Intelligent design

[TRoutMac]

Damocles, I do sympathize with your predicament, really. You're right… there is no way to test macro-evolution. It would take too long, we don't have the time, we can't travel back in time, we can't be certain whether we can accurately reproduce the conditions because we really have no way to positively determine what those conditions were, yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

You can whine about these unfortunate circumstances all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that, whatever the reason, it is your theory (specifically, macro-evolution) that is "untestable" and, in fact, has no basis in empirical evidence.

 

I was very specific about what kind of evidence I wanted to see precisely because I don't want any possible confusion between macro and micro evolution. Show me the different body plans, folks. Show me the hard evidence, tried and true. Again, if macro-evolution is a reality, there oughtta be plenty of examples of evolution from one species to another that is comparable to the sundew-to-venus flytrap scenario I mentioned. hard, empirical evidence. No guesswork, no presumptions, no speculations.

[Buffy]

To suggest that this is the case is simply irresponsible and reflects a wanton disregard for truth on your part. Now, allow me to back that up:

 

First of all, we most certainly do know of a natural phenomenon that could have produced crop circles. That natural phenomenon is generally referred to as intelligence. And that is why sensible people attribute the creation of crop circles to an intelligent agent. It isn't because we can't think of anything else to attribute it to… it's because we already are aware of a natural phenomenon that is quite capable of producing the crop circles. Intelligence. You see? That's not arguing from ignorance, that's arguing from [b[knowledge[/b].

Cool. You still have not come up with a definition of intelligence that can be applied and tested.

 

Let me say that again: You still have not come up with a definition of intelligence that can be applied and tested.

 

If you can come up with one, THEN we can apply it to crop circles or anything else:

Of course it's true that without any evidence, you cannot know anything about, well, anything. But you're implying that the crop circles themselves do not exhibit any evidence of Intelligent Design. I refuse to accept that you actually believe this.

You know what? The problem with the crop circles issue is that sure, its got lots of things that "seem" to be intelligent, but more importantly they *were* designed. So what? "Seems" is not scientific! I'm not at all saying that they don't "seem" or "feel" like they were designed, but we don't have a *definition* of "intelligently designed". Define the qualities in a way that precludes any other natural phenomena and we're on to something. Otherwise, no we can't come up with a way to conclusively determine if the source of something like DNA where we *don't* know the provenance is indeed designed.

 

So let me say that again: You still have not come up with a definition of intelligence that can be applied and tested.

 

This is why I bring up Alan Turing and I suggest you look at it further.

 

While you insist that ID is not saying that "since we can't come up with any other explanation", in fact that is indeed the crux of the ID argument, BECAUSE of the fact that no coherent "theory of intelligence" is proposed beyond simply coming up with endless examples--like you do almost exclusively here--and say "that cannot be explained by any natural phenomenon." Unless you *define intelligence* you cannot under the scientific method say that any phenomena "exhibits intelligence".

 

It would be akin to looking at Stonehenge for the first time and denying any appearance of Intelligent Design. Or looking down at the Nazca lines for the first time and saying "Gosh, no… I don't see any evidence of Intelligent Design". Now honestly… do you really believe there is no evidence of Intelligent Design in a crop circle? Stonehenge? Nasca lines? Great Pyramids? Statues of Easter Island? Need I go on?

No you don't because the point is that in *all* these cases we can put together data and evidence that shows their provenance. They *really* don't help your case, because you continue to do nothing other than say "these are intelligently designed, so we *know* them when we see them." That's *not* a testable definition of intelligence. A slightly restated version of my issue is in this quote: please explain, exactly what is the "evidence of Intelligent Design in a crop circle"? What qualities? What measurements? Do these qualities and measurements conclusively not apply to undesigned phenomena?

Thank you. That is correct. Which means that all the ID bashers who complain about not being able to witness the Intelligent Designer are full of hot air and baloney.

Honest, you'd be much better off if you didn't continue to insist that people who disagree with you are the enemy. We're encouraging you to prove your points, its not really our fault if you're not proving them to the standards defined by the scientific method.

