Digital forensic versus ID's design inference

This is hardly the first time that people have pointed out to Dembski that forensics do not use the 'design inference'

See for instance Gary Hurd

. It would be interesting to see how much (or how little) “evolutionary evidence” can withstand the scrutiny of digital forensics.

— Dembski

Yea, didn't Dembski use digital forensics to determine that the photographs of those moths were faked? What a great method!

Next time ID proponents argue that ID is both a new method of doing science AND point out that science has been using ID all the time, point out the inherent contradiction in their position.

When they object, show them how ID relies on ignorance, while in digital forensics, its actual knowledge of the designer and his methods which lead to design inferences.

Don't be fooled.

At first I thought maybe Dembski - though completely wrong - was sincerely trying to prove an idea he thought was correct and could be verified if all the existing evidence was just analyzed from a new perspective. He, and others, really believed he was the Newton of woo.

It is clear now that he is a crackpot and/or charlatan.

Do you think your God is pleased with you, Billy?

Let's say for the sake of discussion that digital forensics could be used to draw "design inferences" in exactly the sense that Dembski uses the term.

Wouldn't this then mean that the intrepid ID scientists I keep reading about now have a quantitative tool that's rooted in the refereed literature? If so, wouldn't the ID scientists be immediately jumping into applying this tool to something like rocks vs. clovis points to validate design inferences (I can see a paper or two there), and then moving on to tell us, using validated tools from the refereed literature, which biological systems,or which portions of biological systems, are designed? I see lots of papers there as well.

This could be evolution's Waterloo!

Or not ...

Applying tools... Pathetic...

Is anyone else getting flashbacks of that footage of Bigfoot besides me?

SWT asks, "wouldn’t the ID scientists be immediately jumping into applying this tool to something like rocks vs. clovis points?"

SWT, this is so unfair. You don't think Soutwestern archaeologists have enough problems with scorpions and rattlesnakes? Now they're going to have IDers running all over their sites, screaming 'Don't ask, don't tell!' every time somebody tries to collect a carbon-14 sample?

No, no, it's far better to leave them alone with their computers inventing fart jokes.

Yeah, right.

When's the last time an archaeologist applied a DI-style inference algorithm to a find in order to "prove" that it was man-made?

Archaeologists examine their finds for clues about their origins, and go with what seems to be the best explanation for that evidence... just like biologists and cosmologists do. Archaeologists' methods couldn't have any less in common with the woo Dembski peddles.

Next he'll be claiming that angelologists use the same methods that planetologists do.

Dembski and his friends never cease to amaze me.

They are continually coming up with new analogies where people are making a "design inference". Oh, look, that flower bed with the flowers planted in the shape of a word must have been designed. Oh, look, this "car" must have been designed. Forensic scientists make design inferences on a daily basis. Archaeologists use my EF to make design inferences. And so on.

What he strenuously ignores is that all of these "design inferences" are actually deductions based on knowledge of the stuff that people do. It is pretty much impossible to compare Dembski's "design inferences" with any human-made design, because we already know that people make things and design things. They do this using processes that we (1) already know about, or (2) can deduce from evidence that they leave behind.

ID, OTOH, refuses to speculate (or, heaven forfend!, form a detailed hypothesis) about the abilities or motives of the designer (*cough* God *cough*); but in so doing, it removes any possible predictive power it could conceivably possess.

For example, about 20 years ago, the National Park Authority in one of England's most beautiful national parks, the Lake District, was growing increasingly concerned about footpath erosion. The popularity of walking was on the increase, and the paths were becoming gravelly ruts in the fellsides. A chance discovery provided the solution: some biggish stones (about 8 - 14" in size) were uncovered (whether by erosion or by digging I know not) that were worn smooth.

Well, you might think, that's no big deal, since rocky stream beds wear stones to rounded pebbles all the time. However, these stones were smooth on one side only - the opposite face was as rough as if the stone had been freshly deposited from a glacier. Additionally, the smooth sides had the same polished look that you see on really old stone staircases, which is different from the look that stones get when worn smooth in a stream or river bed. The conclusion was that these stones had been used as a type of paving or flagging, probably by Viking settlers.

This design inference was based solely on the knowledge that humans had lived in the area, and that humans show ingenious use of available materials to solve problems. And they managed all this before Dembski's EF had ever been published.

This also provided the solution for the erosion of the footpaths - by replicating the methods of the Vikings, the National Park Authority has been able to save many hundreds of kilometres of upland footpath from deterioration.

As summary for the above comments, we conclude:

"Design inferences are ok, as long as you don't do them in biology"

"We would see that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell"

A better summary of the above, for Children Who Can't Read Good:

design inference is ok if we have already agreed that certain principles of causation exist ... which is sadly not the case in the fantasy world of ID biology

this is reminiscent of the problem with positivism, the notion that real knowledge is entirely deduced from evidence - you can't make deductions (as opposed to induction) about nature from observations without having apriori laws about the ways that reality translates into observations to form a logical framework for making those deductions. Science makes an "evolution inference" based on reasonable (and incrementally improving) inductions that verify evolutionary principles about as well as we can verify anything, while ID has no business at all making "design inferences" because it has no reasonable grounds for the God processes that would need to be accepted, apart from the design inferences themselves, which are therefore invalid

Mats: As summary for the above comments, we conclude: "Design inferences are ok, as long as you don't do them in biology"

No, design inferences are ok, if you can make rational and feasible explanations of how things were designed.

Mats: As summary for the above comments, we conclude: Design inferences are ok, as long as you don't do them in biology

No one sugested the rain and the wind as the “creators” of such sctructures.

A more recent historical report of crop circles was republished (from Nature, volume 22, pp 290-291, 29 July 1880) in the January 2000 issue of the Journal of Meteorology.[6] It describes the 1880 investigations by an amateur scientist named John Rand Capron: "The storms about this part of Surrey have been lately local and violent, and the effects produced in some instances curious. Visiting a neighbour's farm on Wednesday evening (21st), we found a field of standing wheat considerably knocked about, not as an entirety, but in patches forming, as viewed from a distance, circular spots....I could not trace locally any circumstances accounting for the peculiar forms of the patches in the field, nor indicating whether it was wind or rain, or both combined, which had caused them, beyond the general evidence everywhere of heavy rainfall. They were suggestive to me of some cyclonic wind action,..."[7]

In regards to crop circles, you can conclude design all you want. The problem is that in the absence of any evidence of the designer or any knowledge of the motives and goals of the designer, that will get you exactly nowhere. Of course we all know that the crop circles were made by humans who eventually told everyone about their methods. Until then, I guess you could have concluded that God made the crop circles as well. Man, she must have been getting really bored.

Mats: HDX

No, design inferences are ok, if you can make rational and feasible explanations of how things were designed.

I am not sure I agree with you on that. Back in the 70s and the 80s, crop circles roamed in the english country side. No one knew how they were created by everyone knew someone created them. No one sugested the rain and the wind as the "creators" of such sctructures. They all sugested creative minds behind those patterns, even though they didn't know exacly how they had been done.

Mats: HDX

No, design inferences are ok, if you can make rational and feasible explanations of how things were designed.

