Author Topic: Public Charter Schools Teaching Creationism And Right-Wing Propaganda In Texas  (Read 18900 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Someone starting with hypotheses pertaining to the non-natural as the default might signal that a bias is present. The proper method, in my opinion, would be to compare hypotheses pertaining to the non-natural with hypotheses pertaining to the natural and determine which presents a more plausible explanation. Simply trying to ‘fit’ an explanation into a worldview is a form of manipulation and perhaps even dishonesty.

lemme get this straight.  So, if you and I are discussing how daisy reproduction occurs and I suggest pollination is done by invisible, intangible, and othewise undetectible faeries, you would be biased and possibly dishonest if you discarded that explanation out of hand?


If you were clever enough to construct a hypothesis explaining how this could be accurate, then, yes, I would be biased and possibly dishonest for dismissing it out of hand.

Quote
I once had a cell phone which I turned off.  I watched it power down and set it on my desk.  A couple hours later, I heard it make its startup music.  I looked at it and found it was on.  What hypotheses should I consider as an explanation as to how that happened?

This is not all that uncommon and can be caused by a number of different factors.  Google search should help lead you in the right direction.

Quote
Can you explain to me how a plasma tv works?  I mean, details.  If not, should we consider supernatural explanations?  If not, why not?

I do not know how a plasma TV works but unless the unit was somehow constructed out of miscellaneous parts in a junkyard by an unknown, random, arbitrary process then the point you are trying to make is missing comparative elements.


Quote
biblestudent, I don't think you are stupid.  But I also have an incredibly hard time understanding why you still don't get it.  It is like we are trying to explain how 1+1=2 and you keep saying 1+1= fudge.  You are not even on the same planet.  I don't have any idea what anyone can say to help you.  As far as I can see, you are totally helpless, trapped in a moronic idea, with no way out.

Because you THINK you are saying that 1 + 1 = 2 when you are actually trying to prove that 1+ 2 = 2.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins

What I am saying is that in the absence of facts, it is still possible to form rational beliefs. Are you suggesting that your claim regarding his non-existence is fact and indisputable?

And once again you are using irrational arguments (this time straw-man) to support your position. Did I ever claim this alleged 'thing' does not exist?? Did I ever make that positive assertion? I didn't, did I? So you are (once again) trying to misrepresent my position. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claims (since you are the one claiming that some 'thing' you call "God" exists). I never made such an assertion about something not-existing.

Quote
That is a dodge. I didn't ask you for "the entire argument". I asked you to present what your method is for reliably separating fact from fiction when it comes to claims to the supernatural and miraculous.

It's very simple. If I believe that the Bible is valid evidence for God's existence then I have a foundation for my beliefs in the supernatural. While I can elaborate on why the Bible is valid evidence, I am not required nor compelled to present further evidence to support that claim. I described in post #152 which arguments I find capable of establishing a rational belief in God.

And this is yet again another dodge. It does not actually answer my question. I specifically asked you what method you use to separate fact from fiction (for ALL claims to the supernatural or miraculous). I did not ask you if you believe the bible. I want to know what method you are using in order to determine such things and whether or not that method is valid. Answer the question directly.

Then you misunderstood what I was stating.

What a lazy response. Care to actually elaborate on how I misunderstood you instead of just claiming it??

Have a drink, relax and hum a few verses of "When you Wish Upon a Star, Nature Makes You What You Are." You won't be so uptight and sensitive.

Stop trying to divert attention away from the fact that you have misrepresented my position multiple times now. Could you get anymore dishonest?

Again, if I can demonstrate why the Bible can be taken as an accurate account of God's existence then I am not compelled or required to demonstrate where, why, or how the realm of His existence exists.

See above. I've asked you to provide the method you are using for separating fact from fiction and you still haven't answered it.

If you can provide irrefutable proof that God does not exists and/or is incapable of healing disease then I will admit to the error of my ways.

And yet another logical fallacy. So unicorns exist until you can prove they don't? This one you've presented is called The Fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof. It is the very reason I ask if you are one of those gullible types that believes every claim you hear until it has been proven false. Are you? Do you just believe everything until someone shows you it's wrong? The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claim and the time to believe a claim is after sufficient evidence has come in, not before. You don't get to pretend that someone else has to prove the opposite and that is b/c the default position is to disbelieve a claim until there is sufficient evidence.

Or, if you can demonstrate how the sudden disappearance of diseases (that even the medical profession cannot explain) occurred then I would be interested in hearing your explanation.

This hints at another logical fallacy (The Argument from Incredulity Fallacy). It fails for you to act that if science, or doctors, or medical people do not know how a specific thing occurred that somehow this gives you license to just insert your alleged "God" thing in there. That is called the god-of-the-gaps argument. It is a logical fallacy. When you don't know how a specific thing happened you should admit ignorance (aka - be agnostic about it), not jump to logical fallacies.

Yes, you are correct. I failed to recognize that you had referred specifically to the scientific community. I apologize for that. Regardless, you are coming dangerously close to making an argument ad populum which is incapable of demonstrating the validity of your claim.

Really. So you think anytime someone accepts the science on a given subject (say gravity, the germ theory of decease, cell theory, that the earth is round! etc) that they are not rationally justified b/c they are just believing what's popular?? I understand the science and accept the findings (just like you accept germ theory - that germs cause decease) and it is not at all an ad populum argument. But even if I didn't, this wouldn't lend one iota of credibility to your mere assertion of the bible or creationism. At best, you would have to admit agnosticism - that you don't know how it happened.

Yes, but I cannot recall specific classes. It's been awhile. Most of the studying I do now is done online and primarily in evolutionary biology.

Huh? You've taken classes in evolutionary biology, paleontology, etc at a credentialed college/university and you can't recall what they were? Please tell us exactly what actual classes you have taken.

I have already provided a means for falsifying ID earlier in this thread.

I would also suggest you consider the efforts of several scientists to falsify it. Do you believe that these highly educated and experienced professionals would be trying to falsify it if they felt it was unfalsifiable? You can't have it both ways. ID cannot be both falsifiable and unfalsifiable when it is convenient.

No, you did not provide a viable means for falsification. All you did was CLAIM that is was viable and when others responded that your method could easily be rationalized or spun (changed definitions etc) you still provided no viable falsification method. Your 'method' makes astrology science and thus your method is faulty.

Quote
This is just another argument from ignorance/incredulity coming. "It cannot account..." NOPE! Please demonstrate how you think you know natural processes "cannot" explain the existence of something in biology. You have made a judgment that something is impossible and that leads to a logical fallacy b/c you don't know that and you are trying to pretend that you do.

If my claim is false, then please provide evidence that does irrefutably demonstrate how biological processes produce "complex specified information."

Another dodge? Really? Your argument is begging the question (circular) b/c you haven't shown that anything in biological systems have been "specified". Specification implies a mind. So your demand is irrational. You need to demonstrate that biological systems have been "specified". This response also hints at another argument from incredulity fallacy. Your claim doesn't win by default (aka - your assumptions about life's origins are not the default position). You are starting with your conclusion and trying to work backwards. That is the opposite of science. When you don't know something you should admit it. Otherwise you aren't practicing science but gullibility and confirmation bias.

You are good at claiming that my claims are incorrect but you are rather weak in making your arguments to demonstate what makes mine false.

Not that I am necessarily making a claim here by providing a definition but here is an example of you claiming my basic definition is wrong but failing to explain why or how.

I have pointed out many logical fallacies that you keep attempting to use, and still you keep trying to use them. If you are uninterested in actual rational discourse and intellectual honesty then there's no reason to discuss anything b/c you obviously do not care about truth - just satisfying your religious assumptions.

