What is "design" and how to detect it

[DogmaHunter]

That is your opinion. I'm claiming to believe what is true based on what the evidence points to.

But this "evidence" of yours seems to be nothing more then "I believe it".

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Shannon's theory tells us how to send a very reliable low-powered radio signal over billions of kilometers of space, and how to pack a maxium of capacity into internet channels. So far, "intelligent design" has done precisely nothing.

People employ it's principles every day. Forensic science uses it to find criminals, they rule out accidents in search of intelligent agent at work. SETI uses it in the search for life, they're looking for specified complex information coming from outer space. They found the Titanic because they knew the debris field wasn't the product of chance forces.

All of this went on long before the doctrine of "intelligent design" was invented. The creationist habit of claiming things discovered by science is a particularly unfortunate one, from the standpoint of reputation. So far, "intelligent design" can't do anything at all. You're just trying to borrow from real science.

The Barbarian said: ↑
"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.

"Wt hth Gd wrght" does not comply with the rules of syntax or grammar.

Neither does "you ain't fooling nobody." But everyone understands what it means. You see, the huge redundancy in English makes such sentences intelligible, even if they don't fit the rules. This is, as I told you, why there is less information in your sentence than in a random string of symbols.

Barbarian observes:
Wrong. It takes fewer bits of information to encode the second.

Shannon's theory tells us about the information carrying capacity of a sequence, not whether the sequence is meaningful or functional.

Yep. And yet his theory can allow planetary communication with very low-powered radios with almost perfect precision. So far, your "specified information" doesn't do anything at all. That should be a clue for you.

You're confusing "information content" (which, you're right, can be encoded in fewer bits) with "information-carrying capacity", which both sequences were equal.

That's wrong, too. You can code almost anything on any random string of characters. This is how IDers "find complex specified information."

(observation that random mutations plus natural selection produced a new, regulated enyzme system)

Barbarian observes:
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."

[quote]Nobody denies a few bits of functional information can happen by chance mutations, that is decidedly micro-evolution.[/quote]

Speciation is well-documented, so that bunny trail is a loser for you, too. The point is, a complex feature which meets your definition of "complex specified information" was observed to evolve.

It's the extrapolation enough new functional information to build entirely new species can happen that way which requires a leap of faith.

Or at least paying attention. The first noted case was about 1918; it involved a polyploidy event, but of course, Hall's bacteria did something rather more impressive than mere speciation.

Notice that Paley had to use a human-made artifact to make his point; if nature had produced it, no rational person would have inferred design:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? -William Paley

And therein lies the failure of ID.

 

[AirPo]

That is your opinion. I'm claiming to believe what is true based on what the evidence points to.

What evidence? Have you got an example?

 

[Chriliman]

What evidence? Have you got an example?

The evidence that points to a reason behind why the universe came into existence. The evidence would be life itself. By "life" I mean everything you observe as true and everything I observe as true. There has to be a reason we observe things as true and therefore there has to be a reason we are capable of observing in the first place.

We did not give ourselves the ability to observe, so what is the purpose of our ability to observe? The purpose would be to find what is true.

 

[AirPo]

The evidence that points to a reason behind why the universe came into existence. The evidence would be life itself. By "life" I mean everything you observe as true and everything I observe as true. There has to be a reason we observe things as true and therefore there has to be a reason we are capable of observing in the first place.

We did not give ourselves the ability to observe, so what is the purpose of our ability to observe? The purpose would be to find what is true.

Your evidence is life? And some weird made up definition of "life"

And why does there have to be a reason/purpose for our ability to observe?

 

[bhsmte]

The evidence that points to a reason behind why the universe came into existence. The evidence would be life itself. By "life" I mean everything you observe as true and everything I observe as true. There has to be a reason we observe things as true and therefore there has to be a reason we are capable of observing in the first place.

We did not give ourselves the ability to observe, so what is the purpose of our ability to observe? The purpose would be to find what is true.

If that is the evidence you claim points to a God, I would keep looking.

 

[Chriliman]

Your evidence is life? And some weird made up definition of "life"

And why does there have to be a reason/purpose for our ability to observe?

If there's not a reason/purpose for our ability to observe, then why observe anything? Maybe, the purpose of why we observe things is to find the truth. At least that reason/purpose does make sense and has more explanatory power than: "why does there have to be a reason/purpose for our ability to observe?" This is just a question with no explanatory power, yet there's still a reason you ask it. So why did you ask? Was it to get to the truth?

 

[The Barbarian]

Brine shrimp observe things. Is their purpose to find the truth?

 

[AirPo]

If there's not a reason/purpose for our ability to observe, then why observe anything? Maybe, the purpose of why we observe things is to find the truth. At least that reason/purpose does make sense and has more explanatory power than: "why does there have to be a reason/purpose for our ability to observe?" This is just a question with no explanatory power, yet there's still a reason you ask it. So why did you ask? Was it to get to the truth?