I am not sure I agree with you on that. Back in the 70s and the 80s, crop circles roamed in the english country side. No one knew how they were created by everyone knew someone created them. No one sugested the rain and the wind as the "creators" of such sctructures. They all sugested creative minds behind those patterns, even though they didn't know exacly how they had been done.

It's also worth pointing out that the "human design" inference made about crop circles was confirmable by experimentation, so they could go from idle speculation to established fact. The "alien design" inference was not confirmable by experimentation, since it is rooted in paranormal conspiracy theories that, much like ID, seek only to evade scientific scrutiny, rather than present a legitimate empirical case for themselves.

The ID design inference is based on personal incredulity, rationalised by demonstrably incorrect mathematics and arguments from ignorance. In ID "design" is merely a label for "unexplained". In order to apply their "design" label to evolution, they have to make every effort to present a case that certain evolutionary adaptations are "unexplained", so that they can then slap a "design" label over the word "unexplained". The trouble is instead of finding aspects of evolution that are as yet unexplained and calling them "design" they have decided to make demonstrably fallacious claims about areas of evolution that are not only explained, but often empirically verified. The fact that IDists like Behe and Dembski keep parroting claims that have been refuted to them over and over again calls into question either their motives or qualification in making such claims.

In short, the "design inferences" made by ID are not design inferences at all. They are an arbitrary pronouncement of "unexplained" on natural process that have in fact been explained in great detail, and verified by scientific experimentation and research. This is then followed a straight forward argument from ignorance that unexplained=unexplainable. This is NOT science. Of course, then then have the last easy step that they don't explicitly make to avoid sending up obvious red flags - that unexplainable=god. Of course they would never admit this in court, but they are happy to make it clear this is the whole point of this exercise when in friendly company.

If so, wouldn't the ID scientists be immediately jumping into applying this tool to something like rocks vs. clovis points to validate design inferences (I can see a paper or two there), and then moving on to tell us, using validated tools from the refereed literature, which biological systems,or which portions of biological systems, are designed?

No, because ID science doesn't need the pathetic validated tools that evolution needs. Only evolution is so pathetic that it needs such nonsense.

Dogmatic evolutionists might think that their ancestors jumped from out of the pathetic trees, but ID scientists didn't come from no pathetic monkeys.

Note that digital forensics, such as steganography detection and cryptography, are rooted in solid mathematics (IDers note the appropriate use of Shannon information theory). Discovering "design" in those cases is dependent on hard math, not hand-waving. The same is true for SETI, which, in many ways, is the same problem.

I would love to see anything remotely well-founded in mathematics from the ID clowns.

Dembski's theory of design has failed for 150 years.

What it lacks is data to prove or disprove it. Theories are dime a dozen, even evolution has more than two. Lamarckism, Raelism (UFO aliens), Scientology, dozens of religious creation myths.

Evolution Modern Darwinian, OTOH has mountains of evidence whole libraries. Problems identified with evolution have turned out to be problems with other theories which were wrong. The earth is very old, not young. Inheritance is Mendelian, not blending or Lamarckian.

The other theories have either been falsified or gone from zero evidence to zero evidence.

ID today has drifted into the realms of bafflegab, Design Filters, Complex Specified Information, Digital Forensics, vague terms not defined and unable to be measured. Pseudoscience.

Coupled with bad theology even many or most Xians don't accept. Biblical literalism which pretends that a few pages of 4,000 year old myth explains all of science even though it is obviously completely wrong. Billions of angels and demons wandering around causing good and evil in the world. Dembski believes the latter, as usual with zero proof. IMO, the scriptural basis for this is nonexistent. It also seems to call free will into question which would make the universe and our existence meaningless.

Need it be added that the blog is called Uncommonly Dense?

Mats: As summary for the above comments, we conclude: "Design inferences are ok, as long as you don't do them in biology"

Mats: As summary for the above comments, we conclude: "Design inferences are ok, as long as you don't do them in biology"

Re "Next he’ll be claiming that angelologists use the same methods that planetologists do."

They look for heavenly bodies?

On the plus side, everyone, Mats has successfully used both the italic and the bold HTML tags in the same sentence. Credit where credit's due.

Henry J: Re "Next he’ll be claiming that angelologists use the same methods that planetologists do." They look for heavenly bodies?

Science does know that we humans are very sensitive to "design detections" and often see "design" where there is none, so there could be a real simple physical explanation here.

What is probably more the case than that humans see "design" where there is none is that they humans readily see "purpose" where there is none.

Just yesterday I heard someone ask what the purpose of Saturn's rings were. No fault to her, of course, the point being more that those who know little about science tend to want the "purpose" of a thing, not a long causal physics explanation which tells them nothing about how they are to relate to the phenomenon in question.

IDists exploit that desire, not, of course, actually finding any purpose, but affirming that the question about purpose is the proper one, and that it's only the prejudices of scientists (unfathomably they suppose that scientists actually prefer purposeless answers) that leads them away from purpose.

IDists really need to keep people naive and ignorant, and ID's real purpose (or hidden motives, anyhow) is simply that. The naive and ignorant buy Behe's and Dembski's books.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

rain and wind didn't make crop circles, therefore minds did

I would argue that we *never* make "design inferences". What we actually do is to model the process of origin of observed phenomena.

When forensic specialists are doing their thing, they are operating on models of such processes in order to know what evidence to collect from both crime scenes and from potential suspects, in order to build a case that will be plausible under the rules of evidence of the court to allow a judge and or jury to convict a particular suspect of a crime. There is
science done to create the models that allow for the specific techniques, but once those models are established forensic "scientists" are not doing science anymore, but are applying a prescription.

The question is: is there a "design inference," in the sense of Dembski being made anywhere in the process? I believe that the answer is clearly "no". Forensic scientists have a considerable body of evidence from a collection of cases of known crimes-methods-motives to operate from as their background theory.

A better example of how the claims of ID differ from reality may be seen by considering the "Mt. Rushmore" argument. The ID crowd claims that it is a no-brainer to recognize Mt. Rushmore as being "designed" because of the extremely large odds against such an object arising by chance or by natural processes such as weathering.

I would argue that Mt. Rushmore is recognized, not as designed, but as manufactured because we have a great familiarity with mega-carvings and statues in general. In particular, we know how such items come into existence.

Since the ID creationist considers that this information is unimportant to making the "design inference", consider how an individual not possessing such information might react.

Suppose that an individual with no concept of "carving" or "statue" would see Mt. Rushmore. It is reasonable to believe that such an individual would make the inference that the figures on Mt. Rushmore are "giant people frozen in stone" by some unknown process. Indeed, mythology of all cultures contains such allusions of animals or people "turned to stone", which I believe, come from early people encountering rock formations, fossils, and the products of stone carving cultures.

All of this, of course, for the benefit of lurkers. Mats knows what s/he knows and isn't interested in learning.

Anything.

Ever.

I would argue that we *never* make "design inferences". What we actually do is to model the process of origin of observed phenomena.

“Design inferences are ok, as long as you don’t do them in biology”

And what we have learned about the causes of biology are captured by the explanatory framework known as the theory of evolution.