I think that perhaps your ability to comprehend is impaired. My claim is (and has been) that I believe God exists but that I cannot offer empirical evidence to satisfy your request. And, again, please see post #152....and if you feel there is an error in what I used to reach my conclusion then please state why and provide your own claims to support your position.

I have asked you to provide the method you are using to separate fact from fiction (particularly when it comes to claims of the supernatural). Are you actually going to sit there and claim that no claims of the supernatural (from anyone anywhere) require independently demonstrable evidence? If not, then why do you think you get to bypass having to show empirical evidence but other religions (who compete with yours) do not? You seem to be quite evasive as to what your method is. I wonder why that is.

If you have arguments that you think are rational then present them. So far all we've seen are logical fallacies (see above).

If you cannot understand the argument I made earlier in this thread for teaching IDT in the classroom then you are simply not reading what I am writing.

Please reference specifically what part of the thread you are talking about.

Quote
This is an absolutely useless definition. So the word truth means "God"? WTF does "God" mean? Can you define this term without resorting to a vicious circularity? You seem to act as if you want to come together and reason soundly, but then you jump right into logical fallacies. These terms "God", "spiritual", etc do not refer to anything. They have no referent. So I'm calling bullshit on this assertion that "truth is God". You might as well say "truth is blarkscharmbelfarben". Your terms are irrational and meaningless, and yet earlier in this thread you criticised someone else for using the term 'truth' as being (allegedly) meaningless b/c they didn't define it.

I cannot be responsible for your failure to comprehend what I wrote. Visit the link I provided if you need help understanding. You're not making an Argument from Personal Credulity here, are you?

WOW. What a hilarious obfuscation of my rebuttal to your absolutely useless, meaningless, and tautological definition of the term 'truth'. I understood very well what you wrote. And what you wrote was logically fallacious and tautological.

Quote
PURE HYPOCRISY. Does it feel good to lie for your God?

Irrelevant....hasty generalization --> logical fallacy.

Asking a question is NOT a logical fallacy.

Quote
Btw, true sentences are about God only? Really? So the the sentence "Three apples added to three apples makes six apples" is not true?? WOW.

Answering this would dignify it and it does not deserve such acknowledgement.

I'll accept this as your admission of defeat.

Quote
No, you have not elaborated upon how you think ID is actually science. Saying it is so doesn't make it so (see my challenge to you above). Please elaborate (in detail) as to how ID meets the requirements for being actual science (and not just pseudo-science) and how that definition does not also simultaneously open the door for things like astrology to be called science.

I have already done that earlier in this thread. What part do you dispute?

Another dodge. No you have not made an actual elaborated case how you think ID is science. You just quoted Behe who was talking about IR not ID. Absolutely nothing you have said thus far demonstrates how ID is science or why it should be taught in classrooms (a quote from Behe doesn't do the job - especially when the goal post can be moved anytime, or an argument from ignorance can be used, to avoid refutation). Behe himself admits that ID can never be ruled out (aka - is not falsifiable). Thus, ID is NOT science. It uses a basic textbook argument from ignorance. You simply cannot infer design in nature by use of logical fallacies or trying to compare nature with human design.


http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/behes_confusion.html

What do you mean by "approach knowledge?" How does a person "approach knowledge?" Could you please clarify.

See above. What methods do you use in order to determine what is true from what is not true when it comes to claims of the supernatural, the miraculous, or the natural order?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 05:25:26 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12544
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
If you were clever enough to construct a hypothesis explaining how this could be accurate, then, yes, I would be biased and possibly dishonest for dismissing it out of hand.

In other words, if his hypothesis was naturalistic - if it made sense as a means of explanation - then you couldn't dismiss it out of hand.  But that's not what he was asking.  A supernatural "explanation" necessarily leaves out bits of explanatory cause-and-effect.  Those are naturalistic.

Try again?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2797
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
Just to but in here with a quote from Behe which I thought Biblestudent might like. In the Dover trial. Behe was being questioned about Ir / ID and said that it was a well-tested inductive argument. Question went on


Quote
A. Well, since it’s an inductive argument, since the purposeful arrangement of parts is an inductive argument, then in order to falsify an induction, you have to find an exception to the inductive argument.

So if somebody said that, when you see this purposeful arrangement of parts – and again, the – as I stress, the argument is quantitative, when there is a certain degree of complexity and so on. If it was shown that that did not always, did not always bespeak design, then the induction would not be reliable, and we would – so – and the argument would be, would be defeated.

Q. Now you, in fact, have stated that intelligent design can never be ruled out, correct?

A. Yes, that’s right.

In effect, Behe shows that IR/ID is not science as it can never be falsified. (Yes I know he talked about knocking the genes for the flagellum out of the bacteria that had a flagellum and seeing it evolution put it back but he wasn't prepared to waste time on that.)

Sorry, Biblestudent, but one of the originators of Creation Science Intelligent Design[1] has ruled it out of science.
 1. adjustment made as it was in 'Of Pandas and People'
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11200
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Regarding ID, has anyone pointed out chaos from order? Like, say... when you shake a cereal box and all the little pieces gather at the bottom?[1] Or those videos with multiple pendulums swinging randomly and organizing themselves into distinct patterns all on their own?
 1. Not an example I came up with. I don't know who came up with it first, but it is not mine.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79

<snipped>


It is pointless to continue on with you. You are clearly a narcissist who has no interest in actually participating in a discussion. You are snipping my direct questions and completely ignoring them and, instead, cherry picking comments that you feel are an easy target for ridicule and critique with the intent to discredit the poster rather than engaging in beneficial dialogue. I've encountered your type on here before. In fact, I reviewed your posting history and what you are doing in this thread seems to be your modus operandi. You rarelyt make arguments (possibly because you don't possess the ability to do so?).... and, like the two or three other similar individuals I've encountered before, you have a seemingly well conceived plan for your methods because there is clearly a pattern in the words, and phrases you use.

I have better things to do than continue down the path you are taking here.


Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13032
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
I have better things to do than continue down the path you are taking here.

I know what you mean, man. I mean, "logic" and "reality" is so passé. Don't worry. I'm, and others are here for you. We'll protect you from the evil 'logic/reality' scheme these people are trying to brainwash you in.

Damn them! Damn them all!

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male

In fact, I reviewed your posting history

You sat down and read several of Median's post at once? Are you completely mad?

I bet you never want to see another exclamation mark or the word fallacy again.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 579
  • Darwins +86/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
I see your point. Let me re-word what I said:

Someone starting with hypotheses pertaining to the non-natural as the default might signal that a bias is present. The proper method, in my opinion, would be to compare hypotheses pertaining to the non-natural with hypotheses pertaining to the natural and determine which presents a more plausible explanation. Simply trying to ‘fit’ an explanation into a worldview is a form of manipulation and perhaps even dishonesty.

Re-wording what you've said has done nothing to solve the dilemma of using terms based on a naturalistic methodology for non-natural concepts. It's a hijacking of the terminology to give added credence to an idea that has no basis. There is no comparison that can be made because you first have to establish that the non-natural/supernatural exists, before you can even entertain anything pertaining towards hypotheses for it.

Quote
It is not possible for any one person to obtain all knowledge in order to form a basis for their claim. It’s just not humanly possible. Therefore, I believe most of us tend to place focus on the facts and evidence which carry the most weight and are capable of allowing us to make an informed decision. Is it possible that there may be some additional information that could sway the decision? Sure. That is why we are careful not to go so far as saying things like “I can PROVE beyond any doubt that God exists”….or “I can PROVE abiogenesis occurred.”

Agreed, but so what? I don't see how this response is relevant to what I was saying. I was making the point that there is no method for assessing the probability of god's existence/nonexistence, 1) because god is posited as being external to the natural world we perceive and 2) because god is posited as being able to do anything. If god can do anything, then anything that exists can be evidence for god, therefore there is no situation where you could conclude that god didin't so something. This means that you have left evidence meaningless due to the violation of cause and effect.