No it doesn't. And questions are not for explaining, answers are.

 

[Chriliman]

No it doesn't. And questions are not for explaining, answers are.

Answers are for explaining what?

 

[Chriliman]

Brine shrimp observe things. Is their purpose to find the truth?

How could I know? I'm a person not a brine shrimp. The purpose of a brine shrimp is to survive, I think humans are purposed to do more than just survive. We're here to figure out what is true.

 

[AirPo]

Answers are for explaining what?

The question.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Those who do not believe in an intelligent designer who actually has a plan for all the design we see in our universe shouldn't use the word "design" because of the implications it has. Instead, they should use words like shape and form and then realize they have no explanation for why anything is shaped or formed the way they are because if they actually had an explanation then we would know why everything is shaped or formed the way it is. But if there is an explanation as to why things are shaped or formed the way they are then there is a plan or reason for why anything exists.

Actually we have very good explanations of a lot of things, e.g. how complex oraganisms came to be (by a process of evolution and natural and other selections from more primitive ancestors) and also how and why snowflakes form. Hence, you can't create a false dichotomy that there is intentioned design or we have no explanations for how and why things are shaped or formed the way that they are. Because there are lots of good explanations for how things formed without intentioned design.

 

[The Barbarian]

If there's not a reason/purpose for our ability to observe, then why observe anything? Maybe, the purpose of why we observe things is to find the truth. At least that reason/purpose does make sense and has more explanatory power than: "why does there have to be a reason/purpose for our ability to observe?"

Barbarian chuckles:
Brine shrimp observe things. Is their purpose to find the truth?

How could I know?

You were just telling us that you though the purpose of observing was to find the truth. Have you changed your mind?

 

[Vaccine]

No, no... you are appealing that what you do NOT know. In this case, that ignorance being how a certain complicated thing came about.
Not being able to explain it is not an argument for design.
If "design" is the conclusion, you actually need to be able to explain why that is the case... and your explanation can't be "well, this alternative here can't explain it..."

This was pointed out in post#43.

No, he did not. Darwin appealed to actual positive evidence in support of his hypothesis. He didn't conclude "natural selection" by saying "well, X doesn't explain it, therefor NS..."

Lydell cited causes now in operation to explain past events. Darwin adopted it to justify natural selection as a vera causa. And now Meyer has adopted it to justify intelligent design as the origin of biological information.

EVERY "intelligence" that we have ever observed was the product of a physical brain. A physical brain that is itself the product of biological processes based on genetics - the very thing we are trying to explain.

So unless you can actually show that "intelligence" can exists WITHOUT biology, you have a serious chicken and egg problem.

Can you justify ruling out a transcendent cause? Unless you can come up with a zero probability it's possible intelligence transcends a physical brain.

We also know that natural processes are more then capable of producing such complexity.

Thats's the story evolutionists like to tell anyway. There's "an obvious error comes in mistaking a hypothetical scenario for either a demonstration of fact or an adequate explanation" -Meyer (Darwin's Doubt)

We do NOT know that there is "brainless intelligence" out there. In fact, there is no reason at all to assume that there is.

ID is about detecting or inferring design, not identifying the designer (that's a theological question). Identifying a cause is a scientific one. There is good reason to assume a prime-mover, an uncaused cause, otherwise it would go to an infinite regress.

The discovery institute is not a scientific organisation.
Try a real journal.

Would you consider these real journals?

PLoS One
Journal of Molecular Biology
Cambridge University Press
International Journal of Astrobiology
Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
The Quarterly Review of Biology
American Journal of Physics
Physics of Life Reviews
Protein Science
Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics

A language is not an appropriate analogy.
Because DNA is a molecule, not a language.

The "information" in english words is not the same kind of "information" as you find in genes.

There is no "communication" in DNA. There is no "message" going from one party to another.

Rather, it's a molecule involved in a massive chain reaction. The composition/pattern of the molecule determines the direction and effect of that reaction. This composition is what we call the "genetic information". But it's not a message... it's not a letter.... it's not a book....

It's a molecule. A molecule that is subject to change through variation / mutation.
To compare that molecule to an actual language like english, is invalid.

True DNA is a molecule, but language is not just an analogy for the genetic code. It has syntax and grammar, there are codons, intron and exons. There absolutely is communication going on within the cell, translation, messenger RNA, transcription, feedback loops, signal-transduction circuitry, and gene regulatory networks to name a few. To call it a massive chain reaction is invalid, there are regions of DNA that regulate and control gene expression. Regulation and control is the antithesis of a chain reaction. The precise sequence of bases is the code which carries genetic information. The genetic code and binary have a lot in common:

C C A T A G C A C G T T A C A A C G T G A A G G T A A

01101001 01101110 01110011 01110101 01101100 01101001 01101110

They're both code for insulin. Intelligence is known to produce code. Invoking a known cause to explain the origin of the code within a cell is a positive argument, not one from ignorance. Someone can study the DNA molecule all they want but it won't tell them anything about the origin of the code anymore than studying the chemical properties of ink and paper will reveal anything about the information in a book. Information is expressed through chemicals in the cell the same way information is expressed through the ink of a book. Even if they discover a natural process producing DNA, it will say nothing about the origin of the genetic code. The origin of biological information transcends molecules.