I know you think you're being clever… you think you're going to bait me into stretching the Intelligent Design theory further than it goes. Sorry, no dice. The Intelligent Design theory only posits that there was, or is, an Intelligent Designer. What the Intelligent Designer's methods are is not within the scope of the Intelligent Design hypothesis. We don't need to offer additional hypotheses beyond that which we've already offered. All we need to do is suggest that there was an Intelligent Designer and give evidence to support that hypothesis.

No, all we're saying is that your hypothesis is inadequate. Personally, I think that self-imposed limit of refusing to discuss any methods or evidence or definitions is what is keeping ID researchers from actually proving that ID is valid. You *could* try to keep the argument exclusively to defining a theory of proof of design without explaining the methods behind it (as I've said before, like Newton did with gravity), but without an explanation of how the system works, its harder to prove and provides fewer opportunities to show evidence (like getting a picture of the invisible hand at work, which would be very conclusive, and I'm not saying this facetiously). So far all that is presented is a set of "analogies" attempting to map known intelligent phenomena onto other phenomena that have yet to be fully explained by science, or where the scientific explanation is ignored or dismissed, again, without any coherent explanation for what this mapping actually is, or why it is a valid comparison. That's why you keep getting hit with the Argument from ignorance issue. If you don't come up with a theory that for example yes, explains what properties of those crop circles cannot be explained by any phenomenon other than intelligent design, your ability to apply that to DNA is simply unconvincing. Inference is indeed a valid scientific methodology, but you need to show why your comparisons are at all valid.

"Testing for survival" is something that intelligent agents do to prove a DESIGN. Modularity is something that intelligent agents employ in their designs for the sake of efficiency, economy and versatility. Systems and processes do not have intelligence with which to "figure out" (as you put it) what works and what doesn't.

Again, I'm not really here to teach you computer science, although I could. This statement is simply false, systems and processes *do* "figure things out."

 

It is clear that your opinion is that anything that is ordered process is intelligent, but that if its ordered at all it was designed. The disproof of that is actually your smoke signal analogy: Natural phenomena can appear to produce order and process from completely random events. Three trees could fall from the damaged caused in that fire and cause three puffs easily. Seeing three puffs is not proof of design. Again, unless you've got that theory of intelligence, these things will fail the Turing test every time. It all comes down to the fact that your definition of intelligence is undefined and undisciplined. So its hard for any of us to be convinced.

Now, while we're talking about "evidence", please cite for me a single example of macro-evolution which has hard, empirical evidence…

That's a topic for a different thread (there are in fact tons of them here, but a really good summary answer to your question can be found here), but suffice it to say that the distinction between macro and micro evolution is a colloquial one, although it has come into general usage as a general set of categories. Another poster around these parts likes to say "there is no evidence of mutation causing speciation" which is much more specific, but both of these are red herrings: "speciation" or "macro-evolution" is in the eye of the beholder. Like intelligence, the dividing line is defined at the convenience of the debater. There is actually quite a bit of evidence that shows such processes, although the benefit of debating this (as damocles notes above) is that its *really hard* to show *enough* change to make the argument that its *real speciation* that will satisfy the ID folks, because they just insist on moving the bar as needed ("oh that's not macro-evolution, that's just micro-evolution" as you yourself repeat in other terms). You're welcome to open another thread on that, but its not relevant to the topic at hand.

 

Empirically,

Buffy

[Erasmus00]

Damocles, I do sympathize with your predicament, really. You're right… there is no way to test macro-evolution...

 

Bla bla bla. You assert that you have no problem with micro evolution, but macro evolution is a bunch of godless scientists way to try and kill god or what have you. Its just silly. Consider that lots of small changes can come together to make big changes. Or do you deny that large changes are the cumulative effect of many small changes?

-Will

[Buffy]

Please folks, move macro-evolution debate to the Biology Forum or you will cause this already unwieldy thread to be closed for unruliness.

 

Moderately,

Buffy

[questor]

i wish you would stop discussing crop circles. two farmers in England have already been on an hour TV show showing how they did it.

as far as ID, i would like to offer a couple of points.

1. the universe exhibits order. that does not mean everything is perfect, but it is ordered

in the big picture. if it was not, chaos would ensue. random events lead to chaos, not to order. order indicates design.