The only way, as I know it, of being able to falsify a god is dependent on how hod is defined. If god is posited as natural, then we have the means to potentially falsify god. Also, if god is said to be confined by logic (or have it as part of his "nature"), then god can be wiped from existence through any contradiction found.

Quote
When you refer to ‘uber complex things,’ are you referring to things that the ID scientific community would label as “irreducibly complex?” If so, then we need to discover a way to demonstrate that the “irreducible complexity” of certain mechanisms were formed by identifiable biological processes before your argument has a leg to stand on. That is the crux of it and the answer to your question. ID posits that microevolutionary processes cannot explain the formation of “irreducibly complex” mechanisms.

When referring to "uber complex things", I mean the things you see as being so complex that you think they most probably require a designer.

"My" argument regarding the things you see as being irreducibly complex is not based on philospohical naturalism. Just like the ToE, I am not tying to eliminate ID. To do that, I would require a different method than the scientific one. Care to provide one?

You see, ID doesn't kick the ToEs or abiogensis' legs away even if they couldn't demonstrate that certain "irreducibly complex" mechanisms were formed by identifiable biological processes, because the ToE and abiogenesis have nothing to say about whether there was an intelligent designer, even if they could demonstrate it, because you can still have an intelligent designer behind the identifiable biological processes. The idea of ID is just pushed back andcan be continuously pushed back until you reach the creation of nature/the universe itself.

Ignoring your incredulity, but if your god exists and has the ability to do anything he damn well pleased, then guess what, I agree that your god is capable of performing these miracles. This has no bearing on how you falsify when this god has performed these miracles, as he has the ability to do anything.

Quote
That is correct. Since God does not brand his work in an easily identifiable way, then determining whether the unexplainable was caused by Him or not is not possible. The naturalist will claim that an unidentifiable natural process was likely the cause and the Christian will claim that God did it. Neither claim can be proven beyond doubt….at least not as of today.

No, it's not that god doesn't brand his work in an easily identificable way, it's that he brands his work in an unidentifiable way, from our perspecive at least.

The philosophical naturalist will claim that a natural process was the cause. A methodological naturalist will claim that a natural process is all that can be potentially identified as a cause, but say absolutely nothing about whether or not there is a god behind it. In future, can you please make the distinction between philosopihcal and methodological naturalism instead of clumping them both together?

Quote
Frankly, the answer to your question should be obvious because if we could identify the hand of God in our daily affairs then you and I wouldn’t be having this conversation in the first place.


Correct, we probably wouldn't. Do you know what would solve that problem though? - it's that method of being able to falsify supernatural claims that you fail to provide.

Quote
No. Intelligent design is not a theory.

I disagree.

We know, but you've failed to explain why it should be considered a theory when the conclusion of ID is not natural.

Quote
For it to be a theory, first you would need an observational fact for it to explain.

The observation is that intelligent agents produce complex specified information.

Are you referring to humans here, because if you are, then ID is a theory. That's because humans are a natural phenomena. If you are referring to god, then ID is not a theory because god is not a natural phenomena. I understand that this is what you are trying to compare - humans design complex stuff therefore if we see things that are complex but aren't designed by humans then there is another designer yadda, yadda, yadda.... but you are looking at the wrong thing for evidence. We know humans produce complex things because we have evidence of them actually producing them... we have evidence of the existence of the actual designer. You don't have that with god. You have to extrapolate from your existing knowledge of humans designing complex things and apply that to complex things humans don't design.
Your problem here is that humans are more complex than the complex things they design, so then you have to apply that to god when you posit him as designing the complex things that humans don't design. That leads to god being more complex than the complex thnigs he designs, and therefore, because complexity is a signpost for ID, god requires an intelligent designer... and that intelligent designer requires an intelligent designer ad infinitum.

Quote
Your theory, or what you might call a hypothesis, conjecture pure shot in the dark, is an alternative explanation of evolution.

That is substantially inaccurate. The mission of IDT is to demonstrate that an intelligence (be it one or many) caused life to begin. You are buying into the babbling of others that accuses IDT of being a negative argument against evolution. There are, likewise, babblers who claim that evolution is a theory to disprove God. Both may be accurate to a certain extent but the scientists testing both theories would deny that….as they should.

It is a negative argument against evolution, sometimes all of it, sometimes some of it. You yourself are a prime example of someone who is against some of it and see ID as a better explanation:

My point is that I do not see anyone barking about some of the false ToE teachings in the mainstream texts but God helps us all if there is a hint of Intelligent Design Theory being taught somewhere....then the wolves come out.

What exactly is it that you think I need to learn? Like others here, you seem to be taking the position that I am a denier of the entire ToE. Where does that come from?

In a nutshell, for me, the incredible complexity of life and the vastness of the universe points to an Intelligent Designer (the God of the Bible). The naturalistic worldview and the theory of evolution along with the various hypotheses relating to abiogenesis all present an alternate view but, even collectively, they come up way too short to convince me. There are so many assumptions guesses, dishonesty, and floating variables behind crucial areas of it. Phylogenetics, for me, only demonstrates that different species have similar DNA which could point to an Intelligent Designer just as easily as it could to a common ancestor. Convincing evidence of beneficial random mutation is virtually non-existent. And, evolution cannot explain our desire to create things like art and music. Evolution cannot explain why animals have been known to flee an area just before a tsunami occurs. The TOE cannot account for why or how sexual reproduction evolved….and on and on I could go. These may seem like trivial issues but attempts to explain how the processes of evolution would/could account for them does not fit. Also, I could add numerous more unanswerable questions to the list. And this says nothing of the BIG blank that discussions about abiogenesis creates. Do I think the ToE is a complete farce? Absolutely not….and I have said this numerous times so please don't start flaming me for making these comments.

A significant portion of the phylogenetic tree is based on speculative reasoning that asserts "evolution diddit." And using the same "leap" you propose as being irrational, some pro-ToE people will even go so far as to say that "we know snakes evolved from lizards"..... when, in fact, that has never been conclusively demonstrated.

So you accept the ToE as fact?

edit to add: Fact, as in the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on this planet, but subject to change given new evidence.

Yes, there are findings that I consider fact...but I do not accept the entire theory (as I believe you would describe it) as fact.

There, I think it's quite clear from what you have posted that ID can be a negative argument against evolution. You are one of those babblers.

Quote
Intelligent design would first need the observation of the intelligent designer and then the "theory" would explain how that intelligent designer works.
Incorrect. Again, the observation is that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information. The testing of “irreducibly complex” mechanisms tests for the presence of intelligence in the design of the mechanism.

Yes, the observation is of intelligent agents, ie humans, doing this. We have evidence of the existence of the designers to show that there are designers. We don't have evidence of the existence of a designer for anything that isn't man made (or at least made by other biological beings). We recognise design firstly through the existence of the designer. Without that, we don't know if something is designed so we opt for the default position, which is that it is not intelligently designed but occurred naturally, as that is what we contrast design against.
It's the watch on the beach scenario. We know watcheds are intelligently designed because we have evidence of them being designed and no evidence of them ever occurring naturally. However, we know that beaches can occur naturally and (ignoring that beaches can be artificially created), we see contrast. ID removes any contrast, because the watch is on a beach made of watches. Design is everywhere.

Quote
They are not two separate matters. They are both there to explain how evolution works.
If this is what you believe then you need to gather some additional information about the purpose of Intelligent Design Theory. IDT is not intended to demonstrate an alternate process to evolution.

It only takes you to see that ID is a better explanation that one single part of the ToE for ID to be intended to be an alternative process to evolution. You've clearly stated you don't agree with all of the ToE, so don't piss on my cornflakes and tell me it's frosting.