But come on, this is so simple it hurts:

The detection that Dembski is talking
about is based upon what we know of
HUMAN ACTION, HUMAN DESIGNERS, HUMAN
CAUSES etc. etc.! HUMAN HUMAN HUMAN!

I would argue that Mt. Rushmore is recognized, not as designed, but as manufactured because we have a great familiarity with mega-carvings and statues in general.

The detection that Dembski is talking about is based upon what we know of HUMAN ACTION, HUMAN DESIGNERS, HUMAN CAUSES etc. etc.! HUMAN HUMAN HUMAN!

The question is: is there a “design inference,” in the sense of Dembski being made anywhere in the process? I believe that the answer is clearly “no”.

[They]refuse to get out of their airplane to look closely.

The detection that Dembski is talking about is based upon what we know of HUMAN ACTION,

This also provided the solution for the erosion of the footpaths - by replicating the methods of the Vikings,

The problem is that in the absence of any evidence of the designer or any knowledge of the motives and goals of the designer, that will get you exactly nowhere.

Of course we all know that the crop circles were made by humans who eventually told everyone about their methods.

What you fail to understand, Mats, is that when looking at a specific phenomenon, an objective investigator asks: “What process could have created this?”. He doesn’t ask “Who designed this?” or “What ‘impersonal’ process created this?”. Do you see the inherent bias you have?

When discussing crop circles, no known natural process was known that could have that effect, so people began examining human causes.

This is precisely what happened in biology 150 years ago. When looking at life on earth, we didn’t have any known natural process that could explain it, so the assumption was “design”.

People started looking at the evidence (and more became available), and we started discovering those natural processes.

Why is this hard to grasp? If the evidence for evolution was so thin, how is it feasible that it would be so widely accepted in the scientific community? Why do creationists assume that biologists are so much different from other scientists? I don’t get it.

Popper's Ghost --- Most of the gods are made in Man's image.

:-)

Ah, very interesting. So having exausted the natural causes, people started looking for “non-natural” causes? Well, let’s aply the same principle in Biology: Since there are no known natural causes able to create living beings out of dead matter, is it scientific to start alluding to mental processes? To put it in a way which I think its familiar with people in here: Since the impersonal and mindless forces of nature can’t write genetic code, is it ok (and scientific) to start looking for causations elsewhere? Or do we stop short there, due to one’s philosophical bias?

The afore mentioned example of the crop circles refutes that claim. We didn’t know what was the motives of the mminds who did them, but we were sure minds had been involved.

Since there are no known natural causes able to create living beings out of dead matter, is it scientific to start alluding to mental processes? To put it in a way which I think its familiar with people in here: Since the impersonal and mindless forces of nature can’t write genetic code, is it ok (and scientific) to start looking for causations elsewhere? Or do we stop short there, due to one’s philosophical bias?

Mats: David Stanton said

The problem is that in the absence of any evidence of the designer or any knowledge of the motives and goals of the designer, that will get you exactly nowhere.

The afore mentioned example of the crop circles refutes that claim. We didn't know what was the motives of the mminds who did them, but we were sure minds had been involved.

When discussing crop circles, no known natural process was known that could have that effect, so people began examining human causes.

Ah, very interesting. So having exausted the natural causes, people started looking for "non-natural" causes?

Well, let's aply the same principle in Biology: Since there are no known natural causes able to create living beings out of dead matter, is it scientific to start alluding to mental processes? To put it in a way which I think its familiar with people in here: Since the impersonal and mindless forces of nature can't write genetic code, is it ok (and scientific) to start looking for causations elsewhere? Or do we stop short there, due to one's philosophical bias?

I sure do hope that you are not implying that consensus determines truth. Both me and you know that the consensus can be wrong, right?

Popper’s Ghost — Most of the gods are made in Man’s image.

The problem is that in the absence of any evidence of the designer or any knowledge of the motives and goals of the designer, that will get you exactly nowhere.

In regards to the “extraterrestrial alien mischief” hypothesis. No evidence supporting or refuting could be found.

The alien hypothesis was completely unbounded and therefore useless from a scientific standpoint.

The "weather phenomena" hypothesis was researched. Investigators searched their archives for similar occurrences. Not finding any similar occurrences, the next logical step wold be to try and simulated a weather event that could have caused such a thing. Investigators never got around to it because ... The "human mischief" hypothesis was proved correct by the admission of the culprits

Logic based on a false assumption is called fallacy.

Popper's Ghost:

The alien hypothesis was completely unbounded and therefore useless from a scientific standpoint.

Actually there are considerable bounds on aliens as hypothetical agents, bounds that do not apply to God.

There’s much more to it than that. The pattern of crushing of grasses was not consistent with weather, as opposed to, say, pressing down with a plank of wood. And of course the chance of weather producing an ordered series of geometric figures is incredibly small, whereas the chances of people producing them is not. Empirical investigation is a matter of inference to the best explanation. The best explanation for crop circles was always that they were human produced, which is why most rational people assumed that to be the cause. And the best explanation for biodiversity is overwhelmingly evolution – we don’t have to wait for evolution to come forward and admit it.

If you hypothesize GLAs (God Like Aliens– Like Q from Star Trek) then there are essentially no bounds.

Of course there’s more to it.

Mats: "Since there are no known natural causes able to create living beings out of dead matter, is it scientific to start alluding to mental processes?"

Well, depending upon the details, it might be scientific to put forward a hypothesis about what processes this purported "mind" used to create life. So tell us how the mind did this, or at least give us an educated guess or two. Any day now, we can wait.

That your question is a bit of a non-sequitur, because you're suddenly talking about abiogenesis, not evolution, has already been mentioned, but bears repeating.

How would science go about finding a mind?

Science will look anywhere there is an opportunity for success, since ID is not in the business of providing explanations, looking for a mind is nothing different from accepting ignorance, just a different name for the same topic.

The assumption here is, “the impersonal and mindless forces of nature can’t write genetic code.” To which the obvious answer is, “What evidence do you have that it can’t?”

The answer is a simple, “No. It is not, by definition, scientific to be looking for supernatural causality.”

Science deals only with the natural, rational world.

Philosophical/personal bias can come into play when deciding between two natural explanations of an observed phenomena. It cannot come into play when deciding between a natural and supernatural explanation, because once you start talking about supernatural explanations, you are no longer doing science

Of course consensus does not determine fact, but one must consider that when Darwin published his Origin of Species, the entire world, almost without exception, believed that some sort of supernatural force had magically placed people on it.

“Since there are no known natural causes able to create living beings out of dead matter, is it scientific to start alluding to mental processes?” Well, depending upon the details, it might be scientific to put forward a hypothesis about what processes this purported “mind” used to create life. So tell us how the mind did this, or at least give us an educated guess or two. Any day now, we can wait.

The answer is a simple, No. It is not, by definition, scientific to be looking for supernatural causality.

Well, then that definition needs to be revised, since not only it is not scientific, but it is hindering the advancement of true science

Science deals only with the natural, rational world.