If someone shuffles a deck 100 times and deals it out in the same order everytime, how could you conclude "design" from that? Considering the given that the deck was shuffled.

I say such a thing doesn't happen in the real world. It theoretically could off course, but chances are so improbable that it likely wouldn't.

Say it did though. You'd say the shuffle was rigged right? That's the concept of intelligent design. Perhaps a repeating sequence isn't the best example though. They use an example of someone winning at roulette 100 times consecutively. When it happens nobody would believe that it was a game of chance, they'd know someone was cheating. In other words, an intelligent agent was at work to force that perticular outcome.

1 is actually already enough to refute the point that "chance can't produce functional things".

Chance modifying an existing thing is not the same as chance producing an entirely new thing.

 

[Vaccine]

All of this went on long before the doctrine of "intelligent design" was invented. The creationist habit of claiming things discovered by science is a particularly unfortunate one, from the standpoint of reputation. So far, "intelligent design" can't do anything at all. You're just trying to borrow from real science.

The concept of intelligent design has been around longer than Darwin. Intelligent design's prediction of finding function for the majority of DNA was validated and evolutionists claim the majority of DNA is useless was debunked. Imagine the rabbit hole scientists would have continued along if they listened to the evolutionists claims.

Neither does "you ain't fooling nobody." But everyone understands what it means. You see, the huge redundancy in English makes such sentences intelligible, even if they don't fit the rules. This is, as I told you, why there is less information in your sentence than in a random string of symbols.

I think this is straying from the OP of "what is design". Specified complexity, not indistinct simplicity, are the requirements to infer design.

Notice that Paley had to use a human-made artifact to make his point; if nature had produced it, no rational person would have inferred design:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? -William Paley

And therein lies the failure of ID.

His point is still valid. I could substitute a sandcastle to illustrate it. Had he known about the functional gears on the planthopper's legs he probably would have used those. We could even use a heretofore undiscovered alien object to detect design using specified complexity. SETI is looking at electromagnetic radiation to infer an intelligent agent at work. I imagine the data on pulsars would be as beautiful and compelling as a snowflake. However, repeating patterns fail the specified complexity test. Nobody considers pulsar's signal as evidence of life anymore than crystals evidence of design.

 

[sfs]

True DNA is a molecule, but language is not just an analogy for the genetic code. It has syntax and grammar, there are codons, intron and exons.

What there isn't, though, is semantics. There is no meaning, no interpreter. Just chemical reactions taking place.

There absolutely is communication going on within the cell, translation, messenger RNA, transcription, feedback loops, signal-transduction circuitry, and gene regulatory networks to name a few. To call it a massive chain reaction is invalid, there are regions of DNA that regulate and control gene expression.

It's not invalid to call it a chain reaction: it is, in fact, a complicated chemical reaction.

Regulation and control is the antithesis of a chain reaction. The precise sequence of bases is the code which carries genetic information. The genetic code and binary have a lot in common:

C C A T A G C A C G T T A C A A C G T G A A G G T A A

01101001 01101110 01110011 01110101 01101100 01101001 01101110

They're both code for insulin.

Both of those code for insulin for human readers. Neither codes for insulin in a cell. Only a DNA molecule can do that. That's why it's not really a code: the information is not independent of the substrate. It's the physical string of bases that matters.

Intelligence is known to produce code.

No, humans are known to produce code.

Invoking a known cause to explain the origin of the code within a cell is a positive argument, not one from ignorance. Someone can study the DNA molecule all they want but it won't tell them anything about the origin of the code anymore than studying the chemical properties of ink and paper will reveal anything about the information in a book. Information is expressed through chemicals in the cell the same way information is expressed through the ink of a book. Even if they discover a natural process producing DNA, it will say nothing about the origin of the genetic code. The origin of biological information transcends molecules.

We see new biological information being produced all the time, without any input from intelligence. On the other hand, we never seen intelligence designing genes (except for human scientists).

 

[ChetSinger]

We see new biological information being produced all the time, without any input from intelligence. On the other hand, we never seen intelligence designing genes (except for human scientists).

Do you think God designed the first genes?

 

[SkyWriting]

We see new biological information being produced all the time, without any input from intelligence.

Citations please.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

"Design" is involved when there is no clear reason "why" something occurred.
No one has explained "why" life would develop from non-life, so this implies design.