Quote
Please explain how you know that ID is outside the realm of science.

Because the conclusion of ID posits a being that is outside of nature and science is based on methodological naturalism, ergo science cannot falsify ID because of how you define god.

Quote
You can accept the whole of the ToE via natural selection and still propose that it takes an intelligent designer to create the process.
Yeah. So?

So it doesn't matter where you find issue with the ToE because you can just knock ID back a step like so:

Evolution ---> ID
Evolution ---> ToE via natural selection ---> ID

Replace evolution with anything you like.... abiogenesis, gravity, cloud formation, ANYTHING. You can accept natural explanations for anything and still propose ID to be behind those natural explanations. Everything is a potential signpost for ID, so using "irreducible complexity" is a bogus case of special pleading.

Quote
The thing is, you do do this while simultaneously making a claim that ID explains evolution better than the ToE via natural selection.

No. IDT explains how life originated.

At grass roots level, ID (not IDT) explains how [b[everything[/b] originated. That's why using ID for abiogenesis, or parts of the ToE that you don't agree with is special pleading.

Quote
You are picking a specific example in the world you believe your god created, to show that god created something.

Even if this were accurate, why are you so opposed to it? What if IDT was actually capable of demonstrating that intelligence is a plausible explanation for the complexity we observe? What is it that motivates you and others to smear and discredit an effort that may someday provide insight into how life began? If you built a brick house (the ToE), would you be worried about a little wind (IDT) blowing it over?

Because the effort is a dishonest argument to show the existence of some intelligence that exists externally to nature. You simply cannot do it using observations of nature and methods based on natural cause and effect.
Perhaps it is a plausibele explanation. Perhaps there is a intelligence out there pulling levels and pushing buttons so that life, the universe and everything can exist, but you have no method for falsifying or testing that, and hijacking a naturalistic method to try and do that is wrong and at worst dishonest.

Oh, and why are you using the ToE as an analogy here if ID isn't against it? You're showing double standards by contradicting what you've previously claimed.

Quote
We're not discussing naturalism. We're discussing explanations of evolution. The ToE via natural selection is a scientific theory. Science is not based on philosophical naturalism, but methodological naturalism, which says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of things that are posited as not natural, so please put away your erroneous naturalism card.

All ID does is plonk an intelligent designer to be behind the process of evolution, and then in special pleading cases, is behind specific, uber complex cases of evolution. ID does nothing for testing that there is an intelligent designer. ID is an argument against philosophical naturalism, but since the ToE via natural selection isn't based on that, this "war" of explanations has been erroneously concocted by IDers.

Once again, you are conflating IDT and evolution. Please stop and think. Better yet, spend a little time examining the scientific work that is being done with IDT so you can gain a better understanding of what IDT is all about. You clearly have a distorted view of IDT.

Your own posts confirm my view.....not that it matter one jot what ID is trying to be a more probable explanation for.
Have it your contradictory way if you like, and have ID to be about the origin of life. Any hypothesis/theory on abiogenesis being a natural process still doesn't shut down ID.

Now, if you could address the points about philosophical and methodological naturalism, instead of glossing over it with more talk on ID not being about ToE, when for you it cleary is.

Quote
OK, I can appreciate that to an extent, but please, don't tell me you don't have empirical evidence and then claim to have a "theory", when it isn't based on methodological naturalism. You need an alternative method, one which you have failed to present, and one in which I see no way of you ever being able to achieve.

See my last response.

I saw it and found it to be dodging, wanting and irrelevant.
If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
If you were clever enough to construct a hypothesis explaining how this could be accurate, then, yes, I would be biased and possibly dishonest for dismissing it out of hand.

This was not a hypothetical question I asked.  I actually gave you the hypothesis.  It is exactly as clever as yours (IC, ID, etc), so what say you?  Do you dismiss it and if so is that dishonest?

This is not all that uncommon and can be caused by a number of different factors.  Google search should help lead you in the right direction.

That is a massive dodge.  I was asking you a direct question about your interpretation.

I do not know how a plasma TV works but unless the unit was somehow constructed out of miscellaneous parts in a junkyard by an unknown, random, arbitrary process then the point you are trying to make is missing comparative elements.

Not at all.  Your answer for creation is "I cannot understand or explain any scientific explanation, so it must be supernatural."  So, since your answer regarding plasma tvs is also "I cannot understand or explain any scientific explanation," do you claim supernatural means?  By your reasoning, you should.


Because you THINK you are saying that 1 + 1 = 2 when you are actually trying to prove that 1+ 2 = 2.

You don't even get that you don't get it.  I might have been wrong.  You might actually be stupid afterall.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member

It is pointless to continue on with you. You are clearly a narcissist who has no interest in actually participating in a discussion.

I'm so confused.  So in addition to the God of Abraham, you also worship the Greek Pantheon?  Or are you just saying that the whole "falling in love with his own reflection" story is all made up?  Unlike the stories in your scriptures...

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins

It is pointless to continue on with you. You are clearly a narcissist who has no interest in actually participating in a discussion. You are snipping my direct questions and completely ignoring them and, instead, cherry picking comments that you feel are an easy target for ridicule and critique with the intent to discredit the poster rather than engaging in beneficial dialogue. I've encountered your type on here before. In fact, I reviewed your posting history and what you are doing in this thread seems to be your modus operandi. You rarelyt make arguments (possibly because you don't possess the ability to do so?).... and, like the two or three other similar individuals I've encountered before, you have a seemingly well conceived plan for your methods because there is clearly a pattern in the words, and phrases you use.

I have better things to do than continue down the path you are taking here.

No, it may be pointless for you to continue b/c you cannot meet the challenge that is before you. That is quite clear. Instead you turn to logically invalid arguments and then, when called out on them, start complaining and using more invalid arguments (in this case name calling). Btw, whether or not I am a narcissist has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion (ad hominem). The arguments are what you are supposed to be dealing with. What's worse, you are a liar. I did in fact address your questions. You just didn't like the answer b/c you are trying to turn the tables and shift the burden of proof. But that's not how it works. You are the one making the positive claim that some "designer" is necessary, that a "God" exists, and that ID is science and should be taught in schools, and you've been asked to defend those assertions by many of us here - choosing to turn to invalid or unsound reasoning for defense.

So don't point the finger at me. Look in the mirror. I will take this reply above as just one more admission of your defeat. WWJD?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79

It is pointless to continue on with you. You are clearly a narcissist who has no interest in actually participating in a discussion. You are snipping my direct questions and completely ignoring them and, instead, cherry picking comments that you feel are an easy target for ridicule and critique with the intent to discredit the poster rather than engaging in beneficial dialogue. I've encountered your type on here before. In fact, I reviewed your posting history and what you are doing in this thread seems to be your modus operandi. You rarelyt make arguments (possibly because you don't possess the ability to do so?).... and, like the two or three other similar individuals I've encountered before, you have a seemingly well conceived plan for your methods because there is clearly a pattern in the words, and phrases you use.

I have better things to do than continue down the path you are taking here.

No, it may be pointless for you to continue b/c you cannot meet the challenge that is before you. That is quite clear. Instead you turn to logically invalid arguments and then, when called out on them, start complaining and using more invalid arguments (in this case name calling). Btw, whether or not I am a narcissist has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion (ad hominem). The arguments are what you are supposed to be dealing with. What's worse, you are a liar. I did in fact address your questions. You just didn't like the answer b/c you are trying to turn the tables and shift the burden of proof. But that's not how it works. You are the one making the positive claim that some "designer" is necessary, that a "God" exists, and that ID is science and should be taught in schools, and you've been asked to defend those assertions by many of us here - choosing to turn to invalid or unsound reasoning for defense.