2. the information of life ( rna and dna ) indicate order, not chaos.

3. orbits and spin of macro and micro structures are repeatable and predictable. this indicates order

4. physical laws, mathematics, light, gravity and the other universal forces are repeatable and consistent, they indicate order.

5. without order, there would be no scientific method or a universe.

[Buffy]

i wish you would stop discussing crop circles. two farmers in England have already been on an hour TV show showing how they did it.

I agree completely, it doesn't prove anything does it? :)

1. the universe exhibits order. that does not mean everything is perfect, but it is ordered in the big picture. if it was not, chaos would ensue. random events lead to chaos, not to order. order indicates design.

Actually no, in information theory, input of energy reduces entropy and therefore creates order. If you want to talk about physical systems try the Game of Life mentioned above, which has rules that are naturally occuring yet create order: you can start a Life session by populating the board with a Poisson distributed (i.e. perfectly random) set of on items and incredible amounts of order (including occasional self-replicating systems) will appear within just a couple of generations! Its amazing!

2. the information of life ( rna and dna ) indicate order, not chaos.

Oh its got a structure, and in combination with the protiens and other gizmos floating around it is self-replicating and self-modifying. Its got lots of "junk" (that may not be junk but it sure looks random right now!), so its got moderate entropy, so its "kinda ordered and kinda random" which probably ends up not helping any related argument.

3. orbits and spin of macro and micro structures are repeatable and predictable. this indicates order

Actually its easy to show (and there are no counter examples) that at the quantum level there is perfect randomness with no predictability whatsoever! That's what's so interesting! At the most fundamental level we can perceive, everything is random yet it bubbles up into these incredibly ordered structures! Whoa! Isn't Mother Nature *incredible*?

4. physical laws, mathematics, light, gravity and the other universal forces are repeatable and consistent, they indicate order.

Yup. Cool huh?

5. without order, there would be no scientific method or a universe.

True, and also, without chaos, there would be no scientific method or a universe.

 

Yin and Yang,

Buffy

[TRoutMac]

Cool. You still have not come up with a definition of intelligence that can be applied and tested.

 

There is such a definition which can be applied and tested.

 

1. Specified Complexity

 

The first component of this is the criterion of complexity or improbability.

 

The second component is the criterion of specificity. Specification is like drawing a target on a wall and then shooting the arrow and hitting the target. Without the specification criterion, we'd shoot the arrow and then draw the target around it afterwards. Specified complexity signals intent.

 

Now, consider the crop circles. Highly complex designs (granted, complexity varies from one to another, but all are complex relative to what could happen naturally) and the geometric/mathematical nature of the designs, with concentricity, right angles, common shapes radiating from a common center, etc. all stack up to surpass the threshold of specified complexity. Ergo, crop circles are the result of Intelligent Design.

 

You know what? The problem with the crop circles issue is that sure, its got lots of things that "seem" to be intelligent, but more importantly they *were* designed. So what?

 

Well, perhaps you didn't realize what a good analogy crop circles is to this debate. I happened to see a program about crop circles a couple of years ago and on the show they actually had some nutcase on there who claimed that the crop circles were not the result of Intelligent Design. He had a theory that involved some sort of wild electromagnetic storm or some such thing. I laughed uncontrollably, of course. The point is, there are people out there (of questionable sanity, I think you would agree) that actually want to attribute crop circles to a random, freak accident of nature. Now obviously I think those people are a half-a-bubble-off-plumb, but since there is some controversy, some question in someone's mind, then perhaps we can't really say we really know that they were designed.

 

My point is this: You reject I.D. because you think it makes unwarranted, unsupported conclusions based on no evidence, and that people who accept I.D. are doing so because they are essentially too lazy to search for a natural, materialistic explanation. Well, now the shoe's on the other foot, isn't it? Now you're making the same inference with the crop circles that we're making with origins… neither of us knows the identity of the designer, but we both see evidence of Intelligent Design. Perhaps the nutcase on that show would tell you that you were being intellectually lazy to attribute crop circles to I.D. and that "real science" would insist on finding a "natural" cause.

 

How would you respond to that?

