "it was a miracle" or "Goddidit" can explain anything equally well, which is another way of saying that it cannot explain anything well. If there is no way to disprove it, then it is not science.

Science is usually fertile. It raises new questions, opens up new fields of research. Creationism is sterile. This on its own is insufficient to deny Creationism a place in science, but it helps.

Science accepts error and lack of surety. Creationism avoids uncertainty like the plague.

When theory and reality contradict each other, science changes its theories. Creationism never does. It holds the Bible to be the absolutely correct and inerrant Word of God, and so if reality contradicts the Bible, reality itself must be wrong!

Not advocating Creationism here, just Intelligent design theory. Identifying a cause is where ID ends, it makes no assertions about the designer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's not what was said earlier, "if ID qualifies as science then so does astrology." #123

That's what you said in the post I was responding to.

So Behe doesn't agree with the narrow definition laid out by the NiH. It was a feeble attempt to prevent it from being considered science. They do research, have testable models and peer reviewed publications. Behe is still publishing peer reviewed papers.

You seem in denial.
Read the transcript again. It's Behe and his cohorts that redefined what a scientific theory is, because under the actual definition, ID doesn't qualify. So they altered the definition, just so that ID would qualify.

But in doing so, astrology also qualifies... as behe himself admits in the transcript.

It's right there, black on white.
I don't see how you feel like you can try and argue against it.

It's painfully clear... It means that ID is the same category of idea as astrology: pseudo-scientific nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not advocating Creationism here, just Intelligent design theory.

ID = plain old creationism disguised in a lab coat.

Ever heared of cdesign proponentsists? You should google the term.

Identifying a cause is where ID ends, it makes no assertions about the designer.

Riiiiight.