So don't point the finger at me. Look in the mirror. I will take this reply above as just one more admission of your defeat. WWJD?


These are the items that you either never addressed or just skirted around: 

Quote
If science is not about determining 'absolute certainty' (which I agree with), then what makes you so 'certain' that I may not be correct?

Quote
Are you suggesting that your claim regarding his non-existence is fact and indisputable?

Quote
I would also suggest you consider the efforts of several scientists to falsify it. Do you believe that these highly educated and experienced professionals would be trying to falsify it if they felt it was unfalsifiable? You can't have it both ways. ID cannot be both falsifiable and unfalsifiable when it is convenient.

Quote
Not that I am necessarily making a claim here by providing a definition but here is an example of you claiming my basic definition is wrong but failing to explain why or how.

Quote
And, again, please see post #152....and if you feel there is an error in what I used to reach my conclusion then please state why and provide your own claims to support your position.

Quote
I have already done that earlier in this thread. What part do you dispute?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
If you were clever enough to construct a hypothesis explaining how this could be accurate, then, yes, I would be biased and possibly dishonest for dismissing it out of hand.

This was not a hypothetical question I asked.  I actually gave you the hypothesis.  It is exactly as clever as yours (IC, ID, etc), so what say you?  Do you dismiss it and if so is that dishonest?


I realize you gave me the hypothesis and I maintain that I answered your question. On what basis would I dismiss it? Because it proposes fairies are involved? Without examining the entire hypothesis based on the observations you made, how do I know that you haven’t observed something that might support that? And if you’re suggesting that your hypothetical is nonsense to begin with because YOU KNOW upfront that there is no such thing as fairies, then you really haven’t formed a valid hypothesis, have you?


This is not all that uncommon and can be caused by a number of different factors.  Google search should help lead you in the right direction.

That is a massive dodge.  I was asking you a direct question about your interpretation.


You don’t have much of a sense of humor, do you? That was a joke.

I do not know how a plasma TV works but unless the unit was somehow constructed out of miscellaneous parts in a junkyard by an unknown, random, arbitrary process then the point you are trying to make is missing comparative elements.

Not at all.  Your answer for creation is "I cannot understand or explain any scientific explanation, so it must be supernatural."  So, since your answer regarding plasma tvs is also "I cannot understand or explain any scientific explanation," do you claim supernatural means?  By your reasoning, you should.

You are dismissing or ignoring that science has established a valid definition for ‘complex specified information’ and can apply it to “irreducibly complex’ mechanisms to test for ‘Intelligent Design.’ Thus, we do not know who created the plasma TV or how it works but we do know that an intelligent source is involved. 

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1348
  • Darwins +101/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
You are dismissing or ignoring that science has established a valid definition for ‘complex specified information’ and can apply it to “irreducibly complex’ mechanisms to test for ‘Intelligent Design.’ Thus, we do not know who created the plasma TV or how it works but we do know that an intelligent source is involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity

From the above Wiki article (emphases added):

"Dembski states that specified complexity is a reliable marker of design by an intelligent agent, a central tenet to intelligent design which Dembski argues for in opposition to modern evolutionary theory. The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, the theory of complex systems, or biology"

"A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states that "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results."[5] Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation."  Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design as an argument from ignorance."

"When Dembski's mathematical claims on specific complexity are interpreted to make them meaningful and conform to minimal standards of mathematical usage, they usually turn out to be false.  Dembski often sidesteps these criticisms by responding that he is not "in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity".

"...a crucial calculation on page 297 of No Free Lunch is off by a factor of approximately 1065"

"Dembski's calculations do not model birth and death. This basic flaw in his modeling renders all of Dembski's subsequent calculations and reasoning in No Free Lunch irrelevant because his basic model does not reflect reality. Since the basis of No Free Lunch relies on this flawed argument, the entire thesis of the book collapses"

In short, your statement I quoted above is complete garbage.
* "science" has not come up with the definition, Dembski tried--poorly--to take it from Orgel and apply it to his religious agenda
* "irreducible complexity" has NEVER EVER ONCE EVER been shown.  Every time an IDer comes up with an example, scientists (that is, actual scientists) have shot it down.  Every.  Single.  Effing. Time.
* "Intelligent design" cannot repeat CANNOT be tested.  It is unfalsifiable, as I and many have stated again and again and you have uttelry failed to prove otherwise.

In other words, monster super-fire-hot-wings epic fail.


It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist today.  I decided to take my religion seriously, and that's when it started to fall apart for me.
~jdawg70

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2797
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
Just to but in here with a quote from Behe which I thought Biblestudent might like. In the Dover trial. Behe was being questioned about Ir / ID and said that it was a well-tested inductive argument. Question went on


Quote
A. Well, since it’s an inductive argument, since the purposeful arrangement of parts is an inductive argument, then in order to falsify an induction, you have to find an exception to the inductive argument.

So if somebody said that, when you see this purposeful arrangement of parts – and again, the – as I stress, the argument is quantitative, when there is a certain degree of complexity and so on. If it was shown that that did not always, did not always bespeak design, then the induction would not be reliable, and we would – so – and the argument would be, would be defeated.

Q. Now you, in fact, have stated that intelligent design can never be ruled out, correct?

A. Yes, that’s right.

In effect, Behe shows that IR/ID is not science as it can never be falsified. (Yes I know he talked about knocking the genes for the flagellum out of the bacteria that had a flagellum and seeing it evolution put it back but he wasn't prepared to waste time on that.)

Sorry, Biblestudent, but one of the originators of Creation Science Intelligent Design[1] has ruled it out of science.
 1. adjustment made as it was in 'Of Pandas and People'

biblestudent,

You seem to have missed commenting on this and, since you will have to comment on the Demski stuff above you might as well kill 2 birds with one stone....
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
I realize you gave me the hypothesis and I maintain that I answered your question. On what basis would I dismiss it? Because it proposes fairies are involved? Without examining the entire hypothesis based on the observations you made, how do I know that you haven’t observed something that might support that? And if you’re suggesting that your hypothetical is nonsense to begin with because YOU KNOW upfront that there is no such thing as fairies, then you really haven’t formed a valid hypothesis, have you?

feh.  you don't get what you don't get.

You don’t have much of a sense of humor, do you? That was a joke.

I have a terrific sense of humor.  Unfortunately humor does not always come across as obviously as intended on the internet.  Sorry I missed the joke.

You are dismissing or ignoring that science has established a valid definition for ‘complex specified information’

"complex specified information" does not exist in science.  It exists in creationism dressed up as intelligent design.  This is Dembski's brainchild and is not accepted in the science world:

Quote
The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, the theory of complex systems, or biology.[1][2][3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity

There are footnotes to explanations as to why Dembski's idea is laughably wrong.  He, like many creationists, is just smart and educated enough to be dangerous.  And they often dabble in fields in which they have only the most rudimentary, shallow knowledge.  These links, as well as others in that article, show mathematically why Dembski is thoroughly and conclusively wrong.   

Try this: Imagine Dembski and all the other creationists are wrong.  How do you react?  What does that change for you?  Visualize what you would do in a world without "irreducible complexity", that only works on natural selection.  Don't think about why that cannot be.  Don't give me more reasons.  Just accept it for the moment and visualize what the consequences for you would be. 

I suggest it does not mean you have to stop believing in god.  It just means god is different than you imagined.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
I realize you gave me the hypothesis and I maintain that I answered your question. On what basis would I dismiss it? Because it proposes fairies are involved? Without examining the entire hypothesis based on the observations you made, how do I know that you haven’t observed something that might support that? And if you’re suggesting that your hypothetical is nonsense to begin with because YOU KNOW upfront that there is no such thing as fairies, then you really haven’t formed a valid hypothesis, have you?

feh.  you don't get what you don't get.

