Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hi,
As it came up, once again, in another thread, I'ld like to invite the ID crowd here once more to define what they exactly mean by the term "design", how it can be objectively detected and what the null hypothesis is.
It is my understanding that they use the loaded version of the word "design". As in, "being done by an actual designer". Some conscious entity. Not some process.
For example, I could speak about the "design" of this snowflake:
View attachment 163066
But I wouldn't be talking about the type of "design" that the ID crowd talks about when they use the word "design".
How to objectively detect this "design" (being the type of "design" that ID'ers refer to)?
How to define it, in such a way that it can be differentiated from "non-design" or "natural design"?
So, let's settle this once and for all. (although i'm not getting my hopes up - but you never know, right? I'm an optimist I guess).
Regards
So, special pleading?Specified complexity has to be identified in order to infer "design".
"Complexity means that an object is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance. Short sequences can be explained by chance, long sequences cannot. A string with a probability of 10-150 or 500 bits of information is certainly complex and cannot be explained by chance.
Specification 'ensures that the object exhibits a pattern characteristic of intelligence'. Such a pattern cannot be explained by necessity or chance."
http://wasdarwinwrong.com/kortho44.htm
Forming crystals in repeating patterns doesn't qualify. Snowflakes are readily explained by necessity.
"Complexity means that an object is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance. Short sequences can be explained by chance, long sequences cannot. A string with a probability of 10-150 or 500 bits of information is certainly complex and cannot be explained by chance.
Specification 'ensures that the object exhibits a pattern characteristic of intelligence'. Such a pattern cannot be explained by necessity or chance."
Hi,
As it came up, once again, in another thread, I'ld like to invite the ID crowd here once more to define what they exactly mean by the term "design", how it can be objectively detected and what the null hypothesis is.
It is my understanding that they use the loaded version of the word "design". As in, "being done by an actual designer". Some conscious entity. Not some process.
For example, I could speak about the "design" of this snowflake:
View attachment 163066
But I wouldn't be talking about the type of "design" that the ID crowd talks about when they use the word "design".
How to objectively detect this "design" (being the type of "design" that ID'ers refer to)?
How to define it, in such a way that it can be differentiated from "non-design" or "natural design"?
So, let's settle this once and for all. (although i'm not getting my hopes up - but you never know, right? I'm an optimist I guess).
Regards
I'd say something is designed if there is some purpose to it being the way that it is, and every part of it goes towards fulfilling that purpose.
It's the Paley dilemma. To establish design, he had to use a man-made object as an example, because if he had used an actual object from nature, no one would have gotten his point.
His very choice of objects makes it clear that "design" cannot be attributed to anything in nature.
Well, let's take a look at that. Suppose we shuffle a deck of cards, and lay out the cards, noting the order. The probability of that order is 1/52! or about:
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002
So your argument proves that shuffled decks of cards are impossible.
Some would extend the argument and say that highly improbable, but functional things are impossible without design. Would you like to see how that argument fares?
That's a strawman argument. It makes no distinction between Shannon's information theory and intelligent design.
"The word 'information' in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage" - Warren Weaver
According to Shannon's theory these strings of text contain the same amount of information:
"vaiodsvhoidhvoiuhdvobfi"
"What hath God wrought"
They both are equally long and equally improbable, therefore contain the same amount of 'information' according to Shannon's theory. Highly improbable events happen all the time, but design is not inferred. Yet, there is clearly a difference between them. This is why Intelligent design builds on Shannon's theory and makes the distinction of functional information. Suppose someone shuffles a deck 100 times and deals out the same order every time. Now what? Assume it just a chance event? Happening once or even a few times can be chalked up to 'highly improbable' and not by design. I don't think anyone would believe there wasn't some 'design' involved with it happening 100 times.
That is what ID is about, not 1 shuffle and deal of a deck of card but detecting design.
We're all waiting for you to actually explain how to detect design. Saying "its totes improbable" is not a method of detecting design.
That's a strawman argument.
It makes no distinction between Shannon's information theory and intelligent design.
According to Shannon's theory these strings of text contain the same amount of information:
"vaiodsvhoidhvoiuhdvobfi"
"What hath God wrought"
They both are equally long and equally improbable, therefore contain the same amount of 'information' according to Shannon's theory.
Highly improbable events happen all the time, but design is not inferred.
Yet, there is clearly a difference between them. This is why Intelligent design builds on Shannon's theory and makes the distinction of functional information.
It addressed your argument.
No well articulated argument. No reasonable logic. Just mock it and hope that will show any falseness in it?The primary distinction between Shannon's theory and intelligent design is, Shannon's theory actually works.
Actually the second one has less information.
"Wt hth Gd wrght" would convey the same information to an English-speaking person as your original. It takes less information to specify the second than the first.
Sure that looks like a face, but who exactly? Nobody KNOWs exactly how Jesus looked.Very frequently, it is. Jesus' face on a tortilla, for example.
When you say "a number of mutations" how many are you talking about? One or two? or twenty?So let's say over time a culture of bacteria have a number of mutations that eventually produces a new enzyme that is useful.
Is that intelligent design? By definition, it's functional information. It appears that random change, impacting existing nature, would produce what you'd accept as "intelligent design."
Isn't it nonsensical to ask an ID'er to determine what is non-design in a universe that they believe wouldn't exist if it hadn't been designed?
In other words, based on what ID'ers believe, they would not be able to determine anything non-designed because everything is designed for a specific reason. From an ID'ers perspective, non-design does not exist.
Sorryy about the thread, but theres no serious takers for the OP I suppose.
"Complexity means that an object is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance.
Short sequences can be explained by chance, long sequences cannot. A string with a probability of 10-150 or 500 bits of information is certainly complex and cannot be explained by chance.
Forming crystals in repeating patterns doesn't qualify.
No. If an ID'er can't tell me how they differentiate design from non-design - then how could this ID'er possible come to the conclusion that the universe is designed?
Remember, we are talking about "intelligent design". The inventors and proponents of which, claim to have a scientific idea, not just a religious one. They claim to start from the data and be able to conclude it was designed.
I'm asking about the methodology they employ to draw such a conclusion.
That flies in the face of what ID is claimed to be: a 'scientific' methodology to determine wheter or not something was designed or not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?