Then there is no problem in invoking supernatural causation affecting the natural world

MPW: Mats: "Since there are no known natural causes able to create living beings out of dead matter, is it scientific to start alluding to mental processes?" Well, depending upon the details, it might be scientific to put forward a hypothesis about what processes this purported "mind" used to create life. So tell us how the mind did this, or at least give us an educated guess or two. Any day now, we can wait. That your question is a bit of a non-sequitur, because you're suddenly talking about abiogenesis, not evolution, has already been mentioned, but bears repeating.

Have a look at the following image and consider what your gut is telling you: (1) that nature is full of extravagant design that we should not expect on materialistic principles; (2) that nature has programmed us through evolution (e.g., sexual selection) to appreciate beauty in nature so that we can be good little robots and spread our genes.

raven: Dembski’s theory of design has failed for 150 years.

How would science go about finding a mind?

— Mats

How do science goes about finding minds behind archeological features? Oh, they don’t. They just look at the feature and conclude there was a mind involved, regardless of the motives.

The scientific theoy of ID is not looking for a mind.

— Mats

The assumption here is, "The impersonal and mindless forces of nature cannot write genetic code." To which the obvious answer is, "What evidence do you have that it cannot?"

— Mats

What evidence you have that they can?

The answer is a simple, "No. It is not, by definition, scientific to be looking for supernatural causality."

— Mats

Well, then that definition needs to be revised, since not only it is not scientific, but it is hindering the advancement of true science.

Then there is no problem in invoking supernatural causation affecting the natural world

Philosophical/personal bias can come into play when deciding between two natural explanations of an observed phenomena. It cannot come into play when deciding between a natural and supernatural explanation, because once you start talking about supernatural explanations, you are no longer doing science

I am glad you agree that consensus does not determine truth.

And, yes, in Darwin’s day, many scientists believed that the universe had it’s origins in supernatural causation. That didn’t seemm to affect their science one single bit.

But now, thanks to “science”, we know that people were magically placed in here by no one.

Things just apeared out of nothing by themselves,

and stasrted to get more and more complex, by themselves, until people apeared.

That is todays “scientific” consensus,

which is much more logical that the one the founding fathers of science had, right?

When they were discovered, people didn’t know how they wee created, but everyone knew that mind(s) had made them.

They didn’t allude to the wind and the rian as the source of those structures.

So even though they didn’t know the process as to how those patterns came into existence, they could clearly detect the effects of mental activity.

The same goes for the living forms.

Even though we can’t scientifically see how those forms came into existence,

the belief

that they are the result of a mindless process is totally inadequate,

since mindless forces don’t have the ability to prodece those effects.

It’s more logical so invoke a Mind as the cause for those structures.

Mats:

Science will look anywhere there is an opportunity for success, since ID is not in the business of providing explanations, looking for a mind is nothing different from accepting ignorance, just a different name for the same topic.

The scientific theoy of ID is not looking for a mind.

Mats: Braxton said:

Why is this hard to grasp? If the evidence for evolution was so thin, how is it feasible that it would be so widely accepted in the scientific community? Why do creationists assume that biologists are so much different from other scientists? I don’t get it.

I sure do hope that you are not implying that consensus determines truth. Both me and you know that the consensus can be wrong, right?

When they were discovered, people didn’t know how [the crop circles] wee created, but everyone knew that mind(s) had made them. They didn’t allude to the wind and the rian as the source of those structures. So even though they didn’t know the process as to how those patterns came into existence, they could clearly detect the effects of mental activity.

The same goes for the living forms... [M]indless forces don’t have the ability to prodece those effects

Mats said: How do science goes about finding minds behind archeological features? Oh, they don’t. They just look at the feature and conclude there was a mind involved, regardless of the motives.

There is, of course, an aspect of "crop art" and of most archaeological artifacts that happens to tip off people to their origins. These phenomena have rational forms, and apparently, rational productions as well. That's why people considered aliens and humans as possible causes behind them, for it is life that makes straight lines, lays things out in mathematical (and mathematically understandable) relationships, and in most media, is what would most likely make a sharp crisp circle.

Find a trapdoor spider's burrow without knowing anything about it, and you can be quite certain that life, or something produced by life, made the burrow. Life, intelligent or not, makes patterns and shapes that evolution and the wind do not do directly (at least not in many contexts). We can detect what life produces by its rationality (even something so simple as a path could be determined to have likely to have been produced by life, or its machines), by novelty, and yes, by the stark lack of the marks of so-called "natural processes", such as evolution being responsible for features of organisms that rational life would not put into its own productions.

What the IDist says, in a way, is that one could never tell the difference between what an engineer working with CAD produced, and the "design" that a genetic algorithm working out on a computer would make. Or even more crucially, since genetic algorithms exist to make what rational design does not, the IDist would forever claim that just because no one knows exactly how the solution was arrived at with the genetic algorithm (let's say that either the steps are not recorded, or that the steps are too complicated and numerous to be understood--the point being that the history is lost in some manner), that there must be an intelligent spirit haunting the computer which is what "really" came up with the "design" coming from the genetic algorithm.

To supplement our own capacity for "intelligent design", we have learned to mimic natural processes like natural selection. Rather than appreciating the value of using a process that intelligence recognizes as having both capacities and blind spots that our own rational thinking does not have--which we learned by our observations of evolved life--the IDiots have to claim that we can't even discern the difference between what evolutionary processes make and what intelligence produces (that is, because human intelligence doesn't fully understand evolution, which is to be expected at present due to the fact that evolution isn't intelligence, the IDiots want the non-intelligence of evolution to be considered evidence that evolution has an intelligence behind it). IOW, why is "intelligent design" the abysm and negation of our own intelligence, and its abilities to understand the world and ourselves?

Perhaps the real question is why they think that we are too unintelligent to recognize non-teleological evolution when we see it, especially when we've learned to harness its possibilities.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

We can detect what life produces by its rationality (even something so simple as a path could be determined to have likely to have been produced by life, or its machines), by novelty, and yes, by the stark lack of the marks of so-called "natural processes, such as evolution being responsible for features of organisms that rational life would not put into its own productions.

Mats said,

"How do science goes about finding minds behind archeological (sic) features? Oh, they don’t. They just look at the feature and conclude there was a mind involved...."

Mats, you do not have a clue what you are talking about. I mean, not a single clue. Archaeologists talk ENDLESSLY about why people made certain artifacts, how they made them, why they arranged their artifacts the way they did, what their belief systems and social systems and economic systems must have been.

In order to make a statement as ignorant as the one you made, I can only presume you have never read so much as a magazine article by any real archaeologist. Because that was way, way on the far side of dumb.

(Now, see? That's an example of how social scientists DO make assumptions about minds, based on the data available. In your case, of course, the conclusion is that there isn't much mind there to work with.)

there are no known natural causes able to create living beings out of dead matter,

the impersonal and mindless forces of nature can’t write genetic code

there are no known natural causes able to create living beings out of dead matter

Then there is no problem in invoking supernatural causation affecting the natural world

— Mats

TomS said:

raven: Dembski’s theory of design has failed for 150 years.