No. Please explain it. I truly want to know what I am missing here.

You don’t have much of a sense of humor, do you? That was a joke.

I have a terrific sense of humor.  Unfortunately humor does not always come across as obviously as intended on the internet.  Sorry I missed the joke. [/quote]

Yes. I know. No apologies needed.


Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79

In fact, I reviewed your posting history

You sat down and read several of Median's post at once? Are you completely mad?

I bet you never want to see another exclamation mark or the word fallacy again.

Yeah...I believe I had noticed you were subjected to some of the same tactics when I was reading through his posting history. It's tolerable when there is an effort to make an actual argument sprinkled in but that does not seem to be part of the approach.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
See if this provides a basis for the information sought out in IDT:

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm

I know it took longer than a day but here it is.  I was debating on not even writing a review, however since you insist on relying on "Complex Specified Information" i figured I'd debunk it.

My review of “Intelligent Design as a Theory of information” by William A. Dembski 1998

Debunking “Complex Specified Information” and “Intelligent Design”.

With this article, I will show why “Complex Specified Information” and “Intelligent Design” are in fact pseudoscience.  Note that the prefix pseudo- is derived from Greek and means false, fraudulent or pretending to be something it is not.  Now the obvious question one might ask is how can we identify pseudoscience?  I have found the easiest method is to note how words are defined and insure that the same definition is adhered to throughout the entire process of using the scientific method.  If the same definition is in fact adhered to, then the subject matter cannot easily be identified as pseudoscience.  If however, multiple definitions are used for the same word then we have an easy indication that the subject matter is pseudoscience. 

The next question that one might ask is, why is definition adherence so important?  The reason is that if someone proposes a definition in science which is not yet accepted, then they should show why the proposed definition is acceptable.  In the process of showing why a proposed definition is acceptable, the same proposed definition must be used in the process of showing why it is acceptable, otherwise the proposed definition cannot and should not be accepted. 

Pseudo-scientists will sometimes (if not typically) propose a definition which has not been accepted and in the process of showing why the proposed definition should be accepted will instead use an already accepted alternate definition.  The goal of the pseudo-scientist is to trick the intended audience into believing that the proposed definition should be accepted when all that was actually accomplished is showing why an already accepted alternate definition Is accepted.

For reference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

WARNING: This is a rather long read.  Please forgive me.  Hopefully I made it as easy and interesting to read as possible.

Information

Dembski defines Information as “the actualization of one possibility to the exclusion of others”.  This definition appears to be more in line with “an event having occurred” within probability theory, and not information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability).  Probabilities are given a value between 0 (0%) and 1 (100%) to indicate the likelihood of occurrence of an event.  The actualization of the probability is in fact stating that the “event has occurred”.  The way in which Dembski defines “information” is fairly useless as any event which occurs is by his definition, information.  A lightning strike is, according to his definition, information.  The Earth continuing to orbit the Sun is, according to his definition, information.

I say the definition that Dembski uses is fairly useless because it is a shallow method of disambiguation in regards to the word “information”, one which is not used within Information Theory.  Information, within Information Theory, is defined as “a sequence of symbols that can be interpreted as a message” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information).  This definition of information would be, contrary to what Dembski asserts, used by Information Theory which was developed by Claude E. Shannon as the transmission of signals across a communication channel.

In reality, “Information” as used in Information Theory, is caused by an intelligent agent and we know who the intelligent agent is.  The intelligent agent behind “a sequence of symbols that can be interpreted as a message” is human beings.  By redefining the word “information” to be an event which has occurred, Dembski associates something we know to be caused by an intelligent agent with all events that occur which will cause the reader to naturally assume that events that occur have to also be caused by an intelligent agent.

Complex Information

Here we see Dembski attempt to show how to measure information (an event having occurred) in an effort to make his definition useful, which is basically trying to prove my initial conclusion about his definition being useless as incorrect.  Dembski states “In measuring information it is not enough to count the number of possibilities that were excluded, and offer this number as the relevant measure of information”,  which seems to be a statement that we can’t simply calculate the probability of “an event having occurred” as relevant measure of information, so Dembski continues by stating “the problem is that a simple enumeration of excluded possibilities tells us nothing about how those possibilities were individuated in the first place.”   So apparently in order to measure “the actualization of one possibility to the exclusion of others”, we need to individuate the possibilities.

It is true that certain events have a higher probability of occurring than other events.  Dembski claims that events with lower probabilities contain more information than events with higher probabilities.  This claim by Dembski is also true, for instance learning that someone rolled a 2 after rolling a 6 sided die would be the acquisition of more information than learning that a fair coin flip landed tails, however he chooses an incorrect method of demonstrating his claim.   

The example provided by Dembski is being dealt a royal flush as opposed to everything else, when being dealt 5 cards out of a 52 card deck.  A royal flush however is individuated by humans, because humans invented the game of p oker.  In reality, a royal flush still has the same probability of occurring as any other random 5 cards being dealt, for instance a 2 of hearts, 5 of diamonds, 6 of clubs, jack of diamonds and king of spades, and thus has the same amount of information.  The only reason a royal flush would contain more information is if you consider that you’re playing p oker instead of just being dealt 5 random cards.  Dembski doesn’t explain how the fact that two sequences of 5 cards (one “random” and another a “royal flush”) with the same probability still somehow allows us to infer that one was designed but the other couldn’t have been designed.

Notice how Dembski returns to a traditional definition of information in this section.  The traditional definition of information being “a sequence of symbols that can be interpreted as a message”.  A 6 sided die has 6 symbols, if you roll it 6 times the sequence of symbols can be interpreted as a message.  A coin has 2 symbols, if you flip a fair coin 10 times the sequence of symbols can be interpreted as a message.  A 52 card deck has 52 symbols, if you are dealt 5 cards the sequence of symbols can be interpreted as a message.  Dembski has abandoned his definition of information which was “the actualization of one possibility to the exclusion of others”.

Things really start getting hysterical when Dembski attempts to justify his assertion that the obvious way to transform probabilities is with a negative logarithm by stating that the most convenient way for communication theorists to measure information is in number of bits transmitted across a communication channel.  I guess Dembski forgot that he himself stated that “The fundamental intuition underlying information is not, as is sometimes thought, the transmission of signals across a communication channel”.

Eventually, Dembski claims that information is a complexity-theoretic notion, and I am starting to feel like the word “information” is being abused worse than a 2 dollar crack whore.  Yes, somehow with all his mathematics, Dembski has redefined “information” to be “complexity”.  Actually, all Dembski has done with his mathematics in this section is define mutual information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_information) and conditional entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_entropy).

Dembski does define “complexity of information” when he states “Given an event A of probability P(A), I(A) = -log2P(A) measures the number of bits associated with the probability P(A).  We therefore <snip> say that the complexity of information increases as I(A) increases (or, correspondingly, as P(A) decreases)”.  This however is not the way in which complexity is defined in Information Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_complexity_theory).  Granted there are many ways to define complexity, why Dembski chooses to not use the common definition of complexity in Information Theory when discussing “Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information” without showing why his definition is acceptable is intentionally deceptive.

As Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit note in their article “Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and Dembski’s “Complex Specified Information”” (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf) –

“It is important to note that Dembski’s somewhat idiosyncratic definition of “complexity” is often at odds with the standard definition as used by algorithmic information theorists.  For Dembski the string – 111111111111111111111101111111111111111111 – if drawn uniformly at random from the space of all length-41 strings, has probability 2-41 and hence is “complex” (at least with respect to a “local probability bound”), whereas for the algorithmic information theorist, such a string is not complex because it has a very short description.”