 

While you insist that ID is not saying that "since we can't come up with any other explanation", in fact that is indeed the crux of the ID argument, BECAUSE of the fact that no coherent "theory of intelligence" is proposed beyond simply coming up with endless examples--like you do almost exclusively here--and say "that cannot be explained by any natural phenomenon." Unless you *define intelligence* you cannot under the scientific method say that any phenomena "exhibits intelligence".

 

First, we don't have to define "intelligence", rather, we have to define what the known effects of intelligence are, and I've done so. Specified complexity.

 

Three trees could fall from the damaged caused in that fire and cause three puffs easily. Seeing three puffs is not proof of design.

 

Even though I don't think it would be "easy", or "probable", I will grant you that some natural event could possibly result in three puffs of smoke. But there's no "extrinsic" information there unless the trees intended to create those puffs in order to send a message. Now, we all know how likely that scenario is!! (I hope) In other words, the trees falling might produce complexity (three puffs) but it lacks specificity. The trees didn't specify three puffs… that there were three puffs was simply incidental and means nothing.

[damocles]

Damocles, I do sympathize with your predicament, really. You're right… there is no way to test macro-evolution. It would take too long, we don't have the time, we can't travel back in time, we can't be certain whether we can accurately reproduce the conditions because we really have no way to positively determine what those conditions were, yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

You can whine about these unfortunate circumstances all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that, whatever the reason, it is your theory (specifically, macro-evolution) that is "untestable" and, in fact, has no basis in empirical evidence.

 

I was very specific about what kind of evidence I wanted to see precisely because I don't want any possible confusion between macro and micro evolution. Show me the different body plans, folks. Show me the hard evidence, tried and true. Again, if macro-evolution is a reality, there oughtta be plenty of examples of evolution from one species to another that is comparable to the sundew-to-venus flytrap scenario I mentioned. hard, empirical evidence. No guesswork, no presumptions, no speculations.

 

I don't whine. I point out error and recommend a solution.

 

I don't need or want IDer sympathy nor am I frustrated by anything IDers present. I have looked at their evidence, for myself with my own eyes; and I see nothing in the IDer presentation that requires me to close my mind to any plausible explanations-to throw my hands up and say I cannot know, due to an information barrier. or conclude the problem involved requires with an absolute certainty that an intelligence originated universal existence.

 

By the way

 

You didn't read the data sources, supplied, did you?

 

Of course not.

 

I recommend this;

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/

The Talk.Origins Archive: exploring the creation/evolution controversy from a

mainstream scientific perspective.

 

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/info-theory/course.html

Eight lectures on information theory by David MacKay.

 

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/

The theory of molecular machines from the NIH Laboratory of Computational and Experimental Biology.

 

Then I suggest that you formulate your experiment and run it. Time is a MINOR problem, but there are ways to work around that problem if you accept induced competitive states and restrict your study to microbial scales.

 

Otherwise?

[pgrmdave]

First, we don't have to define "intelligence", rather, we have to define what the known effects of intelligence are, and I've done so. Specified complexity.

 

First, we don't have to define what gloop, rather, we have to define what the known effects of gloop are. See, it sounds silly when I change the words. I would be interested to hear what the definition of intelligence, with regards to Intelligent Design, is. Intelligence is a tricky thing to define to begin with, computers are better at computations than I am, a stereo system can play better music than I can, the only thing that I have over man-made mechanisms is creativity, is that what intelligence is?

 

And TRoutMac, how do you explain human's intelligence coming from neurons which are simply mechanical? Would that not suggest that a mechanical function can produce intelligence, thus allowing for natural forces to be the 'intelligence'?

[C1ay]

All we need to do is suggest that there was an Intelligent Designer and give evidence to support that hypothesis.

No, that is not all you need to do. You also need to make testable predictions from that hypothesis.

[Buffy]

There is such a definition which can be applied and tested. Specified Complexity

For those of you watching, "Specified Complexity" is Dembski's theory, and there's a good writeup in Wikipedia, and there's another good critique here.