I understand and appreciate your comments, but I’d like to point out that you are granting too much. ID does not have a theory of design. What it has is an assertion that there is something that hasn’t been explained, and therefore there must be some unspecified something-or-other. A design theory of X would tell us how design is likely to result in X, and less likely to result in Y or Z. A design theory of X would make some connection (logical, physical, metaphysical, some kind of connection) between design and X. A design theory would tell us When or Where design happened. A design theory would tell us something positive, not merely that somewhere, somehow, something must be wrong with evolutionary biology. A design theory would give us some direction on how to proceed with the theory, or raise interesting questions.

Then there is no problem in invoking supernatural causation affecting the natural world

It's more logical so invoke a Mind as the cause for those structures.

Imagine an investigation into cause of death in a Matsian world. One checks the religious texts and determines that life is a gift from God. Therefore, the death was due to supernatural causation -- case closed! No further details required!

This is the stupidity of ID in a nutshell -- aside from the lack of any support for their view, all they seek is mere classification of events as "supernatural" -- no need for any "pathetic detail". And the stupidity of American society at the moment is that most people don't grasp how different this is from science.

Popper's Ghost has no ability to interpret

:-)

as usual.

Popper’s Ghost has no ability to interpret :-) as usual.

Here, I'll spell it out for you, David. I wrote "They say man is made in God's image, so this really isn't really much of a counter. The creationists imagine some sort of super human who crafted things ..."

You saw the first sentence, where I was explicit,and thought you would be clever by quipping that it is god who is made in Man's image, because you are too dense to grasp that I had already made that point implicitly in my second sentence -- sharing an image is a symmetric relationship. As I said you're slow ... as usual. And you should realize by now that I will generally find some reason (it isn't hard) to smack you down -- that doesn't mean I can't interpret your silly smilies.

I had a flash of insight on this, which I'll post hoping others are interested.

Of COURSE evolution of multicellular organisms is designed by minds. We KNOW it is. For instance--

Flowers are designed by honeybees.

Gazelles are designed by lions.

Stick insects are designed by robins.

Peacocks are designed by peahens.

The antlers of male deer are designed by other male deer (who stay out of their breeding territories.)

In fact, when natural selection becomes directional--as opposed to just wavering back and forth, tracking environmental changes-- it virtually always depends on some decision-making process on the part of some animal. (Think of all the terms like coevolution, evolutionary arms race, etc.)

So why is it that the biologists-- and not the IDers-- are the ones actually studying how intelligence affects evolution? In fact, the IDers are ignoring mountains of evidence that evolution is driven by designers, who can be identified, studied, and understood.

You would think if IDers want to study intelligent design, they would do so. But no. They jump right over all the evidence that much of natural selection is driven by thought processes on the part of various observable entities, and go right to, 'We can't explain it. It must be supernatural.' That shows clearly what the real design is behind Intelligent Design.

Of COURSE evolution of multicellular organisms is designed by minds. We KNOW it is. For instance-- Flowers are designed by honeybees.

Hoary,

With respect, there is a big difference between being affected by, being moulded by, being influenced by, being adapted to and being designed by. For example, the Colorado River did not "design" the Grand Canyon and honeybees are not doing genetic engineering in their hives in order to produce flowers that are better pollen producers.

Anyway, it wouldn't matter to IDiots one bit. They have made it clear that they will only accept a supernatural explanation, regardless of any evidence or lack thereof. If bees were found to be doing genetic engineering, they would just insist that God was necessary in order to make the bees in the first place. I imagine that the same argument would be applied to aliens or anything else that truly designed anything.

Popper's Ghost--

You didn't get it.

My point was, honey bees are not acting randomly on flowers. They are preferentially pollinating (actually, gathering nectar and inadvertently pollinating) flowers with certain characteristics. In fact, botanists can generally tell a lot about who the pollinators are by observing the smell, color and form flowers take. (Sweet smelling white flowers blooming at night? Probably pollinated by bats.) Of course the bees, bats, etc., don't think in terms of shaping a flower's descendants. But they do make systematic choices about which flowers they prefer to visit-- and it's the systematic choices which drive natural selection and hence, evolution.

Muddying the issue with "intention," as people like Sal do-- and as you, my dear, are encouraging them to do-- completely obscures the point that most of nature that we can see with our naked eyes looks like the result of non-random processes because it IS the result of non-random processes-- specifically, natural selection. And there is a huge literature of studies done by biologists, documenting the choices (whether instinctive or learned) made by various animals, and the ensuing natural selection which drives evolution. Really, PG, that is about as far as the shape of the hole in a window pane after a kid hit a ball through it as you can get.

But, of course, the IDers are arguing "intention" and "deliberate design" and all the rest of their nonsense. Why aren't THEY studying whether honeybees have minds? Why aren't THEY studying why peahens go for flashy dudes? They are arguing there has to be some "mind" involved in evolution. Well, whether animals can be said to have minds is an open issue. But they certainly have brains, and the billions of choices made by billions of animal brains are without a doubt one of the strongest forces in evolution.

So why are the IDers jumping over that huge literature documenting what brains are doing to drive evolution, and jumping to the conclusion that evolution must be planned top-down by some incorporeal, supernatural mind? If the IDers were serious about looking for intelligence driving evolution, they'd be looking at brains, wouldn't they?

But they're not, are they?

Please describe a scientific experiment that could, in principle, test for the occurrence of supernatural phenomena.

OK, invoke it. Tell us how to test for supernatural causality, scientifically and under the same stipulations and constraints you might place on experimental verification of MET.

the official position of ID is that they do seek evidence of the action of a “mind” in nature.

You’ll notice that none of the ID authors ever publishes thoughts about MDID (multiple-designer ID). They have one specific designer in mind, and it is the one to which you refer as “Mind”.

Irrelevant to the question, Mats. Stop dodging and answer it. You made the assumption that what you refer to as “impersonal forces of nature” cannot write genetic code. Support your assumption with some evidence.

Science deals with evidence. Phenomena that can be observed, measured and recorded.

If you explain something by positing a hypothesis that cannot ever be tested in any way, you achieve nothing.

Then there is no problem in invoking supernatural causation affecting the natural world

Yes, there is. It provides us with no way of exploring or understanding the phenomenon or event you wish to explain.

If I am investigating a phenomenon, and you try to explain it by saying “It was caused by something that you cannot see, cannot record and will never occur again”, what additional understanding does that give us? Nothing.

Supernatural causation is a scientific non-starter, and would lead its adherents to stop investigating how things operate in the universe.

A consensus of experts does carry much weight. Sufficient weight that non-experts should not challenge that consesnsus unless thay are prepared to put in the time and effort to become expert.

The scientists of the nineteenth century were working in an intellectual environment in which there was a great deal of ignorance.

Evidence against a competing theory is not evidence for your theory

No, a consensus doesn’t imply correctness, but you have to look at why there is a consensus before you toss the conclusion out the window.

In science, tossing out theories requires a lot of work, because theories don’t become accepted until there are mounds of evidence.

My point here is I don’t see many people going around claiming that there is a vast atheistic conspiracy behind the theory of relativity, yet it is “proven” (as much as something can be “proved” in science) much less than the theory of evolution.

Why do you assume that biologists are nefarious and not physicists? Wait, dont answer that one, I know¦ It disagrees with what skydaddy told you, right?

You didn’t get it.

For example, the Colorado River did not “design” the Grand Canyon and honeybees are not doing genetic engineering in their hives in order to produce flowers that are better pollen producers.

My point was, honey bees are not acting randomly on flowers.

In fact, when natural selection becomes directional–as opposed to just wavering back and forth, tracking environmental changes– it virtually always depends on some decision-making process on the part of some animal. (Think of all the terms like coevolution, evolutionary arms race, etc.)

Mats--
Please use the words abiogenesis and evolution in a moderately grammatical English sentence, demonstrating that you understand what they mean. This is a simple definitional issue, and you have been corrected repeatedly. When you won't even use basic words according to their accepted definitions, it isn't debating others, it's imposing on others.

I'm not even asking that you agree with anyone else here. I'm simply asking that you communicate in English, not in some private system of sounds you've invented for your own amusement. Thank you.

Please describe a scientific experiment that could, in principle, test for the occurrence of supernatural phenomena.

Please describe a scientific experiment that could, in principle, test if all phenomenas that occur in nature have a natural causation.

— Mats

Mats: ben said:

Please describe a scientific experiment that could, in principle, test for the occurrence of supernatural phenomena.

Please describe a scientific experiment that could, in principle, test if all phenomenas that occur in nature have a natural causation.

OK, invoke it. Tell us how to test for supernatural causality, scientifically and under the same stipulations and constraints you might place on experimental verification of MET.

Tell us how to test for the so called Big Bang. Tell us how to test scientifically and empirically the belief that dinosours turned into birds. Tell us of empirical evidence of land mammals turned into sea dweling mammals. Notice: I am asking for scientific, testable, verifiable evidence, not an interpretation of the past about things you find today. If you, however, proceed to make interpretation of the past using things you find today, then so can everyone.

Irrelevant to the question, Mats. Stop dodging and answer it. You made the assumption that what you refer to as "impersonal forces of nature" cannot write genetic code. Support your assumption with some evidence.

We know that mindless forces can't write genetic codes in a sequence meanigful for life because there is no evidence for that. Every single information code known to us is the product of mind(s). Since life has a (very complex) information code, then it's logical to conclude Mindful causation. What you Darwinists propose goes against everything we know about the structure and the order of the world we live in. To put it in a simpler form: We know that minds can write codes. We have never seen mindless forces writting codes. Since what you believe goes against what we know already happens (mind being able to make codes), then you have to provide the evidence. Remember the "extraordinary claim" someone alluded a while back? Your extraordinary claim demands extraordinary evidence.

Science deals with evidence. Phenomena that can be observed, measured and recorded.

Then these events are outside of science: 1. The big bang 2. The origen of life 3. Dinosaurs turning into birds 4. Land mammals turning into sea mammals etc, etc Since those are not observable, measureable and recordedable, then, according to your definition, people who work on those fields are not doing science. Would you agree with that?

A consensus of experts does carry much weight. Sufficient weight that non-experts should not challenge that consesnsus unless thay are prepared to put in the time and effort to become expert.

What if experts in relevant fields chanllenge the opinion of the "consensus" ? I am thinking in people like Dr Denton, a biologist and a medical doctor, who wrote a book in 1985, wherein he pretty much blows the whistle on many problems in standard Darwinism. Is his opinion valid, since he is an expert in a relevant field? Or perhaps people like Jon Wells, who has degrees in Biology; is his opinion valid since he knows what he is talking about,when he criticizes Darwinism ?

Braxton said

No, a consensus doesn't imply correctness, but you have to look at why there is a consensus before you toss the conclusion out the window.

Even though we both agree that the consensus has a lot of weight, my only point was to show that invoking the consensus is not a discussion stopper. We don't end a debate by saying "everyone agrees with me, therefore you must be wrong!". This illogical.

This can be easily shown. Go back a few centuries ago, and think about the scientiric consensus of those days. What was their view of origins? What was their view as to the cause of those sedimentary layers? What was the consensus view about marriage, sexuality, etc, etc? You see the point?

In science, tossing out theories requires a lot of work, because theories don't become accepted until there are mounds of evidence.

Theories can become accepted for many reasons (philosophy, religion, money, etc, etc)

My point here is I don't see many people going around claiming that there is a vast atheistic conspiracy behind the theory of relativity, yet it is "proven" (as much as something can be "proved" in science) much less than the theory of evolution.

Now, turn that around for a while. How many physicists have you seen saying "The theory of relativity is as firm and solid as the theory of evolution!"? Anyway, that is irrelevant. to answer your claim: You don't see people claiming that there is an atheistic conspiracy behind the theory of relativity for many reasons. First, physicists don't use the theory against traditional Christianity as atheists use Darwinism against Christianity.

Fourthly, the ToR has the evidence on its side, while Darwinism doesnt.

Fifthly, Darwinism goes against what we know about the order and structure of the world. Darwinists want us to believe in things never seen, and not even imaginable, when we go to the mechanics ("What good is half a wing?").

Why do you assume that biologists are nefarious and not physicists? Wait, dont answer that one, I know; It disagrees with what skydaddy told you, right?

Perhaps because while Darwinists are always ready to make anti-religious comments (like "skydaddy") physicists usually go on their work leaving religion aside. Oh, and physicists have the goods ("evidence"). Darwinists have not.

Notice: I am asking for scientific, testable, verifiable evidence, not an interpretation of the past about things you find today.

If you, however, proceed to make interpretation of the past using things you find today, then so can everyone.

We know that mindless forces can't write genetic codes in a sequence meanigful for life because there is no evidence for that.

Every single information code known to us is the product of mind(s).

Since life has a (very complex) information code, then it's logical to conclude Mindful causation.

Life doesn't have a very complex information code. There are four different bases in DNA. They are read three at a time; nothing fancy, just first three code for the first amino acid, second three for the second, and so on. The simplest system nature could use.
That gives sixty four possible codons for amino acids. But they only code for twenty amino acids. Some amino acids have one codon that codes for them, some have six. There are a few regularities, but they don't make any particular sense. In fact, they look like they may be remnants from an even simpler two-base system.
And THAT'S the best nature could do, with billions of chances to come up with a really elegant code from scratch?
Why is this supposed to be evidence for some kind of brilliant, designing mind driving evolution? The genetic code looks like a fourth grade class project.
If Mats is really impressed by the complexity of the genetic code, it says more about Mats's intelligence than the alleged intelligence guiding the universe.

Life's code is actually more complex than you like to portray it as. The genetic code is first read into mRNA and there are various opportunities for additional coding to arise. For instance alternative splicing is a way for the same gene to be read differently into mRNA and thus proteins. Additionally, the way the genetic code uses its encoding and stop codons makes it close to 'optimal' in various senses. Again, this adds intruiging research topics and has little relevance to ID perse, but lets not trivialize the genetic code, and thus falling victim of the scientific equivalent of St Augustine's warning to Christians.

Of course, while some may argue that such additional coding levels are problematic for evolution, these are unfounded assertions and in fact contradicted by data and research.

More on this topic later, I hope.

I would love to see more on this topic, PvM. What you wrote doesn't make the genetic code sound more sophisticated, like a top-down, designed "product of mind", though. It sounds just like evolution should-- refinements on an earlier, simpler system, stumbling toward an eventually dazzling efficiency.

Popper's Ghost --- Consider the Hindu religion.

;-)

Mats: SWT said:

Evidence against a competing theory is not evidence for your theory

No, SWT, in the field of origins evidence against one is evidence for the other. Evidence against Mindful creation is evidence for impersonal creation. Evidence against the magical powers of natural processes is evidence in favor of ID. There is no middle ground, SWT.

hoary puccoon: I would love to see more on this topic, PvM. What you wrote doesn't make the genetic code sound more sophisticated, like a top-down, designed "product of mind", though. It sounds just like evolution should-- refinements on an earlier, simpler system, stumbling toward an eventually dazzling efficiency.

How do science goes about finding minds behind archeological features? Oh, they don’t. They just look at the feature and conclude there was a mind involved, regardless of the motives.

— Mats

Science will look anywhere there is an opportunity for success, since ID is not in the business of providing explanations, looking for a mind is nothing different from accepting ignorance, just a different name for the same topic.

— Mats

The scientific theoy of ID is not looking for a mind.

No, SWT, in the field of origins evidence against one is evidence for the other. Evidence against Mindful creation is evidence for impersonal creation. Evidence against the magical powers of natural processes is evidence in favor of ID. There is no middle ground, SWT.

But there is. It's called ignorance. Let's take an example. Newton could not explain how the planets would continue to move in orbits without a continuous correction by the Designer. Was his absence of understanding the mathematical details evidence of Design or evidence of Ignorance?

you got it, ignorance.

So now we have a situation were we lack an explanation using regularity and chance, is this evidence of Design or evidence of Ignorance? It could be either, so how do we distinguish between the two?
ID does not tell us.

You have been had my dear Christian friend.

. . . They are preferentially pollinating (actually, gathering nectar and inadvertently pollinating) flowers with certain characteristics. . .

— Hoary Puccoon

ben said:

Please describe a scientific experiment that could, in principle, test for the occurrence of supernatural phenomena.

— Mats

Please describe a scientific experiment that could, in principle, test if all phenomenas that occur in nature have a natural causation.

OK, invoke it. Tell us how to test for supernatural causality, scientifically and under the same stipulations and constraints you might place on experimental verification of MET.

Notice: I am asking for scientific, testable, verifiable evidence, not an interpretation of the past about things you find today. If you, however, proceed to make interpretation of the past using things you find today, then so can everyone.

Nigel said:

the official position of ID is that they do seek evidence of the action of a “mind” in nature.

— Mats

No, they don’t. They explain that some features in the universe and in the living world are best explained as the result of intelligent causation, as opposed to mindless, impersonal causation.

You couldn’t be more wrong, Nigel.

The willingness you and other Darwinists have to push ID into the rleigious camp is a clever (but obvious) way of dismissing it as “religio” and thus “outside of science”. Well, it is not working.

You’ll notice that none of the ID authors ever publishes thoughts about MDID (multiple-designer ID). They have one specific designer in mind, and it is the one to which you refer as “Mind”.

doesn’t mean that they are scientifically looking for the Mind Who is the Creator of living forms.

ID studies the patterns in life (and in the universe);

it does not try to enter into the Mind of the Creator.

Even though one can know a great deal about the Mind behind biosphere,

it is not suficient to make definitive statements about the “motives of the Designer”.

So, your belief concerning ID is not factual.

Irrelevant to the question, Mats. Stop dodging and answer it. You made the assumption that what you refer to as “impersonal forces of nature” cannot write genetic code. Support your assumption with some evidence.

— Mats

We know that mindless forces can’t write genetic codes in a sequence meanigful for life because there is no evidence for that.

Every single information code known to us is the product of mind(s).

Since life has a (very complex) information code,

then it’s logical to conclude Mindful causation.

What you Darwinists propose goes against everything we know about the structure and the order of the world we live in.

To put it in a simpler form: We know that minds can write codes. We have never seen mindless forces writting codes.

Since what you believe goes against what we know already happens (mind being able to make codes),

then you have to provide the evidence.

Remember the “extraordinary claim” someone alluded a while back? Your extraordinary claim demands extraordinary evidence.

Science deals with evidence. Phenomena that can be observed, measured and recorded.

— Mats

Then these events are outside of science: 1. The big bang

2. The origen of life

3. Dinosaurs turning into birds

4. Land mammals turning into sea mammals

etc, etc Since those are not observable, measureable and recordedable,

then, according to your definition, people who work on those fields are not doing science. Would you agree with that?

Mats Wrote:

"We know that mindless forces can’t write genetic codes in a sequence meanigful for life because there is no evidence for that."

Once again Mats mistakes ignorance for lack of evidence. Well Mats, here are a couple of references for you to look at:

Wong, J.T.F. (1988) Evolution of the Genetic Code. Microbiological Science 5:174-181.

Pond, F. and J. Pond. Variations in the Genetic Code: Evolutionary Explanations. Scientific American 22(5):24-29.

Of course this is just a small sample of a vast literature on the origin and evolution of the genetic code. Have you read all of the papers on the subject Mats? If not, claiming that there is no evidence is somewhat hypocritical don't you think? Can you even define what you mean by the term "genetic code"?

As for the rest of your bassless claims founded only on ignorance, read the Talk Origins archive. Every one of your creationist talking points is covered in detail, including bird evolution, etc. Gee, I wonder how they knew what ecxamples you would use beofre you even used them?

By the way, have you gotten around to looking at the thread on mammalian molar evolution yet. That thread alone blows all of your nonsense to shreads. If you want to argue with scientists you had better be familiar with the evidence or you will just be talking to yourself.

If you explain something by positing a hypothesis that cannot ever be tested in any way, you achieve nothing.

— Mats

The same goes for your big bang theory. Your definition of science would pretty much leave tons of people without a job.

Then there is no problem in invoking supernatural causation affecting the natural world

— Mats

Yes, there is. It provides us with no way of exploring or understanding the phenomenon or event you wish to explain.

If I am investigating a phenomenon, and you try to explain it by saying "It was caused by something that you cannot see, cannot record and will never occur again", what additional understanding does that give us? Nothing.

— Mats

You mean, like the big bang, the origin of life, the origin of sea mammals, the origin of humans and all those unrepeatable events?

So when you Darwinists invoke an untestable event as the cause of something, you are in fact invoking an unscientific postulate?

Supernatural causation is a scientific non-starter, and would lead its adherents to stop investigating how things operate in the universe.

— Mats

Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, Mendel, Pascal and other Christian scientists had absolutly no problem with supernatural causation.

Popper's Ghost:

I would argue that Mt. Rushmore is recognized, not as designed, but as manufactured because we have a great familiarity with mega-carvings and statues in general.