What Dembski is doing is quite simply saying that the occurrence of an event with low probability is complex information, thus low probability is complex.  Of course, Dembski also acknowledges that more information also makes something complex.  I do not agree with Dembski in regards to low probability also being an indication of complexity, as he has failed to show why this is true.  In fact, Dembski has offered no examples at all showing why low probability infers complexity, which is contrary to accepted definitions of the word complexity in many other fields of science, including Information Theory.

Complex Specified Information

In this section, Dembski defines “Specified Information” as independently given patterned information.  “Unspecified Information” is pretty much everything else that isn’t a pattern or a “fabrication” (which is just a post hoc pattern read off already existing information). 

It is interesting that Dembski quotes Richard Dawkins as stating “Complicated things have some quality, specifiable in advance, that is highly unlikely to have been acquired by random chance alone.  In the case of living things, the quality that is specified in advance is . . . the ability to propagate genes in reproduction.” Note: I didn't put the ". . ." in the quote, Dembski did.  I have to ask, did Dawkins give Dembski the idea for “Complex Specified Information”?  It would seem so.  Of course, it is obvious that Dembski is quote mining Dawkins.  I suspect that Dembski has taken almost all of the individuals he has quoted in his article out of context.  In the case of the quoted Dawkins statement, I know Dawkins is referencing the fact that evolution is not random.  Dawkins is not talking about complex specified information.

So we’re clear, according to Dembski, “Complex Specified Information” is an independently given patterned occurrence of an event with low probability.  Of course, humans or some known cause are always the intelligent agent behind independent patterns.  I am willing to accept this definition of “Specified” provided by Dembski.  I do not however accept his definitions for “Complex” and “Information”.

One thing is for certain, CSI can apparently be used to prove that humans exist.  Dembski demonstrates this by stating that the 16-digit number on a VISA card is an example of CSI.  He states “the complexity of this number ensures that a would-be-thief cannot randomly pick a number and have it turn out to be a valid VISA card number”, however he abandons his previous definition of the word complexity and uses the traditional definition used in Information Theory.

In algorithmic information theory, the complexity of something is measured by the number of resources needed (such as bits) to specify or describe it.  It is the fact that a 16-digit number on a VISA card cannot be described any easier than the number itself is what makes it complex.  Probability has nothing to do with making a 16-digit number on a VISA card complex.  The same is true of his other examples such as a phone number, the numbers on bills, credit slips and purchase orders.  No, Mr. Dembski, CSI is not what makes the world go round.  CSI did not motivate the greedy Michael Douglas character in the movie Wall Street to lie, cheat and steal.  The total and absolute control of CSI was not the objective of the monomaniacal Ben Kingsley character in the movie Sneakers.  CSI is not an artifact of interest in any techno-thrillers.  CSI does not captivate anyone except for the gullible.

Intelligent Design

This section is useless as all Dembski does is attempt to show how CSI can indicate a human Intelligent Agent(designer) or other various animal Intelligent Agents(designers).  Low probability and the occurrence of an event have nothing to do with the indication however as the traditional accepted definitions of “Complex” and “Information” are far better indicators of human or known causes.   Is CSI found outside of human or other known causes?  No it isn’t, and Dembski doesn’t offer any examples in this article (although I know he does in his books, which has been debunked by others and myself already).

Still, even if Dembski was able to prove that CSI exists without human or other known causes, and the conclusion was that some supernatural being was the “Intelligent Designer”, we would be forced to ask, what designed the designer?  Subsequently, what designed the designer of the designer?  Etc.  Etc.  This ultimately makes ID self-defeating. 

CSI, as defined by Dembski, is not a reliable indicator of design.  If I myself were to define CSI - according to acceptable definitions - to make it a reliable indicator of design - I would define CSI as an independently given patterned sequence of symbols that can be interpreted as a message which is complex (as defined by algorithmic complexity theory).  Of course, Dembski has no interest in using my definition of CSI, he wants to use low probability of events that have occurred.  Proving that an “Intelligent Designer” exists with unproven definitions (simply because certain improbable events with an independent pattern have occurred) is incredibly easy to do.

For example, according to the definition of CSI proposed by Dembski, my finger prints exhibit CSI.  My finger prints are an independent pattern, the probability of my exact finger prints existing is unimaginably low and my finger prints exist therefore they are an event which has occurred.  I guess that means my finger prints were intelligently designed.  My definition of CSI would not prove an “Intelligent Designer” as the fingerprint itself is the symbol however it cannot be interpreted as a message and the symbol isn’t complex as it can simply be described as my fingerprint.  For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction_ridge

Another example would be a snowflake, which according to the definition of CSI proposed by Dembski, exhibits CSI.  My definition of CSI however does not show a snowflake to exhibit CSI.  For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_crystal

Notice how Dembski uses the words “general” or “generally” eight times in this section alone as opposed to 5 times in every other section combined.  I think even Dembski knows his definition of “Complex Specified Information” is pseudoscientific.  The reason Dembski uses the qualifiers “general” and “generally” is so he or anyone can selectively choose what exhibits CSI based on his incoherent definition of CSI.  All you have to do is sub in the accepted definitions or sub in the unaccepted definitions proposed by Dembski.

The Law of Conservation of Information

Of course in order for Dembski to come up with his new “Law of Conservation of Information”, he does exactly what can be expected when multiple distinct definitions are used for the same word.  Dembski is selectively subbing in accepted definitions for the words he’s defined in order to show what cannot exhibit CSI and is subbing in his unaccepted definitions to claim what does exhibit CSI.

The fact is, there is no “Law of Conservation of Information” at least not in how Dembski would define the word information. 

The only law regarding information that I am aware of is the one that state that information cannot be destroyed.  In that law, information is defined as physical information.  For reference:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_information - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-deleting_theorem - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

My Conclusions

Dembski never actually supports his proposed definitions of the words contained within “Complex Specified Information” and instead uses acceptable definitions to try and distract the audience (or reader) from this fact. “Complex Specified Information” is garbage pseudoscience intended to prove “Intelligent Design” which is also – by extension – pseudoscience.

Neither “Complex Specified Information” or “Intelligent Design” can make any predictions, are not falsifiable, cannot provide a viable hypothesis and thus fail to use the scientific method.  All of these things make both “Complex Specified Information” and “Intelligent Design” not science.

If ID proponents can show how ID can be falsified, provide acceptable definitions, make meaningful predictions and actually use the scientific method, then perhaps it can be considered science and be taken seriously by the scientific community.

Ultimately, “Intelligent Design” should not, without any doubt, ever be taught to anyone, especially school students.  At least, not until it can prove to actually be scientific.

If you would like to read about how science actually works, you might as well start with one of my favorite topics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13032
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
7patch,

You should correct the usages of "p oker", it's not just once. It reads like a second or third rough draft. You state facts without providing sources for those facts. You also use juvenile language (crack whore) to add a bit of amateurish humor. If this were an actual published article I would dismiss reading further past the lack of sources and the juvenile vocabulary used.  I say this because, if you want who this is targeted toward to take it seriously, these things need to be addressed.

Otherwise: good effort.

-Nam

This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
7patch,

You should correct the usages of "p oker", it's not just once.

For some reason I can't type the word p oker correctly, either the location I'm using won't allow it or WWGHA won't allow it.

It reads like a second or third rough draft. You state facts without providing sources for those facts. You also use juvenile language (crack whore) to add a bit of amateurish humor. If this were an actual published article I would dismiss reading further past the lack of sources and the juvenile vocabulary used.  I say this because, if you want who this is targeted toward to take it seriously, these things need to be addressed.

I assume you're joking?  Heh, it was intended to be casual easy read.

Otherwise: good effort.

-Nam

Thanks.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male

For some reason I can't type the word p oker correctly, either the location I'm using won't allow it or WWGHA won't allow it.