 

Specified Complexity is a vague and oversimplified view of what is "complex enough to have to be intelligently designed". It has a number of major weaknesses:

• Dembski tries to draw a direct correllation between "complexity" and "improbability of occuring randomly", to a certain extent just by trying to use the terms interchangeably (just as you do in this post). Counter example is the Mandelbrot set which is remarkably ordered and complex yet requires an function of just two terms. There are many other counter examples.
  
• His math often doesn't work, and when its pointed out, he says "in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity". So nothing's been proven.
  
• As you've demonstrated well here "specified" is somewhat circular in its definition: if an object was designed or specified it will exhibit complexity and complex objects must be specified.
  
• Dembski ignores the effects of feedback (which explains why you are working to denigrate it, or claim that it can't exist without a designer), and much of his math is simply not relevant because it does not properly model the real world operation of evolution (in any of its forms, not just biological).
  

Your reference to "intent" is interesting because its posed as the proof, while its actually a further step away than you're willing to support: you of course can't show intent without actually having the designer, and you don't even want to speculate about the designer. So how can we perceive intent?

Now, consider the crop circles. Highly complex designs (granted, complexity varies from one to another, but all are complex relative to what could happen naturally) and the geometric/mathematical nature of the designs, with concentricity, right angles, common shapes radiating from a common center, etc. all stack up to surpass the threshold of specified complexity. Ergo, crop circles are the result of Intelligent Design.

And how do you measure that threshold? What makes it "enough" to indicate specification? The only idea posited here is that its "improbable", but it is only improbable given that not all possible theories about their development are known. While you may laugh at the thought that there might be a physical phenomenon that causes those circles, you've done nothing to but say, its improbable given what we know today. Neither you nor Dembski have defined any measurable qualities other than "probability that it could occur with known phenomena." In fact, we don't have any way of determining the probability because we don't know about lots of stuff, therefore the "probabilty" is meaningless. It cannot be used to show "design" the probabilities are inadequate and the "threshold" is mostly arbitrary or irrelevant even when Dembski totals up the number of random events that could have occurred in 15 billion years.

Now obviously I think those people are a half-a-bubble-off-plumb, but since there is some controversy, some question in someone's mind, then perhaps we can't really say we really know that they were designed.

Its not an issue of controversy, its an issue of the fact that the math just plain doesn't work. Its irrelevant. Its been proven over and over again. If you want to make something of Specified Complexity, you're really going to have to break some new ground, because what Dembski has come up with so far is demonstrably and irrefutably worthless....

You reject I.D. because you think it makes unwarranted, unsupported conclusions based on no evidence, and that people who accept I.D. are doing so because they are essentially too lazy to search for a natural, materialistic explanation. Well, now the shoe's on the other foot, isn't it? Now you're making the same inference with the crop circles that we're making with origins… neither of us knows the identity of the designer, but we both see evidence of Intelligent Design. Perhaps the nutcase on that show would tell you that you were being intellectually lazy to attribute crop circles to I.D. and that "real science" would insist on finding a "natural" cause.

You're missing the point here. I'm not arguing that the crop circles were natural, which is a waste of time because we already know! Even if we didn't already know, the scientific conclusion would *only* be "unknown." The scientific method is based on finding natural, materialistic explanations by definition, and also by definition if the explanations are not natural or materialistic they are metaphysical and outside the realm of science! If ID wants to be science it has to follow the rules, or it is metaphysics (fancy word for religion) even if it refuses to comment on "who the designer is." Science *does* insist on finding a natural cause. Until there isn't one, its indeed "unknown" no matter how "off the bubble" you think we all are.

Even though I don't think it would be "easy", or "probable", I will grant you that some natural event could possibly result in three puffs of smoke. But there's no "extrinsic" information there unless the trees intended to create those puffs in order to send a message. Now, we all know how likely that scenario is!! (I hope) In other words, the trees falling might produce complexity (three puffs) but it lacks specificity. The trees didn't specify three puffs… that there were three puffs was simply incidental and means nothing.

So as you say, specificity is defined as intent and as I said above, without the actual designer you have no way to find intent and if you have proscribed finding the designer for some unknown reason (well, we know that its completely because you don't want to admit any link to religion or UFO nuts), then the whole discussion is worthless. Unless you can measure "intent". We honestly would love to hear a theory of measuring intent, and again, its related to the Turing Test, so don't think I'm being facetious here. Its a worthy area of study, you just have shown no methodology or theory at all.

 

Bottom line, still "not shown."

 

Proof in the pudding,

Buffy

[TRoutMac]

For those of you watching, "Specified Complexity" is Dembski's theory…

[*]As you've demonstrated well here "specified" is somewhat circular in its definition: if an object was designed or specified it will exhibit complexity and complex objects must be specified.

 

I have demonstrated nothing of the sort. Complexity and specificity are not the same thing. As an example, the pattern or texture in granite could be described as "complex" but it's not specified. In other words, that texture just "happens" and is a function of the various elements within that rock.

 

Furthermore, you misunderstand what I mean by the word "intent". I don't mean that I know WHY something was created. I only mean that it was created with intent, in other words, "on purpose" and was therefore not accidental.

 

Take a look at the image on this page:

http://www.mysteriousreality.com/Unnatural/unnatural_cropcircles.asp

 

This image illustrates specified complexity very well. Smaller circles are aligned on axes which form 90 deg angles, other circles are aligned on a larger circle which is concentric with the large center circle. The precision of the alignments, the angles involved, the symmetry and regular distribution of the smaller circles about the outer concentric circle meet the standard of specified complexity and indicate intent, purpose and Intelligent Design.

 

You're missing the point here. I'm not arguing that the crop circles were natural, which is a waste of time because we already know! Even if we didn't already know, the scientific conclusion would *only* be "unknown."

 

First of all, I never said that you were making the argument. Why would you not argue that the crop circles were natural? Even if all you had seen or heard of crop circles was a single photograph like the one referenced above?

 

Dr. Terence Meaden of the Tornado and Storm Research Organization (TORRO) in Wiltshire, England is the guy who has this theory about how crop circles are formed naturally, a theory he calls the "plasma vortex" theory. Now, imagine I'm Terence Meaden and I'm telling you that there's absolutely no reason to suspect the crop circles are the product of Intelligent Design, that it all can be explained by reference to natural causes, and that to suggest an Intelligent Designer is not scientific. What would you say to me?

 

The scientific method is based on finding natural, materialistic explanations by definition, and also by definition if the explanations are not natural or materialistic they are metaphysical and outside the realm of science!

 

Sorry, but science doesn't agree with you here. In the Dover vs. Kitzmiller trial, Robert Pennock testified for the ACLU that there was controversy within the scientific community about whether the definition you offered is really valid. He testifies that he thinks it's valid, but he conceded that it is not universally accepted among scientists as a governing principle. And guess what? He's on your side.

[TRoutMac]

i wish you would stop discussing crop circles. two farmers in England have already been on an hour TV show showing how they did it.

 

Questor, I realize there have been some people who have come forward to claim responsibility for crop circles. But, note that there is this whack-job Terence Meaden in England with the "plasma vortex theory" who thinks they are naturally caused. So, crop circles are germaine to the discussion because there is still at least some controversy as to what (or who) caused them (however unreasonable that may seem to you and I) and they illustrate precisely why the points you made are true, and that even the ID bashers on this forum agree they are true because they themselves have used the same criteria to infer design and conclude that crop circles are intelligently designed.

[questor]

what is the definition of ''naturally occurring'' ? what force creates a naturally occurring event? chaos is not a natural state. when chaos exists, the tendency is to reaffirm order

or the event/particle would tend to decay. quantum particles may exhibit random behavior, but this behavior does not result in expansion to other systems. if chaos existed on the macroscopic level, the universe would cease to exist. i don't think we use chaos thory to

go to the moon.

does anyone have any mathematical models to explain life, or thought?

does anyone disbelieve thought exists because we can't test its source?

do you think chaos exists in the human body?

[questor]

if there was ID, then ''naturally occurring'' events would all occur within the system that was designed. this includes crop circles from any cause or the two English rednecks who demonstrated the planks and ropes they used to perform the deeds. as to the real reason for crop circles, i can't imagine a Creator indulging in a silly game for which only humans would be the audience.

[TRoutMac]

what is the definition of ''naturally occurring'' ? what force creates a naturally occurring event? chaos is not a natural state. when chaos exists, the tendency is to reaffirm order or the event/particle would tend to decay. quantum particles may exhibit random behavior, but this behavior does not result in expansion to other systems. if chaos existed on the macroscopic level, the universe would cease to exist. i don't think we use chaos thory to go to the moon.

does anyone have any mathematical models to explain life, or thought?

does anyone disbelieve thought exists because we can't test its source?

do you think chaos exists in the human body?

 

It amazes me that these things have to be explained at all. People keep citing "information theory" to me to defend evolution and it's the strangest thing… it turns logic on its head. Problem is, they're using the word "information" in a different context, but they don't realize how or why. When you and I use the word "information" with respect to DNA, we are not talking about the same information they are talking about.

 

They say that the more random things are, the more information they contain. Now, with the way I'm using "information", this is an absolutely perverse statement, every bit as perverse as saying that water flows uphill. They demonstrate precisely the opposite every time they sit down and type one of their messages to this forum, and yet somehow they still think it makes sense.

 

You ask excellent questions. They don't have answers.

[Buffy]

I have demonstrated nothing of the sort. Complexity and specificity are not the same thing. As an example, the pattern or texture in granite could be described as "complex" but it's not specified.

That's right, they're not the same thing, but this example is unhelpful since actually granite texture/pattern has a fairly high entropy factor: its highly unordered, so its a pretty useless example. Mandelbrot is highly ordered. So are Nautilus shells. So are the patterns in the Game of Life. Designed or not? Answers are "no," "maybe," and "no." If you're not going to show provenance, you still need to show a theory for when something is "complex enough" to be conclusively designed. Although you like to concentrate only on examples that were obviously designed, your theory must handle the counter-examples that would seem to disprove it, otherwise its not at all convincing.

Furthermore, you misunderstand what I mean by the word "intent". I don't mean that I know WHY something was created. I only mean that it was created with intent, in other words, "on purpose" and was therefore not accidental. ... This image illustrates specified complexity very well. Smaller circles are aligned ...

No, they're simply highly ordered and as with the examples and many others I just cited, "highly-ordered" can result naturally. You're still avoiding showing why your mapping from crop circles to anything else like DNA must be true in spite of all of these counter examples that invalidate your thesis. Again you make a wild jump from saying "this is complex" to "it must be designed" without saying why. Just saying it "demonstrates intent" is not sufficient, you have to show why it demonstrates intent and what process you can use to distinguish those from the counter-examples where intent is known not to exist as I've listed here. You haven't done that.

Now, imagine I'm Terence Meaden and I'm telling you that there's absolutely no reason to suspect the crop circles are the product of Intelligent Design, that it all can be explained by reference to natural causes, and that to suggest an Intelligent Designer is not scientific. What would you say to me?

That you have not provided any evidence that your theory is correct! See? What's good for the goose is good for the gander: we're really not playing favorites here, and casting aspersions (I know you don't think you are), actually loses you debating points...

 

It all comes down to the issue of acceptance of the fact that science a lot of the time says "we don't know." This is emotionally and spiritually dissatisfying, which is why a lot of people don't like it, but its science.

Sorry, but science doesn't agree with you here. In the Dover vs. Kitzmiller trial...

The "controversy" is yet another controversy that isn't, similar to arguments that punctuated equilibrium proves that evolution is "controversial even in the scientific community." The issue discussed in the current trial is an old one, and as above, there is a strong urge to find meaning where it cannot be shown. The distinction between methodological versus philosophical naturalism is simply drawing the dividing line between science and metaphysics, and everything I've read about this says there's no controversy--discussion is *not* controversy, although its a moderately useful debating technique to misrepresent it as such--even the folks on the metaphysical side agree that there is no "process for demonstrating supernatural effects," they simply want it to be a rational area of discussion, *not* be considered exactly the same as methodological science. ID is seeking to jump the shark, er, dividing line while *not* changing its methods, which *preclude* showing any evidence of the theory. It continues to be a theory without evidence until you start firming up the comparisons you are proposing to the point that they're not so easily shot full of holes.

 

Expostulatingly,

Buffy