There's a bit more to it that that. Suppose you didn't know of the existence of Mt. Rushmore, but saw it out of the window of an airplane -- you would "recognize" it as an intentional product because of our biological bias toward recognizing faces and because of the very low likelihood of such a phenomenon -- the close likenesses of four famous American Presidents -- arising naturally. Fascinated, you go look at it up close. As you approach it, you are flabbergasted to discover that it's an illusion, that it consists of erosions that strongly resemble the faces of American presidents from afar but, up close, bear none of the familiar signs or characteristics of mega-carvings and statues, so your "recognition" was mistaken, or at least called into question (perhaps the erosions were intentionally planned, but that's an extraordinary hypothesis that requires an extraordinary amount of evidence). But the IDist, even when faced with the overwhelming evidence that biological phenomena came about through natural processes, refuse to question their "recognition", or refuse to get out of their airplane to look closely -- and they depend upon false analogies and false statistics, as nothing in the biological world is nearly as unlikely to be natural as Mt. Rushmore is, despite all the handwaving by the likes of Dembksi and Behe.

And yet again the IDists don't get the basics
which are as simple as 1 ,2, 3.

1)The reason we recognize the products
of HUMAN minds is because we have
empirical experience with HUMANS.

HUMAN causation is Observable/Repeatable
/Testable and falls within the domain of
scientific inquiry.

2)The reason we would recognize the
product of an ET mind is because an
ET would be a PHYSICAL entity that we
could obtain empirical experience with.

ET causation is Observable In Principle
and would also fall within the domain of
scientific inquiry. E.G. magnetic fields,
gravity etc.

3)The reason we would NOT recognize
the product of a supernatural mind
is because a supernatural entity is
NOT physical and we could NOT ordinarily
obtain empirical experience with one.

Supernatural causation is Intrinsically
Unobservable and therefore falls Outside
the domain of scientific inquiry.

And once again, this is painfully simple, should not be a threat and is all I have time for here.

Mats,

I see you have not read the references on the evolution of the genetic code yet. I see you have also failed to read the Talk Origins archives on bird evolution and cetacean evolution. So Mats, how do you explain the genetic evidence that you claimed did not exist? How do you explain the fossil evidence that you claimed did not exist? How do you explain the developmental evidence that you claimed did not exist? Note that if you have an explanation, then you have admitted that the evidence does indeed exist. If you don't have an explanation, then everyone can see that you were just spouting ignorant nonsense. Or there is a third option, the one you always seem to take. You could just put your hands over your ears and keep repeating loudly "there is no evidence" and hope that other igonarant prople will believe it.

What if experts in relevant fields chanllenge the opinion of the “consensus” ?

— Mats

I am thinking in people like Dr Denton, a biologist and a medical doctor, who wrote a book in 1985, wherein he pretty much blows the whistle on many problems in standard Darwinism.

Is his opinion valid, since he is an expert in a relevant field?

Or perhaps people like Jon Wells, who has degrees in Biology;

is his opinion valid since he knows what he is talking about,when he criticizes Darwinism ?

Yes, there were many things that we didn’t know back then that we know now. But that doesn’t change what I said.

— Mats

In Darwin’s day many scientists did their job quite nicely alongside their Christian faith,

and it didn’t seem to affect their work. Mendel, for exampkle, did a great job in genetics, and his religious faith didn’t affect his science one bit. (In fact, it might have had a positive effect on his science.)

Evidence against a competing theory is not evidence for your theory

— Mats

Really?

So why did Gould invoke the “panda’s thumb” as evidence against the Designer, and evidence for evolution?

Better yet, what is the purpose to allude to a suposed defect in nature? Isn’t it to use it against God, and in favor of impersonal evolution?

The rationality goes like this:

1. The Creator should be Wise and always do thigns right.

2. The panda’s thumb doesn’t seem like something a Benevolent Creator would do.

3. Therefore it evolved!

Don’t tell me you haven’t used the “bad design arguement” yourself?

No, SWT, in the field of origins evidence against one is evidence for the other.

Evidence against Mindful creation is evidence for impersonal creation.

Evidence against the magical powers of natural processes is evidence in favor of ID.

I don’t know why are you complaining, since this has been the same since the start. I believe even Darwin alluded to “both sides” of this issue when m,aking his case, didn’t he? How come you don’t like this dichotomy when it works against your beliefs?

Thanks to all the posters for showing the level of ignorance on Mats' part. Why is it that ID creationists are so certain that all DNA must have function and yet cannot accept that science could explain the evolution and origin of the genetic code?

Possibly because they are not really familiar with the scientific research and are relying on well known creationist resources such as AIG and ID?

Possibly because they are not really familiar with the scientific research and are relying on well known creationist resources such as AIG and ID?

— PvM

PvM: No, SWT, in the field of origins evidence against one is evidence for the other. Evidence against Mindful creation is evidence for impersonal creation. Evidence against the magical powers of natural processes is evidence in favor of ID. There is no middle ground, SWT. But there is. It's called ignorance. Let's take an example. Newton could not explain how the planets would continue to move in orbits without a continuous correction by the Designer. Was his absence of understanding the mathematical details evidence of Design or evidence of Ignorance? you got it, ignorance. So now we have a situation were we lack an explanation using regularity and chance, is this evidence of Design or evidence of Ignorance? It could be either, so how do we distinguish between the two? ID does not tell us. You have been had my dear Christian friend.

The pattern recognition capability we have allows us to see faces all over the place, where none are present

To claim that Mt. Rushmore is manufactured still requires the concept that something like Mt. Rushmore on some scale can be manufactured in the first place.

The person in the plane would see “what looks like giant heads down there”, but as far as calling them manufactured, that does not automatically follow.

People “recognize” design for a number of reasons, including very low probability of being a natural feature; that’s a fact, and it’s dumb to deny it. Sometimes the “recognition” is mistaken, people “recognize” design in biology because they lack the knowledge on which the inference to evolution is based

— Poppers Ghost

Yes background knowledge of:

WHAT HUMANS DO AND
THE WAY THEY DO THINGS.

Look out here comes the dodge.

The IDist will start talking about hypothetical ET's now but this has already been covered ad nauseum i.e. ET's are observable in-principle and therefore fall within scientific inquiry.

But wait here comes another dodge.

The IDist will say that ID doesn't identify a designer. Because why? Because design is a logical category not a causal category. Fine
then admit that ID is philosophy AND NOT SCIENCE.

Dembski claims that people make design inferences based on probabilities all the time.

I argue that this is false, because people predominantly make design inferences based on background knowledge.

Sometimes this background knowledge is coupled to a guess relating to the likelihood of some feature arising by chance, but I do not believe that anyone can reliably infer design without background knowledge.

What background knowledge did Paley and everyone else who has ever inferred design in nature, including Darwin, base their inference on?

The raw fact that inferences include probabilistic considerations shows nothing, any more than that the landing of airplanes involves control towers.

Yes, people make these inferences – so what? That someone makes an inference doesn’t make the inference correct or valid. Dembski’s argument is, at it’s base, cargo cultism. Forensic scientists, like all scientists, make inferences to the best explanation, and the inference includes probabilistic estimates. But forensic scientists have the facts right; IDists don’t.

— Poppers Ghost