WWGHA won't allow it. It also won't allow f ireplace, f irewood or c himney.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13032
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
My bad. I forgot certain words aren't allowed. I retract that part. You have it set up like an article, and you do somewhat source certain things (person's name, and a lot of wiki) but the intent, and I could be wrong, is to counter whomever, and it's a bit sloppy if written as an "article", which reads like one. If it's just a well thought out response--nevermind.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
It's just my review of the Dembski article that BibleStudent provided.

I guess it is structured like an article that could be submitted for peer review but that isn't the intention.  If it were I would have written it to be professional.

I gave it structure so my points could be compared with the article by Dembski, side by side.



"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Try this: Imagine Dembski and all the other creationists are wrong.  How do you react?  What does that change for you?  Visualize what you would do in a world without "irreducible complexity", that only works on natural selection.  Don't think about why that cannot be.  Don't give me more reasons.  Just accept it for the moment and visualize what the consequences for you would be. 

I suggest it does not mean you have to stop believing in god.  It just means god is different than you imagined.

This was actually the most important part of my post.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12544
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
This was actually the most important part of my post.

That's probably why he ignored it.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Darwins +265/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you


Quote
PURE HYPOCRISY. Does it feel good to lie for your God?

Irrelevant....hasty generalization --> logical fallacy.

Asking a question is NOT a logical fallacy.


Actually, it can be. Complex Question and Loaded Question(which is Circular Reasoning)

Yours was a loaded question.

So that's One fallacy for you and something well into three digits for Bible Student.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
If science is not about determining 'absolute certainty' (which I agree with), then what makes you so 'certain' that I may not be correct?

I never said I had some absolute certainty (strawman). I said the burden of proof is on you and you have not met that burden of proof. I also noted the many fallacies that you have continually used in an attempt to support your position. Just b/c a certain position may or may not be logically possible does not in any way tell us if it is actually true. Again, you have the burden of proof and I have not made the claim which you have accused me of making.

Are you suggesting that your claim regarding his non-existence is fact and indisputable?

NOPE. I'm saying you haven't met your burden of proof and that belief in something (especially supernatural claims) should be withheld until sufficient evidence has been presented, which you have not done.

I would also suggest you consider the efforts of several scientists to falsify it. Do you believe that these highly educated and experienced professionals would be trying to falsify it if they felt it was unfalsifiable? You can't have it both ways. ID cannot be both falsifiable and unfalsifiable when it is convenient.

I addressed this in a previous response (noting there's a difference between ID and IR). Care to site some sources for your claim here?

Not that I am necessarily making a claim here by providing a definition but here is an example of you claiming my basic definition is wrong but failing to explain why or how.

Not sure what you are referring to here.

And, again, please see post #152....and if you feel there is an error in what I used to reach my conclusion then please state why and provide your own claims to support your position.

This is yet again another irrational attempt, by you, to shift the burden of proof. There is no requirement for me to present my position b/c I'm not the one making the positive claims here. I could simply be agnostic about the whole thing. It is up to YOU to demonstrate your claims by use of evidence and/or valid and sound reasoning. But you haven't done that. You just keep using fallacious reasoning.

Here are your arguments:

Quote
the incredible complexity of life and the vastness of the universe points to an Intelligent Designer (the God of the Bible)

You haven't even begun to demonstrate these claims. In fact, all you said was "For me..." - once again making this all about opinion ('what it means to me') that earlier you said it was not. Looking at something and just CLAIMING, "It's complex therefore God!" is just another argument from ignorance - no matter how many times you try to use it. Furthermore, even IF (and that's a big IF) you could show 'complexity=desisn' this would not in any way get you to "the God of the Bible". That's an entirely different subject. Which God? Who's interpretation? Which bible? Can you independently demonstrate this God exists by use of actual non-vague/non-shifty evidence (like you would require of a salesman at your door)? This claim is just an opinion. It doesn't actually demonstrate anything.

Quote
The naturalistic worldview and the theory of evolution along with the various hypotheses relating to abiogenesis all present an alternate view but, even collectively, they come up way too short to convince me. There are so many assumptions guesses, dishonesty, and floating variables behind crucial areas of it. Phylogenetics, for me, only demonstrates that different species have similar DNA which could point to an Intelligent Designer just as easily as it could to a common ancestor. Convincing evidence of beneficial random mutation is virtually non-existent. And, evolution cannot explain our desire to create things like art and music. Evolution cannot explain why animals have been known to flee an area just before a tsunami occurs. The TOE cannot account for why or how sexual reproduction evolved….and on and on I could go. These may seem like trivial issues but attempts to explain how the processes of evolution would/could account for them does not fit. Also, I could add numerous more unanswerable questions to the list. And this says nothing of the BIG blank that discussions about abiogenesis creates.

This is just another argument from ignorance/incredulity. "I just can't see how it could have happened naturally. Therefore, Yahweh did it!" It also hints at a false dichotomy (that somehow you think there's only two options you could hold - 1. Believing it happened naturally or 2. believing a God did it). But these are NOT the only two options one could hold. You could admit, for example, that you don't know and just be agnostic about it (for starters), or you could be someone who thinks that foreign life from other galaxies placed life here, or you could believe solipsism is true that none of this is real. There are not just two options.

I find the moral argument, the Kalam Cosmological Argument (contemporary version), Intelligent Design Theory, the Ontological Argument (still trying to really understand this one), and the historical reliability of the Bible to be among the most influential in my belief.

Time and time again you bring it right back to your personal opinion (and yet you said earlier that you don't think science is about opinion). What gives?

1. The moral argument - You haven't demonstrated that there is some "objective" moral law/set of rules that applies independently of people. The fact that people thinking morally does not in any way point to some teleology or divine deity 'thing'.

2. The Kalam Cosmological Arugment - This argument has been dealt with and refuted. Have you ever even bothered to look up the refutation of these arguments? I suggested going to YouTube. Kalam fails on many accounts. It uses an equivocation on the term "begins to exist", assuming that our local universe began to exist out of non-existence. But the Big Bang model does NOT say that. It speaks of an initial singularity, of which we cannot currently speak past. When a table begins to exist does it do so out of non-existent material? It doesn't, does it? In the same way, the Kalam is flawed b/c it merely assumes something that is not known. I could go further but I have to leave soon. Next.

3. The Ontological Argument - You cannot define your deity into existence, neither can you arbitrary claim what the term "greater" means in relation to existing. This is where this argument breaks down. Ever hear of Xenos paradox? His argument failed for a similar reason. Merely making the CLAIM that "the greatest possible thing that exists must exist" is to start with your conclusion (namely that this "God" thing must be in that category). Anyone can define anything they want to as anything. But that demonstrates nothing but a mere linguistic trick. "Hey! I defined this thing as the greatest!" Ok, and? Imagination doesn't make a God real.

4. The Historical "Reliability" of the Bible - Textual accounts of miracles do not establish that miracles occurred. Do you believe all the other holy books claiming miracles but that compete with your religion? If not, then this argument fails. Just b/c YOUR book makes "different" claims (like a Spiderman comic is 'different' from a Batman one) doesn't make it true or reliable. Do you believe the second salesman at your door b/c his claims are different from the first guy?

Second, the bible is not "historically reliable". It makes all kinds of mistakes, errors, direct contradictions, and fabrications (just like the Koran does). Why on earth would you think this collection of old writings was "reliable" for demonstrating the supernatural unless you had FIRST believed it AND THEN went out looking for confirmation??

Christianity logically satisfies my need to understand believe:

How we got here.
Why we’re here.
Where we’re going.
How the universe and ‘life’ came to be.

Fixed this last one for you. These aren't arguments. They are just personal statements about you, not about demonstrating how you think you know these things. The fact that you have a desire to "know" something (right now) doesn't in any way show that the things that you believe are actually true and accurate. You need more than just credulity for that.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2014, 08:56:03 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan